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

Revision as of 04:17, 19 February 2010 editRudrasharman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,882 edits →Journal of Genetic Genealogy: Klyosov← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 02:10, 10 January 2025 edit undoPARAKANYAA (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers44,576 edits →RfC: The London Standard
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{short description|Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}}
	{{Reflist}}{{redirect|WP:RSN|"Misplaced Pages will be ready real soon now"|meta:Eventualism}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}}
	{{editabuselinks}}
	{| 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 ]. This is a good place to get an outside perspective or a second opinion on an issue, but please use common sense; individual answers are not official policies, though an overall consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon. '''Do not rely on the first answer that is posted''', as that answer may not reflect consensus. 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 ].
	'''This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.'''
	If your question is about whether material constitutes ], please use the ].
	If your question is about ], or other ] please use the ].
	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 = {{aan|type=content}}		|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
	|maxarchivesize = 250K		|maxarchivesize = 250K
	|counter = 56		|counter = 462
			|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 46:		Line 14:
	------------------------------------------------------------------------------		------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	-->		-->
	]
			------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	== Arabic Misplaced Pages ==
	Again, user: Osm agha is reverting, deleting what he doesn't like about Arabic biased content, i think some intervention is required about this article. thank you.
	:I don't know what the underlying articles are, but in exploring whether they are RSs this may be of interest -- especially if they are papers in Syria, Saudi Arabia, or Yemen ... http://en.wikipedia.org/Press_Freedom_Index --] (]) 05:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	* Hello, the issue has to be adressed, it's a flaming war here, thank you.
	== everyhit.com ==
	The issue of finding reliable chart sources for British positions has come up again. In a nutshell, British charts are produced by the Official Charts Company, with the BBC being the first publisher of the chart. They are then republished in numerous physical media. Online, they are archived by the Official Charts Company for 100 weeks. This leaves us in the unfortunate situation that the primary and best online source converts into a deadlink in slightly under two years.
	Various online archives keep information for longer. At ], the recommendation is to use chartstats.com, a recommendation that has been a source of controversy due to the anonymous nature of the archiver. These objections were primarily brought up by Goodraise.
	Recently, Goodraise has objected to the use of everyhit.co.uk, specifically in the featured list reviews for ] and ]. This archive, while once again being an anonymously archived copy of the data, can be demonstrated to have been treated as reliable by multiple news sources. It was
	*
	*
	*
	*.
	This level of use in my mind establishes the "''reputation for fact-checking and accuracy''" required by ]. At the very least, I think it qualifies as a legitimate convenience link because the original source of the data has an impeccable reputation.&mdash;](]) 16:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
	:Sources expected to go dead can be archived case-by-case by editors using ]; obviously this doesn't help with links already dead. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
	::That's a somewhat related topic to whether we can treat everyhit.com as reliable, but it is generally untrue with chart sites. All the archive facilities I am familiar with have difficulty recovering data retrieved from databases and searches, as opposed to be directly encoded in the source HTML.&mdash;](]) 17:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
	:the use of everyhit.com in those undoubtedly reliable sources as a source of information proves reliability. They would not use the source if they didn't think it was reliable, they have their own reputations to protect. and there are many more examples of its use. ] (]) 17:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
	Sorry to jump on this a bit, but can this discussion group clear up for me if and are considered reliable? --'''<sup>]</sup>''' '''''<small>]</small>''''' 00:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	:In terms of fully meeting every requirement of ], no. In terms of literal ''accuracy'', in that they seem to correctly archive the things they archive, yes. Zobbel has problems with conflating charts: it can be difficult to determine which chart an album charted on unless you know the qualification rules for each chart beforehand. Acharts accurately archives charts that are unofficial charts to begin with, ] is silent on Zobbel, and recommends against using acharts for good and featured articles. There are some times it is hard to avoid using Zobbel, as they are the only archive that preserves position 101-200 on the UK charts. Allowing its use is a case-by-case matter with me. Acharts is wholly unnecessary: every piece of data it archives is available on an official licensed archive as well.&mdash;](]) 15:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	::Okay I see that aCharts can be replaced, but with what? Going by everyHit, this seems to only archive no's 1-40, is there another website i should be looking at? --'''<sup>]</sup>''' '''''<small>]</small>''''' 01:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::British charts excepted. ] recommends chartstats.com, but everyhit.com is arguably better when dealing with the first 40 positions, because of the usage noted in this discussion. It would be nice to get back on the original topic: the reliability of everyhit.com, and whether the references from news sources establish a reputation for reliability.&mdash;](]) 16:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::Sorry, I will start a separate discussion elsewhere. --'''<sup>]</sup>''' '''''<small>]</small>''''' 23:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
	Aren't there books that provide these lists? Couldn't you just provide a reference to a relevant ISBN, then it would be valid for all time? ] (]) 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
	:AFAIK the books over cover up until 2006/7, so anything after that still needs a web-based archive. ] (]) 01:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	:Concur with Mister sparky. The days of large paper tomes detailing the complete histories of a chart are gone.&mdash;](]) 01:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	::Convenient lists may not exist in book form, but the UK charts are still published on paper, aren't they? On a side note, it would be nice if this thread received some feedback from editors not involved in discography articles or ]. <tt>'''<font size="3" style="color:#2E2E2E">]</font><font size="3" style="color:#2E2E2E">]</font>'''</tt> 02:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::Weekly trade magazines, yes. Technically possible to reference? Certainly. Reasonable? Not very, especially when there's an archive available that reliable news sources feel is reliable enough to use. Would you please respond to that point?&mdash;](]) 03:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::I would have preferred to simply abide by the consensus of uninvolved editors, but since you're asking for my opinion, I'll state it. Is it reasonable? That's not the question. We need to cite reliable sources. EveryHit.com is either reliable or it isn't. Whether it's inconvenient not to use it is irrelevant. So, is it reliable? Since in this case, outside citation is the only indicator of reliability, I'd like to see more than just a handful of links. <tt>'''<font size="3" style="color:#2E2E2E">]</font><font size="3" style="color:#2E2E2E">]</font>'''</tt> 06:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I agree that it would be nice to get some outside voices. At this juncture, it seems unlikely. We agree more than you think, BTW. I'd love to have some rock-solid, fully licensed and attributed permanent archive of these charts. The vast majority of my edits are eliminating poorly-sourced information and correcting sources. I'm between a rock and a hard place on this one, though. If I go 100% purist, I would be pushing for citations to the physical charts. In practice, those are unverifiable, though: very difficult for editors outside of the UK to get access to, and not easy for the average UK citizen to access, either. If someone cited a position in a UK chart to ], I would wind up verifying it against Everyhit and ChartStats, and, if it mismatched, I would wind up either deleting the information or correcting it to match the information found in the archives because, whether they meet ] or not, their accuracy has not been brought into question: if the mismatching information was referenced to the physical chart, the odds are that the information is incorrect, not that all three archives got it wrong. Worse yet, I can see people forging the physical citations as the path of least resistance: look up the date on EveryHit, and forge the reference based on the information retrieved from there. Of course, when people verify it, they will look at ChartStats or Everyhit to verify, completing the loop of forgery.
	:::::I've asked Mister sparky to search diligently for more high-quality references to everyhit.com. Hopefully, we can find enough to make you feel more comfortable. I would also like to hear your views on these cites with regard to ]. That's a guideline that I have tried to engage in discussion with you about multiple times, but you have never replied.&mdash;](]) 17:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Since ] leads to an essay, I'll ignore what is being said there and instead assume that you meant to link to ], which, by the way, is a style guideline, as opposed to a content guideline. First off, pages given as convenience links need to be reliable sources. They are not exempt from that. Secondly, it's "convenience links", not convenience references. When the original source goes offline, you place a ''link'' in the reference to the original source (in {{tl|cite web}} this is done using {{para|archiveurl}}), not replace the whole reference. ChartStats and everyHit.com may accurately archive the raw data of the official website, but their pages are not true copies of the originally referenced ones.<br/>If you're saying that we should rather openly use inferior sources than risking forgery, then I'll have to strongly disagree. Since we are all volunteers, it makes no sense to call any one of us lazy, but if an editor is unwilling to do the proper footwork to write the kind of quality articles that our readers deserve and instead resorts to such improper methods, then the project would be better off without that editor. I'm not willing to accept bad sources for that reason, let alone supporting the promotion of an article using it to featured status.<br/>At this point, the only two things that I can picture persuading me to accept everyHit.com as reliable is a substantial amount of high quality, third-party usage/recommendation and/or advocacy from several uninvolved editors. <tt>'''<font size="3" style="color:#2E2E2E">]</font><font size="3" style="color:#2E2E2E">]</font>'''</tt> 00:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::I'd say allow it. We have to have some flexibility in how we do things, and I think you've made a good case. - ] (]) (]) 17:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Here's a good link: .&mdash;](]) 19:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::I'm going to have to chime back into this discussion, this time for the correct reasons (and because I don't think this has been quite resolved yet). I just wanted to point out that looking through a lotta, lotta discographies - especially FLs - pretty much every one of them link to either ChartStats, or everyHit. So firstly, does the above link satisfy Goodraise (which I think ultimately could be considered a consensus on the subject), and secondly, if it doesn't, what should happen to the discogs? --'''<sup>]</sup>''' '''''<small>]</small>''''' 20:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::well i think general consensus has already been reached about chartstats and everyhit amongst the majority of editors and reviewers because throughout my months of working on discographies and taking part in flc discussions, so far User:Goodraise has been the only one to object to their usage. ] (]) 23:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::This still messes up once it gets to FLC's on discographies though, and I can see many of them taking the same course of action: Goodraise reviews, Goodraise doesn't like everyHit, Goodraise doesn't support, DaBomb fails it, end of discussion. I'm not slating his reviews, considering i can't argue against his judgement, I just think it would be good if this website ws established as good or bad. --'''<sup>]</sup>''' '''''<small>]</small>''''' 19:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Well, no single link has changed my mind, nor did I expect that to happen. EveryHit.com is not only a self-published source, but also an anonymously published one. A handful of instances of usage by other sources and a one-line recommendation alleviate some of my concerns, but ultimately, they don't raise the website to the same level as the website of The Official Charts Company or, for example, a print magazine that publishes the figures. In your terms, the website will never be established as clearly "good or bad" (unless ''significantly'' more third-party usage/recommendation shows up). ] Even though the Black Eyed Peas discography was promoted while using it, there is no guaranty that the next FLC using everyHit.com won't fail because of that. It's the risk of using less-than-premium sources. Personally, I probably won't oppose an FLC if my only concern is the usage of everyHit.com, but I won't support either. As for Chart Stats (previous RSN thread ]), that is another matter. I see no reason to stop opposing its usage. <tt>'''<font size="3" style="color:#2E2E2E">]</font><font size="3" style="color:#2E2E2E">]</font>'''</tt> 22:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::I'm with you on ChartStats, I was never too sure about that website. So to conclude, you're fine with ? As well as that, isn't it quite likely that most of the articles in ], now, shouldn't be? --'''<sup>]</sup>''' '''''<small>]</small>''''' 13:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	I am reluctant to use everyhit.com as a reliable source for UK Singles Charts. While there is rarely errors is any of the main chart sites, if there is some it is in everyhit.com
	In my experience reliable sources for ] are in order of quality:
	::# ] (short term archive only)
	::# Chart Plus (but this is ]).
	::# Chart Stats (Top100 only)
	::# Music Week (not link friendly - subscription required. Top75 only, short term archive)
	::# BBC (Top40 only, no archive)
	::# Polyhex.com (not link friendly - have to search. Top75 only)
	::Other sites such as everyhit.com, aCharts and Zobbel are generally not as good quality and I <s>wouldn't be adding them</s> suggest instead using any of the six listed above to any FA type article. Regards, ] (]) 17:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	Upon further reflection I realise the situation of finding an error in a chart source is akin to looking for a spec of dust on a pinhead. The above discussion of supposedly 'impeccable reputation' like the BBC made me laugh and put into context that in fact, a BBC news source is much less reliable. Chart information isn't open to much interpretation, it is fixed information, an exact thing that is verified and checked to the OCC at the time. That means very little historical error ever occurs. So I am open to pass even everyhit.com off as a ]. If one is ever in any doubt then multple referenced could be used, and even more in the most unlikely event of there being a conflict(has this ever occured in UK chart data on wikipedia?) then an email to the OCC will soon give you a solution. ] (]) 18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Its not as much solving a dispute; its more deciding what sources are reliable enough to be included in an article which passes FA or FL status. In the past, some of the above sources have failed these. --'''<sup>]</sup>''' '''''<small>]</small>''''' 19:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	::It would be interesting to know what articles previously failed and be able to read the related discussion to see if it applies in general terms. Charts in the 1952-1960 could be a sticky point because at time there was more then one chart(meaning you could have a conflict between say an old printed magazine and the official charts), also some old charts between Christmas and the new year did not actually get published at the time. ] (]) 22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	so basically, after all the discussions all over wiki that have taken place recently reguarding uk chart sources, other than the OCC and ChartsPlus, we're still no closer to a firm decision over what is acceptable and whats not. i guess they'll just have to carry on being treated on a case-by-case business, which sucks. ] (]) 21:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
	::] and ] both asked for an uninvolved editor to comment. I think that I qualify. Maybe you could post a note to them asking for further comments. It may well be we can get agreement now. Regards, ] (]) 21:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
	== mako.org.au ==
	Is the website ''ever'' a reliable source? It is a kind of public list of convicted (or not) criminals (" 98+% of offenders listed in the MAKO/Files Online and MAKO/Files Online- (WTC) have been convicted by a court of law."), without any kind of official backing, reputation for fact-checking, ... As this is used for extremely sensitive information (identifying paedophiles, murderers, ...), I don't believe that this source is good enough. It is currently used on 36 pages. Any ideas?
	== ] article that was submitted by a Misplaced Pages editor ==
	Is ] article, which was by a Misplaced Pages editor, sufficient for ] and/or ] purposes? The discussion is currently occurring at ], specifically, ]. Thanks, ] (]) 21:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
	:A indicates it has generally been ill-favoured as a reliable source. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 21:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
	::*Not reliable. It's user/member submitted material that doesn't show any inidcation of reliability or editorial oversight. ] (]) 21:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
	*No real editorial oversight and no peer review, plus the fact that this "article" was "published" within hours of its "submission" clearly make the case (in combination with Xeno's comment about the archives) that this is not a reliable source. ]] 22:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
	] is a reasonable source, and generally meets ], although with a certain degree of caution. Articles posted there are subject to editorial discretion (although ''comments'' following articles are not). The degree of editorial vetting that happens on Slashdot is definitely far less than in, e.g., a peer-reviewed source, but it is not a self-published source like a blog or personal website.
	The above comment about the rapid publication schedule Slashdot is either bad-faith or a misunderstanding. The ] or ], for example, are eminently reliable sources, both of which often publish within minutes of the events they describe. The fact a source has an editorial review of hours (as opposed to days or weeks) merely describes the type of events and process it uses, but does not speak to its reliability (or the notability of topics addressed).
	The mere existence of a Slashdot source is not a sufficient reason to keep an article under AfD discussion, but it ''does'' add to the general weight of available sources. In particular, discussion of a topic in a Slashdot article lends a fair degree of credence to the ''notability'' of a topic, but is somewhat less useful for reliable and verifiable facts ''about'' the topic. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 22:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
	This discussion is a carry over from a rather heated discussion for ], where lines are strongly drawn. So far except for xeno's, all other comments are from interested parties in that AfD. I'd recommend that the comments be read here, but that editors involved in the AfD recuse themselves from influencing contention regarding Slashdot, as their analysis is demonstrably partial, as mine would be. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
	*An anonymous person can sign up and submit an article. That is not reliable by any means. The fact that the article references Misplaced Pages shows it's not that reliable. Even wikipedia prohibits using wikipedia as a source.] (]) 23:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
	:Referencing Misplaced Pages indirectly, i.e. for more information, in which was but as apart of the by ], is vastly different from referencing Misplaced Pages as a primary source of information for said article/story. The primary source for the ] article was the ] website and direct test cases against the tool. Please also note, that ] does not allow for anonymous editors. Anyone can call up a news station/paper and submit a story, but whether they choose to verify and then publish it is an entirely different and controlled process. ] (]) 23:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
	**They do allow anonymous submissions. They don't publish under real names. (Please spare me the odd example of a reliable source that uses an occasional psuedonym. How many RS's use nothing by handles?) There is no evidence of editorial oversight. ] (]) 23:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
	::When's the last time you refused to read a book or article because it was published under a ]? Let's try to put things in perspective here. An attempt to correlate editors under ] as unknown/unreliable people is not the same as an uncontrolled editorial process. Also, I supplied an example of editorial oversight, thus disproving such claim. The whole article doesn't necessarily need to be rewritten by an editor to be considered edited. Such assertions are merely examples of ]. ] (]) 23:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::*Wow, you totally missed the point. I acknowledged that there are even psuedonyms in the media. (Yet you felt the need to point it out, as if I denied it). What I said was that it is more the exception than the rule for news sites to not use real names. Your example of editorial oversight is faulty. They take the anon submission, they add a few lines and publish. BTW, overlinking your responses doesn't make them more valid. Same term 3 times in as many sentences? Another one twice in 3? Bottom line, I say they don't meet RS. That is my contribution to the consensus process. Take note, I'm not the only one holding that opinion. ] (]) 00:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::*I was in the middle of writing my response when you edited yours to include the ] comment... and I didn't feel a need to change it :P Your assertion of the lack of editorial oversight lacks proof. Unless you have a statement by the editor that claims they did absolutely nothing to edit that article, then you have no proof and therefore no case to back up your claim. I respect your right to claim that this doesn't provide a ], but make sure to back up any further assertions with solid proof and not mere conjecture. Accountability is an important factor in this situation. ] (]) 00:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::Your example of editing process seems to be a message board with such usefull comments as "I'm also a big YASM fan. YASM can generate object files for Windows, OS X, and Linux. That, combined with its macro features, let you write a single x86 file that can be used on all three platforms. I'll certainly take a look at JWASM, though!" Exactly how is that helping to improve the article? It’s a message board; one that does not appear to operates (for example) a non-soapbox policy. Moreover is there any indication that these posts are from experts likely to be able to pick up errors?] (]) 00:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::You are confusing the article (the top part) with the uncontrolled/edited responses. Think of the main article as a Misplaced Pages entry, and the replies to the article as the talk page of a Misplaced Pages entry. ] (]) 00:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I see so the example of edit process you gave was not an example of the process but of the end result. So we do not kn ow how they (or why they) added the new text just that they did. \forgive me but oyu use of the term editing process led me to assume that is what we were segin (a bit like seeing the edit history page on wiki). The main differance seems to be removal of text, why was it removed? I can't actualy see any alterations beyond this so it only an example of them editing text, not checking it.] (]) 00:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Yes, that is weak-point in the ] editing process, in that it is not as transparent as Misplaced Pages. I'll request the information about the process directly from the editor. I'll let you know what the response is, if there is any. ] (]) 00:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	*This is a waste of time. A Misplaced Pages editor did not like the way an AFD was going, so he wrote a review for Slashdot, and then cited it as a potential "source." Sorry, but that is the definition of original research, saying nothing about the fact that Slashdot is not a reliable source. ]] 00:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:*Last time I checked, I am not property of Misplaced Pages. I don't remember signing any contracts that state I cannot participate in other venues. Furthermore, I have not contributed to the main ] page until I posted the external link to my published Slashdot review. To say that being an editor here and at ] is mutually exclusive, is foolish. There is no ] as I have not contributed to ] or its corresponding Misplaced Pages page prior to the AfD. Also, to assert yet again that my ] review is only to "save" the ] Misplaced Pages page is false and I consider it a personal attack against my character... which I have informed you of multiple times, so please desist. Moreover, in this AfD process, ] has failed to comply with ]. ] (]) 01:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:*:You have admitted, both here and in the comments of your "article" that the main reason you wrote it was because of the AFD. That's simply not on, and it's not acceptable for use as a source. ]] 01:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:*:And where he admits that he wrote it in response to the AFD. ]] 01:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:*:"'''My effort to write this review is a result of an AfD situation that occurred at Misplaced Pages''', yes, but my desire to do so is for the sake of the tool itself, i.e. personal interest." (emphasis mine). That's a direct quote. This is simply not acceptable, and negates whatever shred of reliability Slashdot may have had, at least with regards to this issue. ]] 01:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::*''Main'' and ''only'' are two different contexts. This particular AfD motivated me to go ahead and do the ] article, as a result it is undeniably my main motivation. However, and as stated previously, whether or not Misplaced Pages cares about the relevance of my review is not entirely relevant to me. Posting that review on ] was sufficiently rewarding in itself despite any sway that it will make on Misplaced Pages. ]'s notability will continue to increase over time, and if it isn't notable enough for Misplaced Pages at the moment, that's fine with me. With that being said, my latest responses have been to address faulty assumptions and hasty assertions by various people, including you Unit. Again, a healthy dose of ] can go a long way to a mutually understood and beneficial resolution. ] (]) 01:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:Slashdot is obviously nowhere near a reliable source. If you even think it might be, you should not be giving opinions on whether sources are reliable. --] 01:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:: It's nice to see an experienced wikipedian drop by. Basically some folks were rules-lawyering whether JWASM was notable not not. So then some other folks figured heck, we can use slashdot as a reliable source, because if you ruleslawyer, it sort of does fit that description. ;-) Of course, if you just want to apply common sense, you can see how JWASM might be somewhat notable... ;-) (there's not many assemblers out there any more, I was surprised to discover) --] (]) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	::: There's no need to ruleslawyer; this isn't a unique situation. Slashdot is a secondary source like many other news organizations. However most articles are essentially letters to the editor, so they should be relied on very lightly. ] (]) 04:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	Unitanode's comments here and on the AfD that triggered this discussion are belligerent, and he self-consciously states that he will not ] of other editors. Moreover, his position is absurd. It seems to be that if a WP article discusses a topic--not only as an editor of a WP article, but also a commenter on its talk page or an AfD about it--that editor is barred from writing about the same topic for other ''moderated'' publications concerning the same topic. Not for the ''New York Times'', not for the ''Journal of Programming Languages'', nowhere that might externally indicate relevance or notability of a topic.
	The fact is that Slashdot is really ''not'' the most carefully edited publication in the world. But it '''is''' an edited publication. The large majority of submissions for Slashdot articles are rejected (my understanding is that their acceptance rate is along the lines of 1/20th), and those articles that are accepted are edited by paid staff editors before publication (yes, often sloppily modified, but it's only the paid staff who can actually publish on the website--in articles, not in comments). The submission and subsequent publication of a review of JWASM--by a recognized expert in its field--by Slashdot indeed ''is'' relevant to the notability of its topic (although indeed should not be a sole indication of notability). The fact that the recognized expert happens to be a WP article is irrelevant... FWIW, I have also had an interest piqued by reading WP articles, and subsequently published moderated articles in various ]s as followups to that acquired or renewed interest. And I very much ''hope'' that experts in other fields have done and continue to do likewise. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 01:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:No, it's not. And my statement about AGF was only that once bad faith has been clearly demonstrated, there's no further need to assume good faith. And now a Slashdot vandal has at my talkpage. The review itself was written in response and as a result of the AFD, and is not by a noted expert. It's by an anonymous username at an unreliable source. You're hitching your wagon to the wrong horse here, Lulu. ]] 01:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	: And sorry if it sounds offensive, but if you want to be taken seriously it probably doesn't help to use adopted names on Misplaced Pages. ''Cunard'', ''Spin'', and whatnot are signs that you don't want anybody to care. Use your real name. Why not? Are you ashamed? --] 01:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::: I can think of about a dozen reasons why people should use pen names on Misplaced Pages; in fact I'm of the opinion that they should have been ''mandated'' on WP from the beginning. ] (]) 04:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	::*Those people ''work for'' slashdot. When wikipedia wants to start giving me a check, I'll happily use my real name. ] (]) 01:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::We don't have to use our real name, that's not a fair criticism. <small>I only use mine because I want to! :)</small> ] (]) 02:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::Hi - slashdot vandal here. Sorry, I shouldn't have said that, and I won't resort to personal attacks again. I'd just like to say that it is a false inference that anonymity implies bad faith, on the grounds that anonymous users make thousands of good faith edits to Misplaced Pages every day ] (]) 02:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::: That was a good thing to do/say. If all slashdot vandals are like you, they're welcome to drop by and chat too! ;-) --] (]) 02:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::So you want more people that react like this to those with whom they disagree? "''Hi! I've come here via slashdot, and read your control-freak-like attempts to maipulate people. This otherwise normal user (and occasional positive contributer, although I don't spend my life on wiki) just wants to say you're a dickhead. Thanks!''" ]] 16:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:A few points about using a Slashdot article as a source:
	:* It does count as a secondary source, though a "weak" secondary source. They only print a very limited number of the articles submitted to them, showing that the opinions expressed are at least notable.
	:* Slashdot cites would really be RS to back up statements such as "has received praise from the open-source community", or in cases where the Slashdot article performs an analysis of other sources that would fall just outside our WP:NOR policy.
	:* The comments are not RS, though there is a ratings system for comments. When making a convenience link to a Slashdot article, consider raising the comment threshold a few notches to include mainly the productive comments.
	:* There's still a guideline about citing yourself. Even if you're published in ''Nature'', you should ask for someone else to add the cite. Though if it's under time pressure in an AFD debate I would forgive this.
	:* Use of pen names is not a problem, and is pretty common in some areas in computing, especially in some aspects of computer security. People use pen names for decades and can conceivably earn expert reputations under their pen names. ] (]) 03:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:: The slashdot article is an issue of appropriate expertise. It may offend a number of Misplaced Pages editors but SpooK in fact has the expertise to write the review and that expertise comes from outside Misplaced Pages. It is a case of attacking a detached person writing a review beyond the influence of Misplaced Pages editors who has nothing to do with the JWASM project and did not write the original stub for JWASM. Content of a review is a technical issue, not an internal issue subject to the opinions of Misplaced Pages editors who don't want a topic to remain in Misplaced Pages.<br />
	:: ] (]) 04:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	::: If you want to argue expertise, there is a provison called ] that allows sources written either by topic experts, or subjects of a biography, to be cited as RS even in material that doesn't go through an editorial process, like a personal website. It sounds like there's some case to be made for either of those routes to RS, and I feel it is inappropriate to be removing sources in the middle of a AFD. That said, self-published material wouldn't count towards notability, and even if we decide Slashdot is a secodnary source, we really need several strong secondary sources for notability. I'd suggest merging to our article on ], especially if the syntax is very close. ] (]) 15:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	*To address ] claim that the aforementioned is not written by a noted expert but instead someone anonymous, and further implying unreliability of said article source, please review the following facts. It can easily be seen that ] am on ] between my and my ] here. A quick look at my ] and corresponding shows that my real name and personal website link have been posted at Misplaced Pages since 2007. My lists the programming projects/endeavors that I am associated with. As a prime example, I fronted the initial/major effort in bringing 64-bit support to the ], as well as implementing the 64-bit PE/COFF and Mach-O object formats. The I have been working on, for nearly the last decade, has been and is currently developed entirely in x86 assembly language. The and , that I currently float the hosting bill for, requires more effort to maintain than someone with merely a inexpert/passing interest could offer. My previous and current jobs have employed me primarily as a professional software developer. I am currently pursuing a college degree in software development/programming to mach my current level of experience, i.e. the sheepskin that says I can do what I am already doing, full-time while holding a 3.9 GPA with a full-time job and full-time family. As one can see, I may not be a critically acclaimed "expert" in software development, nor do I think I am, but I am definitely not an "anonymous" or ill-informed person either; obviously enough of my peers (including ones that don't necessarily get along with me) agree that I am capable of producing a technically unbiased and objective review of JWASM in such a manner as I have. Again, accountability is an important factor in this situation. For those who may have made this slight factual oversight, please ensure that, in the future, you are presenting the facts and interpreting the rules... not the other way around. Thanks. ] (]) 08:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	* No, Slashdot does not meet our RS guidelines. ] (]) 15:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:: It's a news organization with an editorial process, and is well-respected in the software community. ] (]) 15:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::It is not a "news organization", as no "news organization" would post a "review" from a non-staffer within hours of its creation. It is ''not'' a reliable source, and this "review" was basically an attempt at an end-run around the RS and NOTE questions raised at the AFD. ]] 15:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::Slashdot is well-respected, and people in the software community treat it as a news site. It does meet the standards of a secondary RS, as there is an editorial board that selects maybe five of the hundreds of submissions to run each day. There is an issue that what's under discussion is essentially a letter to the editor that has been published in an RS, and there is still a question of notability. ] (]) 15:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Being well-respected and treated as a news site in the software community does not a reliable source make. I was a bit more open-minded about this up to the point where they posted this review within hours of its submission. No respectable news agency does such a thing. ]] 16:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Why is "hours" a problem? There's a handful of editors, if they're all together or online they can check facts (online as well) and make the call as to putting it in. The new media works quickly. ] (]) 16:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Submit a story idea, book review, movie review, or a software review to the New York Times website. See how long it takes to get published. Yes, the very fact that Slashdot published this within hours speaks to its lack of reliability as a source. ]] 16:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::I guess the fact that the response you wrote to Squidfryerchef only took you 13 minutes speaks to its lack of reliability as to its content. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::That would be funny, if you weren't so serious. I'm a ''person'', you know that, right? Slashdot is an ''organization'', which posts various types of content. Comparing my response time to the time it took them to post a "review" is, well, frankly quite odd. Or simply a way of "spinning" (per your username) unrelated facts to fit your preferred conclusion. Either way, Slashdot isn't going to be considered a reliable source, and this article will be deleted soon. ]] 17:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::::You are merely carrying your partiality over from the JWASM AfD. It stops you from making reasoned comments on the issue at hand. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::*'''Comment''': To clarify, the article at AfD won't be deleted because of the lack of reliability from this site. It will be deleted because it's not notable. (Note that notable does not mean popular or useful). ] (]) 17:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Your comment about notability is irrelevant here. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::*So? It's still part of the reason this discussion is even taking place. All I did was clarify that the AfD issue unitode mentioned isn't really reliability, it's notability. Lessen the confusion. But I didn't realized you'd been appointed the owner of this discussion. ] (]) 18:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	{{od}}The question here is whether Slashdot is a reliable source. If you want to talk about JWASM, the place is ]. It's that simple. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	::*So sorry for trying to clarify and make sure people didn't get those issues confused by the way unitode phrased it. But guess what? After 11,000 edits, I could have probably figured out where I needed to go on my own. Or maybe I just don't care to follow you orders. But you enjoy your ] of the discussion my friend. ] (]) 18:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::*I think the confusion lies in that ] and others wish to maintain their assertions that ], and thus the review I submitted, is not considered a reliable resource for the purpose of denying it as a ] and therefore cannot add weight to ] for ]... not ] in which is already covered. I don't think that anyone in the "for" camp is claiming that said ] article in itself is sufficient to establish ], but I, at least, was certainly under the impression that it would help as per ] and ] advisement ]. Acknowledging my ] article/review obviously leads down a slippery slope from attempted absolutism of the rules to the more gray-scale world in which we live. In short, some people have reduced themselves down to attacking the ] and position of others, including the reliability of ], by asserting unfounded personal opinions/attacks instead of stating the facts (in which requires research/investigation if you don't know them) and reasonably interpreting the rules. Once again, a mountain has been made out of a molehill by Misplaced Pages deletionists instead of figuring out how to improve the situation to benefit Misplaced Pages and interested parties. ] (]) 20:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::* Slashdot is simply not a reliable source for any purpose whatsoever. ] (]) 23:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Slashdot has no significant editorial oversight, and no reputation for reliability. As Dlabtot says: "Slashdot is simply not a reliable source for any purpose whatsoever." ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::As far as the reliability of Slashdot, they have a group of editors and an editorial process that's no different than what you would find at a print magazine. Except that yes they do work quickly, but that is the nature of the medium they work in. ''IEEE Spectrum'' did an article about a year ago on Slashdot which talked a bit about their editorial selectivity if we still want to pursue this. There is also the matter that most of these articles are essentially letters to the editor, which may make them a weaker source for some topics, but still meeting the bar for RS. ] (]) 23:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::As this very thread has shown, Slashdot is little different than a ]. If someone want to insert a "fact" into a Misplaced Pages article, all they need do is throw it up on Slashdot, and then cite themselves. Again, no significant editorial oversight, no reputation for reliability, and not a reliable source for any purpose whatsoever. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::No, not just anybody can throw up a fact on Slashdot and then come back and cite it as published. This is a case where somebody wrote an article about a software program, a group of people at Slashdot check through the article, try out the program, maybe make some calls, and decide to run the story the next day. It's similar to a letter to the editor published in an RS, or it's similar to an article a freelancer might send in to a print hobby magazine about computers. Slashdot is not Associated Content. ] (]) 03:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::Oh really? How do you know that's what happened in this case? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
	===Regardless of the reliability of Slashdot===
	Spook said:
	:Furthermore, I have not contributed to the main ] page until I posted the external link to my published Slashdot review. To say that being an editor here and at ] is mutually exclusive, is foolish. There is no ] as I have not contributed to ] or its corresponding Misplaced Pages page prior to the AfD.
	A look at the history confirms this . Regardless of anything else, and it's a bit disconcerting no one pointed this out, this is a violation of ] and ]. If you wrote an article, even if it's in a reliable secondary source do not add it yourself. Mention it in the talk page and let others decide whether it has any merit in the article. Being an editor here and at Slashdot is not mutually exclusive, but editing articles to promote content you edited in Slashdot is. Remember that even if you have good intentions one of the inherent problems is that when you have a COI, it's very difficult for you to be neutral and adding links to somethign you wrote is always going to come across as needless self promotion ] (]) 18:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
	:I don't think an article on a product that is distributed for free could be considered "spam". There may be a problem with COI, but I'm going to assume these are new editors and aren't familiar with all the policies and politics of WP. More importantly, it seems like editors are trying to delete the material as "punishment" for a perceived breach of COI. If there's a COI problem, that can be discussed with the editors. But don't remove content that may be useful to the rest of WP's readership because of COI. ] (]) 23:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
	::"Free" is a red herring in this case. People spam charities on here, and we still remove it as spam. Secondly, this wasn't just COI, it was ]. Finally, Slashdot is a blog. They post links to other sources, and post opinions & interviews with no editorial oversight. Get an actual tech journal/magazine to publish the article, then we can come back to this topic. &mdash; <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::My point being that whether an editor was "gaming" the system or not is not reason in and of itself to delete an article. It's a reason to have a discussion with the editor. We don't remove parts of the encyclopedia simply to spite people who we perceive as breaking the rules. But as far as being a "blog", it may be published in the format of a blog but it is not a personal webpage or a community blog where any member can publish. ] (]) 03:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::: Your assertions about the editorial review process at Slashdot - are based on what? ] (]) 15:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::You miss the point. This was a DRV discussion about avoiding deletion. Once it became clear that finding reliable sources was the problem, the user ]ed the system by trying to get an article published to support RS. And yes, Slashdot is a blog because ''its members'' have no editorial oversight. it doesn't matter if it's not open to the community in general... but it basically is anyway, given the "article" was published with no editorial process whatsoever. &mdash; <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 16:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::That's not so. There's hundreds of thousands of members. You can become one tonight if you want. But they can't post a new article, only comments. For an article, whether a book or movie review, passing along a news tidbit, or a letter to "Ask Slashdot" to be posted, it has to be selected by the editorial staff. Slashdot has an editorial board, including some full-time staff, who select maybe <s>ten</s> twenty or so out of the hundreds and hundreds that come in every day. Perhaps the other day they felt that review of an assembler was important enough to run. ] (]) 02:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Dlabtot, here's the article in ''Spectrum'', with four or five paragraphs on the second page about editorial selection. Here's some snips: ''Every day, Slashdot receives anywhere from 200 to 500 story submissions from readers, but it runs only 20 to 30 of them... Malda and his team judiciously fish out only the best.... If the story meets their criteria to be ”stuff that matters,” it gets categorized and placed into an appropriate section of the Slashdot site, such as Linux, Supercomputing or Geeks in Space.'' ] (]) 03:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::It's a guy ("Commander Taco") and a few of his buddies (including "Scuttlemonkey", "Soulskill", and "Samzenpus"), running a blog on steroids out of his home. There are some really interesting blogs out there, and this may be one, but they don't qualify as reliable sources. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::: I've been reading slashdot for over a decade and I think Jayjg has summed it up best. ] (]) 16:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Every news source has to start somewhere. If we looked at, for example, a small hobby magazine, it would be started by "some guy" and a few employees. They would comprise an editorial board, and decide which articles to accept from freelancers. Slashdot is no different, other than that it's distributed electronically. And it would be appropriate to select movie and software reviews from Slashdot as secondary sources, because Slashdot editors decided the review was notable enough to print. ] (]) 14:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::Just to be clear, my previous description of the website is the situation ''today'', not ten years ago. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::In 1997, it was just a blog. But according to our own article about ], it was sold a couple years later to a software publishing company, which eventually became SourceForge, for several million dollars. There's people behind the pen names, too, some of which have their own entries on WP: ''"...run by its founder, ], working out of his home in Dexter, Michigan. He shares editorial responsibilities with several other editors, including Timothy Lord, Patrick "Scuttlemonkey" McGarry, Jeff "Soulskill" Boehm, Rob "Samzenpus" Rozeboom, and Keith Dawson."'' With an editorial board, corporate ownership, and 13 years of respect from the open-source community, it's definitely more of a media outlet than just someone's blog. The only caveat is that most articles are essentially letters to the editor, and there's certain things I would use them for ( sci-fi movie reviews, technical details about software ) and certain things Slashdot would not be an RS for ( history, religion, BLP other than interviews of figures in the open-source comunity ). ] (]) 14:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::...still run by Commander Taco out of his home. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Yes, as part of his duties as a salaried employee of SourceForge/Geeknet. ] (]) 23:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: Regardless of who pays 'Commander Taco', '''Slashdot does not do fact-checking''', which is why they lack ''a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy''. ] (]) 22:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	== Shakespeare authorship question source ==
	Can Terry Ross and David Kathman’s Website, The Shakespeare Authorship Page at http://shakespeareauthorship.com/ be used as a reliable source for the orthodox opinion at the ] page? Kathman is profusely published in Shakespeare studies for the past 15 years, and his article “The Question of Authorship”, concerning the Shakespeare authorship question, appears in ''Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide'' (2003), edited by well-known Shakespearean scholar Stanley Wells, and published by the Oxford University Press. In addition, according to his CV at http://shakespeareauthorship.com/kathman.html, in April 2001 he was the co-leader (with Jonathan Hope) of a seminar on “Theory and Methodology in Authorship and Attribution Studies” at the World Shakespeare Congress in Valencia, Spain. He has also discussed Shakespeare and the authorship question in newspapers and on radio, including the BBC and National Public Radio. The Web site is recommended by academics to those seeking information about the authorship question, and is referenced in several books as a reliable site for information on the topic. ] (]) 21:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Firstly, I'll note that I'm not an uninvolved commentator here, since I edit the relevant page and support Tom's view that the website should be used as a crucial resource on this issue. I think it's important to point out that Kathman is a widely published expert on Shakespeare and the Elizabethan theatre and so his website falls under the specific exception to the use of personal websites: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Tom is correct that academics themselves reference the site, as for example in Zachary Lesser's article ''Mystic Ciphers'' in which he states that "the 'authorship debate' is for academic Shakespeareans what creationism or intelligent design is for evolutionary scientists", and notes that he always refers students to the website, which is "the best introduction to the 'debate' for the intelligent nonspecialist" (p355) The principal opponent of the use of the webpage ] will argue that Kathman is not an established expert on the "authorship debate", because he has relatively few peer reviewed publications on that specific topic. IMO, this is an absurd argument since "authorship debate" does not exist in academia and is not part of mainstream scholarship at all. It's like arguing that Richard Dawkins' views on creationism can't be quoted, because he has not actually contributed to "creation science". In the real world of Shakespeare studies Kathman is an undoubted expert. ] (]) 22:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
	: Seems like an acceptable ] to me... like any self published source, it should be used with attribution. ] (]) 01:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	::I find it distressing that Paul would first, speak for an opposing editor, then label an argument "absurd" that hasn't even been made yet. This kind of attempt to poison the well, as they say, is unfortunate. I hope that any commentators will take those comments with a grain of salt.
	::I also wonder why Tom and Paul feel that because '''''some''''' academics recommend this blog, that would make it reliable. The website is clearly a favorite of the most strident and abusive Stratfordians, the kind that ridicule and insult authorship researchers, and label them as insane nutjobs and "heretics". Kathman does the same in print and on his website - repeatedly. Any editor of this page that glances through the site, or pages 620-627 of the Wells book, can easily form their own opinion on this. In the meantime, I would like to offer the following information for consideration:
	::*The issue is covered extensively by the leading scholars of the day - Matus, Schoenbaum, Bates, and especially, the foremost Shakespeare scholar of our day - Stanley Wells, who has (most recently) issued a point by point rebuttal of the main arguments. In his own words " I have taken part in debates on the authorship, broadcast about it on radio and on television, and written about it in newspapers and in my own books. In general I have tried to be rational, courteous, and tolerant." With acknowledged scholars addressing the issue in every major medium, the need to rely on a self-published website/blog - especially one that has such serious problems - is simply unnecessary.
	::*The authorship question involves many, many disciplines - including English literature and punctuation, graphology, Palaeography , greek and latin translation, law, medicine, astronomy, etc. Kathman's website delves into all these areas as if he were an expert in everything. Quoting from it would be entirely inappropriate. If there is anything in his book on apprentices that is appropriate for these pages, I have no objection, but nothing I have found (and I have looked) establishes Kathman as an expert on Shakespeare or the multiple issues involved in authorship studies.
	::*The two references provided by Paul above are not convincing as to establishing expert status. The lone book does indeed establish Kathman as an expert on the Apprentice system during the 1500's. In fact, the Kathman CV mentioned above states "I've done extensive archival research focused on livery companies, apprenticeship, and places other than playhouses (such as inns and taverns) where plays were performed in sixteenth-century London". This hardly establishes Kathman as a RS on Shakespeare or the more refined subject of Authorship studies.
	::*The CV also mentions Kathman have written "two chapters (on "Players, Livery Companies, and Apprentices" and "Innyard Playhouses") forthcoming in the Oxford Handbook on Theatre History. Again, I think it is clear where his expert status applies. In fact, on Project Muse, the list of Kathman's publications ] total 3 book reviews and the book on Apprentices. Hardly extensive and certainly does not establish him as an expert on Shakespeare or the authorship.
	::*Kathman's "chapter" in Wells' ''Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide'', consists of 7 pages devoted to the authorship question being debated here - 7 pages, that's it. In it he offers no new research, compares the issue to UFO's, and throws around labels such s "heretics" "debasing", "elitism" and attacks such as "Oxfordians typically twist". He also makes numerous unsupported statements that, from a scholarly standpoint, are impossible to prove (and would never be made by a real scholar). Yet he states them as fact (page 626 for example, states beyond doubt when both Lear and Tempest were written (impossible to prove and orthodox scholars are still arguing about them). On page 627 he advocates the theory that Shakespeare was not well educated - an old theory that has clearly been disproved. Also on page 627 he states that there is no evidence that Oxford and the Earl of Southampton knew each other - an interesting assertion since Oxford's daughter was engaged to the man. And the list of inaccuracies goes on and on. If this represents what Wells would approve, can you imagine the kinds of statements he makes on his blog - with no peer review, no editor, and no need to cite sources?
	::I think I have laid out my objections fairly clearly. I look forward to hearing the thoughts of the uninvolved editors on this page and will certainly clarify any of the information I have brought forward. Thanks for your consideration. ] (]) 02:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::The argument I labelled absurd has been made repeatedly by you, so don't be disingenous. And there is nothing wrong in supporting another's editor's POV. As for the notion that Kathman's views are on the 'lunatic fringe' to use Crum's characterisation of your claims, that is absurd indeed. Only someone who truly is on the lunatic fringe would think that. As I and Tom have pointed out ''with evidence'', the site is recommended by experts. I challenge any uninvolved editor here to read the website and to assess Kathmen's method of argment. I am convinced that that they will find nothing whatever to justify Smatprt's bizarre portrayal of it as an extremist "blog" that accuses opponents of being "insane nutjobs and 'heretics'". ] (]) 09:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	:: I have to admit, I'm a bit confused by this entire discussion. Perhaps that is because editors Barlow and Reedy are so much more well versed in the wikipedia canons of sourcing than I, but it had been my impression that the standard for inclusion was peer review or some similar certification of authority. David Kathman and David Ross's website is just that -- a website started by two individuals. As for citing the fact that in other, more academic, contexts David Kathman has been published, well the same certainly goes for myself, and for quite a number of other Oxfordians, for instance WSU's Michael Delahoyde, who in fact is an editor of the ''Rocky Mountain Review of Languages and Literature'' (published by the NW MLA), as well as operating a nice website featuring Oxfordian perspectives. If we are matching academic qualifications, Delahoyde's leave Kathman and Ross in the dust. So, if this wikipedia page is going to include Kathman and Ross's site as a source of authority, simple logic dictates the following sites must also be included as authoritative with respect to their contents:
	::http://www.shakespearefellowship.org
	::http://www.shake-speares-bible.com
	::http://www.shakespearestempest.com
	::http://wsu.edu/~delahoyd/shakespeare/
	:: And, certainly, http://www.briefchronicles.com, the content of which are, of course, ''entirely'' peer reviewed.
	::There are, I'm sure, more that meet the same test.
	::Paul, here is a friendly suggestion: when you post comments which are full of basic spelling errors, you greatly diminish your authority as an editor of this page. I'm spelling-challenged myself, but the wiki gurus have supplied you with a spellchecker for this composing space. Why don't you use it? When you don't use it, you look like someone who doesn't care about correct usage, or about the wikipedia community standards. Is that how you want to come across. --] (]) 19:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC) (Ben Jonson)
	::::These remarks exemplify the resons why we have WP:RS. Even leaving aside the infantile comments about spelling, always a sign of desperation, we have in both ] and ] (]) examples of the claim "I know better than experts, so experts must be overridden". That's why ] and ] were introduced in the first place: some editors thought that they could "disprove" experts by force of argument, putting forth their own pet, usually fringe, theories on main pages. Both these editors epitomise this POV, declaring that they can show that Kathman is stupid and that professor ] is incompetent. Screeds of ] are introduced to support this. But this board is not for evaluating such claims (rebuttals would take too long). Indeed, we have RS policy ''precisely'' to ensure we do not get into such arguments. Ultimately, it does not matter whether Kathman, Wells, or Uncle Tom Cobbley are right or wrong; what matters is whether or not we can properly say ''what'' they argue. There is not justification whatever for ''suppressing'' the views of a respected and published scholar in the relevant field. ] (]) 20:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::As an uninvolved editor, it seems to me that the source meets the SPS "expert" exclusion as RS, since we accept "expert in the field" fairly broadly. But the issue may boil down to ] and ], not RS. If, as ] seems to argue, his opinions are on the remote lunatic fringe, they should not be mentioned at all. If he is just a small but visible minority, then his views should be presented as such, with the appropriate weighting. In all cases, if his views are mentioned, they should be directly attributed to him (in-text attribution). ] (]) 03:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	Smatprt’s first two points—that he is being treated unfairly and that Kathman is abusive (in Smatprt’s opinion) to anti-Stratfordians—have no bearing on whether the Web site is a reliable source. (In fact, Smatprt tries to make the very argument that Paul said he would: that Kathman is not an expert on the Shakespeare authorship question.)
	*I find it a strange argument that seeks to limit sources because other academics have also written on the topic. As I have argued at the , there are literally thousands of anti-Stratfordian books and articles—all of which, by the way, promoting a ] that Shakespeare didn’t write his works—but very few works refuting them, because, as Paul points out, it’s not really considered an academic subject by orthodox scholars. David Kathman is a well-known and often-quoted independent scholar (one only has to search his name on Google Scholar to find out) whom academics trust for information on the Shakespeare authorship issue. I don’t know how long Smatprt has been interested in the topic, but Kathman has been writing on the issue for 15 years or better.
	*Also, whether Kathman does original research on the authorship question is beside the point. He doesn’t have to be an expert on English literature and punctuation, graphology, paleography, Greek and Latin translation, law, medicine and astronomy. He is a tertiary source, that is, he researches the academic Shakespeare literature to put together arguments that refute anti-Stratfordian claims. My understanding is that those types of sources are preferred for encyclopedia articles, and in any case none of the sources used by Smatprt can be considered experts on anything. His most oft-quoted source, Charlton Ogburn, was a military man, not a literary scholar or historian, and is considered by most academics to be a crackpot.
	*Smatprt’s summation of Kathman’s scholarly work is deceptive. Kathman has numerous publications about Shakespeare and Early Modern theater to his credit, as both Google and Google Scholar searches attest. He is also the author of the , an on-line resource that is cited in such scholarly publications as ''The Cambridge Introduction to Early English Theatre''.
	*And how exactly would Smatprt know what arguments “would never be made by a real scholar”? Most of the sources he uses at the Shakespeare authorship question page are only allowed because the topic is a fringe theory, which allows all sorts of otherwise unreliable sources to be used simply because there are no other.
	*Finally, I believe Crum375 is confused by Smatprt’s representation. Kathman represents the scholarly consensus, not the lunatic fringe. It is the anti-Stratfordian theory that is a fringe theory, not the orthodox view. ] (]) 15:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	:: Mr. Reedy, anyone who compares Kathman's arguments about, for example, The Tempest, as made , with those of Stritmatter and Kositsky, , cannot fail to see that the length of time that David Kathman has been opining on the authorship question is irrelevant to the question of his reliability. His mistakes in his online ''Tempest'' article are in retrospect both obvious and gratuitous, the the sort of errors that only a poorly advised undergraduate or a someone who knows better but believes that the ends justify the means, would commit. Kathman's errors are only underscored by the fact that, although Stritmatter and Kositky's rebuttal has been posted online for FIVE YEARS now, he has not responded to it. Really, who the heck does David Kathman think he is? He posts material on his internet site which has been if not entirely discredited, at least called into serious doubt by any reasonable standard of scholarship, and he leave his original article unmodified, without even providing his readers to a post to the critical response. And yet, at the same time, given the opportunity he attacks one of the two others of the critique as someone with "pretensions to scholarship." This is not scholarship. This is not even "pretense." Its self-serving ideological obstinance of the most pathetic sort.--] (]) 19:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC) (Ben Jonson)
	::::Now that you've vented your spleen, counted coup on your hated enemy, and touted your own expertise, I suggest you read the guidelines at the top of the page about what is relevant to this discussion. 19:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	**I was not confused by it, I simply used Smatprt's view as an example. I said that the SPS appears to be a RS, and it is up to the editors of the page to decide how to classify and handle it, per ] and ]. ] (]) 15:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Apologies for my mistake. ] (]) 16:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Writing seven pages on this drivel and correctly comparing it to other crackpot theories seems to qualify as extensive writing on this topic. The source seems to meet ] as a ]. I'd also note that ] applies here, and ], so no more personal attacks such as those by 131.118.144.253 please. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 21:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	::I assume you are also condemning the personal attacks made here today by both Tom and Paul? And the attempted outing by Tom (a severe non, no)! If so, I heartily agree! ] (]) 23:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	As an uninvolved editor, I too think the website qualifies as a reliable source for the authorship article because:
	# Kathman is a published expert in Shakespeare studies (see last sentence of ] for why restricting scholarship to "Shakespeare authorship studies" is not warranted),
	# We have other scholars attesting to the value of the website,
	Of course, whenever possible peer reviewed and reputable publications should be preferred in the article, and the content should be adequately attributed, but using the website as a source is consistent with ] requirements. ] (]) 23:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	::There are literally thousands of reliable, extremely high quality sources on ''everything'' related to Shakespeare. Therefore there is no reason whatsoever to rely on a ] in this case. It should not be used. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Jayig, this is a fringe theory. Academics don't publish articles rebutting specific arguments in these texts. Yes, there is a ''huge'' amount written on Shakespeare in standard scholarship, but not on this. Really. If you can provide evidence for your claim, fine. But if Tom, who specialises in this, can't find these "thousands" of books and articles, I doubt you can. ] (]) 18:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::There are literally thousands of reliable, extremely high quality sources on ''everything'' related to Shakespeare, except for the authorship theory, because the overwhelming majority of professional and amateur Shakespeareans alike consider it a fringe theory with no convincing evidence. Academics don't write about things they don't accept as valid scholastic topics.
	:::FTFY. ] (]) 17:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::Actually, this is incorrect. The top Shakespearean scholars of the day have written about the Shakespeare authorship issue. Matus has, Hope has, Schoenbaum has and, most importantly, the great Stanley Wells has. In Wells' own words: "I have taken part in debates on the authorship, broadcast about it on radio and on television, and written about it in newspapers and in my own books. In general I have tried to be rational, courteous, and tolerant." I will add that it's not about quantity - it's about quality, and these four top scholars, among others, certainly represent the top quality sources one could ever hope to find. In addition, mainstream scholars McMichael and Glenn published "Shakespeare and his Rivals - A Casebook on the Authorship Controversy" in which they document the issue with verifiable historical data, rebut '''''at length''''' the top contenders Oxford, Bacon and Marlowe, and make the case for why Shakespeare of Stratford is the mainstream choice. To say there are no high quality reliable sources on the authorship issue is simply inaccurate. Jayjg is correct. ] (]) 19:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I'm not sure why Tom is having such trouble finding reliable sources. I took me 30 seconds to find this lengthy article ].] (]) 20:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::No-one disputes that sources exist. What is in dispute is that they exist in sufficient numbers, and that all specific anti-Statfordian claims are addressed by them in sufficient detail. ] (]) 11:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::And I'm not sure why you seem to think this issue is about how many reliable sources there are or aren't out there or why you misrepresent my motivation. I want to get it settled whether we can use the Web site. I haven't challenged any of the Web sites you use because I don't care what you use to support anti-Stratfordism--in fact, the nuttier the better is the way I feel about it. Why you fear Kathman's Web site so much, when it is routinely recommended by academics and even in published academic books, I have no idea. And I daresay you could count all the pages of the academic response to anti-Stratfordism and they'd still be less than the two Ogburn door stops. ] (]) 21:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	The Kathman-Ross website should not be considered a reliable source because the so-called "expert opinions" expressed there are not kept current. The field of authorship studies is dynamic, with new articles on research, arguments and perspectives published all the time. Yet the Kathman-Ross website takes no notice of any of this. Kathman has said repeatedly that his mind is made up, and he has moved on to other topics. As a result, to take one example, the section of their website on ''The Tempest'' is very out of date. They ignore the work of Stritmatter and Kositsky (metioned above). They ignore Nina Green's refutation of their claim that ''The Tempest'' is based on the Strachey letter. Her refutation, titled "David Kathman’s false parallels between the Strachey letter, the Jourdain account, the anonymous True Declaration and Shakespeare’s The Tempest" is at the bottom of the documents page on her site at: http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/documents.html. This refutation was brought to Kathman's attention, yet he has ignored it, as if it did not exist. Books are immutable, but there's a presumption that a website regarded as a "reliable source" will be kept reasonably up to date. This is not true in the case of the Kathman-Ross website. They have made it clear that they are closed-minded ideologues who no longer pay attention to others' views, and do not take them into account on their website. That being the case, their website should not be regarded as a reliable source for purposes of determining the current state of orthodox views. ] (]) 05:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	: ] is the policy to be applied here, and nothing you've written seems at all relevant. ] (]) 00:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	Summarizing policy/guidelines here:
	#Everything notable about Shakespeare, including who wrote the plays, has been covered by many, many, high quality, reliable, non-self-published sources.
	#Misplaced Pages does not include fringe theories in its articles, per ], ], ]. If a fringe theory is inserted into an article whose topic is covered by many high-quality reliable sources, one does not rely on a ] to refute it. Instead, one removes the fringe theory.
	Is anything unclear about that? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Yes, it's very unclear to me how you can say "Misplaced Pages does not include fringe theories in its articles". Here's the very first sentence from ]: "This guideline advises which fringe theories and opinions may be included in Misplaced Pages, and to a certain extent how those articles should approach their subjects."
	::In fact, the entire ] article is about a fringe theory, and I doubt it's going to be removed anytime soon. It's an authentic phenomenon and probably the grand-daddy of all ]. ] (]) 02:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::If a fringe theory is discussed in reliable sources, such as ] or ], then of course Misplaced Pages can describe them, in the articles on the fringe theories. However, even there, Misplaced Pages must rely or reliable sources for any claims and rebuttals. Not just any proponent or advocate of a fringe theory can be documented in a Misplaced Pages article, even one on a fringe theory. ] and ] still apply. In the case of Shakespeare, and even of fringe theories regarding him, the Reliable Sources are so abundant that we need not and should not rely on ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	I'm still a bit confused by your syntax, but never mind; it's enough to know that you oppose the site as a reliable source. ] (]) 04:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::I think we are talking about two different subjects here. Jayjg's example would apply to an article like ], where the authorship issue is mentioned very very briefly. If it were given abundant space there, ] would apply. Whereas significant notable fringe theories (which by Wiki's very broad standards include theories that "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study" as well as "hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations") are covered in their own articles. What we are talking about in this section is what is whether Kathman's website is RS for the authorship article. Thanks. ] (]) 14:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Exactly so, Smarprt, that is what I was referring to. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	Well I suppose I was confused about why you would give the example for an article such as ] when we're discussing the article ]. Regardless, Paul's point is still relevant. ] (]) 04:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::Yes, we know what we are talking about, but Jayig's evident confusion about the relevant policy renders his judgement questionable. He dogmatically asserts that "Everything notable about Shakespeare, including who wrote the plays, has been covered by many, many, high quality, reliable, non-self-published sources" And yet he provides no evidence that this is the case. In any case this is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Kathman's site meets the exception. Even if other sources existed it would have no bearing on that specific issue. ''If'' other published sources existed for the relevant points we would, of course, use them in preference, but what is at issue is the ''legitimacy'' of using Kathamn where necessary. 16:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I have no"confusion about the relevant policy"; ]. Now, are you actually claiming that the issue of "authorship" has ''not'' been discussed by many reliable sources? Including the ones already mentioned above? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Since you made a clearly false statement ("Misplaced Pages does not include fringe theories in its articles"), I beg to differ about the confusion. So far you have failed to justify your claim that there is extensive discussion of authorship issue in RS. Even if there were, it would be irrelevant to the specific question of the usability of the Kathman site. This kind of issue crops up a lot on this board. Say Richard Dawkins makes a comment on his website which an editor wishes to use. The specific point may not have been made elsewhere, despite the seeming mountains of creation/evolution literature. It is up to the editors to decide whether it is ''worth'' using. This board is for determining whether it ''can'' be, not for saying "there must be other sources". ] (]) 04:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::An incomplete statement is not "clearly false". In general Misplaced Pages does not include fringe theories in its articles. Yes, as with every rule, there are exceptions; in this case, that Misplaced Pages allows discussion of fringe theories in articles about those theories, ''as long as reliable sources discuss those theories, and the article is sourced to those reliable sources''. Also, I'd like to see you state here that the authorship issue is not extensively discussed in reliable sources. Please refer to Smarprt's comment above of 19:41, 4 February 2010 before responding. If you're looking for other sources refuting the "Shakespeare wasn't the author of the plays" theories, would you argue that this ] website complies more closely with Misplaced Pages's ] guideline than, say, Scott McCrea's ''The case for Shakespeare: the end of the authorship question''? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::I note that you are not answering the question, merely stating what has never been disputed by anyone - that there are ''some'' reliable sources from mainstream authors on this issue. This is a truth universally acknowledged, and not pertinent to the issue under dispute. ] (]) 23:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::In what way are these reliable sources inadequate, such that we must loosen the ] guidelines and rely on a ]? Please give an explicit example. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::::We don't have to "loosen" anything. We have a specific exception that is part of the rules by which we operate. If you don't agree with the existence of ] then lobby to change the policy. That exception exists for a reason. There are practical reasons for using the website - everyone can read it and affirm its contents. Other literature is much less accessible. Sometimes it might be desirable to footnote both the site ''and'' a "dead tree" text. There are specific arguments that are made on the site that are not readily to be found elsewhere - such as the discussion of the Queen Elizabeth portrait. ] (]) 12:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	I think you have an inflated view of the number of reliable sources there are rebutting anti-Stratfordism, but it is far from "many." Yes, several notable scholars have done so (although I have no idea what Smatprt is talking about when he says Stanley Wells has made a point-by-point rebuttal; if he has, I don't know of it), but books devoted to refuting the anti-Shakespeare claim such as McCrea's are rare. In fact, I can think of only two others: Irv Matus's ''Shakespeare, In Fact'' (1997) and the soon-to-be-published ''Contested Will,'' by James Shapiro. Yes, other notable Shakespeareans have written about it: S. Schoenbaum wrote a 65-page survey of the phenomenon (without refuting the claims) in his 600+ page ''Shakespeare's Lives'' (1970, 1991); Jonathan Bate gave it 35 pages in his ''The Genius of Shakespeare'' (1998); Harold Love uses it as an example of how '''not''' to do it in his primer, ''Attributing Authorship'' (2002); and Stanley Wells gives it a scant 18 pages in his ''Is It True What they Say About Shakespeare?'' (2007). Total up all the pages and I doubt they'll amount to 1 percent of the amount of anti-Stratfordian literature that has been published in the past 150 years, all of which is still cherry-picked by anti-Stratfordians to give their movement a gloss of scholarship. Nor do most of them directly address particular anti-Stratfordian or Oxfordian claims in detail the way Kathman does on his Web site, Matus being the exception.
	I think that from the ] page might be appropriate, especially the sentence, "If independent sources only comment on the major points of a fringe theory, an article that devotes the majority of its space to minor points that independent sources do not cover in detail may be unbalanced."
	It appears to me that we have a consensus that Kathman's Web site is a reliable source, but I thought that these points would help in assuring the independent editors that the decision stretches none of Misplaced Pages's policies. ] (]) 22:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Actually, there's no consensus on that. Now, are you saying that there are ''reliably sourced'' theories of alternate Shakespeare authorship that are not responded in Matus's ''Shakespeare, In Fact'' or McCrea's ''The case for Shakespeare: the end of the authorship question''? Keep in mind, we're not talking about an authorship theory on some website somewhere, but rather a theory that's attested to by multiple reliable sources. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Tom wrote nothing whatever about "reliably sourced theories of alternate Shakespeare authorship". He was describing reliably sourced '''rebuttals''' of theories of alternate Shakespeare authorship. And no one has ever disupted that these exist. What matters is that they do not address some specific issues that Kathman addresses. Their existence is not pertient to the question at issue here. ] (]) 00:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Apparently your idea of what a consensus is and mine are different; it is not a synonym for unanimity.
	::As to your question, there are no reliably sourced theories of alternate Shakespeare authorship and I have never said there were; they are all creatures of fantasy. I think you're confused about the topic, based on your question, or perhaps misread my statement.
	::The issue at hand is the reliability of David Kathman's Web site based on his expertise and scholastic reputation. His site does not espouse any alternate authorship theory. Four uninvolved editors have said it is a reliable source used in accordance with Misplaced Pages guidelines. You've said it shouldn't be used, but not for reasons based on the content of the site nor an assessment of his expertise. And I was also under the impression that this is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content. ] (]) 00:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::To begin with, this is not a "general discussion of issues or for disputes about content". I don't see how it could be, in fact, since we have discussed no specific content. However, Reliable Source assessment has to be taken in context of the topic itself, which is what we are doing. The general quality and availability of reliable sources related to, say, ] is vastly higher than those related to, say, ]. Thus an opinion piece in the '']'' that mentions World War II might not be considered reliable for that article, but might be one of the most reliable sources available for the Pokémon article. Second, you say I reject Kathman's website "not for reasons based on the content of the site nor an assessment of his expertise". The issue here is not whether he qualifies as an expert ], but whether we should be using ] in articles related to Shakespeare. Finally, regarding your statement that "there are no reliably sourced theories of alternate Shakespeare authorship", please refer back to my comments of 01:30, 5 February 2010 and 22:14, 5 February 2010. If reliable sources don't discuss a fringe theory, then it has ''no'' place on Misplaced Pages. Not in a general article, nor in an article on fringe theories. When Misplaced Pages discusses ], it does so based on reliable secondary sources, not based on the contents of Holocaust denial websites or publications. Now, what I think you're trying to say is that there are certain fringe theories that are not discussed in reliable secondary sources, but ''are'' discussed on ]. Is that correct? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::I'm sorry, but for the life of me I don't have a clue about what you're getting at, and I have a post-graduate degree in English. Would some other editor please tell me what Jayjg is asking for? The only fringe theory discussed on Kathman's Web site is anti-Stratfordism, which is what the Misplaced Pages article we are discussing is about.
	::::As for your contention that Misplaced Pages only uses reliable secondary sources to discuss a fringe theory, I beg to differ. The only support for the anti-Stratfordian side at the ] page is anti-Stratfordian websites and publications, which are intrinsically polemic publications promoting their fringe theories. The only reliable sources that discuss the theory for alternate Shakespeare authorship are those debunking it, such as Kathman's Web site and the books I listed above. If you go to the page in question, you will see that it is not an encyclopedia article at all, but more a debate about the relative merits of each side. Before I began editing there in mid-December, it was largely a propaganda piece for anti-Stratfordians. If I had my way, it would be cut down at least in half, with none of the point-counter point style of debate that is there now. The ] and ] Misplaced Pages entries are also nothing more than promotional screeds for their fringe beliefs that are largely ignored by regular editors. ] (]) 03:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Tom, looking through your edit history, I now realize that you've really only edited a tiny number of articles, almost all related to Shakespeare. In fact, of your 617 Mainspace edits, 262 (42.5%) have been to ], and 239 (38.7%) to ], or over 80% of your edits to just two articles. So perhaps it would be helpful if I went over some of the basics here.
	:::::O.K., Tom, to begin with, Misplaced Pages has a ], which says that, as regards Misplaced Pages articles, "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Another important point in the policy is that "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is '''verifiability, not truth'''&mdash;what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The latter is quite significant, and often trips up inexperienced editors. It doesn't matter what any editor believes to be the truth, since opinions on that will vary wildly; instead, what matters is that we can verify that material was taken from reliable sources.
	:::::In addition, Misplaced Pages has a related ], which gives editors guidelines as to which sources Misplaced Pages considers to be reliable. As you review the guideline, it is important to note that it does not claim any specific source or type of source is 100% reliable; rather, it gives a general description of types of sources, explaining which are ''more'' reliable, and which are ''less'' reliable. Note also in the Overview the statement "Proper sourcing ''always'' depends on context". One of the implications of that statement is (as I explained in my previous comment) that a source that might be considered very reliable in one context might be considered less reliable in another. And finally, please note that the definition of how reliable a source is doesn't depend on the specific views held by a source, or on whether or not we agree with them, but on a number of other factors typically relating to editorial oversight of one kind or another. ] are typically denigrated in this context, as it is obvious that when one self-publishes, one need not answer to any editorial process, whether peer review, or merely the typical editorial oversight provided by a reputable publishing house. This can also be confusing for inexperienced editors.
	:::::Now, in relation to your question about reliable sourcing, as I explained in my previous comment, "If reliable sources don't discuss a fringe theory, then it has ''no'' place on Misplaced Pages. Not in a general article, nor in an article on fringe theories." Keep in mind, here we are talking about reliable sources according to Misplaced Pages's definition, not what you may personally consider to be reliable. For example, the ] article does not explain what Holocaust denial is by pointing to a series of Holocaust denying websites or books and describing their contents. That is because such sources are not reliable (by Misplaced Pages's definition). Instead, the article relies on reliable secondary sources that ''discuss'' Holocaust denial. This is also the editorial policy Wikipedians must follow when editing the ] article; one cannot use unreliable sources to describe the topic, but must stick to reliable ones.
	:::::Next, regarding your statement that "As for your contention that Misplaced Pages only uses reliable secondary sources to discuss a fringe theory, I beg to differ." You are no doubt correct in a narrow technical sense, in that many Misplaced Pages articles (unfortunately) do not yet conform with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. That is not, however, an indication that they need not do so! Rather, it merely indicates that they have not yet been brought into conformance with guideline and policy. Bringing sources here for discussion is one part of that process.
	:::::Next, I feel confident that there are fairly reliable sources that discuss the Shakespeare authorship question; indeed, we have already mentioned several. What you appear to be saying is that many "Shakespeare authorship"-related articles currently rely on unreliable sources to discuss their topics. Is that correct? If so, those sources should be removed, and the material based on them either sourced to reliable sources, or also removed, if no reliable sources can be found. Please remember, however, that when we say "reliable sources" we mean "sources that comply with ]", not merely sources we agree with or believe to be telling the truth.
	:::::Finally, regarding the ] you wish to use, you have not presented any compelling evidence that Misplaced Pages need relax its sourcing requirements specifically to rebut "Shakespeare authorship" theories. Perhaps you can provide an example of a specific claim made in the ] article that you think you need Kathman's website to rebut. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	I appreciate you taking the time to explain, because you are right, I describe myself more as a Shakespearean than a Wikipedian, and I'm unfamiliar with many Misplaced Pages policies, although by the reading I have been doing it seems to me that common sense is pretty much followed in those policies.
	My statement about Misplaced Pages allowing unreliable sources to discuss fringe theories was confined to the articles discussing anti-Stratfordism, such as the ], the ] article, and the ] article. All of them most certainly ''do'' explain their topics by pointing to a series of polemical anti-Stratfordian books or websites and describing their contents, as is evident to anyone who peruses the sites, so I assume these are the types of articles you are talking about that do not yet conform with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Am I correct in that assumption? Or do I still misunderstand Misplaced Pages's policies on reliable sources?
	Since it has been established that David Kathman is an expert on the subject, having been published on the subject by leading university presses (you can't get much better than Oxford UP), led seminars on the topic at world conferences, and whose opinion on the topic is sought out by the media, I really don't understand why I would need to provide an example of a specific claim where I would need to use his website, since he is obviously "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", as per ] policy. Currently I don't have any edits that rely solely on Kathman's site. However, I happen to have one that is discussed , which is the discussion that beget this opinion request. But once the rebuttal was fully understood, the relevant material in the section was deleted by the opposition (for lack of a better word) editors, rather than face such effective refutation. ] (]) 04:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Tom's view on why the small section in question was deleted is certainly... interesting, but more on point - I think he is still mistaken as to what is considered a reliable source here on Wiki. In relation to the authorship question (which, while debatable, can also be classified as a significant minority viewpoint), there have been numerous third-party publications that, do in fact represent both sides of the debate. The mainstream opinion has been held up by the examples we have already mentioned. The minority viewpoint has been researched and published in several RS books including those by Ogburn, Michell, Price, Sobran and Anderson, for example. As Jayjg so wisely noted, "Please remember, however, that when we say "reliable sources" we mean "sources that comply with ]", not merely sources we agree with or believe to be telling the truth". We know that Tom does not agree with the authors I just mentioned, but they are RS according to wiki policy, as are academic and peer-reviewed journals (even if Tom does not agree with them), finished PhD dissertation which are publicly available (such as that by Dr. Stritmatter on Oxford's Geneva Bible), as well as major news organizations and third-party documentary producers (the type that do fact-checks). We should also note this section of the policy - "Primary Sources are not OR but "source-based research" and is essential to writing an encyclopedia". One has to be careful in applying this, but it does have applications here. I hope that helps to clarify the situation.] (]) 22:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Whether third-party publications or no, all but one of the sources you list are promotional texts for the anti-Stratfordian theory, not research on the "minority viewpoint." It would be interesting to how they would fare on this board as reliable sources, especially , who is the second most important prophet of Oxfordism, right behind Looney. ] (]) 02:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Wow - you just don't get it. That would be like saying Wells, Matus & Schoenbaum are merely promotional texts for the Stratfordian theory. Will you ever understand that it's not about whether you agree with what they say or not? ] (]) 04:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	I'm afraid you are the clueless one. Read Jayjg's comment directly above mine. Note the sentence, "For example, the Holocaust denial article does not explain what Holocaust denial is by pointing to a series of Holocaust denying websites or books and describing their contents." Both Holocaust denial and anti-Stratfordism are ], as . Now substitute "Shakespeare authorship question" for "Holocaust denial" in the statement: "For example, the Shakespeare authorship question article does not explain what the Shakespeare authorship question is by pointing to a series of Shakespeare authorship questioning websites or books and describing their contents." As anybody who peruses the references at the article can see, it most certainly does that. ] (]) 15:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Well, the next step we would take would be to examine one or two of the sources used to describe the "anti-Stratford" theories. Presumably Smatprt considers them to conform with ], which Tom Reedy does not. Smatprt, could you bring one or two examples of "alternative authorship" sources you consider to conform to ]? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Sure - in keeping with this (from policy on Fringe Theories) "fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe", the two main sources that describe anti-strat theories would be:
	* ] ''Shakespeare Identified in Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford.'' (London: Cecil Palmer, 1920). 1446 pages . ISBN 0-804-61877-1 (The first book to promote the Oxford theory.)
	* ] ''The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Man Behind the Mask.'' (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1984). ISBN 0-939-00967-6 (Influential book that criticises orthodox scholarship and promotes the Oxford theory).
	::Please note that in keeping with the above mentioned policy ("the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources"), the sources abore are not used to discuss the prominence or notability of the theories, only to describe the theories themselves.] (]) 17:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::O.K. Looney's a pretty old work, and he was a school-teacher. While he might have some notoriety, it's not clear that the source is particularly reliable. Ogburn appears to be a freelance writer of popular (not scholarly) works. It would be hard to classify either of them as an expert, or particularly reliable source, when it comes to the topic of Shakespeare. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::We've already established on the William Shakespeare page that on the general topic neither are R.S., and I was not saying that they would be RS in any such way. The article is Shakespeare Authorship Question and they are used to describe their appropriate theories of authorship , nothing more. Sorry - was I not clear about that? ] (]) 00:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::To the contrary of what you are now claiming, you were clear that these were RS. Read your post above: "The minority viewpoint has been researched and published in several RS books including those by Ogburn, Michell, Price, Sobran and Anderson, for example." ] (]) 01:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::The question you were asked was "Smatprt, could you bring one or two examples of "alternative authorship" sources you consider to conform to WP:RS?" You provided sources that do not conform to WP:RS, but to specific exceptions under WP:FRINGE. In other words you did not answer the question. ] (]) 01:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Smarprt, the point I have been trying to make for some time now is that there are no exceptions to the WP:RS rules, even in articles that discuss WP:FRINGE topics. A Misplaced Pages article that discusses alternative theories of Shakespeare authorship must still cite ''only'' reliable sources. Just because the topic of a fringe theory may be encyclopedic, it doesn't therefore allow the article to cite any fringe source that happens to discuss that theory. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Thank you for being clear. However, what you are saying is in opposition to the stated policies that say what fringe writers are the best source for what they "believe". Now this still requires third-party publishers and not self-published material. Your position is also in opposition to the judgement of mainstream senior wiki editors who repeatedly advised, during the ] FA process, that Ogburn was not RS on thw Shakespeare page, but only on the Authorship related pages, as he is clearly and expert in the area of Authorship studies, as well as one of the more recent researchers who have been published by major printing houses (those with reputations for quality and fact checking). I'm not sure what else to say on this. The related policies seem pretty clear and have been stated so for the several years that I have been editing.] (]) 04:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Smatprt, I'm not sure which stated policies you think this is in opposition to, but you cannot get around ] and ]. You must still use reliable sources to describe what fringe writers believe, and that generally excludes directly quoting or citing the fringe writers themselves. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 06:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::Well, there is this one from ] "fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe" (which is qualified to note that independent sources are required to discuss the "notability" of the theory. And then there is this one from ] - "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal or other reliable sources." Now I'm not suggesting using amateurs or self-published texts but this policy obviously allows for that particular instance. This makes your comments even harder to understand as this seems to be saying that amateur and self-published texts can also be used, but if it is, then criticism of the theory can also come from sources that are not considered reliable.
	:::::::::Weird. Well, policies take precedence over guidelines, and a guideline can't create a special loophole for itself that contradicts ]. I understand that there is a great desire among some Wikipedians to debunk fringe theories, to the extent that they have, at times, demanded special exemptions from the ] policy, or, as was apparently done here, a special exemption from the ] policy. These exemptions, however, are neither permitted nor required. If reliable sources don't discuss any aspect of fringe theory, then that aspect of the theory simply does not belong on Misplaced Pages. One needs no special exemption to rebut something that does not belong on Misplaced Pages to begin with. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	===Summary of discussion so far===
	So far, the opinion request on whether Terry Ross and David Kathman’s can be used as a reliable source has resulted in comments by five uninvolved editors. Four of them, ], ], <span style="font-family:Papyrus">]</span>, and ], say it is an acceptable source within ] guidelines. One of them, ], says it is not.
	It appears to me the consensus is to use it. Is that about it? ] (]) 17:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Nonsense. I have neither stated nor implied that the article should be deleted. Please review ], particularly item 2d. Please also modify your post accordingly, and don't attribute to me desires I have neither stated nor implied. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Sorry. I misunderstood your position. There's no reason to be snippy; it was an honest mistake, as evidenced by another editor's misapprehension also. ] (]) 03:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Consensus is not about vote counting. It's about (if at all possible) building a consensus from all interested parties. It implies give and take. And sometimes, it relies on compromise. You really need a major course on wiki terminology and definitions. For starters see ]. ] (]) 04:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	You're correct, I am not near as expert in Misplaced Pages guidelines as almost anybody here. At that site it also says consensus is not unanimity. For the record, what would you say the consensus is among the five uninvolved editors right now? ] (]) 21:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Could anybody explain to me why this source, http://wsu.edu/~delahoyd/shakespeare/vere.html, is reliable, while Kathman's is not? Very little on this page is referenced, and he offers suppositions as fact throughout. ] (]) 16:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	::The site with the .edu prefix? That would be a university website and as such, is presumed to have be under academic oversight or review.
	:::Not so. Most universities give professors space on their web sites for their personal use. This is one of those, as can be seen by exploring the linked pages. ] (]) 01:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::Add me to the list of uninvolved editors who think David Kathman's website conforms to RS. Kathman has authored over 108 articles on Elizabethan biographies for, respectively, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and for the Encyclopedia of Shakespeare, shortly to be published by Greenwood under the general editorship of Yale Phd. and Stanford academic, Patricia Parker, who is editing three Shakespeare plays, for Norton and Arden. Kathman, unlike Nina Green (I've corresponded with both long ago), is reputed by Elizabethan scholars like Sir Brian Vickers and Stanley Wells as a colleague whose views are worth citing. I'm sorry to say this Jayjg but your remark that 'Everything notable about Shakespeare, including who wrote the plays, has been covered by many, many, high quality, reliable, non-self-published sources,' is wrong on many counts, not least because research is on-going, discoveries or novel hypotheses are made or advanced every year, and, crucially, ignores the fact that the whole tradition, revived by Looney and Ogburn, both completely erratic unprofessional kibitzers on a sphere of scholarship they were wholly untrained in, '''tends''' to be systematically ignored or not taken seriously, except as an example of popular mythmaking, by ranking Shakespearean scholars. Kathman, the quality of whose work is recognized by those scholars, specialized precisely in doing the bleak drudgery of exposing the methodological incoherencies and fatuously circular reasoning of the cultish amateurs who thrive on lunatic fringe theories about Shakespeare, work that most major scholars think below contempt or notice. Indeed, with few exceptions, their work is unreadable. To annotate the errors they make often exceeds the space provided by the page margins. Kathman is one of those experts who are troubled by the unintended consequences of scholarly hauteur, the tendency to ignore fringe ideas that, if unopposed by authoritative scholarship, capture the public imagination and lead to the establishment of popular myths, usually grounded in theories of conspiracies, cover-ups and occult mysteries. His site is therefore an indispensable guide for those who wish a vademecum to thread their way through the bewildering labyrinths of mental confusion, slipshod methodology, and counter-intuitive cloud-gathering that characterize the de Verean-Ogburnian lobbyists. ] (]) 17:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Nishidani, you're hardly "uninvolved" when it comes to anything I do or say, which you almost invariably oppose. In fact, I strongly object to your appearance here, per ]. I thought I was finally rid of your harassment when I stopped editing I-P related articles, and subsequently also stopped editing the unrelated Islam and Antisemitism article, after you followed me there to oppose me. I did not expect you to follow me here, to oppose me on RS/N threads related to Shakespeare authorship! What next? Will you start opposing my AfD closures? My edits to synagogue articles? Will G-Dett show up to oppose me as well? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Well after that diatribe filled with on anyone who disagrees with Kathman, I would hardly call you uninvolved. Your personal bias simply overwhelms everything you have to say. ] (]) 22:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::I'll probably go to my grave without once seeing an anti-Stratfordian use the term ''ad hominem'' correctly. ] (]) 01:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Tom, as other editors have noted, and as you admit, you are not really up on how wikipedia uses certain words and phrases. This is from ], a policy you continue to demonstrate complete ignorance of: Sample Wiki definition of what constitutes a personal attack: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." ] (]) 07:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::I doubt other editors have noted any such thing, however you are the one who is confused. ] applies to attacks on ''other contributors to Misplaced Pages'', and even then does not include attacking their ''arguments'', which is legitimate. It does not apply to "attacks" on the academic value and scholarship of authors. ] might apply to those who are living, but that does not include Looney or Ogburn. ] (]) 14:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::One can cite the wiki rulebook ad infinitum, and get away with (the) murder of commonsense. One can ignore the precise meaning of words, and make argument wearisome. You called my remark a ''diatribe'', which it is only in the classical Greek sense of 'wasting (one's) time'. There is no ''ad hominem'' attack, since I did not attack any individual in here, and, as Tom understood, to characterise a negative judgement of a fringe tradition of pseudo-scholarship in strong terms is not to violate ], for the simple reason that I wrote of the ''general'' nature of a cultish vein of mystery-mongering. ''Ad hominem'' is a singular in Latin. One might reach for ] to indict 'completely erratic unprofessional kibitzers' with regard to Looney and Ogburn, but they are dead, and the charge falls, in the sense of abusing wiki rules, since that is a singular in Latin, and I made no personal attack on anyividuals writing from the de Verean-Ogburnian fringe. Elizabethan scholarship is, above all, about using and understanding words correctly. Once you master this, the taste for bizarre historical hypotheses, based on the snobbish theory that people of poor or non-university backgrounds cannot write artistic masterpieces (Homer, Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles, Dickens, Ferdowsi, Li Po, Cervantes, Murasaki Shikibu, Rumi etc.etc.etc.) generally vanishes.
	:::::::I spoke of the effects of mythmaking on the 'public imagination', and I had in mind the effect on the credulous public, unforearmed with any knowledge of the rigours of historical scholarship and Elizabethan textual analysis, of this trash. If you wish to see yourself as the intended victim of this generic description, you are at liberty to do so, but do not call the process of identification with my broadbrush description, a personal attack. Unfortunately for wiki, there is no penalty for consistently misreading what plain words in English mean, and then taking supererogatory offence at an imagined slight.
	::::::::::There is a technical problem here for wiki. In summary terms, the Shakespeare authorship question is a fringe, extreme minority hypothesis. It is generally disregarded by Shakespeareans. Even those who do look at it in glancing, like Alan Nelson in his biography of de Vere, do so ''en passant''. Most treat it ''en pissant''. Therefore, to get quality RS on it, is like asking for quality RS on flatearthers, Velikovsky's planetary theories or chronological reconstructions, or Gurdjieff's invisible moon theory. So Tom Reedy's complaint is legitimate. Kathman is one formally trained, and recognized Shakespearean academic, who has devoted years to untangling the mess caused by the endemic misprisions of those amateur textual sleuths who create these fictions. To document the hypootheses using the otherwise academically unreliable texts by Ogburn, Looney, Price and co., and then challenge one of the authorities on this freakish cult on the pure technical grounds that he published his findings on the web, and not in a book issued by a university press, is to attempt to out perhaps the major source for the academic demystification of this fringe tradition. Ogburn, Looney and co., are only sources for their own beliefs, not for any question regarding Shakespearean scholarship. Kathman, by contrast, is a source for Shakespearean scholarship, since the doyens of the field cite him, and his publishing record on the era is substantial. To source a wiki text freely from the ''disiecta membra'' of a ragged fringe school of pseudo-scholarship, while using the rules to deny full critical reference to perhaps the major academic who took the time to do what no serious scholars think worth the trouble, exposing the methodological incoherencies of the movement, looks like a shabby attempt to game the system, to the advantage of what is a fringe, slightly lunatic, omnium gatherum of conspiracy theories. ] (]) 08:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	Tom, you asked what I felt the consensus at this point is. Let me answer as best I can.
	*While its true that no true "consensus" has been achieved it certainly appears that the majority feeling is that the Kathman site is useable, but with some caveats attached:
	:*Most editors (here and in general) would always prefer, whenever possible, to see sources that are of higher quality (what ever that means) and have greater accountability than a self-published website.
	:*Several editors (Dlabot, Crum375) also noted that clear attribution (in-text) should be used. For me, a key to this consensus it the use of in-text attribution as it will assure readers that certain statements are the opinion of Kathman and not a statement of undisputed fact, or that one researcher is speaking for the "academic consensus" - a claim that would be classified as extraordinary, and would require RS of the highest quality (not just the fact that certain Stratfordians recommend him).
	:*One (Crum375) also mentioned that in any case, "how" to use the site should be discussed by the article editors.
	Now that we have a pretty good picture on how these editors feel, I think we can continue working on the article and decide how and when to use the website back on the article talk page. I acknowledge the feeling of the majority here and will provide greater leeway for the Kathman site as we move forward. Though I would have preferred a different outcome, I want to thank the editors here for providing input. I will copy this post to the article talk page so we can resume work there and on the article itself. ] (]) 22:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Smatprt, I've made a request above. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Answered above. Thanks. ] (]) 17:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	{{user|Power.corrupts}} has been removing several unsourced BLP tags and adding links to ], claiming that is a reliable source since it was once professionally manged. But since then it has been converted to a wiki that anyone can edit and that is the source that Power is linking to. He ] there is editorial oversight, but according to their anyone can edit it. I contend it is an invalid source per ] and ] and would like him to stop adding links to it to articles claiming it is a source to support the verifiability of the topic and to comply with the BLP policy. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	:It would be useful to find other sources discussing this. I've looked at the links, and find:
	::"It is our goal with a free, ad-funded online encyclopaedia to create a site that Danish Internet users choose as their primary source of information retrieval.
	::How to reach us is through a credible and updated lexicon, which provides answers to most - a national reference work. This will be achieved in collaboration with users, since anyone can update and nyskrive articles by editors, assisted by a large group of experts can subsequently edit and in most cases also verify. It also provides longer term, other sources of information than the traditional Encyclopedia article such as book titles, relevant text passages from books, internet links, etc.
	::The main difference between the large Danish and other websites with factual knowledge such as Misplaced Pages is that we offer verified versions of articles. Not all the articles and not necessarily of recent developments / detail in the articles. But nearly all the articles there will be a verified version, so our users always have a base of information they can trust.
	::We want to create a genuine, open knowledge project that at once can gather and disseminate the collective knowledge of Danish. Collective, because everyone can contribute and provide their insights. Spread, because the content generated by users may be freely used in all other contexts, and because it has been easy to do just that through an open API.
	::By opening in February 2009 contained the Great Danish all articles from Gyldendals encyclopedias; majority come from the Great Danish Encyclopaedia. In addition, we have supplemented with a number of other works. In total, there were initially collected from more than 161,000 articles. All edited and verified by leading Danish academic experts.
	::Who are the people behind? Work on the Great Danish performed by an editorial team consisting of around 15 of Denmark's most talented public lexicon. All of them have years of experience in writing and editing the best lexicons. Our main role as editors is to assist and support users and experts to write so readable, credible and timely articles as possible. You can read more about the editors ."
	:] (]) 08:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Power.corrupts is correct, that encyclopedia is edited. I believe they use a system that is somewhat similar to flagged revisions. --] (]) 09:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::I updated the article ] with some facts. MBisanz is correct that "anyone" can edit it (if you register an account, I believe submitting personally identifiable information) - but the material issue here is of course if there is editorial oversight over contributions, and there is. This can be seen in the ] article, last edit is by "Redaktionen" (the editorial staff) - sort of a flagged revisions system. I would like to emphasize the innocuous nature of the ] article, terse and factual information on the prime minister for 11 years, no '''contentious information''', and no unchallenged information. What precisely is the BLP concern per ] policy? ] (]) 12:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I'm not seeing the personally identifiable info part, the registration translation says:
	::::::Fill with username, your real name, email and password. The username is the name that you now wish to apply at The Great Danish. The user name can be your real name or an alias. The user name is unique and can not be changed retrospectively. Two users can have the same username. Other users will see your username and your real name, but not your e-mail address.
	:::::Also, it doesn't matter who is doing the edits, if it is a registered user or an "editor" since neither has cited their sources on that article, so any of it can be whatever they wanted it to be. It is no more than what Flagged Revs is on WP, and no one says that transforms WP into some more authoritative source. Also, "Redaktionen" in this context means any one of a dozen people, so we really have no idea who approved the content. Looks no different than a moderated web forum. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 14:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::A "] ]" - are we enjoying ourselves, MBisanz? You are not a law school, do not let finesse overshadow the material issue, which is that BLPs should be sourced -- I have used Denstoredanske as a source to verify name, DOB, that this particular individual was indeed Prime minister, member of the EU parliament, etc, etc, trivial, factual and benign information that is highly unlikely to challenged. Yes, we can criticize Denstoredanske for not revealing its own sources (a trait it shares with many other encyclopedia), which does not readily facilitate independent verification of claims. Denstoredanske do have a reputation for fact checking, there is oversight by a permanent editorial staff, articles are "approved" or "verified", and it is probably the most readily available online source in Danish, as almost all paper media (far more exhaustive and authoritative than online media) hide articles older than three(?) months behind a pay wall. Can we agree that it may not be suitable for contentious information, or for information likely to be challenged. But for benign information it is acceptable for the time being. I have sourced a number of other Danish BLPs, and accessed and referred to in-depth profile/portrait articles in Danish media, mostly to preempt future foreseeable ] discussions. It not only takes darn long time, but these sources are not readily available online, you either have to seek a library, or pay to get past the pay wall. Should we try to be constructive and non-dogmatic in these turbulent BLP times. ] (]) 21:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::I've never seen the exception in ] or ] (or especially ]) that we can use poor quality sources just because it is hard to get good sources. For the ] article, I don't see why these free sources were so hard to find as to rely on a self published wiki for sourcing: , , . Those three sources took me, a non-Danish speaker 10 minutes to find and none of them are behind a paywall, so I do question your reasons for relying on ] for the exact same benign, factual, information. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::Perspective, please! It took you 10 minutes to source an innocuous article to your own standards on the longest serving prime minister in Denmark in the 20th century (please add the sources btw). It takes me about the same amount of time to source less internationally known individuals (still passing ]) using less accessible sources; and ''much more time'' if the topic is difficult. I see BLP articles being PROD'd at a rate up to three per minute for being unsourced, I see you AfD articles with few minutes apart, and I'm told that 50,000 BLP articles are in need of urgent attention. I have cleaned up the backlog of unsourced Danish BLPs for 2007 and 2008, more or less single handedly I feel. What exactly are you thinking of with "we can use poor quality sources just because it is hard to get good sources" - in the present context, it's a comment from outer space. ] (]) 09:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::It's based in the original paper encyclopedia, reviewed and edited by over 1000 experts selected by a reputable publisher and the approval status of each article is flagged. As described in our article: "While registered users may contribute with content and upload images etc. a professional and long-time editorial staff will maintain oversight over contributions. The status of an article shall be clearly flagged, if it is user-generated content or if it has been approved by the editorial staff." This is enough for the approved articles to qualify as RS's, imho good enough for BLPs.] (]) 19:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::It does not however identify which editor reviewed it. Some of the editors have specialties only in images, popular culture, etc. That would be like saying WP has admins who review content with flagged revs and some of them have doctorates in religion, so therefore our articles imported from the Catholic Encyclopedia must be reliable. Just doesn't hold water to impute that accuracy when we can't verify the authorship or the authority. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Many encyclopedias' articles are not signed. A reputable publisher affirming that an article has undergone competent review is enough. Many newspaper articles are written and edited by unnamed staff, for instance.] (]) 22:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::::The only exception in ] is if the author is attributed, the author isn't attributed here, only a group of authors. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::It isn't ].] (]) 20:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::I don't follow you here Matt. '']'' doesn't contain a single author name (except Letters to the Editor) but no-one really doubts its reliability as a source. (Do they?) The site claims to have an editorial oversight process, on what grounds do you claim the process is insufficient or erroneous? Certainly for uncontroversial facts, using them as a source shouldn't be a huge problem. ] (]) 21:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	== www.debating.net ==
	I am doing some work on a number of articles on University ]. Most, if all reference on them come from or .
	While this is clearly a ], however is it a ] one ?
	The reason I ask is I am planning to tydy up ] section of the ] article most of which is referenced to one or other of the above sites. However before I do I just wanted to check that it is appropriate to use those sites as references. ] (]) 13:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	* Since Codf1977 has brought this up, let me give some background about the sources in question on the European Universities Debating Championship page. The flynn.debating.net website is now largely a blog website, but it hasn't always been so. The website started in the 1990s. The blog section was added only in 2005, and over the past few years has become very popular and so has largely taken over the site. But it was originally a debate wesbite with information about debating tournament results and general information about debate, not a blog. Most of the references on the European Universities Debating Championship page are from the older pages of the website and not the much newer blog section. ] (]) 14:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	::I would add that neither source says BDU hosted the event, they both say Berlin, and only Berlin. As such to claim these two sources can be used to say that the BDU hosted the championships is OR, and possibly Synthsis.] (]) 16:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	::I have tried to find other sources, there are precious few. I am wondering if this is even notable givven the dearth of sources.] (]) 14:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Another issue the BDU web site says they compeated in 2001, but the website does not ] (though there is something called BSU which is similar). So do we have another source for compeating teams in that year? As some one has to be wrong.] (]) 16:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::: could be a typo - 'D' & 'S' are next to each other on a British keyboard - Not that is an excuse. ] (]) 16:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::If that is the case then I would say that (given its the only thing they are talking about) they would not be RS, becasue they obviously do not check thier facts. It also makes me even more unsure about notability, its so notable even they can't be arsed to get it right.] (]) 16:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::University debating is notable, but the articles have too much detail. ] (]) 16:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::: I don't think anyone is saying University debating is not notable, I am however concerned that the articles on WP are making the subject look a lot more notable than it is and that all the results and being drawn from one guys website, which is clearly a closely linked ].] (]) 16:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I am sort of. I am not saying that university debating is un-notable perse. But what I am asking (and therefore if the answer is to hte negative that its not notable) is that there appear to be no third party RS we can use to establish the notability of the EDC. Effectivly the competitions notability rests soley on the fact they say it exsits and that people take part.
	:::::: You may, unfortunately, be right - another example of that is ]. ] (]) 17:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	So can we treat the above sites as ] ?] (]) 17:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	Can someone (unconnected with the above articles) please advise on this. ] (]) 19:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	Please someone must be able to give some help ? ] (]) 19:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	:OK, I'm unrelated to the sites in question, and to the subject of university debating for that matter. As an outsider, but fairly experienced Misplaced Pages editor I find it hard to classify the sites as reliable sources. Even for the old, pre-blog part, it is unclear to what extent the information was checked, what the editorial policy was, etc. It may have some "street cred" in the debating community, but I believe more is required in order to be considered a reliable source. A site like ], for instance, though highly regarded by film buffs still fails to clear the barrier. ] (]) 15:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
	== Are the following sources and articles reliable? ==
	'''Source:'''
	#http://www.britannica.com
	'''Articles:'''
	# http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/919613/Rashtriya-Swayamsevak-Sangh
	# http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/254649/Hanuman
	'''Complaint:''' I had quoted some material from the above source but some people think that the articles aren't reliable.
	'''Parties involved:'''
	# sandeepsp4u
	# deshabhakta
	# nihar
	# unspokentruth
	'''Concerned material:'''
	Encyclopedia Britannica labels RSS a "militant Hindu organization"<ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/254649/Hanuman</ref> and says that "Hedgewar was heavily influenced by the writings of the Hindu nationalist ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and adopted much of his rhetoric concerning the need for the creation of a 'Hindu nation'. Hedgewar formed the RSS as a disciplined cadre consisting mostly of upper-caste Brahmins who were dedicated to independence and the protection of Hindu political, cultural, and religious interests."<ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/919613/Rashtriya-Swayamsevak-Sangh</ref>
	Would appreciate a third party opinion.--] (]) 23:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
	::I consider the Encyclopedia Britannica reliable. But if other good sources contradict it both sources / POVs should mentioned.] (] · ] · ]) 03:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Thank you. The concerned users have not put forth any credible source opposing the above material. All they do is complain about how "biased" E. Britannica is and have made numerous attacks on the author of these articles. Here are some other sources supporting my point:
	:::#http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/09/world/india-bomb-kills-10-in-offices-of-group-of-militant-hindus.html?pagewanted=1 Refers to it as "group of militant hindus"
	:::#http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5186703.ece Refers to it the group as "Extremist Hindu group"
	:::#http://www.france24.com/en/20081115-united-states-politics-obama-indian-slammed-with-extremist-link-accusations Refers to it as "part of a network of extremist Hindu groups"
	:::--] (]) 11:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	On invitation and for answering the complain of Evox777 i am hear and bellow are my counter claims and reference's which proves that the content of Britannica is not always correct and never be considered as fully neutral on few topics.
	Acceptance of Britannica about the mistakes on the articles of Hinduism and related org, they founded it wrong and promised to bring the necessary change which will take time http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/index.php?print/id:6919,pdf:1 this is indian NGO who had asked Britannica to revive the content.This is another claim made by a 12 year old boy http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article506346.ece and Britannica had to accept the claims about the mistakes made by there so called experts. This is the book written by Kister's http://books.google.co.in/books?id=aUhjQgAACAAJ&dq=0897747445.&ei=AZ5qS6bFCYOSkASAsvyuDQ&cd=1 who had beautifully compared different encyclopedias and had doubted about the neutrality of Britannica's articles.
	Moreover This are journals published by University of Chicago written by George L Burr http://www.jstor.org/pss/1832843 in which he had clearly mentioned its neutrality and laughed at Britannica and its contents.
	In this news link also the Britannica is doubted http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n. Irish news had alleged Britannica for providing wrong information about the history http://www.independent.ie/national-news/britannica-errors-spark-unholy-row-2045150.html
	My point hear is only that the information of Britannica can not be considered as authentic and free from biasness. Britannica is a form of corporate structure in which people are paid employee and no one can say that what mind set a person have writing the article on any person or organization. Regarding the complain of Evox777 this are his words and POV "reputation of an organization involved in mass killings, question anything remotely critical of the organization" which shows the users mind set while editing the article which is a dangerous sign while one is doing a selfless contribution to an open source, because one can't contribute neutrally if he/she had mind set for the particular person or org.
	One more thing i will like to bring in the notice that the user had tried to fill the article with the references of Britannica only in different sections. My question is that how much advisable it is to use the same reference's again and again and filling the whole article. I can bring more reference's if asked by my contributer friend. regards --] (]) 10:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	This article will clearly show the biased nature of Britannica Hinduism and its beliefs http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/xpress/hindu-press-international/2009/05/16/encyclopaedia-britannica-will-review-its-hinduism-article/
	This is the article published by university of Chicago written by Amy Barverman http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0412/features/index.shtml She had clearly mentioned that the so call religious scholars use to mis concept Hinduism and RSS is the social and cultural organization working in india for the prevention of Indus religions.--] (]) 11:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	: Agree with Doc James. There have certainly been claims made that all three of these sources, the Britannica, the Times, and the New York Times, have biases. (The Britannica, for example, isn't too fond of us! :-) ) But that is not the same thing as saying that they are not widely and generally relied upon, they are. If we can find some similarly reliable sources that say that the RSS is neither extremist nor militant, then we should write something like "The Times, New York Times, and Encyclopedia Britannica call the RSS extremist and militant, but The Daily Foo, Professor Bar, and The Baz Journal disagree." Until then, though, these are pretty good sources. --] (]) 13:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Britannica, The Times, and The New York Times all qualify as reliable sources for Misplaced Pages's purposes. Misplaced Pages doesn't demand ''neutral'' sources, since those are as rare as hens teeth, and generally in the eye of the beholder. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	I agree with our friend G.Ruban and that's what i was saying since long. I just want to ask that can a whole article be edited with a single source and that to in so much controversies. The same references is getting used in every section of the article just to make it POV. There must be some standard to edit certain things on the basis of discussion and considering the view points of every user with proper neutral references. If one references say that one is a murder and another says that he/she is a holy person then i think that we must avoid discussing about that issue and concentrate on other parts... what my friends says ????????--] (]) 09:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	:You should use other sources to put counter claims into the article, you cannot remove valid cited content. If you think the article has too many negatives in it, which are all sourced by reliable sources, then you should put in some positive things backed up by reliable sources. You cannot continually remove others cited content from reliable sources because you disagree with it. --] (]) 11:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	* Britannica's certainly reliable but it's just one RS and it even seems to disagree with itself as it uses a militant label in one article but not the other. I agree with other comments here. Labels like 'militant', 'right wing', 'nationalist' etc etc are opinions and there will be many different labels in different RS. As NPOV says, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 12:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	Thanks for the help guys.--] (]) 14:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	As said by my friend Sean.hoyland that facts must be selected and not the oponions and this militant tag is the oponion of the Brittinica so how can we consider it as a fact. I also consider Brittinica a reliable source but it is little biased to some topics and that to about RSS it is confirmed by my refrences of Hindu Jan Jagruti's mail conversation http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/index.php?print/id:6919,pdf:1 . So hear i will request all my friends that in this case we can't consider Brittinica as reliable source. --] (]) 13:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
	The Britannica has an article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) itself. But RSS is not referenced to as 'most militant Hindu organization' in it. Rather, in an article on an unrelated topic Hanuman, the author of article opines that RSS is most militant Hindu organization. So, there is clear inconsistency with respect to whether Britannica considers RSS as 'most militant organization'. Considering this, dear admins, will it be a good idea to mention in wiki that Britannica says "RSS is most militant Hindu organization"? Further, this stray remark about RSS in Hanuman article is not substantiated with anything related to it before or after it in the article. One more thing to note here is the quality of article Hanuman on Britannica. This article by controversial writer Wendy Doniger translates 'Ramayana' from Sanskrit into English as "Romance of Rama" which is completely incorrect. Admins, please suggest if you think it is good for an Wiki article to quote from Britannica's Hanuman article. --] (]) 19:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
	As per the articles of Titchener which is included in the trusted archive of Indian University press the secondry articles of Brittinica are not adapted for intelligent readershttp://www.jstor.org/pss/1413113
	I will also request admins to stop the user Evox777 using the references of Brittinica as this is still in discussion and yet come out with some conclusion.--] (]) 10:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	As per the Analaysis of Hinduism Studies of America AAR people who are famous for there biased nature on south east religions. AAR people not only holds Key positions in Brittinica but use veto incase of artilces related to south-eastern religion http://invadingthesacred.com/content/view/71/52/
	The fallowing article is clearly showing that due to few scholors like Dongear and Brittinica the Hinduism and its org is badly shown in west countries http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_030314.htm--] (]) 11:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	== Amazon.com for digital music release info ==
	Tonight, I discovered via Amazon.com that a second digital release will occur for the song {{la|Bad Romance}}. I added the content to the article using the Amazon.com MP3 store page as the reference. It was reverted by {{user|Legolas2186}} the first time around because it was a "". I brought this up on his talk page where he suddenly changed his reason for removing it stating that "" where the only discussion concerning this has been when I brought up the issue with his reverts on his ]. The third time he stated that if I added the content back it would be .
	A good portion of the other releases concern the content existing on iTunes, so stating that Amazon.com is a "retail link" and should not be used is pointless. He has told me that my addition of this information with a source is considered vandalism, and I have never encountered anything in ] or ] that states that this. Clearly, there needs to be some outside input concerning the use of this Amazon MP3 Store link. Legolas2186 states that "Amazon chooses to sale a product irrespective of the owner's agreement, while itunes only sells licensed and copyrighted products released to them". All of the Amazon.com MP3 store is mirrored on iTunes, so I do not see why this would be a reason against using the Amazon.com link as a source. If next week, the iTunes Store has this content and I add it, there would be no opposition against my addition of the content it seems.—] (]) 08:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	Basically, can Amazon.com be used as a reliable source when it comes to (digital) music release <s>dates/</s>content? And where the hell was there a discussion that says Amazon.com cannot be a reliable source, as Legolas2186 suggested?—] (]) 09:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Amazon is not a particularly good source for ''future'' releases. The most appropriate source is the publisher of the material, and even then you should say that the publisher has ''plans'' to make the release. As we all know, publications can be delayed. In the case of books and recordings already published, then they are their own source. They should usually be found on Amazon, which will usually have the publication date correct, and will probably be in libraries as well. ] (]) 14:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	::But this is a ''music'' release, for which there is a defined date by which the content will be able to be purchased and downloaded from the website. This is presumably because the digital content is already available via the website, but not available for purchase.—] (]) 21:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::] applies here. Amazon may ''believe'' it will have the material available on a certain date, but that doesn't mean they will. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::But the reference is to be used to show that the digital album ''exists''. Not what the release date is.—] (]) 06:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::If they are selling it now, then it's reliable to show it exists. If they will be selling it, but they not yet, then it isn't reliable. - ] (]) (]) 06:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::So because it cannot be bought currently, but they state that it will be available for purchase in the near future and they list all of the content that will be available on this future date, cannot be a reliable source?—] (]) 07:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::Very OR alert about my comment. Amazon often list items (such as books) that they say will be published then are not (they eventualy send you an e-mail telling you htat the book has not been published). As such I do not beleive that they are RS for future releases being released, onlt that they might be released.] (]) 15:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::The book thing happens with music, but it's not the retailer(amazon,itune,books etc) pulling/changing it, but the originator(labels/record company etc). In essence the problem is that future dates for music are planned dates and thus they are subject to change or cancellation. Maybe future dates in music are ] or at least many of them are because they fail 'almost certain to take place'. ] (]) 02:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
	The issue here is that I added a statement (or a list) that said that this digital album '''exists'''. I did not use the Amazon.com page to say ''when'' the album is going to be released but ''that'' it is going to be released. The reasons as to why Legolas2186 removed it seems to just be because '''the reference is to Amazon.com''' and not, say, the iTunes Store which is certainly not accessible to everyone. I have not gotten a good enough response as to '''why''' this particular link cannot be used, other than from Peregrine Fisher in that it should not be allowed just because the album has not been released yet. I think that this is ridiculous. Why should a link to the iTunes Store page following its release be the only reference used on the article? Why can't a link to an Amazon.com page prior to its release be used? And what if after the album is released it is only available via Amazon.com? Would I have to argue against Legolas2186's reasoning that just because it is only available on Amazon means that the content cannot be added to the article?—] (]) 20:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	: FWIW Amazon mp3 download pages (as well as iTunes) are linked to from both lady gaga's official site discog and Interscope records release pages so whatever reasoning is given about licensing issues seems bogus to me.--] (]) 08:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
	: Legolas2186 reasoning is most likely incorrect, but he is trying to save himself time. The subject is perhaps best discussed elsewhere. Links to iTunes are likely the standard (or standard for that editor). iTunes has a website also, you can link to them without installing iTunes. ] (]) 02:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
	None of the sites are reliable for release dates. Not because the site it unreliable but because for commercial/logistic reasons it is often advantageous to move the release dates at the last minute. I do think it's fine to use amazon as a wp:rs. I will comment more on the above issues when at a PC(currently on iPhone) and above section is to big to add comments. ] (]) 05:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	===One week later===
	* on Lady Gaga's website
	* on the iTunes Store
	* on Amazon.com's MP3 store
	Clearly, Amazon.com's MP3 store is a reliable source for information on digitally released music. Legolas2186 should not have edit warred to remove the link to the Amazon.com store, which was probably just because he does not want to use it as a source. It turns out that after he reverted me for the third time, .—] (]) 05:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	:And you instead chose to revert for the fourth time. Nice 3RR? Anyways the concern over Amazon which I feel is that its ] ways as pointed out above. Many times I have noted that they start selling music, without any official release from the recording association and even selling starts, leading to street date violations. A similar thing happened to 50 Cent's latest studio album where retail outlets like Amazon, Walmart and some others started selling the album before release date compelling the recording company to push back the release, holding the street date sales. If so, then do we really consider Amazon a reliable source in that case? We need a consensus here instead of Ryulong going on adding it without achieving the desired result. I left a hidden comment in the ] article urging editors to contribute in this discussion. <font color="blue">]</font> ] 05:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	::3RR concerns a series of three reverts over a 24 hour period. The last edit I made to the page before reverting your removal of the tracklist was on February 4. It is currently February 9. That is a 120 hour break between reverts. The article currently uses the iTunes Store's link as the reference, so you cannot remove it because now it is reliably sourced (I am currently listening to the MP3s I bought from Amazon.com). None of the editors who contribute to ] made any comments here. '''You''' didn't make any comments here until just now.
	::Clearly, when it comes to '''digital downloads of music albums, singles, or extended plays''', Amazon.com's MP3 Store can be used as a reliable source until the album becomes available on the iTunes Store, after which the Amazon.com MP3 Store link can be replaced by the iTunes Store link.—] (]) 05:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::LOL LOL! This is getting beyond ridiculous. So you actually want to add an unconfirmed link for temporary reasons untill the album comes out? Why can't we just wait for these few days and add the reliable iTunes link? What's the hurry? Are you affiliated to Amazon or something? <font color="blue">]</font> ] 06:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::In practice, '''it is confirmed'''. If you aren't paying attention to what I am saying '''Amazon MP3 is a reliable source when it comes to digital music releases'''.—] (]) 06:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::It is reliable for digital music releases. - ] (]) 06:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Just to repeat Amazon is a reliable source. I see no reason to amend the source now or in the future. Lady Gaga's website doesn't have a date so that's not much use. ] doesn't apply because the date has arrived. Lastly the issue that above is called 'street date sales' has some basis, although it happens to all retailers. For commercial reasons or even human error sometimes a digital release is stopped or moved even after sales start. ] (]) 22:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Per suncreator, crystal would only apply if the date was in the future, thanks. ] ''(the new and improved ])'' 13:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Why would ] apply to a tracklist of a digital album?—] (]) 11:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::Why not? Both future release dates and future tracks selections can change. ] (]) 17:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Granted track listings change less often then dates - and most changes I've seen are to add an additional track, but if something happens like ] then things can rapidly change. ] (]) 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Why would ] apply to a tracklist of a digital album where the website that is providing the digital album has samples for all of the tracks that are intended to be sold?—] (]) 14:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::I think I answered that already. ] (]) 17:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	==== iTunes ====
	Like to add this in while it occurs to me. This track which in the UK is only currently on the album . iTunes have recently revised the album date to 12 February 2010 - two days ago. However that is not correct it has been there for ages, it's been in the UK charts(based on album track downloads) for a while now . So iTunes are not without faults! ] (]) 17:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	== Musicnotes.com ==
	{{Resolved}} <small>Conclusions were: Not an RS for the song as recorded/released. Paysite should not be linked to. Cite only with attribution, mentioning that info is per sheet music published by the named publisher. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 11:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)</small>
	I am currently doing a GA review, and the ] cites musicnotes.com (sheet music published by ]; the specific link is ). The source is cited for song details such as the number of instruments used, that it's in E minor, and that its tempo is 130 ].
	I am not happy with the fact that the link invites me to download software, "including 5 free songs", and I reckon the link has to go. The publisher is clearly reputable though, and theoretically the sheet music could be cited like treeware, without a link.
	However, using sheet music in this way raises a reliability question. Does anyone know how faithful such sheet music is to the recorded version of the song, and whether it can be used as a reliable source for describing details of the song as released? I am concerned that the arrangement reproduced in the sheet music may be simplified, leaving out a lot of details (overdubs etc.). As far as I am aware, such sheet music is designed to enable amateurs to play a song at home. It is not designed to be a faithful representation of the song as recorded. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 21:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Note that there is at least one FA that uses the same type of link: . --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 22:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
	Musicnotes provides a digital copy of the published sheet music. It does require some freeware to view the digital copy, but I don't have any reason to believe the freeware is dangerous (I have it installed on multiple machines). In the cases that I have both a physical copy and a digital copy of the same song, the reproduction is faithful.
	There are limits to using sheet music as a source. Some sheet music is specifically a transcription of a particular recording, and others are adaptations to make it playable for a given skill level or instrumentation. Generally, if the key has been changed, there's a note like "capo up to fret x to match recording" or something similar, but that isn't an absolute rule. I'm skeptical of using any sheet music that isn't specifically labeled as a transcription.&mdash;](]) 00:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Sheet music is a curious thing. You can buy any piece of sheet music and, when played, it will certainly sound like the tune you wanted. However, I've found considerable variations between sheet music published from different sources, including chord structures, keys, and even timing. Even the sheet music that I have for ''The Dark Side of the Moon'', replete with prism design and direct from Pink Floyd publishing (from memory) is noticeably different in places to what is present on the album.
	:I consider sheet music guide to the rough structure of a song, but unless its a well-known piece like "]" or "]" (and even then, timing, weight, and pace are down to personal preference), where differences would be instantly obvious, you're better off not considering it a 100% reliable source. By the way, I've bought plenty of things from musicnotes.com and the software is harmless. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 00:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	::I can agree with a good deal written here: I dislike pay-sites that read my location and software before requiring me to download software. Some pop sheet music is unreliable - more or less none would give the full score, but no statement on the page requires this - but the paper version would be preferable. On the other hand the site has an endorsement from the American National Standards in Music Education chairman and, it turns out, gives correct info, in that the song IS in E minor and runs at around 130bpm (though this latter depends on a very non-classical reading of the word "beat", since this means the song is taken as being in common time continuous triplets, whereas it really ought to be notated in 6/8). I must say here two tangential things. First, if the song's lyrics can be quoted without source, why would the above straightforward information be unacceptable OR?! Second, there are a few other problems I note in the article, such as describing the tempo both as "up-tempo" and "moderate", that are unsatisfactory, though not concerned with RS since here both seem to be OR!! ] (]) 01:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::I believe that 'sheet music' even when from the DIRECT music publisher is JUST the copyrighted version. The ACTUAL performed version by the ORIGINAL artist may vary somewhat and also the lyrics may vary a bit. I don't believe that it is appropriate or necessary for Misplaced Pages to provide details to re-create the music.—] (]) 02:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::I don't know much about sheet music, but if it was an official version provided by the artist or their company, you might say "The official sheet music says the song has 100 beets per minute" or something. - ] (]) (]) 02:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::AGREED. If it has to be included at all, attribute it to "The official sheet music..." to distinguish it from the 'performance' version which may be slightly different.—] (]) 03:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::I'm actually fine with musicnotes.com as far as their viewing of the sheet is concerned. They have the transcripted different keys, which I havenot found in any other sheet music websites like Sheetmusicplus etc. Hence I generally prefer using Musicnotes.com only. <font color="blue">]</font> ] 05:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	===Summary of this discussion so far===
	Thanks to everyone for weighing in. So, deriving a tentative conclusion from the above input, if we cite musicnotes.com –
	*the link to the paysite/software download page should go, and the sheet music should be cited like treeware, without a link
	*whenever we use the sheet music as a source for a song's tempo, expressed as x beats per minute, or for descriptions of any other musical details, we need to indicate {{xt|in the text}} that we are citing <s>]'s</s> sheet music {{xt|published by whoever the publisher of the sheet music is in the specific case}}, and not a source describing the actual song as recorded and released.
	I believe the Madonna FA should then be updated accordingly, as it will otherwise encourage further inappropriate use of this source.
	Unless someone wishes to argue that this summary is incorrect, I propose we can close this thread with the above conclusions. (I'll wait for a day or two before closing the thread to allow for further input.) --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 14:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Just to point out that not all of the sheet music in Musicnotes is from Alfred Music Publishing, in fact most of them is from the ]. It really depend on each artist. ] (]) 16:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Thanks; I hadn't realised that. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 18:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Actually I just saw the link from the article you are reviewing, and that particullary song "Radar" is published by Windswept Holdings LLC, other Britney Spears' songs are published by Universal Music Publishing Group, and there is also another that is from Sony/ATV Music Publishing. The best way to know what company published the sheet music is to scroll down the page to the section Product Information, and then to the third option: Song Details, there is some information, composer, lyricsts, date and publisher. I know that some users just simply put the Alfred Music Publishing in all the references without even bother to look if that is correct. There should be some warning about this, because these could lead to some copyright issues. ] (]) 20:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::Thanks again! (Another thing I hadn't realised.) --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 21:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	'''SUPPORT''' the summary bullet points, if it is 'corrected' to reflect the subsequent discussion of checking which EXACT publisher/company is ''their'' source.—] (]) 23:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	:I'm with this version as long as we attribute the proper publisher of the sheet music, like UMG for Britney's songs, WMG for Madonna's songs, Interscope for the Gaga songs etc. <font color="blue">]</font> ] 04:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
	::This is not entirely correct, the artist's record label is not the same as the publishing company. The music publisher is the one that owns the copyright of a song and is responsible for the payments to the composers and writers. For example Madonna's label is Warner but the company sold most of Warner Bros. Publications to Alfred Music Publishing including Madonna's catalogue, altought some songs like the ones from the soundtrack of ''Evita'' are published by the Hal Leonard Corporation. Lady Gaga's label is Interscope which is part of Universal, but her publishing company is Sony/ATV Music Publishing. ] (]) 07:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Amended above, and added "in the text" to make clear that in-text attribution is meant. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 19:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Somebody marked the issue resolved, but I still have concerns. My concerns are these: 1) The references for the legal charge do not seem to be reliable for an accusation such as this. I have seen that numerous people try to push gossip sources as reliable, and I would like to see this one properly sourced. Since there is no disagreement that the charge was a real one, I am not sure why this request is unreasonable. 2) The editors that have been making these edits have been attempting to shut down the discussion on this issue by making charges of bad faith and refusing to engage in any discussion whatsoever. This concerns me because it seems to be the way that some people make bad faith BLP edits. I am not saying this is the case, it just seems to be. In any case, I would like to see more input about the use of these sources on this BLP before this issue is closed.--] (]) 09:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	:The issue already ''is'' closed, Jarhed. You seem to be the only person who can't accept it. The article you refer to is extremely well sourced and starting thread after thread about its sources on this noticeboard as well as on the article talk page itself is only going to make you look petty and childish. ] (]) 21:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	::That answers my concerns how?--] (]) 10:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
	*I believe there may still be a BLP concern there. The cited source says that he " public indecency and agree to be bound over for a year for £100 at Kingston court, after an incident at a public lavatory</nowiki>]". In our article, this has become "He later pleaded guilty to the charges and was fined £100 and agreed to be bound over for a period of one year." The source nowhere states he "pled guilty". As far as I understand, being "]" is not a conviction, nor does it imply any wrongdoing. "Being bound over for x amount of money" does not mean that the person was fined x amount of money, it means that the person ''will'' be fined if they violate the terms agreed, or that the money acts as a surety. Is there anyone with more legal clue than me who can clarify this?
	*Beyond that, given that being bound over does ''not'' mean being convicted, I question the judgment of including this in an encyclopedia article. We are ] that they can expect encyclopedic coverage from us, ''not journalism.'' Have we made good that claim here? I doubt any reputable encyclopedia would include such a thing. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 20:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
	*I've removed the material. Here is an explanation of what binding over means in UK law: It is not a fine, but a cautionary order: it specifies a sum of money that will be forfeited if a defined type of misconduct should occur during a specified period. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 21:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
	I agree with the removal for the reasons you cite.--] (]) 12:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	I have honestly never read such utter nonsense. Firstly, to be "bound over" is a sentence that necessitates either a guilty plea or a guilty verdict for a criminal offence. People cannot be bound over if they are found innocent. Being bound over means that you have to sign a written agreement stating that you will be of good behaviour for a certain period of time after commiting an offence, otherwise you will have to pay a penality. You can also be fined ''and'' bound over for a further sum of money simultaneously - the two are not mutually exclusive measures (see this but Google a few court cases yourself if you like). The source you quoted says that Stedman Pearson "admited public indecency" at his hearing at Kingston Court. Admiting to a charge in court ''is'' pleading guilty. Honestly - what do you think pleading guilty means? And at no point did his article page mention the word "conviction", nor is that a necessary factor for the inclusion of these details. The article merely stated what he was arrested for, that the matter went to court, and the sentence the court gave him. One source says he was fined, another says he was bound over for £100. It would most likely be both, but regardless, this incident still happened and there were four valid sources to prove it. I think the pair of you have bitten off far more than you can chew here. ] (]) 03:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	: I am fine with the inclusion of these facts in the article, but I disagree with you about the reliability of the cites that have been given thus far. What do you mean, "the pair of you have bitten off far more than you can chew here". Are you accusing me of something untoward?--] (]) 08:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	:If a person is found guilty of a crime, that is a ]. A fine is a penalty. Neither applies to a bind-over. The (not a very high-class source at that) said he was "bound over for £100". --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 21:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
	::To put a point on it, the sources given so far do not describe any of the official details, do not explain the charge, and do not give the official outcome of the case. All of these need to be taken into account when making decisions about the notability of the incident and whether such should be included in a BLP. I would appreciate it if the editors who want this data in the article would come up with a reliable source for the criminal charge.--] (]) 07:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	== Can a newspaper know the views of a community? ==
	Is a ''Jerusalem Post'' , reporting that ]'s standing in the South African Jewish comminity has plummeted following his UN report a reliable source, or is it necessary to cite scientific polls to make claims about changes in the popular perception? For discussion, see ] (6, 10 and 15). --] (]) 21:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	:I would attribute to the ''Jerusalem Post'', inline.--] (]) 21:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
	::It is actually an editorial which should not be used for facts especially for a biography of a living person, because columns lack the fact-checking that an article would have. Also, it does not make any sense to use an Israeli newspaper for a South African subject. ] (]) 08:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::No, it's not an editorial; it's a news article. The journalist, ], was raised and educated is South Africa. --] (]) 18:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::It appears to be his blog entry, It would be better to source the origional articel. Is thre any reason to assume that this blog has any links to the Jerusalem Post? Also the JP link appears to go to the JP front page, not to any article, as such it clearly does not support the claim.] (]) 18:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Here is a link to the cache, which takes you to the specific article. It's specified as: Middle East & Israel Breaking News » In depth » Front Lines - the week that was » Article. The advantage with sourcing to the bog that reproduces the article is that the cache is likely to expire. But the footnote should give information about the original place of publication. --] (]) 21:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
	== Venezuelanalysis Reboot ==
	The issue of the reliability of the website , which has long passed ] status above, merits a reboot in an attempt to actually resolve the issue. The site now has its own entry - ]. It is argued that Venezuelanalysis is widely considered reliable, and that it "offers useful detail and analysis on pivotal issues that is unavailable from other media sources," and as such is a necessary complement to other media sources. Any present overuse of VA should be fixed by adding more sources, not removing VA sources.
	* Widely referred to in Google Books (200+ hits) and Google Scholar (300+ hits)
	* Specific academic views: Analyzing Venezuelan media, Darrell Moen calls it "A major source of non-corporate controlled information regarding the process of social transformation that is occurring in Venezuela ... This website offers critical analyses by dissident scholars and grassroots-based accounts by social activists involved in the various social movements in Venezuela as well as links to a number of alternative media sites and access to documentary videos that depict recent events in Venezuela."<ref name="Hitotsubashi">{{cite journal |url=http://hermes-ir.lib.hit-u.ac.jp/rs/bitstream/10086/17527/1/HJsoc0410100010.pdf |title=Public Access to Alternative/Critical Analysis: Community Media in Venezuela |format=pdf |journal=Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies |volume = 41 | pages =1-12| author =Darrell Gene Moen |year=2009}}</ref>. Writing in '']'', Walt Vanderbush calls it "a valuable resource for Venezuelan news and analysis."<ref name="New Political Science ">{{cite journal |url=http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a915167796&db=all |title=The Bush Administration Record in Latin America: Sins of Omission and Commission |journal = New Political Science|author = Walt Vanderbush| volume = 31 |issue = 3| month= September| year= 2009 |pages = 337 - 359}}</ref>
	* Endorsed by 4 academics on Venezuelanalysis' "donate" page: . Links to their homepages: , , . (Ellner's page I can't find; Venezuelan university websites are generally not great.) Ellner and Hellinger are Venezuela specialists (political science); Grandin and Anderson have broader Latin America interests. A book Hellinger and Ellner co-edited (''Venezuelan Politics in the Chávez Era: Class, Polarization and Conflict'', 2003) was described by '']'' as "An extremely valuable and balanced overview of Venezuela"..
	* Ellner's endorsement ("In short, Venezuelanalysis offers useful detail and analysis on pivotal issues that is unavailable from other media sources.") is particularly significant, being a (if not the) leading English-language academic on Venezuelan left politics. Ellner's 1988 book was described by ''Foreign Affairs'' as "A well-researched analysis of Venezuela's small but innovative third party...". In the foreword to that book, ] described Ellner as "a leading analyst of Venezuela's left politics" That was in 1988; "Steve Ellner"+Venezuela gets 150+ hits on Google News , many from the '']'' and '']'' asking Ellner for his opinion on events of the day. He is described in neutral terms such as "a political analyst at Venezuela's Oriente University" Even '']'' described him neutrally as "a political science professor at Venezuela's University of the East."
	* Used by ] as a source in its 2008 report , and by <s>]</s> ], eg .
	* '']: Venezuela'' deems it "the best English language news site" to "keep track of the country's political and economic affairs."
	In the face of this evidence that Venezuelanalysis is widely considered a reliable source, some Misplaced Pages editors wish to substitute their personal opinion that it is unreliable, because links they allege between the website (the alleged links are weak and the sourcing generally unreliable) and the Venezuelan government allegedly render it unreliable. They also argue that in their opinion the website editors' political views, which differ dramatically from their own, render it unreliable. In addition they argue that those wishing to use VA as a source must prove the site's 8 editors have "journalistic credentials" (whatever that means). (It was generally ignored that I had noted - to suggest that "journalistic credentials" are not everything - that Venezuelan media, formerly one of the most respected presses in Latin America, had after the election of ] become part of the opposition: "media owners and their editors used the news - print and broadcast - to spearhead an opposition movement against Chavez... Editors began routinely winking at copy containing unfounded speculation, rumor, and unchecked facts." Dinges, John. Columbia Journalism Review (July 2005). "Soul Search", Vol. 44 Issue 2, July-August 2005, pp52-8. US media reporting on Venezuela has also been critiqued )
	In discussing this issue in the RSN thread above, the editors opposing use of VA have introduced irrelevant sources; complained about Misplaced Pages's Venezuela articles not matching their POV; and made many accusations of bad faith. Since the old thread remains open for any more accusations of bad faith that may be required, as well as any more detours into complaints not relevant to the issue, hopefully this thread can focus on resolving the question: can VA be considered a reliable source? ] <sup>]</sup> 14:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
	*Thanks for the additional data. I stick with what I said earlier: the site easily meets the minimum threshold of RS, it had best be used for attributed opinion, and where it is used for contentious facts, these facts should also be attributed. (That last point, of course, also applies to other sources.) --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 21:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
	:*I will also stick with what I said earlier. Venezuelanalysis meets the minimum threshold of RS, but it is a highly partisan source and opinion site. Since pro-Chavez opinion is a significant viewpoint in Venezuelan politics, we should include the pro-Chavez opinion with attribution. This source must attributed if used, and should not be used for contentious information in BLPs. --] (]) 13:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Sigh. I dislike things that begin to seem like ] issues after a while. It's a reliable source, my comments from the last thread on this (a week ago) have not changed. I have better things to do than debate this ad-nauseum. ] (]) 15:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	This looks like "ask the other parent" to an issue that was already well debated; I suggest that anyone weighing in here not take Rd232's summary at face value, rather re-read the entire previous thread. Venezuelanalysis is funded by Chavez, media in Venezuela is state-controlled, the writers for Venezuelanalysis are highly partisan and affiliated with the Chavez regime, have no journalist credentials, and VenAnalysis is largely cited by the extreme radical left. It has been used on Wiki to source an egregious BLP violation, and its reporting is rarely comprehensive or neutral; the people responsible for it are funded by Chavez and associated with him. VA has a very limited place on Wiki, if any, and people willing to use it as a source often do so to the exclusion of more reliable sources. It rarely covers info that is not available in non-biased mainstream reliable sources, and because it is affiliated with Chavez, should never be used to the exclusion of more reliable sources. I also notice Rd232's several distortions and one-sided presentation of the issues in his new thread here, and am concerned about his tendentious editing in Chavez/Venezuela articles. He states that media owners spearheaded opposition to Chavez, but fails to mention the serious press freedom issues in Venezuela and that the media is state-controlled, by Chavez, and you can be jailed or shut down if you criticize Chavez; if Wiki allows VenAnalysis a larger role here as a source, we become one more arm of Chavez's very successful ]. We already see Rd232 writing entire articles sourced to the highly partisan VA website, and excluding mainstream views (that alone speaks to the bias of VA as a source). We also now have an unbalanced article ] that uses a tour guide to prop up this partisan website. And I strongly object to this "ask the other parent" reboot, since most people are probably tired of this discussion and considered it settled. ] is a pillar of Wiki; overreliance on VA turns Wiki into another arm of the Chavez PR and propaganda machine. ] (]) 16:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Sandy, I understand your concern. But at this point, we are helpless because we are yet to find reliable sources which document the Chavista connection of this site, even though we know the persons associated with this site are lackeys of Chavez. This is why I said this site should be used with attribution as an opinion site, and should not be used for sensitive information in BLPs. I agree the article ] is horribly biased and will try to add some information to make it NPOV. --] (]) 16:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	:This is ''yet another'' example of Sandy attempting to derail or shut down dispute resolution (she virtually accuses me of forum shopping ''on the same forum''). She repeats the unsourced and/or irrelevant claims made ad nauseam in the TL:DR thread, which had driven away external input and made an actual resolution of the issue this dispute resolution board is actually for impossible. This summary of the issue is an opportunity to actually settle the question asked. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Also it appears that the above comment, insofar as it has any actual relevance to the question, boils down to the argument that Misplaced Pages should counter the alleged press freedom issues in Venezuela by excluding a source widely considered reliable - as some sort of political counter-balance. This has the merit at least of being the closest Sandy has come to expressing her motivation on this issue. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	:: I have seen no evidence that Venezuelanalysis has a reputation of poor fact checking so it can be used to source uncontroversial facts; uncontroversial understood as not being in conflict with the facts reported by other reliable sources, any conflict with WP editors' opinions is irrelevant. ] (]) 16:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	:I have edited the article ] to make it clear that the site is left wing and pro-Chavez. However I am not sure if my edit will stay. --] (]) 16:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Sounds like its reliable and biased. Use attribution, and don't use it for super controversial stuff related to Chavez. - ] (]) 17:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	::: Exactly. We need to put enough restrictions on the use of this partisan website, with ties to Chavez, to stop Rd232 from writing entire articles sourced to it to the exclusion of mainstream non-partisan sources, and it should never be used in BLPs or to source contentious claims. It should only be used to support non-contentious information that is not available in other sources (and that means, rarely, since most of anything they report on is available in other sources or highly contentious and dubious). Rd232's editing in Venezuela articles has evidenced extreme tendentiousness, and he has written entire articles sourced largely to VenAnalysis, excluding mainstream sources and a preponderance of reliable sources. ] (]) 17:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	*'''Comment'''. I was asked to comment here. I don't think ''venezuelanalysis.com'' can be regarded as a reliable source within the sourcing policy, ]. It's what the policy calls a "questionable source": "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves." See ].<p> It is also a self-published source within the meaning of the policy, in the sense that it seems to have no employees, no bosses, no office, and no formal editorial oversight. It describes itself as "an independent website produced by individuals ... its contributors are all working on the site from their homes in various places in Venezuela, the U.S., and elsewhere in the world." <p>The reliability of individual articles on the site therefore boils down to whether the person who wrote the article is a reliable source within the meaning of the policy. The policy says: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." See ]. So each article on the website that's being proposed as a source will have to be examined individually to decide whether the author has previously been published in that field by an independent publication. Then that article could be used with a link to the site as a source. But I would caution against using self-published material for anything contentious, and it can never be used as a source of information about a living person, per V and BLP. <font color="purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 19:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	::In view of the range of sources noted at the top of this thread citing it or endorsing it, I do not think it should be considered "self-published"; and I would say that the fact that other sources rely on it matters more than a debatable interpretation of "self-published". It has editorial oversight at least insofar as the 8 individuals listed here are just some of its many contributors. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	::You've added "widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." from policy, in support of it being a "questionable source". Citing policy is not enough, it needs to be shown that it applies. The fact that it is relied upon by others (as noted at the top of the thread) suggests that it is ''not'' "widely acknowledged as extremist"; and claims that any other part of the policy applies need to be ''evidenced''. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::It doesn't really matter who relies on it, Rd. What matters is our sourcing policy. The eight people who have may editorial responsibility are unpaid individuals working from home. They're not providing professional editorial and legal oversight, or any kind of fact-checking process. They make this almost a point of pride: we are not professionals, we are just volunteers working from home. Are any of them known experts, do you know? <font color="purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 19:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Wilpert is a professor of political science. It is endorsed by Steve Ellner, whose credentials are noted above, as well as VA being widely cited in academic sources. And what matters is not just the nature of sourcing policy, but arguments on how it applies here. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::If Gregory Wilpert has previously been published in this field by an independent publication, then self-published articles by him on this website would be allowable within reason, but not for use about living persons. It doesn't matter who endorsed it or who else cites it. We care only about our policies. The point of the sourcing policy is this: if push comes to shove, and we publish some terrible, false and libellous thing, and a court comes to us and says, "Misplaced Pages, show us your due diligence. Why did you publish this dreadful lie?", we have to be able to point to ''The New York Times'' or to Cambridge University Press or to Routledge. We don't want to be pointing to a website that's suddenly disappeared, published from home by eight volunteers, now untraceable. That's not due diligence. <font color="purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 19:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::Wot? Legal liability has ''nothing'' to do with this (only comes into play for failure to remove specific information). And given the falsehoods published by the NYT (as acknowledged by themselves), as well as by Venezuelan media which despite the ''Columbia Journalism Review'' information we're still happy to use, the value of "editorial oversight" and "journalistic credentials" is a lot less than it appears (''as evidenced by the external citation of VA''). ] <sup>]</sup> 19:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::"a website that's suddenly disappeared" applies to a vast proportion of WP sources, actually or potentially. It's mitigated by archive.org and use of ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Legal liability is only part of the story. I am talking about due diligence&mdash;morally, legally, intellectually, editorially. And when I talked about the website disappearing, I didn't mean where we couldn't find the article. I meant in a "ships that pass in the night" sense, not a source that has a history, a reputation, that we could rely upon. The bottom line is that you're trying to reinvent the wheel to some extent, because the policy is pretty clear about sources like this. I'm sorry. <font color="purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 20:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: I think Rd232 will also find that if he begins to use more enduring, high-quality reliable sources, he won't have to keep chunking up citation templates with that obnoxious ] info, or resorting to archive.org. We don't have to archive (); I tend to use high-quality enduring sources rather than websites operated out of people's homes that will disappear in a few years, under regime change. ] (]) 21:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::"We don't have to archive NYT" - I told you in relation to the linked edit that NYT unlimited free access is disappearing in a year, as a result of which some efforts are underway to WebCite key uses of NYT. Do you have a problem with this? And by the by, talking about citation templates as something I "chunk up" suggests you're really not paying attention to my edits: I hate citation templates with a fiery passion and avoid them wherever possible. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::On-line links are not required for a printed source like ''The New York Times''. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
	* I have been asked to comment about this. You got to love the moral ambiguity and circularity of argumentation of Rd232. Venezuelanalysis is reliable, among other things, because HRW mentioned it in a report the very spinmeister of the site, a.k.a. Gregory Wilpert, protested for allegedly not having followed academic standards. But Rd232, as far as it remains known, lacking any credentials on Venezuelan studies or indeed international law, called the report he now uses as proof as "biased and manipulative". Worth of note also, the fact that said HRW report also quoted me, to which Wilpert et al reacted by saying, without providing a shred of academic evidence, that I was a mentally unstable opposition blogger. My exchange with Chomsky demonstratetd that none of them had any evidence to support such spurious arguments. Rd232 calls tenuous the Gaceta Oficial de Venezuela, for those ignorant on the topic the official gazette where all legislation, appointments, etc, need be published BEFORE reaching legal and official status. This debate is a joke. Rd232, his alter ego and JRSP, have a notorious track record of utterly biased and tendentious editing in pages relates to Chavez and Venezuela. They give far too much weight to the radical left, to obscure academics that lack peer reviewed publications related to Venezuela, while ignoring reputed left sources, such as NYT, BBC, etc., or indeed, HRW, when these report on the horrendous crisis Venezuela is undergoing. I declare myself out of this, there is no good faith here. Venezuela/Chavez related entries are nothing but a crude exercise in propaganda, and I will go as far as stating my belief that there is a connection between the editors in question and chavista propaganda efforts. Otherwise, how else can their attitude be explained?--] (]) 20:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	***Also, obviously and unsurprisingly misleading. For example the criticism of HRW's report involved 118 academics. And I did not specifically call the Gaceta tenuous, I called the whole argument which relies on Gaceta as source for part of it tenuous. And if Alek thinks it is ''not'' significant that HRW cited Venezuelan] <sup>]</sup> 20:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	****I did actually say in the opening post of this thread that "the old thread remains open for any more accusations of bad faith that may be required". Obviously, anyone who disagrees with you must be a paid propagandist! Only possible explanation! For the record, I joined WP in October 2004, becoming an admin in October 2005. I made a few edits to ] (the centre of the Venezuela disputes, so I've checked the history for that article) for the first time in summer 2005; 3 in 2006 (including a vandalism rollback), zero in 2007 and 2008 (OK, I was mostly absent from mid-2006 to early 2009 - but it's a hell of a way to collect a paycheck, doncha think??). In any case, as and some careful thumbing through my history shows (especially pre-2009, when I seemed to get a lot more involved with Venezuela), Venezuela is just one of many topics I've edited, and only a relatively small proportion of my edits (especially on the ''edit'' side rather than the talking - reams of talking here). ] <sup>]</sup> 20:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	:* It's a deep plot :) But the circular reasoning employed by Rd232 is utterly astounding, but not apparent to other editors who might not be as familiar with Venezuela and its issues with lack of press freedom and control of the judiciary. He's virtually begging us to let him use VenAnalysis (why the urgency, I wonder?), while decrying other mainstream reliable sources as "corporate" or "US" or "UK" biased, and making claims about the Venezuelan press-- which has been severely muzzled by Chavez. From what I've seen of his editing-- creating quite a few POV articles-- Rd232 seems to think VA is the ''only'' reliable source on Venezuela. Considering its connections to Chavez, that is very interesting. ] (]) 20:18, 7 Februay 2010 (UTC)
	::* One last comment: '''It is not true that UNHCR has used Venezuelanalysis as a source''' in multiple ocassions, as RD232 misleading and deceitfully argues. Rather it has posted reports from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, which has cited Venezuelanalysis in some of its writings. This is a quintessential example of the quality of editing, objectivity and fact checking that Rd232 brings to Misplaced Pages. In said report the ], and the International Journal of Socialist Renewal (in reference to comments from the Australian-Venezuela Solidarity Network) can also be seen. Does that mean that VIO and clueless Australian activists from the 'solidarity network' meet ] standards? I think not. Same goes for Rd232 statement about Ellner being the leading English-language leftist academic of Venezuela, because some obscure and totally unrelated to Venezuela academic had said so once.--] (]) 20:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::*, My bad. It ''so much'' weakens the case for it as a source that the ], "Canada's largest independent administrative tribunal", used it as a source. As for your comments about Ellner - you clearly read my post enough to dismiss ]'s view of him, so why do you ignore 150+ cites in Google News, many from sources like NYT quoting him? ] <sup>]</sup> 20:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::* Cheap shot to mention the VIO citation when it is relied on purely for the number of people elected in the 2008 elections. Even you can't find something objectionable about that. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	* 99.9999% of the comments on this topic here have absolutely no relationship the question of whether this source meets our reliable source guideline. Please stop cluttering up this page with this off-topic ideological dispute. ] (]) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	** This is exactly why I started a new section (and when the same thing happened as before). ] <sup>]</sup> 21:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	*** Um, but that didn't prevent you from starting this very thread with your ideological distortion, did it ? ] (]) 21:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	**** Case in point. Don't address the content issue with relevant sources or arguments, just attack other contributors with vague accusations. It's a surefire way to make sure nobody else will want to comment on the content issue. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::Where is the quid pro quo here? If we agree that a Chavez-biased source can be used, why can't the Washington Post or NY Times, normally recognized as left-wing biased publications, be used? Only because they publish what is accurate about Venezuela?
	::::BTW, ] also says, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." We have seen a lot of "contrary evidence IMO." ] (]) 01:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Where does the claim come from that these sources ''cannot'' be used? The issue is treating these (indeed, any) sources as Gospel. Different sources should be used - the issue here is the attempt to suppress VA - the repeated and unfounded claims that criticisms of other sources imply a blanket unwillingness to ever use them are ludicrous. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Post/NYT "normally recognized as left-wing biased publications"? Even by US standards, that just isn't true. Of course rightwingers would, and do claim this (and they point mostly to op-eds, which is irrelevant - it's the news reporting that's the issue). ] <sup>]</sup> 02:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
	SlimVirgin's analysis is correct, and I appreciate her more thorough review. The website is essentially a ], and has to be treated as such. Its political views, and whether or not various professors write a laudatory paragraph for the website, are both irrelevant. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
	:I have to disagree with SlimVirgin's analysis. I see little basis for classifying it as a questionable source. The website could be considered a ], though this is not perfectly clear, but that does not preclude it from being considered a reliable source, even if it is not published by well-known experts. Frequently enough sites even more clearly self published, by obscurer individuals, have been judged to be RS's here at ] based mainly on their citation by and reputation described in definitely reliable sources. This is more important and has more to do with interpretation of the ] policy and the ] guideline than with this particular source. Some of the issues were just inconclusively debated ]; I didn't have the time to contribute before that was archived, I think the subject should be reopened at ].] (]) 08:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Which parts of ] and ] are you using to make that assessment? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
	:I agree it is ] – although a number of the people involved ''are'' previously published experts, and they are exercising ''informal'' editorial control over contributions from others. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 22:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Replying to Jayjg: ] and ]. This usage by other sources section was written precisely to cover the situation of often self-published sources widely quoted, cited, reviewed or used by clearly reliable sources, but which may be difficult to analyze in other ways. It was (re)inserted in the guideline after the case of boxofficeindia.com at ] which was such a source on the Indian film industry. Since then, other such websites have had a clear consensus on their reliability here based (mainly) on such evidence, most frequently in the case of military history sites often run by amateurs - if such sites are so good that dozens of academic or reputably published books cite them, it can be arbitrary and artificial for Misplaced Pages to exclude them.] (]) 06:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	=== Reboot the reboot: Exhibit I ===
	'''Exhibit I''', since people have been asking for examples, which I just happened across while looking into the curiously orphaned article, ], whose original content seems to have gone ''desaparecido'' and orphaned. is used to source a completely biased accounting there of the cases of ] and ] (and others). Since I have cleaned up Rosales, and done a wee bit of work on Baduel, I invite those participating in this discussion to compare this VA article with the reliable sources listed at Rosales and Baduel, see if they think VenAnalysis has presented both sides of the story. ] (]) 03:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
	::I went and checked the original article and copied two paragraphs not moved when ] was spun off. One mentions corruption in a general context of crime; the other based solely on ...er... Venezuelanalysis. Well anyway there it is. I can still userfy if you want to check anything else. And do you not agree that it's more useful to the reader to have the content in ] than hidden away in a subsection of ]? ] <sup>]</sup> 15:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
	:How typical of Sandy to insinuate instead of clearly stating the supposed problem. The only substantive difference I can see between the and the , ''in terms of the paragraph where Venezuelanalysis is used as a source'' is that Sandy has added "He is in prison, for an investigation ordered by Chavez, awaiting trial" sourced to a newspaper source which relies heavily on opposition journalist ]'s opinion (find-in-page about his take on journalistic ethics). Despite that, the source doesn't obviously support the specific claim that "Chavez ordered the investigation", which is ironic in view of Sandy's crusade to strengthen policy requirements to provide foreign language quotes in articles to back up their use. Elsewhere Sandy for some reason is deleting content sourced to Venezuelanalysis with nothing more than a claim of "bias". ] <sup>]</sup> 08:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
	::There are two camps in Venezuela. Similar to what we see in the States. As Misplaced Pages is more liberal it is not surprising that it has a liberal bent as apposed to a conservative one. I think Venezuela analysis is a sufficiently reliable source to use of Misplaced Pages. The fact that it is released under a creative commons license is a plus. If there are other sources that disagree add them to provide balance. On Misplaced Pages we are not attempting to match this paper but create something better. Hopefully no page will be based on a single source / single opinion. ] (] · ] · ]) 10:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	::: There are two, and more, camps everywhere. At stake in this discussion, is not whether to turn Misplaced Pages into National Review Online, but rather to stop using a source that beyond reference by some radicals, has been given far too much weight by Rd232, his alter ego Disembrangler and JRSP over the years. Take for instance the entry ], and how the opinion of Gregory Wilpert, editor in chief of Venezuelanalysis, sociologist, married to Hugo Chavez's Consul in NY, funded by Venezuelan taxpayer money, is provided as balance to a 230 page odd report produced by one of the world's most respected, and liberal BTW, human rights NGOs: Human Rights Watch. Now to some around here that seems perfectly kosher, to those of us who know who Wilpert is, it is crystal clear that his opinion, as much as he's entitled to publish it in his propaganda rag, carries no weight whatsoever in the debate about whether or not human rights are systematically violated in Venezuela. Wilpert has no credentials to participate in such debate, and has been described by HRW, rightly so, as "'''unhelpful critics who opt instead to disseminate baseless allegations'''" . The Inter American Court of Human Rights has ruled against the Chavez regime in a number of occasions, Amnesty International keeps warning the regime about the dangers of disrespecting supra constitutional and inalienable rights, yet Misplaced Pages visitors of the entry are meant to take the opinion of an utterly discredited propagandist on an equal footing as that of HRW. So I'll go with SlimVirgin, Jayjg, SandyGeorgia, Defender of Torch, Student7 opinions and stress that Venezuelanalysis should only be used for stuff that can't be found anywhere else, and has to be properly identified as a propaganda rag of Hugo Chavez's ever growing media empire.--] (]) 20:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::Just so one does not get to carried away one can say the exact same thing about ] / Rupert Murdock. His media empire is even a little bit larger :-) I remember seeing this clip were Fox had on someone who called for Chavez to be murdered. ] (] · ] · ]) 07:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::: Comparing a military putschist cum president of a nation to a businessman, however much hated, does your position no good whatsoever. This debate is not about whether Murdoch has a bigger media empire, but about using as trustworthy a source riddled with conflicts of interest, and with far too many connections to a military regime.--] (]) 16:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::Stepping over the red herring of Murdoch, I'd have to say I agree with Alekboyd. VA is a reliable, but biased, source. It can be used as a source for simple questions of positive fact if no other source is available, but should be avoided entirely if other sources (such as HRW) address a question. It is also not reliable for negative facts (did not, never, etc.) Note that even in cases where laying out a he-said-she-said debate is appropriate, the pro-Chavez position should be sourced to something more official. ] (]) 17:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	This article currently lists a great many notable people as "Georgists." ''(Ambrose Bierce Matthew Bellamy Ralph Borsodi William F. Buckley, Jr. Winston Churchill Clarence Darrow Michael Davitt Henry Ford Mason Gaffney David Lloyd George George Grey Walter Burley Griffin Fred Harrison William Morris Hughes Aldous Huxley Blas Infante Mumia Abu-Jamal Tom L. Johnson Samuel M. Jones Wolf Ladejinsky Ralph Nader Francis Neilson Albert Jay Nock Sun Yat Sen Herbert Simon Leo Tolstoy William Simon U'Ren William Vickrey . Frank Lloyd Wright )'' The main problem is that some of the references are from a group dedicated to Georgism, and many of the other cites do not actually call the person "Georgist." It also relies heavily on such sites as "cooperativeindividualism.org" which is part of the Council of Georgist Organizations , which also may not qualify as a third party publisher either. Can someone kindly review the claims made in that article about notables being "Georgists" whether or not anything outside the Georgist community makes the claim? I fear this is like using any organization's publications as proof that famous people were part of it <g>. ] (]) 16:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	:cooperativeindividualism.org appears to be the ] of ]. Or am I missing something? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	== Sources which appear to be copies of reliable sources ==
	I've come across a couple of articles that include citations to copies of reliable sources, and I'd like some input on them. The articles in question are ] and ], although other articles may have similar issues so a centralized discussion is appropriate. Each of these articles contain citations to ''copies'' of reliable sources which are hosted on the subject's own site. It's significant that each of these articles was created by editors with a likely conflict of interest. I attempted to replace the references with ones that linked directly so they could be verified, but was unable to do so. This could be because copies are not available online, or because copies simply do not exist. I'm here because I'm hesitant to remove sources which may be reliable, but uncomfortable leaving them in because they can't be verified. Thoughts?--]] 18:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Well, some of those are probably copyright violations, and shouldn't be linked to. Others would probably require a trip to the library to confirm. The on the GRI article is likely both. There's enough info on its page to create a non-hyperlinked reference to the WSJ article. It's probably real, but you can't know for sure. You might look at , although it doesn't talk about copy vios. Tough call. - ] (]) 19:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	::So either it's a primary source (from the company's own site) or a copyvio, so in neither case does it demonstrate notability and the reliability of the hosting site must be considered. Doesn't sound nearly as tough after your reply. Thanks!--]] 19:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Here's the problem. Say they have perfectly copied a WSJ article (and I think they have). It's a copyvio that can't be linked to, but it's a pretty good lead on a source and establishing notability. The WSJ puts their stuff behind a pay wall, so it's always hard to verify their articles. So, it's then up to us experienced editors. If we want to delete the article, we can say "doesn't count, since it's a copyvio and I haven't seen the original". If we want to keep it, we can say "there's a good WSJ article on the subject, can someone help me check that it says what we think it says". (I think ] has an account that would let him check, and he's pretty nice about this kind of stuff). It's a weird situation, because it's experienced editors on one side, and COI newby editors on the other. So, do what you think is right, but be aware that you are the one making the decision: it's not out of your hands because some policy is forcing your hand. Basically, how nice do you want to be? - ] (]) 04:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
	:See if ] and ] apply. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 22:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
	::The pay wall issue can be overcome easily... Most public libraries will have a subscription to the WSJ's web archive. ] (]) 17:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Why are you so sure their copy is a copyvio, on the web illegally? It's an article about them, after all; news organizations allowing their subjects the right to reprint articles about them is hardly uncommon. The author's email address is hyperlinked right on the page if you want to confirm that they have the right to it. Here is another copy. --] (]) 21:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	::] says it is okay to link if the site has ''licensed'' the work. There is no evidence of that here. If someone has licensed a work, they explicitly say so. If you have further doubts, I'd suggest you contact ], who has an excellent grasp of copyright issues. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 21:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
	::: "If someone has licensed a work, they explicitly say so." Not at all. In general reprinters just write the equivalent of "This article originally appeared in X", and don't add "and we're not stealing it from them, honest." Here are, oh, 8 million examples, at least the first few dozen seem to be from highly respectable sources, including not a few law firms. You seem to think we should assume they're all breaking the law unless we have proof to the contrary. That's not how it works. If we have reason to believe they are breaking the law, that's one thing, but we shouldn't just assume it. --] (]) 14:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)http://www.grief.net/Media/Wall_Street_Journal.htm
	::::I believe we shouldn't just "assume" that they have licensed the material without any evidence indicating so. I believe such evidence might look like this: --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 18:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::] asked my opinion here. My opinion is "It depends." :) I've seen plenty of subjects that have taken material about them to republish at their own websites (or repost on Youtube) where licensing was highly implausible. Immediately comes to mind a DJ and model whose manager has had some COI issues. They seem to think that their website can serve as a resume/scrapbook, and (of course) this isn't so. I believe ] is right that a good many of them ''do'' obtain permission, and JN is right that a number of them do acknowledge it ( :)). Practically, ] provides us a little more leeway than much of the other prohibitions of ]. I think we need to exercise some individual judgment here to determine if content is likely licensed, which might in part be made up of the stature of the hosting organization and the other contents of their website. I ''also'' think that where possible we should view and verify the original, since it isn't impossible that reproduction could be altered. And, of course, it seems very likely that they will have cherry-picked what sources they reproduce to serve their own purposes. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
	I have (legally!) accessed the WSJ article via a commercial news archive (]) and compared it to the alleged copy at . The two have identical text except: (1) The Factiva version does not have the side-bar (the list of statistics in the box labeled "THE GRIEF INDEX"); (2) the Factiva version does not give the URLs for GRI and SHRM. Apart from this, you can cite the information in the article to WSJ. Whether you can also link to is a separate issue. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	== ] and ] ==
	This is a mutually agreed upon request from ] (parties: ], ], mediators: ], ]). The Misplaced Pages article ] has an entry for the ]. The entry is based on multiple sources, but this RSN question is about this one: , by ], '']'', March 2006, pages 28-29. Is this a reliable source for the entry?
	The arguments against are that:
	# this is an opinion piece, which is unacceptable per ] "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers." The article even states at the bottom that this is "commentary" first appearing in Mr. Cole's blog.
	# the only place this editorial directly accuses the CAF of supporting terrorism is in the title, the statements in the body are weaker
	# that Juan Cole is a dubious source for such a statement, being a professor of middle eastern history does not make one an expert on everything that occurs in the middle east.
	The arguments for are that:
	# the entire ] is a list of accusations, not of facts, and is clearly labeled as such; it makes no statements of fact other than that the accusations are made. The facts of all accusations in the list are highly disputed, except for one which is admittedly wrong.
	# the title is an important part of the source article, and quite clear
	# The '']'' calls Juan Cole "a Middle East expert at the University of Michigan" ; '']'' calls him "one of the nation’s leading historians focusing on the Middle East". He has published multiple academic peer-reviewed books on the modern Middle East, and is widely cited as an expert on it by ] , ] , the '']'', (), ], ] and so forth, meeting ] "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", while the '']'' is a 17 year old magazine, published in by ]. {{unsigned|Bonewah}}
	:1. Speaking as someone who's written lots of op-eds, op-ed authors very rarely get to title their own pieces: the titles are chosen by newspaper staff, and usually to fit the space available. If the only evidence for the "link" is the title of an op-ed, it can't be attributed to the op-ed author, so the author's reliability is presumptively irrelevant to the question.
	:2. Generally, "terrorist" is not acceptable nomenclature unless the organization named as terrorist has been so identified by a government. Juan Cole's hyperbole (and reading that overwrought op-ed makes it clear that the "terrorism" appellation is rhetoric rather than scholarship) doesn't count.
	:So all in all, I say no. ] (]) 17:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
	::"A" government? Is there a specific list of acceptable governments? Is there a reason why political maneuvers, such as the back-channel lobbying that saw the ] listed, then removed, on several of these lists would be allowed but opinions of academics would not be? If we do actually need "a" government to make the accusation that a groups is a "terrorist" group the article should be retitled ] <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
	: It is obviously, unambiguously, and indisputably RS. ] (]) 15:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	::There is no question that Cole is accusing Abramoff of funding terrorism... so it seems to be a reliable source for the existance of the accusation ... WP:RS is only part of the issue. The guideline does not exist in a vacuum. It must be considered in conjunction with our other polices. So, while the source may be reliable for a statement as to the existance of the accusation, we also need to ask whether mentioning the existance of the accusation at all gives the accusation ]. I am not convinced that Cole's opinion is note worthy enough to pass WP:UNDUE. The issue of whether a source is reliable for demonstrating that "opinion X exists" becomes moot if, for other reasons, we should not say "opinion X exists" in the first place. ] (]) 19:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
	== Are websites recommended by articles in established newspapers considered reliable? ==
	The reason I ask if because of this article in the Toronto Globe and Mail, which uses and recommends the self published Road Scholar website (but also is a verification that the author is an employee of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation). Does this make that website reliable in any way? - ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 05:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	:It adds just a little bit to indicate that it might be reliable, but only that little bit. We have to apply our own criteria. As you'll see from ], we're looking for authorship and for a history of fact-checking. ] (]) 10:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	:: Reading the article, however, helps. It says that Shragge was a professional writing for the Canada Department for Highways for 30 years. Looking around a bit more, seems he edited a book called ''From Footpaths to Freeways: The Story of Ontario’s Roads'' published by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. That added to the ''Globe and Mail'' and '']'' relying on him seems to weigh in favor of Shragge meeting "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" bit of ]. --] (]) 18:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Awesome. I have that book (Just got it yesterday) actually, but it only says "produced by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications". Who knew? - ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 18:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	Does this mean that http://www.michiganhighways.org meets the criteria for inclusion? Chris Bessert and his website are regularly featured in the ''Detroit Free Press'', his he's a professional cartographer with the , which works in transportation and infrastructure planning for the Grand Rapids Metro Area, and his site has come recommended by the Library of Michigan, the FOIA Office at the Michigan Department of Transportation, the Grand Rapids Public Library and other official sources. ] (]) 21:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	For such questions, also see ].] (]) 20:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	== question ==
	I am sure this has come up before.
	Another contributor feels it is essential to add ''"a liberal weblog"'' after ], in the article for a journalist and historian who is also a regular contributor at the ''HP'', the first time ''HP'' is mentioned.
	The ''HP'' is like a print newspaper, in that the authors are generally chosen for being authoritative or otherwise notable commentators. Is it really necessary, or even a good idea to append ''"a liberal weblog"'' to ''"Huffington Post"''? Would we do this for a print newspaper?
	Cheers! ] (]) 22:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	: That question is outside the scope of this noticeboard. ] (]) 22:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Oh? Okay. Can I ask where you think I should have asked this question? ] (]) 00:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
	::: You can ask at the article talk page, if there aren't enough participants you can ask for a ], or if a third isn't enough, make a ]. Now that you're here already, maybe you can put a link here, and someone will follow it, because we're not a bureaucracy, but this really isn't the right place, it's a question of context, not reliability. This is the board you would go to to ask if a statement by the Huffington Post counts as a reliable source for a statement in one of our articles, but how it should be qualified next to that statement isn't this board's jurisdiction. The ''New York Times'' has been called liberal, and the ''Wall Street Journal'' has been called conservative, but as far as this board is concerned they're both reliable sources for most news statements. --] (]) 14:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Actually, it is appropriate to ask such a question here, because attribution is part of the proper use of sources. It comes up fairly often with regard to citing political advocacy groups, that the best way to cite is often by qualifying it as "according to the liberal XYZ" or the "pro-LMN group QRS", as long as the labels are fairly universally agreed upon, that they help in introducing the quote, and we use a touch of understatement. i.e. it would be juvenile to prefix the Wall Street Journal as "conservative", but it would be appropriate to qualify an obscure anti-smoking advocacy group as such.
	:Which article is being asked about, and what is being cited? In general, it may be appropriate to include "liberal" with regard to the Huffington Post, because pretty much everybody, friend or foe, would identify it as liberal, it adds useful attribution to readers who might not be familiar with the source, especially if it was being compared/contrasted with a conservative source. On the other hand, the term "weblog" is probably not helpful, as it implies a personal website with no editorial control. ] (]) 23:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	== Readplatform and Homepagedaily ==
	Is the blog, , a reliable source? What about ? The relevant article is ] which is currently being discussed at ]. Before the article is undeleted and listed at AfD, I want to know if these are reliable sources.<p>I am inclined to believe that the first source is unreliable; see the tone of the articles listed at , the homepage. The second source is possibly reliable per ]'s comment at the DRV. Thank you for taking a look at this. ] (]) 22:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Just a bit of background on HPD - it appears to be owned/run by ] and is used as a source on ] and ].
	:ReadPlatform is a tricky one because it is an interview, so the question might be can we rely on it not to have just made up the interview? It might not be any use for demonstrating notability but it might work for sourcing information. Currently being used as a source on ]. (] (]) 02:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
	::A website used as a source on other Misplaced Pages articles does not determine that it's reliable. ] (]) 06:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::However, it does indicate that some editors found the sources to be reliable, and the fact that the sources haven't been removed from the other articles indicates that other editors found them to be reliable as well, or at least didn't care enough to remove them. ] (]) 11:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::And I wasn't saying it was reliable - what I was doing was providing background, including the fact these are already in use which makes it especially important that these issues are resolved here, rather than piecemeal in the AfD or on the other pages. The adult film articles would probably survive the removal of the HPD links but ]' sourcing is already poor and it could be problematic. So in essence I was supporting the move to discuss it here.
	:::On the two sources:
	:::*HPD might itself be deemed reliable and possibly notable but that piece on their site is really just a passing mention of the webcomic and is not an in-depth piece, you just wouldn't include such an article in a well-rounded and well-sourced article as it adds nothing. The fact that it is and is one of the few third party links is a cause for concern. The other articles are longer and more in-depth so could be of some use. It'd be worth checking out the writers to see if they have done things elsewhere which would help with the RS assessment.
	:::*RP is a blog but the interview is relatively wide-ranging and would be useful in providing useful out-of-universe material. However, can we consider it reliable?
	:::So I think there might be a case for HPD in general but not that piece and RP might be useful for that interview. (] (]) 15:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
	::::*I agree that neither source can be used to establish notability. The HPD source does not have sufficient context about the webcomic, while the RP blog is clearly an unreliable source. The author of the RP blog is Robert Foster; a click on his name brought me to the page "". The quote from Foster: "I'm a sham and my life is a shambles." and the subsequent link to Blogspot indicates that Foster's articles are not reliable. ] (]) 05:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	== blogs and myspace as references establishing the occurrence of specific concerts of a music group. ==
	Some confusion has arisen in the band ]'s editing process regarding whether certain blogs and myspace content is acceptable to verify that particular concerts occurred. I have contended that such self published references are acceptable in the WP:SELFPUB exception for non-reliable self published sources especially given the context. They are relevant and there is little doubt to the authenticity of the information. I believe that some editors believe any "blog" or myspace site is never acceptable as a reference. I do not see that to be the policy. Could someone help clarify who is an administrator?noodle 07:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
	: I'm not an administrator, but being an administrator isn't required to make a statement about policy, though the experience most admins have helps. (Also, you haven't gotten an administrator's response for a week, so I'm feeling a bit bold.) A self-published statement, such as on band's personal web page, myspace, or blog, is considered a reliable source for non-controversial information about the author, in this case, the band, as long as you can be sure the statement was actually written by the band. That a specific concert occurred seems non-controversial enough, though it would help if you gave the specific context. (If the statement is that they gave a concert in space hosted by Greys from Zeta Reticuli that might be a bit controversial.) --] (]) 13:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
	== World of Martial Arts Video Site ==
	I would like to ask for opinions about the video web site World of Martial Arts . It does not appear to be a video blog: the videos are selected by the staff of WOMA. There is no statement about their editorial policy and there is no information about the copyright status of the videos on their site. There are interviews with popular martial artists .
	Would these videos be acceptable as Primary Sources? Would inclusion in this site help a claim to notability? ] (]) 11:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
	: There's not a lot about it that I could find. From http://www.alanorr.com/htdocs/articles/Wherecaniseethat.html and http://www.woma.tv/docs/about.html it seems a limited number of people can upload content, so I would say they could be primary sources for the views of those specific people, which could be useful if those specific people are considered experts. But since there isn't much about WOMA elsewhere, I wouldn't be able to say that the site as a whole is a reliable source, or that inclusion in it as a "Guru" is a guarantee of expertise or notability. It certainly doesn't hurt, but I don't think it would be sufficient. --] (]) 19:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Thanks! I will consider it a Primary Source of the people interviewed. ] (]) 12:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	== Other Sites as "Reliable Sources" ==
	Can other sites be considered "Reliable Sources"? I am currently in a discussion on the ] and ] talk threads over changing the name of the genre "Symphonic rock" to either "Symphonic Progressive" or "Symphonic Prog". I have used Progressive Rock sites such as the ], ] and even on-line stores such as ] as "Reliable Sources". The first two as sources specific to Progressive Rock and the latter as a "General Usage" reference.
	:GEPR & Progarchives - checking the and , it seems that they are written/maintained by " fanatic progressive rock music collectors" and accept user contributions. I'd say not reliable unless the main editors/creators can be shown as subject matter experts, or the websites have been described as authoritative by other sources (music journalists/papers/journals). I wouldn't consider Amazon reliable for genres either. There are several books listed as references on the ] article, two in particular I think are very good,'' Rocking the Classics: English Progressive Rock and the Counterculture'', and ''The Music's All That Matters: A History of Progressive Rock''. Perhaps checking these books can find material that supports your position.--] (]) 05:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Thanks for the response! I will check into the background of the GEPR. The owner is quite knowledgeable and has written lengthy articles on the subject. I already have "Rocking The Classics" and have used it on the ] page. I will see if I can get my hands on the other book you mentioned. ] (]) 23:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	== Debka.com ==
	Is the ] a reliable source? ] (]) 21:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
	:I wouldn't trust any 'exclusive' from them, and their spin on verified stories is extreme neocon/likudnik.--] (]) 05:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Absolutely '''not''' reliable. It isn't a matter of bias, it's a matter of record of accuracy. That site publishes things on the basis of poor information and rumors, sometimes scoring spectacular scoops and sometimes dismal failures. It should not be treated as a normal news source. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Thanks, that confirms my suspicions. ] (]) 14:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Woah, there. Which article is it being used in, and what statement is the citation used to support? It's pretty clear that this source will be RS for some topics but not others, and we should be having a real debate over this. For example, if this is for a biography, you can seek other sources. On the other hand, if this is about a military event in Israel that was mentioned on Debka before the mainstream media, then it may be appropriate to cite Debka. ] (]) 00:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::Sometimes Debka itself gets into the news by being the first to report something. This reporting might be notable enough for WP in some cases (it amounts to using Debka as a source about itself, which is permitted). However if the report is true and relates to something notable, mainstream news sources will be available for it. It is hard to imagine a case where a claim made in Debka and not confirmed anywhere else can be cited as fact. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Per a request on my talk page, the article in question is ]. An editor cited Debka as the source for the accident being the . I looked at the source, decided it wasn't reliable and . I also brought the issue up on the ]. So far, no reliable source has claimed an Al Qaeda involvement. ] (]) 06:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::I've studied the issue and while I don't think it's appropriate to cite Debka out of the blue as it is now, if we had a paragraph about the debate on whether the incident was an accident or sabotage, and sabotage by whom, then we would have sufficient context for Debka'a opinion.
	::::::Here's a Times Online article about whether it was "storms or sabotage", with cautions against taking eyewitness reports of "explosions" at face value; here is a UPI article about claims and denial of Hezbollah involvement; and an AP/Washington Post article entitled ''Lebanese minister rules out bomb on Ethiopian jet'';. There was also an article in the Canada Free Press about the crash that went out of its way to mention Ethiopia's campaign against ]., so we no longer have an extraordinary claim relying solely on Debka.
	::::::I've looked through Google Books for information about Debkafile and examples of how it is cited, and it appears their opinion is notable even if prelimary reports shouldn't be taken as gospel. I think Debka ''could'' become an RS in this context if all those other sources I provided were used to build a paragraph, and if Debka's opinion was attributed as such, and if it was quoted as something like "counterterrorism news outlet Debkafile pointed out...", so the reader will know this came from a specialized source. ] (]) 15:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	== Reading Borough Libraries ==
	The article ] draws heavily for it's ] on two web pages published by Reading Borough Libraries and .
	It looks like the the ultimate source for this list is but my question is, are these pages ] given there is a clear ] between Reading Borough Libraries and promoting Reading ? ] (]) 09:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	:No opionion on the source/COI issue, but any entry on that list should be a linked biog and the fact that they are from Reading should be independently verifiable from the biog's article. ] (]) 13:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	::I think the COI issue is a bit of a red herring, the list is purely being used as a convenient source which reduces the need for a large number of separate sources within the list. Both lists are good at stating the person's connection with Reading (which could if desired, be further checked against the ODNB), most look pretty solid, the only one which looks a bit tenuous to me is claiming ]. The definition of "great" the library list uses is probably narrower than our definition of notable, and might well exclude those who are more infamous than famous, but that doesn't seem to me to be a reason to exclude it as a source, just not to rely on it exclusively. ] (]) 16:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	== Software Top 100: a reliable source on large software companies ==
	The Software Top 100 is verifiable, as it quotes material from annual reports, and clearly displays its methodology and calculations on its website. The Software Top 100 is online since 2003, and it is used by large software companies to review their competitive position and inform the public of their size. The point of view is neutral and objective: companies are only included on the basis of sufficient software revenues. Companies can not pay to be on the list, or something like that.
	The Top 100 Research Foundation makes the Software Top 100 on best effort, using its database with currently 10,000+ software companies. In doing the ranking, they do not differ from the makers of other rankings such as the Forbes 400 or the Fortune rankings, which do not claim to be complete, but do have a stated research methodology and a verifiable way of working.
	Some time ago, it was decided by user Esoteric Rogue that the is not a reliable source, and he proceeded to delete all links on Misplaced Pages to that source. His post on this noticeboard can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_38#softwaretop100.org .
	I do not agree with him. At the moment there is really no better source online for software company size than the Software Top 100. Try and compare with other sources and their methods: http://en.wikipedia.org/World%27s_largest_software_companies (Software Top 100 references were deleted from this page by Esoteric Rogue).
	== PR newswire and Ajax world magazine ==
	Is this content here a reliable source it is reporting some content from this source, I couldn't see the authors name and it looked like you only need to register to upload content? ] (]) 14:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Material on PR Newswire is essentially self-published and thus not a reliable source for most purposes. If this court case is of any significance there should surely be a report of it in an Israeli newspaper? ] (]) 16:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	== http://www.thekingshighway.ca ==
	Before we begin, yes I know it is a self-published website, and that nothing on the website itself establishes notability. Cameron Bevers, the writer, is a regional planner for the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. However, he is certainly considered an expert on the topic, as the city of Toronto archives uses this website as the source for its description of the Highway 401 archive category. I can't link directly to the archives but if someone wants to see it before commenting.
	I'm fairly certain I could find a recent newspaper article from a major newspaper that discusses him as well if the archives is not enough. - ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 18:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Can you provide examples of other sources using this website as a source? Where does the city of Toronto archives use this, for example? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::On the online toronto archives, many pictures have been digitized. Amongst these are pictures along the highway, and construction pics. When you go into a picture, they are organized by categories, such as "Highway 401" or "Road construction". When you click the 401 category, it brings up a synopsis of the history available from thekingshighway.ca (I'd provide a link to this, but it expires quickly. If you want a screenshot or step by step directions to get to it, I can do that).
	::He is also practically the subject of a Toronto Star article on cottage country highway traffic, (The article essentially "stars" him) as well as a brief mention in an article in the ] Spectator. - ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 05:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Where are the online Toronto archives? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::I'll give you step-by-step instructions to get to the description of Highway 401:
	::::First, , and click on "Search the Archives' Database". This will open up a new window. In this new window, search for ''Highway 401''. The first result should be "File 1 - Oblique aerial photograph showing Labatt's Brewery at Highway 401 and Islington Ave. - October 19, 1970". Click on it, and it opens in the right frame. Click on ''Subseries 5; Etobicoke Clerk's Dept. aerial photographs'', and another new window will open. In this window, you should see ''Highway 401''. Click it, and a new window will open with the description from Cameron Bevers website. - ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 03:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Thank you. Does the City of Toronto website use Bevers' site for other material? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
	== Emporis ==
	Is Emporis considered a reliable source? They review and include sourced submissions per "To add new information to our database, we need a reliable source.
	A source can be newspaper articles, the official website, architectural reports or blueprints." ] (]) 18:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	: According to our article ], they are frequently cited as an authority on building data, and that's cited with a number of good news articles, so I'd say yes, for those purposes. What's the specific question? --] (]) 19:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Here's a diff and here's the edit history . Let me know if you need more information. I don't want to be seen as trying to bias the outcome. ] (]) 08:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	::: Wow, what an innocuous list of information to war over.
	# This ] structure served as Springfield's City Hall until 1979. It is almost 10 times long as it is wide. (referring to ])
	# Sandstone, ] structure (referring to ])
	# Brick, ] structure (referring to ])
	# Brick, ] structure (referring to ])
	::: Is that really it? I could even see the argument that these last 3 don't even really need a source, you can see a building is brick by looking at it, we have photos, or you can use Google Maps photos or the equivalent. For something as innocuous as this, Emporis, which is used by the ''New York Times'' and ''Washington Post'' for much more controversial things, should be plenty good enough. --] (]) 20:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
	== gibnews.net ==
	There has been some discussion on ] about the above site as a reliable source for wikipedia, with one editor calling for it to be blacklisted.
	Can I request an independent review of the site from '''uninvolved editors''' and not the 'usual suspects' with an agenda one way or another.
	I wrote the software behind the site, but the content is provided by established authorised users. It is NOT a wiki or blog but a repository of press releases.
	If there are any suggestions on improving it, eg by including a statement from the content providers, that can be implemented. --] (]) 19:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	:From it appears to be nothing but a publisher of press releases and opinion pieces. This makes it at best a primary source. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 23:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	::*Who ensures that the press releases have been faithfully and/or accurately transcribed by the owners of the website?
	::*How can a reader tell that the owners of the website are choosing to censor certain material - ommitting words, sentences, or paragraphs? Especially when the owners "reserve the right to remove any content without giving a reason."
	::*This begs the question, who is behind gibnews.net? The "company" and its staff are anonymous. Who is it that can remove content without giving a reason? If I want to find out who runs the GBC or FSC I can .
	::*You are the site's webmaster. Do you wield editorial discretion? If you do not, can you demonstrate that you do not, for example, by providing the name of the owner of the site who will attest to that fact?
	::*If you do, is it not a serious conflict of interest that you are attempting to use the site as a source in Misplaced Pages, yet you wield editorial discretion over what is posted there?
	::*How can a reader tell that the owners of the website are not cherry picking certain material to publish?
	::*How can a reader tell that anyone wishing to post a press release or opinion there is free to do so? (e.g. would one of the very small number of Gibraltar residents who voted to return to Spanish rule be able share their opinion or post press releases free of censorship?).
	::*Who are the people who share their opinions? Are they experts in their field?
	::*Do any other reputable organisations demonstrably use gibnews.net as a source of information? If so, please provide them.
	::*Governmental bodies and media outlets in Gibraltar have their own distribution channels, e.g. and extensive archives Why does Misplaced Pages need to resort to this private repository of information?
	::These questions at the very least need answering. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 00:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Generally the metric used for web sites that are referenced as news sources is whether or not there is editorial oversight. The Gibnews.net site seems to have a disclaimer that makes it clear that there isn't any. ] states that reliable sources should have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Again, the Gibnews.net site disclaimer asserts that it makes no claim on accuracy and doesn't check anything it publishes, it only presents it "as-is". In general, press releases themselves are not considered reliable sources on Misplaced Pages, except as sources for what one entity might "claim", so should a site that simply publishes press releases be treated differently? As Hut 8.5 suggests, they may be useful as primary sources. ] describes how primary sources should be used. -- ''']'''] 00:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::If I may comment - Red Hat, while I understand your concern with this site and Gibnews's affiliation with it, I also have to say that you need to keep this all in perspective. Don't all news sites "cherry pick" content, to some extent? Does it matter if anyone is free to post? Before you react to that, realize that my gist here isn't to say you are ''wrong'' - it's that you're barking up the wrong tree. Concentrate on why the site, as-is, doesn't meet our criteria for a secondary source. Don't push the same buttons over and over; let's try to all get somewhere here. Assume good faith that Gibnews wants to help build an encyclopedia, and try to reject any notions of some nationalistic ulterior motive. If we show that this site doesn't work for a secondary source, then ''all the other stuff doesn't matter'', including Gibnews's affiliation with the site. Simply being involved in a news organization doesn't exempt one from participating in this project, or even using said news source. I hope you see what I'm trying to say here - Atama is on the right track for an acceptable answer for everyone involved. Gibnews seems like a reasonable person; let's treat him like one and maybe he'll respect our views, also. ] &#124; ] 01:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Actually, Tan, I disagree with what you say there. The info on self published sources is clear and conflict of interest is a very serious matter. For better or for worse, Gibnews ''does'' hold a strong political view on Gibraltar's sovereignty (as is his right), it is a political hot potato, and it would be highly dubious if he were using a website he controlled to advance a POV. My questions were merely attempts for him to show that this is not the case, so I consider the "pushing buttons" comment not to be assuming good faith. Also I think you are confusing the reliability of a source with whether its usage constitutes original research/synthesis. That is not the point of this page.
	:::::Anyway, it may help to examine an example usage by Gibnews, without dragging the content dispute here. We were trying to establish on the ] page Gibraltar's level of self-government in order to choose an acceptable wording for the article. An editor put forward a series of sources from governmental and international bodies supporting one view, one of which I picked out as especially definitive wording, which was from the Government of Gibraltar Gibnews, who holds a differing view, replied that these references were "out of date" and he then asked us to read a press release on the Gibnews site calling for applicants to join the Gibraltar Police Authority as supporting evidence that Gibraltar enjoyed full self-government with respect to internal security, contradicting the aforementioned governmental sources. Comments? <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 02:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::ps I notice a similar discussion above in which an editor commented "So either it's a primary source (from the company's own site) or a copyvio, so in neither case does it demonstrate notability '''and the reliability of the hosting site must be considered'''." The important part is italicized. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 02:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::I guess what I was trying to say, in a nicer way, was for you to step out of the room for a bit. We know your stance, you've reiterated it a lot, and I think it's a fair request of Gibnews for uninvolved people to review and comment on this. Look at the sheer mass of text you've added; this is yet another battleground for you, right or wrong. ] &#124; ] 02:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::Merely explaining the background and responding to your reply directed at me rather than on the subject at hand (that you could have placed on my talk page), that's all. Being "involved" doesn't bar me from adding my views - which were no lengthier that some of the posts you'll find above on this page. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 03:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::Well, I still don't think you understand what I'm trying to say, but thank you. ] &#124; ] 03:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	Per Atama I suggest that reports on gibnews.net can be used as a primary source. Gibnews writes at
	"''There is scrutiny of content, and content providers are told that in the TOS. But the contributors are REPUTABLE ORGANISATIONS. Anything libelous would be removed to comply with Gibraltar law which is very different to that in the US. So far I am informed nothing has been removed.The site provides an archive with permalinks of press releases in Gibraltar, 'as-is' without alteration. Some of the material is not available anywhere else, and even where it is, the links are guaranteed permanent.The rationale for 'banning' references to it is not clear, Yes I wrote the code behind it. No I do not write the content referenced in wikipedia."''
	I understand that it runs scripts, written by Gibnews himself, which aggregate external reports, many of which are not available elsewhere. It would be nice to have some external confirmation that the site is regarded as an accurate reporter - Gibnews may well be able to point us to one. But in the meantime, given that we have the above statement from Gibnews himself that nobody at gibnews.net actually changes text or adds content to this site (perhaps he'd like to make this absolutely explicit?), I feel that we should assume good faith.
	Red Hat mentions that Gibnews has used reports on this site to support his position. I suggest that this is not relevant to the reliability of the site itself, and that issues of possibly-inappropriate use of primary sources to support an oversimplified position are best left to the relevant talk page. Where indeed I hope they are already being dealt with. ] (]) 12:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	Can I make the point that I have specifically asked for an '''independent review of the site''' and not the biased opinions of the editor who is trying his best to get it banned because he does not like the content. Thank you Richard & Tan for putting the record straight. The site policy, . If I have strong views on the sovereignty of the country I reside in its no surprise! Those views are ] However, gibnews.net carried material from ALL political parties in Gibraltar without bias. --] (]) 13:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	: Hi. Totally uninvolved. Can you show me where other, obviously reliable sources have cited Gibnews? Thanks. ] (]) 13:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	::I'll work on that, it needs some research. Good point. --] (]) 18:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	::I have to agree with Hipocrite, I think this is a pretty fair point. My other concern is that while it's nice to assume good faith about other editors, I don't think we should apply this to sources. I think a source should be verifiable and reliable, and certainly I believe that a news site needs some sort of editorial control. If the news site is an aggregator of other news sites (forgive me if I've misunderstood something here) then I don't see why we can't reference those news sources directly. And if we can't source the news sources directly, then are those news sources in turn reliable or verifiable? - ] (formerly ]) <sup>]</sup> 13:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Gibnews.net acts as an archive of press releases and news stories from a number of contributors. Not all of them present the material online, and even where they do, their archives are not always complete or in good working order, indeed I just found an example Click on any of the press releases for 2006. --] (]) 18:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::So why can we consider that the press releases you have on the site reliable? - ] (formerly ]) <sup>]</sup> 07:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Just because Red is involved, that doesn't make his points any less valid. If you want your site to be used here, I suggest you answer his points.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 05:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	::As someone whose entire knowledge of this subject comes from this section, I think that most of Red's points are irrelevant to ''this'' discussion. There is an obvious conclusion that gibnews.net (the site) as a republisher of primary sources is not a secondary source and so can not be used as such. The only question remaining to be answered is "Is gibnews.net a reliable republisher of primary sources?".
	::If the answer is no, then it should not be used as a source on Misplaced Pages and no more discussion needs to take place. If the answer is that it is reliable, then the primary sources it republishes can be used in articles where there is a consensus among editors of the individual articles to do so. Any personal attributes of gibnews (the Misplaced Pages editor) are irrelevant to ''this'' discussion, as are any views he does or does not hold about any topic.
	::Whether gibnews.net (the site) hosts content from all points on the spectrum of opinion regarding the sovereignty of Gibraltar is also irrelevant as it is not the only possible source for reliable references regarding Gibraltar - each article needs to be balanced, and if primary sources supporting only one side of the debate can be found on gibnews.net then references supporting the other side can be found from other sources.
	::In a hypothetical dispute between Russia and France, it is conceivable that ] and ] would each only carry primary reporting that supported their country's side of the dispute. This does not mean that we cannot use either as sources, just that we cannot use either as the only source - something we should never do anyway. ] (]) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Strongly disagree. The questions are an attempt to get Gibnews to demonstrate that the site is a ''reliable and faithful'' archiver of press content. (It is fairly obvious that a press release is a primary source.) <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 13:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	''The following is moved from my talk page, as I do not feel it is approrpriate to try and sidestep this discussion in that way'':
	<blockquote>
	Hi, posting here because I don't want to fill up the RS page. This site demands special attention, because of the potential conflict of interests involved. This editor is very active at ], and holds very strong views about its relationships with Britain and Spain. Maintaining a NPOV at that page is at times very difficult. A Misplaced Pages editor is using material from a site ''that he runs'' (even if it's just storing away documents he didn't write) to edit a page which has constant POV problems, so there is a very real potential conflict of interest. For example, it would be very easy to twist the meaning of a press release by editing out certain sentences. Or indeed, to omit a press release entirely from your archive, because it contained something you didn't like. Such a selectively operated collection of primary sources would be implicitly biased, and the site would not be reliable. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 13:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)</blockquote>
	:Taking your points individually
	*Potential conflicts of interest are dealt with at ]. Just because one user has a potential conflict of interest with a source, does not mean that source is not reliable.
	*If the press releases are edited then it is not a reliable source, regardless of who or why they are edited.
	*If the press releases are not edited, and it can be verified that they are not, then it is reliable. This is what the discussion is attempting to determine. If they are not edited it is irrelevant that they could be.
	*If it cannot be verified either way whether they are edited or not, we cannot verify whether the site is reliable and it should not be used.
	*Just because a press release is not in an archive does not mean anything, other sources exist, and we should never rely on just one source.
	*It does not matter whether primary sources are biased or not. What matters is that the articles are not biassed. This is done by citing multiple sources that verify all sides of an argument. For example the governments of Spain and Gibraltar hold differing views about the sovereignty of Gibraltar, as so both sources are biassed about the topic. However both sources are citied in the article, because they are reliable sources that verify their respective positions.
	*The appropriateness of a single reliable source for verifying a specific article is a matter for discussion on that article's talk page.
	:I think that you would do well to remember that "reliable" and "biased" are independent qualities. For example, the Government of Gibraltar is a source that is both reliable and biased, while an unsourced Misplaced Pages article can be both neutral and unreliable. Also, I would caution you to comment on the content and not the person as several of your contributions to this debate are aproaching personal attacks against ]. ] (]) 13:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Erm, that is exactly what my questions above which you dismissed are trying to establish. Anyway, it is a moot point because Gibnews has already kindly given answers to them below. And, I disagree with your understanding of bias. For example, in statistics we have something called ]. Anyone whose sayings or writings have been taken out of context and (mis)quoted in the media will understand the importance of selection bias in that context. The lead of that article sums it up nicely. "If the selection bias is not taken into account then any conclusions drawn may be wrong." <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 13:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	=== Some Answers to editors questions ===
	* ] Q. References to material on gibnews.net
	UNISCI Discussion Papers, Nº 12 (Octubre / October 2006) ISSN 1696-2206
	LO ESTRATÉGICO EN LA CUESTIÓN DE GIBRALTAR by Luis Romero (in Spanish)]
	* ] Q. why can we consider that the press releases you have on the site reliable?
	The site is published and read in Gibraltar, it would not last a week if there were disputes with the content shown and the providers, However, as noted '''some''' press releases are available on other sites, feel free to check that the versions agree.
	For an example of policing of websites see
	* ]] Q. Answer Red Hat questions.
	I'd rather not get into a long debate with that editor as there is a long history of conflict. BUT as you ask.
	:Who ensures that the press releases have been faithfully and/or accurately transcribed by the owners of the website?
	The content providers do that.
	:How can a reader tell that the owners of the website are choosing to censor certain material - ommitting words, sentences, or paragraphs? Especially when the owners "reserve the right to remove any content without giving a reason."
	The mission statement for the site, and the terms of conditions state specifically that does not happen. The reference to removing content is a legal requirement to avoid litigation. In the event it would be necessary the entire item and the content providers access would be removed. This has never happened. All sites and hosting services TOS contain similar provisions.
	:This begs the question, who is behind gibnews.net? The "company" and its staff are anonymous. Who is it that can remove content without giving a reason? If I want to find out who runs the GBC or FSC I can .
	Neither of your references give the name of their webmasters. However the issue is '''the content''' which is provided externally, so the question is inappropriate.
	:You are the site's webmaster. Do you wield editorial discretion? If you do not, can you demonstrate that you do not, for example, by providing the name of the owner of the site who will attest to that fact?
	See above
	:If you do, is it not a serious conflict of interest that you are attempting to use the site as a source in Misplaced Pages, yet you wield editorial discretion over what is posted there?
	See above.
	:How can a reader tell that the owners of the website are not cherry picking certain material to publish?
	It really does not matter. If the material there is both accurate and provided by the content providers, then its a valid reference. Its hard to cite material that is not there ...
	:How can a reader tell that anyone wishing to post a press release or opinion there is free to do so? (e.g. would one of the very small number of Gibraltar residents who voted to return to Spanish rule be able share their opinion or post press releases free of censorship?).
	That is rather scraping the barrel, say: ''We invite organisations based in Gibraltar who issue press releases on a regular basis to participate in this website by entering their content directly, or emailing us.'' As of today there are no organisations in Gibraltar proposing any political relationship with Spain. But a news site does not have to express EVERY opinion, '''the issue here is whether the material presented is reliable.'''
	:Who are the people who share their opinions? Are they experts in their field?
	The website does not have 'an opinion' it presents the material submitted by its content providers, who are named and listed.
	:Do any other reputable organisations demonstrably use gibnews.net as a source of information? If so, please provide them.
	See answer to the other editor above for '''people citing''' material from it. including:
	Luis Romero in an academic paper for a Spanish university.
	Luis Romero Bartumeus es periodista, Master en Paz, Seguridad y Defensa (UNED), jefe de Relaciones Externas de la Mancomunidad de Municipios del Campo de Gibraltar. Miembro colaborador del Instituto de Estudios Campogibraltareños. Autor de El Estrecho en la política de seguridad española del siglo XX (2003),
	Algeciras, APCG. Su principal línea de investigación se centra en la seguridad en la zona del estrecho de Gibraltar.
	:Governmental bodies and media outlets in Gibraltar have their own distribution channels, e.g. and extensive archives Why does Misplaced Pages need to resort to this private repository of information?
	Not everyone has an online archive of their press releases.
	1. The GoG archive does not always return documents and they are in .pdf format
	2. The Gibraltar Chronicle limits access to its archive and it has changed recently.
	The links on gibnews.net are by design permanent.
	3. www.gbc.gi does not provide a public archive of its news stories, only todays.
	4. The FSC has its own arangements and I don't think they contribute to gibnews.net although they would be eligible to do so. As their site changes regularly maybe they should.
	Similarly the GSLP publish press releases on their own website, but only from 2009 and the site format changes regularly and the CMS used has been troublesome. But again you can cross check material there against gibnews.net.
	SUMMARY
	For the avoidance of doubt, I registered my username here shortly after doing some work designing templates for that website, and it seemed a good idea at the time, not realising the amount of hassle I might encounter on Misplaced Pages from some editors. Later realising there might be some confusion - although its a sufficiently general term - I tried to change my username to something else but it did not work.
	I also registered the domain ecrg.eu - the content on the European Conservative and Reformists Group is not mine either any more that the content of Misplaced Pages belongs to Jimmy Wales and whoever wrote the wikipedia software, but I expect they would defend its integrity robustly.
	The issue should be reliability of '''the content''' not an implied personal attack on the site owners or myself.
	--] (]) 12:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	:I appreciate the answers to my questions, Gibnews (still digesting them). In the meantime, I have one more:
	:*What is the financial relationship between you/the owners, the site, and the organizations whose press releases you post there? For example, do organizations have to pay to host content there, and do you receive compensation for operating the website, either directly because the money goes into a bank account owned by you, or indirectly because the money goes into a bank account owned by a registered company who then compensate you for your work on the site?
	:The reason I ask is to establish whether there is any possibility of . <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 13:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	The reply comes in three parts.
	1. My finances are none of your business, and quite irrelevant.
	2. The site makes it quite clear there are no charges to content providers.
	3. The content providers are organisations like
	* The Government of Gibraltar
	* The Police
	* The Governors office
	* The Opposition
	* The Ministry of Defence
	Are you ''seriously'' suggesting I bung the above organisations brown envelopes in order to write press releases to win arguments on Misplaced Pages ?
	--] (]) 20:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	:This is really more appropriate at ] (I didn't know about that page until another editor posted it here), but I was just asking you to clarify that by linking to your site - and let's be clear about this - it is <u>your</u> site, and it's only <u>you</u> that so desperately wants to use it - that you would not be in a position to financially benefit, because, say, you were being paid by organisations to promote their material on the interweb. If you did that on Misplaced Pages, that would be everyone's business here, not just yours. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 21:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Lets say it again, I wrote the scripts and templates. The domain is owned by a company. That is a separate legal entity to me. I find it to be a useful resource and others do too. It has primary sources which are not available anywhere else. The information is from significant reliable entities. The website is FREE and a handful of links from Misplaced Pages do not get me excited.
	::The content providers listed above, who comprise the bulk of the contributions really '''are not the least bit interested''' in 'being promoted on the net' They are not-for-profit organisations, not commercial companies - Stop barrel scraping, its empty. --] (]) 00:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::I agree, the question about finances is out of line. Gibnews, I don't think you need to answer this question. For the record, you've done enough to convince me now, you have turned my previous negative opinion around about the site and I now believe that for things such as press releases the project is reliable enough to use on Misplaced Pages.
	:::It might have been more helpful if you had edited under another username, but as you have been here for so long I don't think it's an actionable point :-) While you built the site, I'm going to AGF on this one and believe you when you say that you don't have a negative COI with regards to this source. If anything, that you are willing to explain that you built the site goes to my mind that you are being honest about your position. I apologise if my comments in the block proposal were out of order, but I was particularly concerned over a number of areas, all of which you have now addressed. Thank you. - ] (formerly ]) <sup>]</sup> 07:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::Financial journalists disclose whether they own stock in ABC Corporation if they write a report on ABC Corporation. Companies must disclose if they have funded research into their product that they then publish. Executives must disclose if they have given presents to government officials. My financial questions to Gibnews were no more intrusive than those kinds of disclosures are. I was not asking how much he gets paid or what is in his bank account. It is frankly rather naive to say my question is out of line, and anyway, I was asking no more than what is written at the COI behavioural guideline section on financial matters . <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 13:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I have raised this at ] as on two occasions now, my COI-related questions have been dismissed out of hand. As I said there, if there are no COI objections, I won't pursue the matter any further and will continue to deal with usage of this site as a source on a case by case basis. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 13:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Actually, I'd say that the financial questions have been answered perfectly satisfactorily - Gibnews (the editor) has no financial relationship with any of the organisations that publish press releases on Ginbews.net (the site), and gains no financial benefit from the site being mentioned on Misplaced Pages. Publishing press releases on the site is voluntary and free, there is no financial incentive given to organisations to publish their press releases on Gibnews.net and there is no restriction on them publishing their press releases in other locations as well. Based on all the answers given by Gibnews (the editor), I believe that Gibnews.net is a reliable republisher of primary source material. ] (]) 17:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	== Blogs on ] ==
	{{la|Yeshivat HaRaayon HaYehudi}} -- another editor ({{user|Eliscoming1234}}) wants to use blogs as sources (e.g. ). I have indicated on the talk page that this is unacceptable, but my attempt to remove these references and ask for better ones was reverted. This should be a straightforward matter, but rather than get into edit war I'm looking for feedback here. ] (]) 19:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	:This is the official blog of Yeshivat HaRaayon HaYehudi linked from hameir.org (e.g. http://kahane.hameir.org/content/blogsection/0/9/) and (while the site was accessible) from kahane.org (see http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://kahane.org). Therefore, this blog is a reliable source to the same extent as kahane.org and hameir.org. Per ], ''self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information '''about themselves''', especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field.'' --] (]) 21:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	::I see no evidence that this is their "official" blog. Even that first site you give isn't active. In fact none of them are active. ] (]) 22:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	::: The Blog states it was created to "KEEPING THE AUTHENTIC JEWISH IDEA ALIVE THROUGH THE LIGHT OF TORAH!"; virtually the same reason why this Yeshiva was created. The blog also links to to website, a website of the Yeshiva. I never said that the blog officially represented the Yeshiva, only that they preach the same thing. Whether or not the website are "active" has absolutely no importance in this discussion whatsoever. Please keep your personal comments to yourself. ] can most definitely be considered an "expert in the field" as he is the one who founded the blog and has been one of the most active people in the ].--] (]) 23:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	::: Sites are inactive due to government persecution. The fact that they are inactive, however, is not relevant, as both featured links to the blog while they were active. --] (]) 00:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::: That comment is irrelevant. However, I will respond to it. Only www.Kahane.org was taken down due to "government persecution". www.Hameir.org connection died or something, and the Blog just hasnt been posted on in a bit.
	::::: Eliscoming1234: first, it seems that you do not distinguish between my comments (I believe that the blog is RS in this case) and those of Nomoskedasticity, who started this discussion. Second, the fact that one of blog editors calls himself David Ha'ivri does not prove his identity or link the blog to the Yeshiva. A link from an official or closely related web site does link the blog to the subject of the article, making it a permissible source, per section of WP:IRS quoted earlier - ''without the requirement that they be published experts in the field''. So, no need to argue about expertise here. Finally, although it is not relevant here, a number of related web sites were taken down under pressure from US and Israeli governments on owners and/or hosting providers, including the original content of kahanetzadak.com. --] (]) 02:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	Even if the links in question could be verified, I fail to see how they constitute evidence that this blog is the "official site" of the yeshiva. ] (]) 20:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	== Inter-Disciplinary Press ==
	Are reliable for citations about politics in black metal? I guess they are, since they look like academic publications and therefore may be the most reliable sources for such citations. Though some people in ] have doubts about it. ] (]) 21:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
	:At a glance, I'd say the summary of the paper from the academic at McMaster is a reliable source, and the paper from the radio station music director might be if it's a significant radio station. What assertions specifically are these sources being used to justify? ] (]) 17:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	:: Well, it's about the existence of anarchist / radical leftist black metal bands. If the paper by J.Davisson is a reliable source, then that kind of black metal is notable enough to be mentioned in the article (the other sources are either not reliable enough, or are primary sources). ] (]) 17:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::You might want to look into Davisson a bit further and see if s/he is generally a respected commentator on the subject. The source doesn't seem obviously ''un''reliable... ] (]) 12:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
	== Famous Pictures Magazine ==
	Is the Famous Pictures Magazine a reliable source for a copyright status of the photos presented there?--] (]) 03:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	: Er ... no. http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.php?title=User:DeanLucas "Hello. My name is Dean Lucas and I'm the admin and as of this moment the only contributor to the Famous Pictures Project. I'm something of a history nut and have always been fascinated by famous pictures and the stories behind them. I started out this project as a book concept. I've tried to submit the idea to a number of publishers but no luck. Plan B was this webpage. I've recently added ads in hopes of paying the bills to keep this site going." I think we want a bit more in the way of qualifications than "history nut". --] (]) 13:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	:No. ] websites make all sorts of claims regarding the copyright status of the material contained in them. These claims are often incorrect. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	This is a contentious article on a controversial Israeli dissident journalist. As such, it suffers frequent edit wars and disputed sources. The latest dispute raises some issues which I think require general clarification.
	A hostile comment has been added to the article, sourced to the Israeli news aggregating site "Omedia". This site is currently undergoing upgrade, and none of its content is available. Following the link originally cited in the article gives a 404 page unavailable error. In an attempt to check the validity of the source and the context of the comment, I discovered the same text at a different site -- a blog by an Israeli settler in the Golan Heights, Uri Heitner. The blog asserts that Heitner wrote this text, as does a second website quoting this. These appear to be the only two sites where the text is currently available.
	Despite this, another editor claims that the text was actually written by Ran Farhi, an editor at Omedia, and is repeatedly restoring the text, sourced to Omedia.
	I have two questions here:
	1) Is there any justification for repeatedly citing an unavailable link, rather than an alternative site where the text is available?
	2) Is a blog a reliable source for extremely hostile comments about a living person? Would Omedia (if the material originated there, rather than on a blog" be acceptable?
	Please note that all of the sources here are in Hebrew. There is a separate issue, which can probably be resolved, over the accuracy of the translations used. I am asking here merely about the reliability and relevance of sources.<span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 14:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	:On your 1), a live link is only a small part of an RS. Many RS have no weblink at all, for example books. One could cite a Ha'aretz article with the date, article title, author and no link; its reliability would not be affected. We give links where possible as a courtesy to the reader, and a dead link should not be included as it is just wasting the reader's time. On 2), you must '''on no account''' use a blog as a source on a BLP. Would Omedia be an acceptable source? I don't think so. This looks like op-ed rather than news, not good for a BLP, unless ''perhaps'' you can show it was written by a notable commentator. If Omedia is really a "news aggregating site" then it is probably a reprint, but from where? If you cannot even be sure who authored it, if different websites have given different authorship, then it should not be in the article. You might want to post on WP:BLPN for further views. ] (]) 16:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	::But Omedia exists only as a website. If it is down, there is no way another editor could verify the alleged contents of a page there. I should have added that the relevant page is not even available from the Internet Archive/Wayback Machine. This has been ]; but the offending passage has still been repeatedly restored to the article. I agree with your assessment of the sources and their reliability, as it seems do most of the editors on this page; but this has not prevented the continued war of attrition going on there. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 17:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::My view is in line with those of the two uninvolved editors who commented on WP:BLPN. There is no indication that this source is reliable. The burden of proof is on the editor who wants to add material from it. It should be kept off this BLP unless it can be shown to be RS. 1RR applies on a BLP. Repeated attempts to add it should be regarded as vandalism. I think that is all the can be said on this noticeboard. ] (]) 23:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::Well, the two editors on BLPN are involved but that's not really the issue. As for the BLP, there is no BLP concern since the source is just one of 3+ that say the same thing and all are reliable. The crux of the problem, for me, was that RolandR saw the Omedia article and suddenly insisted that he'd never seen it there (contradictions in his comments on this matter are in abundance). Moving past that, there's really nothing special in the Omedia article and, preferring to keep the article moving than to insist on reviewing the gaming problem, I'd rather not use this source while Omedia is down.
	::::Warm regards, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 03:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::This is about the fifth time that Jaakobou has accused me of lying in this matter; if he does so again, I will file a complaint about his behaviour.
	:::::In any case, this is irrelevant. He can provide no sources for his claim, while I can provide two for mine. As the person wishing to add this smear, the onus is on him to prove that it is relevant, reliably sourced, and not in breach of BLP. So far, he has failed on all three counts. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 10:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::On BLPN, another editor reports that he wrote to Heitner, who confirms that he wrote this piece on his blog. So that should resolve this matter. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 14:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	== Citizendium (aka, sub-academic-quality peer review) ==
	Citizendium has been discussed before ] ("OK if not spam") and ] ("it's a mess"). Neither discussion mentions the (new?) distinction within citizendium between "approved" and nonapproved (draft?) articles. I believe that unapproved Citizendium articles are no better than wikipedia ones (ie, not RS) but that '''"approved" articles there have gone through a peer review that should make them RS'''.
	The reason I bring this up is ] in the Voting Systems wikiproject. The point is that there is a lot of expertise on voting systems which is not published in any RS. My idea, in line with what ] proposes, is to use existing forums (electowiki and the election methods mailing list) to bring enough expertise to write and peer-review some articles on Citizendium, then use those articles as reliable sources for wikipedia. I'm not talking about cutting-edge "I just thought of a great voting system which obeys criteria X, Y, and Z"-type stuff - that will never be stable enough for Citizendium - but about getting basic simulation data like Yee's pictures "vetted" as being accurate and unbiased. ] (]) 20:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Our goal is to cite the most reliable sources on any given topic. Citizendium is a tertiariy source, and as such will never ''be'' the most reliable source on any given topic. Anything it says will have been said more reliably and in better context by a secondary source. Because of this, it should be used as a research tool for finding these reliable sources, not as a reliable source in itself. so... go to Citizendium, sure, and see what they cite in their articles... then go read those sources and cite those sources, not Citizendium. (By the way, this is the same advice I give my students about doing research on Misplaced Pages.) ] (]) 20:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::My point is that this is an area where there is a community of knowledge and practice which, in general, has little access to reliable sources. Although there are a number of mathemeticians, economists, and political scientists on the Elections Methods mailing list, papers on these topics - even high-quality papers - tend to languish, because the subject is in a no-mans-land between these disciplines. (It is also, admittedly, an area that attracts amateurs and POV - but I would distinguish that from a more-typical fringe set of theories, because voting system theory is mostly considered too trivial for academic mathematics, not too inaccurate; and although there is a fair amount of POV, the mathematical ground rules are accepted by consensus). The point of publishing on Citizendium would be to use an existing infrastructure to peer-review sources which meet all Misplaced Pages criteria for RS except peer review. In other words, in this case, it would take on functions akin to those of an academic journal, and thus, while themselves sourced, its statements would become effectively a secondary source for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 20:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Ah... you want to use Citizendium ''as if'' it were an accademic journal... to publish ], claim it has been peer reviewed, and then cite it here? I don't think that would fly. ] (]) 21:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::No. I want to '''actually''' peer review it there. There is a real group of peers already existing on the EM mailing list, including most of the top acknowledged experts in the field; a diverse and contentious bunch, who nevertheless IMO have the ability to agree on the standards for certain consensus and NPOV work. This would take time, but it is clearly more feasible than founding an academic journal for the purpose. I understand your skepticism, but please consider it from my perspective. There is decades-old work which is accepted as valid within certain unquestioned limits by a community of experts, work I have found out about third-hand through ideological opponents of its authors, which still constitutes ] by wikipedia standards. Citizendium represents a good-faith attempt to create a peer review process for reliability, and this process appears to me to meet the explicit standards of ]. My proposal would allow an improvement of the relevant articles in Misplaced Pages, which, in many cases, already reference or include the "OR" (but people let it slide because the various POV groups can accept that it's NPOV as it stands, and it's in no-one's interest to denude the articles of accepted facts.) ] (]) 21:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Perhaps I should ask it concretely. Assume for a moment that a vigorous expert peer review process had happened on Citizendium, and that through that process, an article there had reached "approved" status (equivalent to FA here). What, if anything, would constitute sufficient evidence of the vigor of that process to use it as an RS here? To me, if the EM list were aware of it, it's continued "approved" status would be enough, but I infer you see things differently.
	:::(On a broader note: yes, I know that some unapproved parts of Citizendium are just effectively POV forks of Misplaced Pages. I do have some faith in their process, though, and would be gratified to see the two encyclopedias work in complementary and not just competing ways.)
	:::] (]) 22:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::Some characteristics of a reliable peer-reviewed source are
	::::*authenticity &ndash; once peer-reviewed and published, articles cannot be changed
	::::*acceptance by other publications, that is, a decent impact factor.
	::::A publication can't start a peer-review process on Monday and be considered a reliable source on Tuesday; it would take years of consistent high-quality articles, acknowledged as such by other publications in the field, before it would be a reliable source. ] (]) 22:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Thanks, that's a good response. As to factor 1 (authenticity), that's part of the Citizendium process: an article version is, once accepted, always accepted; that is, it's still considered valid although superceded by other versions (provisional or accepted in their own right). Factor 2 (acceptance) is, of course, much much harder. So hard in fact that a whole lot of what counts as RS in wikipedia is a long way from that. (Just as an example from another RS question I've been involved in, NarcoNews is not a high-impact source, for instance, but it has enough of an editorial policy to be an RS on simple facts.) So what's different about the case I'm proposing? Just the fact that it's an academic topic? And yet the relevant credentials of those I'd (hope to) involve would not be a factor? ] (]) 22:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	::It might be Citizendium's goal to have a reputation for academic level peer review... but it ain't there yet. And it is that reputation that we need. Another wiki can not be used as an end run around WP:NOR. ] (]) 23:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::No, it's not their goal. However, they do have an editorial policy easily more stringent (for approved article status) than many edited online news sources which are commonly accepted as cites in Misplaced Pages such as (looking above here) Huffington Post (for non-editorial content... perhaps a better example would be TPMMuckraker).
	:::"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The question here is: if there are several "established expert"s who have not "produced" the material, but who have reviewed and approved it (through a formal, rigorous, but sub-academic process like that of Citizendium), would that still count? If so, how many experts would it take, and how could one demonstrate that such experts were independent (ie, not a POV clique)? ] (]) 00:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::What independent reliable source thinks Citizendium's accepted articles are just fine, and are suitable for citing in serious work? If you give us quotes from these independent sources, Citizendium is a non-starter. ] (]) 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::In my last message, I wasn't basing any (hypothetical) reliability on Citizendium's own subject-specific reliability. The reliability would be that of the "established expert(s) on the topic of the article" who vouched for the Citizendium article. Citizendium itself would only be validating the fact that these specific people had gone through a formal process in which they vouched for the article.
	:::If not Citizendium, aside from academic peer review, is there any way for a special-interest community which includes such "established expert(s)" to produce an RS survey of common knowledge in their field of interest, if that knowledge is not already otherwise published in an RS? The facts in question are not novel and advanced enough to be publishable in the academic press, yet are generally too technical to be publishable in for an audience of the general public. There have been books on the area which, though meant for a general audience, do include some technical aspects, but these books are rare, and do not systematically survey the common ground of knowledge. ] (]) 00:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Sure... an established and acknowledged expert could publish a book... we could probably even accept the information if it were published on a website. The key is that it has to come from someone who is acknowledged as an expert. ] (]) 01:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Could they '''edit''' or otherwise '''review and approve''' a book or a website? The point is that the community does the work, and the experts provide the review and a verifiable seal of approval. (Thus the Citizendium proposal, though that's not central; I'd love suggestions of other accessible and transparent review mechanisms.) ] (]) 01:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::bump (on question directly above) ] (]) 02:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::BB, your recommendation often won't work, because CZ, unlike WP, doesn't have a policy of giving citations for everything. I agree that, as a tertiary source, it's less reliable than secondary sources, but WP has to make do with whatever sources its own editors may have found by any given point in time, which will often mean tertiary ones.
	::::It might help if I summarize the CZ procedures here. Firstly, note that the term"editor" is used in a different sense. Over there, it means an expert, ordinary contributors being described as authors. An editor's qualifications are stated on their user page for all to see. They've been verified as true along with their identity by the CZ authorities, who've also judged them sufficient to qualify as an editor.
	::::An approved article must have been approved by 3 editors, or 1 if that 1 has made no contributions to the article other than minor copyediting. The name(s) of the approving editor(s) can be found by a link from the article. Note that this is different from the normal procedure in peer-reviewed publications, where the reviewers are anonymous. ] (]) 11:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::I found a directly applicable guideline: ''"An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may, exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics. In this sense, where moderators act as editors to review material and challenge or correct any factual errors, they could have an adequate level of integrity. This exception would only be appropriate to fields that are not well covered by print sources, where experts traditionally publish online."'' Personally, I'd say that CZ meets the forum qualifications, and voting systems meets the field qualifications. Can I get a second opinion on both questions? (Then I'd start the work of creating a quality voting systems article on CZ, and convincing enough acknowledged experts to register there and approve it.)] (]) 15:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::So what articels and information do you want to use this to cite for? Also how does this site check the credentials of its editors?] (]) 15:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::''What information'': I'd like to create a version of the ] article here, over there. Honestly, the article here has big holes in its citations. For instance, over half of the central table on criteria is just allowed to exist by consensus - it's verifiable mathematically, not by citation. Such an article could also use results which are verifiable through open-source software (such as Warren Smith's IEVS or Ka-Ping Yee's visualizations) and draw conservative, consensus conclusions from such results which would constitute OR here (note that the conclusions Smith himself draws go far beyond that. I really do mean "conservative, consensus".) I believe that I could then get a diverse group of voting system experts with relevant credentials to vigorously review and eventually approve such an article.
	:::I expect that there would be a healthy similar role for CZ in other areas in which there exists a diverse community of credentialed experts with a substantial body of common knowledge that's not published in reliable sources.
	:::''How CZ confirms qualifications'': When you apply as an editor (not just an author) there, you are asked for documentation of your credentials, which is checked by the "constables" (roughly equivalent to WP admins, though their role there is more as enforcers and less as facilitators).
	:::So, does anyone (dis)agree that, if I get 3 acknowledged experts to approve it, this would fit under the guideline I cite in italics above? If nobody agrees, there's little point really to doing the work.
	:::] (]) 16:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::Homunq, you are asking for a theoretical approval (not binding!) of a theoretical possibility, and Misplaced Pages doesn't work that way. Sure, I proposed a similar idea, more or less (more than two years ago!), as you mentioned, but I would not expect it to be approved here if it hadn't actually happened already, if there were not a publication already in existence that could then be judged on reliability. So if you need approval first before the work is done, it won't happen. My recommendation is to help develop a Citizendium article! And then try to put material in articles here based on it, if there aren't better sources, or ask here at the time if necessary. I'll say it could be useful, it could be better than the status quo. Or maybe not. Depends. --] (]) 04:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I did not ask do they check the credentials I asked how mthey check them? Moreover what are thier criteria for expertise, do they for exampple accept the university of pay and you get a degreee?.] (]) 13:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Abd: You're probably right. Basically, I was pre-checking to see if there were any insurmountable obstacles, not to get a binding pre-approval.
	:::Slatersteven: "How" depends on the documentation. I don't know the exact details, but basically they look for some kind of third-party confirmation on the web, or for scans of official documentation. They look at your whole CV - degree, publications, employment. They are not looking for best-in-field, just for everyday credentials. Your confirmed CV is posted for all to see. ] (]) 14:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::So basicly their 'experts' may not be of a high calibure but any one who has a qualification. As to Cv's we have this ] which tells me nothing about how he obtained his credentials, unless this is not his CV. We have this ] Who claims that a hobby interest makes him able to work on that subject. Many of the others read like either hobbyists or ordinary profesionals (in the sence of working within an industry), not experts in thier fields. Certainly there are also many high level proffesional but how can we tell who will edit the material?] (]) 14:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	CZ, even their "approved" articles are not reliable sources. There are serious lapses in quality control. ] (]) 22:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Hipocrite, I'd be interested to hear more. Still, I think I've explored it enough to expect it would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and that with good enough experts, CZ could be a citable source. (It's only to fill the gaps in Voting Systems, to get it back up to its erstwhile FA status without losing information) To work. ] (]) 14:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	::The only way Homunq's hypothetical could ever work would be if it could be clearly demonstrated that every one of the citizendium reviewers were previously established experts in the topic field (ie considered experts not because citizendium considers them so... but because they have written academic quality papers/books etc. that have been published ''outside'' of citizendium and have a non-citizendum reputation). This senario could concievably place a particular citizendium article on a par with other traditionally published encyclopedias. However, since citizendium does not currently work that way, nor is it ever ''likely'' to work that way, the hypothetical is not realistic. We must continue to say that citizendium is not a reliable source. ] (]) 15:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::I mostly agree with Blueboar. I think that, technically, just one (very high-calibre) expert reviewer would be enough, though of course 2 (solid) would be better; there's no need for every one of the reviewers to be "expert" by WP standards, since each is independently approving the whole of the article. Also, while I agree that it is (very) unlikely that CZ as a whole will work that way, I think it's not unlikely that individual articles could meet this standard. So my take-away is that CZ is not per se reliable, but it does contain enough information to potentially establish reliability, which is good enough for me. ] (]) 19:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::But is there any method that we can use to determine if an article has been edited by experts in thier fields, or just any one with the right qaulifications (by thier standerds)? Also where would we stand over articles that have not yet approved (the site seems to be full of them).] (]) 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::1. We're not talking about who edited the articles, but about who reviewed and approved them. This information, along with a confirmed CV, is linked from an approved article. That should be enough to establish whether or not they're relevant experts by a WP definition. 2. Unapproved articles would NOT be RS (in principle no better, and in practice often worse, than corresponding WP articles). ] (]) 19:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::Yes we are, those who create articels appear to be called Authors, editors are the persons who review and approve articels it would seem.
	::::So you are sugesting that we shuokld check each article each time some one wnats to use one to see if its been peer reviwed by relevant experts. Moreover what happens when an article has had an expert review it, but changes have been amde after this by non experts?] (]) 19:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::(EC) Homunq, it seems to me you have already gotten a very clear, firm answer, but are continuing to try to pick it apart. Citizendium is not a reliable source, at all. no matter how you try to twist the "approved" thing they are doing, or try to say "well this one was reviewed by one claimed expert", it will still not be a reliable source. It is not a "peer reviewed" anything, its no different from Misplaced Pages and is not usable as any sort of source. And if, as you note above, they are not required to provide sources, they obviously are not experts nor professionals writing reliable sourced materials either as no peer review work would accept a lack of valid scholarship. And no matter how much you twist it, not it is not something to be decided on a case by case or article by article basis. It is not a reliable source. -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 19:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Collectonian, you put me in an untenable position. If I disagree with you in any way, I am confirming your charge of "picking it apart". Since this whole thread is based on a hypothetical, I'll drop it, but I reserve the right to pick it up later if it becomes a concrete question. I agree with Abd and Blueboar - I made a mistake in pressing a hypothetical. ] (]) 16:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
	== Who's Who not RS? ==
	http://www.marquiswhoswho.com/products/WAprodinfo.asp
	Is this not a RS? You can nominate a friend. You can write your own biography. (see lower left) To me, that is a paid directory, not a RS. If you disagree, I am open to listening. ] (]) 06:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	*Not even close to a RS. ] (]) 06:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	**Long established on wiki as not a RS. ''''']''''' 07:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	Thank you. I will now not write a new article based on a biographical entry that I saw there. I was debating what to do. Thank you. ] (]) 03:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Ahem. You can nominate a friend, but there is no reason to believe he/she would necessarily get in. And, it's not a '''paid''' directory. (They try to get people named to buy copies for themselves, or to give to friends, but they don't charge for listing.) That being said, the entries are written by the individuals in question, so the details are not usable, although the fact of listing ''may'' be a general indication that the person is notable. (Disclaimer: I am listed in "Marquis Who's Who in America". I assure you that I didn't pay anything for the entry.) — ] ] 16:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Hmmm... the notability issue is interesting... the entire concept behind Who's Who is to be a listing of notable people... however, WP:NOTE calls for notibility to be established by ''reliable'' sources... if Who's who is not reliable, then it would not qualify for establishing notability. So we have a listing of notable people that can not be ''used'' to establish that they actually ''are'' notable. I love a good paradox. ] (]) 16:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Who's Who only pretends to be a listing of notable people, so there's really no paradox at all....~
	::::There is a difference between (A&C Black's) Who's Who and Marquis Who's Who. ] ] 19:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	== Is this the way Misplaced Pages works? ==
	After 11 days on this board, the discussion on the topic is bogged down with no clear consensus. Four uninvolved editors say the source meets Misplaced Pages standards as an acceptable ]. One uninvolved editor dissents. I tried to summarize, but when I said it appears to be a consensus I was slapped down and a long, non-productive discussion followed. Who actually makes a decision as to whether the source is reliable when four editors say it meets standards and one doesn't? Whatever you call it, the status quo is not a consensus. Is this the way Misplaced Pages works? ] (]) 16:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	:You'll never get a definitive opinion on WP, because we are all volunteers, and all equal. All you can get out of a board like this is a "sounding" of opinions of people not directly involved with your topic. If you feel your source is reliable, and there is no overwhelming consensus against it, go ahead and use it. Unless it's a BLP issue, a source doesn't have to be stellar to qualify as a reliable source; the bottom line should be common sense and general agreement on the article's talk page. ] (]) 17:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	::There's the rub - there is no general agreement on the article talk page.
	* As you noted, there actually is a clear consensus, notwithstanding the desire of some to ignore it. Consensus is not unanimity. ] (]) 15:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	**Err, there's a clear on-going discussion, which is making progress. A number of issues are still unresolved. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	== RS discussion ] ==
	Are these 2 citations reliable sources for the two sentences proposed for the ] Article?:
	Dr. Jerry Holmberg of the DHHS OPHS Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability stated at the CFSAC meeting on 30 Oct 2009 that, because studies have now associated XMRV with prostate cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome, the committee will investigate the blood safety threat from XMRV.(pgs 22-23)
	A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Blood XMRV Scientific Research Working Group has been formed according to the Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome Association of America, and included in the planned investigations are validation studies for XMRV testing, evaluation of the incidence of XMRV in the populace and blood supply (including subgroups), XMRV transmission studies, and human disease associations. Thanks. ] (]) 21:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Please see the discussion at . Medicine-related articles must have sources satisfying ]; none of these sources does. ] (]) 22:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	::] does not apply here, there are no medical claims, only details on formation and scope of a working group investigation on blood safety. ] (]) 23:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::If so, then you're engaging in speculation based upon the opinion of one individual as reported in a primary transcript. Such information is of no consequence and should not be included in an encyclopaedia, especially not in a medicine-related article. ] (]) 23:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::Not quite, Ward20 was summarising a written statement read out at a ] committee meeting read out by the senior technical advisor for blood policy within the ] on behalf of his boss the Assistant Secretary for ] responsible for Blood Safety. -- ] (]) 20:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	== Schoolbook map(s) ==
	::These maps, ] , ], ] are based on "historical atlas for schools, published in Belgrade in 1970, representing a view of Yugoslav historians from that time". They claim that ethnic(Albanians the 1 and the 3) groups that were not present in the location shown some 500 years before they are considered to have made their appearance (See ]). This has been pointed out, they have been discussed (]) and the maps have been removed many times. But the creator (that does not deny that the source is a schoolbook from 1970's Yugoslavia) has readded them repeatedly and may have even used Sockpuppets to do so. , , , , . Despite being a prolific map maker in general he still seems to ignore WP:RS. Here he uses a random googled site(Remember Sarajevo) to compare his map with .] (]) 15:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::As you are an opponent of the inclusion of these maps, it strikes me that it is only fair to hear from a proponent before opining. Megistias, would you mind notifying the person who offers these maps of this discussion?--] (]) 15:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::I have , i was actually looking for a tag to put there but i did not find it.] (]) 15:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Here he random googles websites again ] (]) 15:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Take note that 1970's Yugoslavia was a ''Totalitarian state'',in which the only legal political party was the League of Communists of Serbia] (])
	:::General view among most World historians is that Albanians are descendants of Illyrians and that they always lived in Albania and maps that I made reflect exactly that. User:Megistias is an Greek nationalist who have very negative ethnic attitude towards Albanians and he push here his POV that Albanians came from somewhere else and that they did not lived in Albania in 6th century. It is a minority view among historians and one that is not generally accepted and he attacking my work and want to discredit my maps simply because I made them in accordance with generally accepted historical view. Also, I do not see why an official historical atlas for schools should not be reliable source, especially when it only reflect generally accepted view, not minority one that user:Megistias trying to push. As for maps, I made them few days ago, and it was user:Megistias who was removing them because of his claim that they are wrong. I made many maps for Misplaced Pages related to various countries and recently when I made few maps related to Albanian history (note that I am not Albanian, but Serb from Novi Sad), user:Megistias started to attack my work, first in Wikimedia Commons, and now here, simply because my maps are not in accordance with his nationalistic anti-Albanian views. ] 16:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::As for Yugoslavia, it was not Soviet-type totalitarian state, but a country with its own more liberal form of socialism. I, however, fail to see how form of the state government of Yugoslavia would affect opinion of historians from that country, especially about subject (ethnic Albanians) that is unrelated to politics of Yugoslavia. Finally, does user:Megistias want to claim that all sources that come from China are unreliable because of the Chinese form of government? ] 16:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::All 3 maps are based on schoolbooks by a Totalitarian state.(No need to comment the rest as they are irrelevant and Panonian's personal viewpoint)] (]) 16:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Are all school books from China unreliable source then? ] 16:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::Also, I do not see that user:Megistias presented here any reliable (or even unreliable)source that would support his claim that Albanians migrated to Albania in year 1300. As I see it, we have only his word for it. ] 16:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::This is not a forum for chit-chat so stay on topic ,Reliable Sources. Since you completely ignore the Albanian origin issue (only Albanian ultranationalists claim that they were always there and old theorists).
	*Basic fact from a secondary source,''] (]) 16:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	**You obviously do not understand this source - term "Epirus" in this case means modern Epirus in Greece, not medieval despotate of Epirus, your source clearly say that "in 1337, the Albanians of Epirus Nova" "apperared for the first time in Epirus" (clearly, not in modern-day Albania, but in modern-day Epirus in Greece). ] 16:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	:: Albanians arrived in the region in 14th century AD.Epirus Nova is the term used for the Roman province that was most of Albania, Epirus Vetus was the Old Epirus, the one in Greece. I perfectly understand my source.] (]) 16:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::I know what "Epirus Nova" means, but your source does not mention that Albanians settled in Epirus Nova - it mention that "Albanians from Epirus Nova (Albania) settled in Epirus (Greece) in the 14th century". It does not mention that they settled in Epirus Nova - in fact it confirming sources from my atlas that they already were there. ] 16:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::American journal of philology, Tomes 98-99‎ -page 263,Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve, Tenney Frank, Harold Fredrik Cherniss, JSTOR (Organization), Project Muse - 1977,"It seems that the original home of the Albanians was in Northern Albania (Illyricum) rather than in the partly Hellenic and partly Hellenized Epirus Nova."] (])
	:::Original home from which century? There is difference between Albanian presence in different regions in different centuries. This source also does not contradict to my sources. ] 17:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::You have no sources, you have a book from a Totalitarian state. All secondary sources contradict you.] (]) 17:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::That is just empty rhetorical claim - it is obvious that you do not have sources and that two sources that you presented here are not contradicting to my original source. Can you present to us something else or not? ] 17:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::As always you ignore what Reliable sources are which is the issue at hand. You "source" is a schoolbook by a Totalitarian state, that even makes an unreal claim, thus no WP:RS.] (]) 17:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::I cannot ignore something that you never presented: you first have to present a source here and then I can say my opinion about that source. Also, how many times you will repeat words "totalitarian state" without answering my question are all sources from China then unreliable according to you? (and Yugoslavia was certainly more liberal country than China). Finally, you only objected here to presence of Albanians in south Albania, but why you removing from the articles my maps of Romania or Serbia? ] 17:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::Also, if you avoid to give an answer to my question are all sources from China unreliable, you will show that you in fact do not have an opinion about sources from "totalitarian states", but that you simply trying to find all possible ways to discredit my sources (and my sources only) only because info presented in such sources do not confirm your personal POV. ] 17:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::China? Take it to a forum.Stay on topic, your source is unreliable, Schoolbooks are for children.Since the beginning it has been noted that all 3 maps are rejectable as their source is unreliable.] (]) 18:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Schoolbooks are for children, but were not written by children. Schoolbooks are written by their school professors and if you claim that school professors are not reliable source then, according to your idea, all children would leave schools as ignorants and idiots (and then you will come to enlight them, I presume?). You can act like a , repeating over and over that my sources are not reliable, but I fail to see any proof for that. ] 19:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Collected Studies: Studies in Greek literature and history, excluding Epirus ... by Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond,page 499,"'''The Byzantine theme or province of Epirus Nova had in the extreme north Albanians, but the rest of the are had probably a mixed, mainly Greek-speaking people in the 11th and twelfth centuries. The first movement of the Albanians comes after the fall of Constantinople to the Latins in 1204.'''"
	*You are 600 years off] (]) 19:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::"Had '''probably'''"? Obviously, what you presenting here is just an theory whose author use word '''probably''' since he himself is not sure that it is correct. Also, as far as I know, , so your source obviously contains errors regarding historical timeline. Even if we forget these errors and fact that it is only assumption of that author, claims about Albanians from that source are only one theory about their origin and my map show another theory. I clearly noted on map page that it is a view of Yugoslav historians and I did not claimed that it is a "divine truth". If there are different theories about one subject, then I do not see why we cannot have several files illustrating each theory. Misplaced Pages is created as a project that is open for various ideas and points of view and it is not a church-type dogmatic project where only certain ideas and theories are forced and other are forbidden. ] 20:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Photobucket? Hammond is world-class scholar and you waste my time with answers like this? Read what Reliable sources are] (]) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Then you perhaps quoted him in wrong way - how else could Epirus Nova province appear in the 11th century? ] 22:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Dear Pannonian, names of themes,provinces the such are used in convention by scholars to define relevant regions.It is just like using familiar vs non-familiar toponyms for the sake of necessity.] (]) 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Even if he used name of Epirus Nova for wrong time period, he still refer to 11th century, not to 6th century (i.e. to the time after Slavic conquest of the Balkans). 11th century Greeks from that area could be settled there after Byzantine empire reconquered that area from Slavic/Bulgarian states in that century. Your source does not say anything about origin of these Greeks and it is hard to assume that they lived in Albania during Slavic rule. ] 22:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Read the source. What it states.] (]) 23:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	Maps in 1970s ] schoolbooks are not reliable sources. They're old and unscholarly, and come from a source not noted for factual accuracy or editorial oversight. Well, actually, yes for editorial oversight, but of a particular political kind. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::What is a base for such conclusion, Jayjg? Do you have any background on which you would claim that schoolbook sources published in Yugoslavia in 1970 are not reliable? And where is proof that such source is "not noted for factual accuracy"? Finally, what political motive Yugoslav authors would have to falsify data about presence of Albanians in Albania or Romanians in Romania? These questions should be answered before final conclusion about accuracy of this source. ] 22:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Also, what is a point of a claim that source is old? See this category full of old ethnic maps: http://commons.wikimedia.org/Category:Historical_maps_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_Balkans - the map from 1970 is no different from these maps, but since it is not old enough to be used as a file free for usage in Misplaced Pages, I made new maps based on it and included them with a description that it is "according to Yugoslav historians from 1970". In similar way this ] article have a map made by the pro-Greek cartographer E. Stanford from 1878, illustrating his point of view (and this map is proved to be unreliable and contradict to other sources, while such contradictions were not proved when 1970 Yugoslav atlas is in question). ] 22:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Very old maps are like primary sources. That category in the commons is for actual old maps. From 100 years ago and more.] (]) 22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Why cant you simply accept the simple fact, that a schoolbook is not RS and a schoolbook from Communist Yugoslavia is even more not RS?] (]) 22:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::I will accept any opinion that come from reliable person with good faith and good knowledge about the subject. You do not have good faith in this question and you are known nationalist and POV pusher, and therefore your opinion means nothing to me. However, this issue is to be discussed further with other users. ] 22:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::You have insulted me many times and you used Sockpuppets as indicated in the beggining of the section. ] (]) 23:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::And now you remove my map based on Hammond with no reason at all...., ] (]) 23:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::First, I do not have sockpuppets - I am not much active in English Misplaced Pages in recent times, so I do not logg in every time I edit some article. IP number of user who is not logged in is not an sockpuppet. Second, you are the one who harrasing me in various Wiki projects and you are one who disrupting my good-faith work, so how you excpect that I react to that? You expect that I love you or something? As for your map, info presented in it is different from what Hammond claims according to you, so I suspect that you did not based that map on Hammond, but on your own POV. ] 23:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	'''STOP NOW''' - this is not the location for the two of you to continue an endless argument. My suggestion... place two maps side by side, so that both POVs are visually represented. ] (]) 23:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Fine by me - placing two maps side by side is a good solution and I agree with it 100% ] 23:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Hammond is not POV, the 70's schoollbook is. This is a simple issue and Pannonian has made it big for no reason.] (]) 23:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::It was Pannonians old browser. ] (]) 23:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Your maps are based on unreliable sources thus they cannot be used. Its that simple.] (]) 23:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
			== RFC Science-Based Medicine ==
	:::I see that according to ] the claim of Albanians as autochthonus is highly disputed, not to mention that before 11th century they were never recorded. Moreover the Albanian-Ilyrian link is also something historically questionable. As far I see the map isn't historically correct even with the presence of Vlachs, not to mention other minor issues.
			<!-- ] 02:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1736474472}}
	The main point is that the map avoids the entire western bibliography and can't be explained by any academic historical means. ] (]) 23:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)		Is the blog ] in whole or in part, a ]? ] (]) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Here is western bibliography for you: http://books.google.com/books?id=ORSMBFwjAKcC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA5&vq=maps&output=html - I do not see why I cannot made maps based on this source. ] 18:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
			*Comment for context: Note that a ] that Science-Based Medicine is considered ] and not considered ]. See ] for more details at ]. ] (]) 01:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
	I disagree with placing highly pov material. Placing to pov is even worst, but Hammond is an expert in this field and I hardly believe its pov. @Megistias: You need to provide the specific pages with the relevant texts&maps, I remember that somewhere on the net I found a similar map directly scanned from Hammond's work.] (]) 23:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
			:{{strikethrough|], is there a reason that you chose not to list this RfC on the Maths, science, and technology list? If not, would you mind adding that topic area to the RfC template? Thanks,}} ] (]) 19:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	Hammond's map is here ], it's identical to the one Megistias proposes. So it seems that is is quite reliable. On the other hand the 6th-8th century map is still of questionable value.] (]) 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
			::Never mind, Raladic added it. ] (]) 20:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	::As was proposed on this page, both maps can be used, mine based on and one made by Megistias, so that readers can see both points of view about the subject. ] 18:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
			===Responses (Science-Based Medicine)===
	===Another source confirming data from my map===
			*'''Not SPS''' - Per the previous RfC, there seems to be no reason to rehash this. The editorial practices of SBM show that they do not act like an SPS and that has not changed since the prior RfC. So there appears to be no reason to deviate it from it now. What is the rationale for this repeat RfC other than to try to discredit it? SBM is one of the watchdog media that help keep ] science out of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 02:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
	Here is an Internet source with similar map showing Albanian presence in the 8th century: http://books.google.com/books?id=ORSMBFwjAKcC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA5&vq=maps&output=html - I do not think that even Megistias can claim that this source is unreliable and not good enough to be used in Misplaced Pages. ] 18:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' {{summoned by bot}}, @] has there been in discussion of this on this noticeboard since the last RFC? '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
	As far I see this book, which is completely contradicting the entire western bibliography in this part, does not explain why , should been placed there. No descriptions, no explanations, no prove, no nothing. Moreover this book is focused on modern post 1800 history. If the authors believe this it's not our problem. Typical ].
			*:OP created different RFC here: ] which was closed as a bad RFC as it was not neutral and editors pointed out the lack of RFCBEFORE on a reasoning of why this needs to be rehashed. Given that that one was just closed and now this new one was immediately opened again without any RFCBEFORE discussion, it similarly appears to be looking for a problem without information as to why this RfC is here without any new evidence that should change the established consensus of the community. ] (]) 03:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:There was a discussion from a few years ago listed on RSP that seemed very mixed as to whether SBM is a SPS ] (]) 14:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''SPS'''. Per what they wrote on their site: "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" If people are able to publish directly, by themselves, without being reviewed, then that meets the definition of SPS and we need to treat it that way for BLPs. Noting that this only means that it can't be used for direct statements about living people, but can still be used for statements about the truth (or, more often, otherwise) of views held by living people, the views of the authors about living people, and statements about fringe theories themselves. - ] (]) 03:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:You're citing a literal case where their editorial board retracted a published statement - that is literally acting like a non-SPS such as newspapers do and shows editorial oversight. This wasn't "random stranger published directly", it was a trusted author, and yet, their editorial board decided to retract the published article at the very link explaining their editorial oversight - {{tq|After careful review, the editors of SBM decided to retract this book review. Because we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness, occasionally corrections need to be made post-publication. In this case we felt there were too many issues with the treatment of the relevant science, and leaving the article up would not be appropriate given the standards of SBM.}}, so this looks like exactly what you'd expect from a non-SPS. You basically just made the case why they are not an SPS. ] (]) 03:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::In that case, they literally stated that they literally allow some people to self-publish on their site. That they might then retract the story if later they find a problem is a good thing. But it does not change how that article appeared there. Medium, for example, is a self-publishing platform, yet they can and do remove articles. This does not mean that we need to treat Medium as if it is not self published. SBM is definitely better than Medium, and I am confident that they have much higher standards. However, as they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs. - ] (]) 07:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::"''As they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs''". Which people though specifically? Where are the examples of this claim? Please list 5-10 authors at SBM who have self-published articles without any form of review. I do not see any good examples only one article from Harriet Hall that was retracted. Hall is now deceased. I would like to see the other examples. From what I can see none exist. ] (]) 13:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::It would seem that most of the content is self-published by only a small number (4) of writers, and yes, without any prior review as mentioned about by Bilby. The reliability is also debatable, but the self-publishing aspect of this blog seems as undeniable as ]. ] (]) 14:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::You haven't provided any evidence of self-publishing. Show us links to the self-published articles, I want to see them. Links and specific names please! ] (]) 14:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::This just seems like sealioning but here you go... ] (]) 14:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::You have linked to several articles by ]. Where does it claim on those articles they are self-published? David H. Gorski obviously reviewed those articles, he is listed in the link you cited below as the other editor. There are two editors so this isn't self-publishing. ] (]) 14:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::Where are you seeing that? SBM seems to say the opposite, that Novella's articles are not checked by Gorski... Gorski also wouldn't be the publisher in that scenario, you're confusing an editor with the publisher. Novella's publisher would be Novella (either as founder and chief editor or as President of the society). ] (]) 14:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::The website says "''SBM is entirely owned and operated by the ]''" . So if you are after the publisher, not the editors it is that Society. Novella is listed as the current President of the New England Skeptical Society, he is not the publisher. We know that SBM has two current editors. The New England Skeptical Society that publishes SBM has 25 employees including its web manager Mike Lacelle. Its director is Jay Novella . This isn't a single man self-publishing house, an organization is behind it. ] (]) 15:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::Is Jay Novella related to Steven Novella? If so this is getting worse, not better. ] (]) 15:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::Yes it's his son but he is not the web manager for the website so he is not the publisher. He is the Director of Marketing and Technology . My understanding is that all the websites owned by the Society are managed by Mike Lacelle who is listed as the web manager. So if you are looking for the specific man that actually publishes the articles after they are edited it would be him. Like I said the organization has 25 employees, there could be others involved. It's not just Steven Novella in his bedroom publishing this website. Novella is a very busy man, he wouldn't have time for that! ] (]) 15:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::No, Jay and Steve are brothers. --] (]) 16:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::::Thanks for the correction. The dude looks young for his age, fooled me. ] (]) 16:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::::So between Jay, Steve, and Robert Novella it seems that we have a lot of relatives here. ] (]) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::What is your source for the organization having 25 employees? ] (]) 02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::::{{Ping|Psychologist Guy}} you've claimed three times that the organization currently has exactly 25 employees... It is the core of your argument, but I don't think its true and I can't find it anywhere online... So how are you getting that number? ] (]) 18:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			#::::::::::::It's on a company check website that mentioned 25 employees, unfortunately such websites appear to be blacklisted on Misplaced Pages. However, another one less specific says 20-49 employees . I believe there are 4 full time employees - Jay Novella, Perry DeAngelis, Steven Novella, Evan Bertnstein and the rest are part timers. ] (]) 18:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			#::::::::::::::Their website lists the full time employees, there are actually probably 6 full time including the web manager Mike Lacelle. ] (]) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			#:::::::::::::::{{Reply|Psychologist Guy}} Those company check websites are hilariously bad, I don't know anyone who would actually take them at face value like that (we all had a good laugh when one listed the twenty odd person consulting group I was working for as "1,000-10,0000 employees"). The NESS website lists associated people but it doesn't appear to make any claim about their employment (volunteer vs paid or part vs full time). It also only lists six people total, a few of which we know have day jobs so they can't be full time employees and one (Perry DeAngelis) is almost two decades DEAD. Six doesn't seem to be any more legitimate a number than 25. ] (]) 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			#::::::::::::::::I have contacted someone who should know about this; hopefully they get back to me and I can let you know what the current figure of their employees is with documentation if possible. ] (]) 19:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Not SPS''' This isn't a self-published source, the articles are reviewed before being published by an editorial board. The four current editors are: Steven P. Novella, David H. Gorski, Kimball C. Atwood, Mark Crislip. Guest editors can submit articles to the website, all of which are reviewed before publication. Critics of SBM are jumping a single retracted article that this is an SPS. Seems like a bad case of cherry-picking. There is no good evidence this is an SPS. '''Update''' There are two editors not four my mistake. The publisher is the ]. ] (]) 13:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::That doesn't match what is currently on their website, they appear to only have two current editors who are also the main writers (thats where we get into SPS territory). One of those editors also appears to be the leader of the organization which publishes these two blogs, thats how we get even deeper into SPS territory. ] (]) 14:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Thanks for the update. So they have two editors currently. If they have two editors they are not self-published. ] (]) 14:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Who is Steven P. Novella's publisher if not Steven P. Novella? ] (]) 14:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::The link you cited says Steven Novella, MD — Founder and Executive Editor and David H. Gorski, MD, PhD — Managing Editor. They clearly review each others articles, this means it isn't self-published by a single individual. There used to be more editors in the past but some of them died. ] (]) 14:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::In this case it does appear to be self-published by a single individual, hiring your friends as editors doesn't make your blog not your blog. Also just to be clear what SBM actually say is "we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" so they clearly don't review each other's articles as a matter of course. ] (]) 14:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::It's much more than a single man. The SBM website is published by ], it says at SBM that they are "entirely owned and operated" by the Society. They have 25 employees currently. At SBM it doesn't claim that Steven Novella is the publisher it just says he is the "Founder and Executive Editor". If you want the exact publisher, it would be the New England Skeptical Society. As stated above, I am not convinced this fits the definition of self-publishing. ] (]) 15:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::The New England Skeptical Society, of which Novella is founder and president. ] (]) 21:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Their own statement was "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" Given that, it is clear that in at least some cases, people can publish directly on SBM without being reviewed before publication. - ] (]) 20:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''SPS''', seems to be pretty cut and dried at least when it comes to Novella's pieces (remember SBM claims to be a blog, its generally presenting personal opinions... When its two expert editors want to publish their actual work they do not publish it there but in real journals). I would also note that this discussion should include the sister blog NeuroLogicaBlog. If anyone wants to disagree with me they can lay out what editorial checks and balances would apply to Novella. ] (]) 14:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Neurologica is an obvious self-published blog authored entirely by Novella such that I do not think further discussion on that issue is necessary. ] (]) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Science-Based Medicine and Neurologica have the exact same publisher. ] (]) 02:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Neurologica's writer is the same as the head of the New England Skeptical Society. It's obviously Steven Novella's personal blog, similar to Gorski's own . There's no reason to think it's not a self-published source, unlike SBM which has several editors and apparently does review of at least some of what it publishes (though apparently not all), which is why we are having this discussion. ] (]) 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::Is it two or several? ] (]) 03:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:(How) does the following factor into your assessment that it's an SPS? In their of "Why Dr. Harriet Hall’s review of Abigail Shrier’s ''Irreversible Damage'' was retracted," they note that "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing," and that they "have mechanisms of quality control" for articles that are posted without prior review, including "clarification in the comments" and "corrections to the original text of the article." Their about outside submissions says in part "The volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using an informal peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a 'rough and ready' peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission." ] (]) 16:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella) this feels like inaccurate or outdated info and so high time for a review. GREL, sure, but as a group blog still an SPS, with seemingly no consistent publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. ] (]) 17:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I was asking ], in part because they wrote "at least when it comes to Novella's pieces" and "it does appear to be self-published by a single individual," which suggests that perhaps they don't consider it SPS for other authors. I'm wondering this for ] as well, as they'd previously said "I think guest authors can be assumed not to be self-published." ] (]) 21:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::With Quackwatch we came to a similar position - articles published by the editor are self published, but articles on the site by other authors are not. I'm ok with something similar here. The only problem is that all they say is "trusted authors" can post directly. I would read that as safe to assume people who do not regularly have articles posted on the site would not be trusted, but it doesn't say only the editors are trusted to publish without prior review. Thus there may be some gray area between the two. - ] (]) 21:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::The others are more a grey area for me, most of what we are currently using on wiki is pieces by Gorski and Novella... And we have discussions elsewhere about some guest authors like Harriet Hall not producing work of the same quality/rigor as Gorski and Novella. Its a bit of an odd situation, normally the editors are not also the authors and even when they are they're normally not the primary and most reliable authors. Its made extra odd because most of the editors/authors are subject matter experts so usable under EXPERTSPS no matter where we come down on general reliability. ] (]) 03:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''SPS'''. It's a group blog with some guest authors. Having multiple contributors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Having guest authors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Retracting a post does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. This language in ] is particularly relevant: "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". As a pro-SBM editor argued in the aborted RfC, the need for SBM in Misplaced Pages is to enable wikivoice accusations of "grift, fraud and quackery" ''that cannot be sourced otherwise''. In other words, the reason this group blog has been elevated to a reliable source is to work around NPOV. - ] (]) 17:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I don't see any evidence presented to back up the claim that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." It's not even clear to me how someone would go about studying that. Do you have any evidence that it's true? (And FWIW, the question of whether something is an SPS is distinct from whether it is independent or reliable.) ] (]) 17:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::That is a direct quote from ]. - ] (]) 17:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Yes, I'm aware of that. That someone added it to the WP:SPS text doesn't make it true, and since you're the one who chose to quote it, I'm asking you whether you have any evidence that it's true. For that matter, I'd be interested if you have thoughts about how one would go about studying it. ] (]) 21:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::If you have a problem with WP:SPS the appropriate venue is ] - ] (]) 21:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Comment'''. Do some people !voting here have a connection to the source? I see one editor referring to Steven Novella as "Steve" and another who may be affiliated with the New England Skeptical Society. I have seen some surprising interpretations of WP:COI in the past so I'm not sure if this is important, but thought it was worth noting. - ] (]) 18:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:That is also a great point and worth investigating as part of any close here. Looks sus at the very least... ] (]) 01:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''SPS'''. I personally think this source is fine to use on BLPs, but there is no way to honestly read our (convoluted, strange) SPS guidelines and not come to the conclusion that it is one. It is a small group of people most of whom publish without prior review on a blog. That they make arguments we like does not make it not a blog. ] (]) 18:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''SPS'''. It's a group blog, but still a blog. Group blogs are specifically called out on ]. As noted above, SBM "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness". The fact that they later retracted one article doesn't negate that the norm for "trusted authors" (probably including regulars, and definitely including the owners of the site such as Gorski and Novella) is to publish without any editorial review of the author's work. Hence, it is clearly by and large an SPS.
			:The claim that we need this to not be an SPS to effectively fight fringe and quackery is often made but I've never seen it backed up with an example of a fringe topic whose Misplaced Pages article would become credulous to pseudoscience without it. There are plenty of published and even academic sources that stuff like homeopathy is pseudoscientific, quackery, etc.; we are perfectly capable of sourcing something like "John Smith is an advocate of homeopathy, a pseudoscientific practice" in just about any case it is needed. SBM being an SPS also doesn't preclude its use in cases of ], as pro-fringe sources themselves are often SPS or otherwise poor. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 23:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The ] article relies a decent amount on SBM. There are other sources, but until recently there wasn't much critical attention towards that strain of fringe, with SBM having been 10+ years ahead of the curve on describing the contours of its recent resurgence in alt-med communities. In the past few years others such as BBC News, Science Feedback, and Snopes discussed it, though often missing details such as its direct relation to the anti-vaccination movement. Don't know how much this as example changes the overall equation, but was the first to come to mind. ] (]) 14:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::There's no shortage of reliable sources establishing that the germ theory was a huge advance in medicine and that we have basically incontrovertible proof of it for maybe thousands of diseases.
			::: - ] (]) 19:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::But using any of those sources to draw conclusions about the specific claims of a particular germ theory denialist would be ]. ] (]) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			*<s>'''Reliable SPS'''</s> - can be used to describe fringe theories proposed by people as discredited or as quackery, including on a bio... should not be used to describe people themselves as quacks. ] (]) 00:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:'''Partial SPS''' - saw some of the info of arguments below from CoffeeCrumbs, and FactOrOpinon. I think the partial peer-review for some articles is... frustrating for a direct answer, but if there is peer-review on an article, it should stand as non-SPS material. ] (]) 01:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''SPS''' - We see at ] that an SPS has clear rules and restrictions, such as not being used '''ever''' for a ], absolutely '''never'''. Some seem to be arguing that this obvious SPS should for some reason be granted an exception to the clear language of "'''never'''" and should be allowed on biographies of living persons in some cases (or in many). There are many reasons why that is not allowed generally, but we have now learned that this source is essentially the soapbox of primarily only ''two individuals'', and most importantly, is not part of a media outlet or organization or inclusive of any external (or even further internal vetting). No, rather, it is a '''blog'''. An SPS '''blog'''. One perhaps run by scientists, two scientists, but a blog, nonetheless. Again, quoting directly from WP:SPS, "{{tq|'''Never''' use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.}}" So here we have this source, which is obviously beyond ] a blog and a self-published source, we must then at the very least clarify that it absolutely must not be used in any circumstances for BLPs going forward, by the fact that it is so clearly a SPS.] (]) 00:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Partly SPS and partly non-SPS''' - The site makes it clear that some authors can publish without prior review. I consider their articles to be self-published; for example, I put Steven Novella's articles in this category. The site also says that other articles undergo prior review (e.g., "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing"). I consider the latter to be non-self-published. Examples of authors who clearly aren't regular article authors there and whose articles presumably underwent prior review: and . For some articles/authors, it's not clear to me whether they fall in the SPS category or instead in the non-SPS category. ] (]) 03:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			* It seems that posts by some established contributors are self-published (as shown by links above), while guest contributors are not. So the answer to whether SBM is an SPS or not is 'yes'. '''SPS and not SPS'''. Certainly the idea that it's fully SPS has no basis. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''SPS''': As noted by other contributors, SBM openly acknowledges that it often publishes content without prior peer review. Consequently, this makes it a self-published source (SPS), with the opinions expressed representing those of individual authors. Like any other SPS, its use requires caution, especially in articles about living people or controversial topics, where ensuring accuracy and neutrality is critical. ] (]) 17:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	For example this: ], is not enough to claim that Columbus was Greek. ] (]) 20:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
			*'''Not SPS for reviewed articles''' They directly state they have editorial peer review for a number, if not most, of their articles. And only a select few don't go through that process (though appear to have after the fact review, considering the retraction, so even that seems to be in question). I will note that this appears to be yet another attempt by ] pushing editors to try and remove skeptical debunking media from negatively covering their fringe topics. Par for the course attempt, honestly. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	::That is false analogy. I provided links to other sources here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians#Schoolbook_map - you may claim that my souce is wrong because of two reasons: 1. if there are no other sources that confirming data presented there (and I presented several other sources with similar data), and 2. if it contradict to most other sources (but, contrary to your rhaethorical claim that my source "contradicting the entire western bibliography", you failed to provide any quotation from that bibliography that would really contradict to my sources. In fact those quotations provided by user:Megistias are not contradicting to my sources). ] 21:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
			*:It's a day that ends in -Y.... ] (]) 01:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:If we can't tell what is and isn't peer-reviewed and what is SPS material, is that not a problem? ] (]) 11:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:And how we will determine which articles have been reviewed? Also note that editorial review and ] are different things and they do not appear to make a claim of peer review. ] (]) 13:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Right. These "Not SPS" !votes completely fail to respond to this criticism or address this perfectly valid and critically important counterpoint other than to say things along the lines of, "Come on man, THEY SAY that some stuff is reviewed! Let's take their word on it bro! Even if they are generally a '''blog''', they are a '''''trusted''''' blog." ] (]) 20:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Poor editorial control is a matter of reliability, but all matters of reliability don't have to be decided by classifying a source as self-published. It's accepted that other sources follow their stated editorial practices, and noone has shown why that shouldn't be the case here. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Not SPS for reviewed articles''' They've got editors, which sets it apart from a standard SPS. Those articles that could be self published are still reliable for most purposes anyway, since they are from subject matter experts. It is also worth noting that while it should not be used for biographical details in general, even if this were to be considered a SPS that would not rule it out for comments on science, medicine, or the reception of fringe ideas, even when those ideas happen to appear on an article with a person's name at the top. - ] (]) 18:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Not SPS''' by virtue of having either pre-publication review or the possibility of editorially imposed retraction. A source that is truly ''self-published'' wouldn't have either of those. ] (]) 01:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::I'm sorry you didn't presented a single reliable work that confirms this. You still need to show this, and please do not post again questionable school atlases of past decades. Existing articles like ], which are sourced, are in favor of Hammond's version.] (]) 06:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::I presented two reliable sources, if you think that these sources are not reliable, it is your problem and your problem only. I have no time for your childish games. Get life, man... ] 02:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			*'''Partial SPS''' It's a bit awkward since they do so much good work, but "our own editors, however, have earned the privilege of publishing articles without prior review, since they have a proven track record," is extremely concerning. What they describe as an editorial process for these articles, saying that "if any concerns about accuracy, fairness, or completeness come to our attention, we deal with them in a number of ways," is just not enough. The job of an editor is checking before, not just maybe cleaning up after "if," so I would have to say that the articles by their own editors have to be considered '''SPS''' until they revise this. Things they actually do vet ''before'' putting up, I consider as being subjected to an editorial process, however. ] (]) 02:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::What you presented here: ] doesn't meet wp:rs. Moreover I see that in this discussion you are not convincing the rest of the editors.] (]) 21:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			*'''Generally not SPS''', though additional scrutiny for articles by Gorski and Novella may be appropriate. Essentially per ]. I'm also frankly not impressed with this RFC, and the manner the proposer starts these discussions in general. Said discussions are not {{em|quite}} up to the point of disruption, but I would nonetheless heavily suggest that they seek advice as to the drafting of their statements and formatting of their proposals and whether adequate prior discussion has taken place, from one of the other editors supporting their point of view. ] (] • ]) 05:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''SPS''' A group blog posting guest postings is still a group blog, and still self-published. Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella, whose blog it is), previous claims to having a robust editorial process seem unconvincing. There is no consistently documented publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and this source is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. ] (]) 16:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I can easily give examples of non-SPS that don't have a documented corrections or complaints procedure, such as , and whether they have a documented corrections or complaints procedure seems to be more a matter of whether they're an RS rather than whether they're an SPS. Are non-SPS generally reviewed by more than two editors? It seems to me that by your favored WP:USESPS definition for SPS, the guest articles aren't SPS, as author!=publisher. ] (]) 18:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I am responding to suggestions that some sort of allegedly robust editorial and accountability process makes it not an SPS, which I think is a nonsense.
			*::My favoured definition of SPS is: if it isn't traditionally published (book, newspaper, journal) or something directly comparable structurally, it is an SPS. That is in line with USESPS since it considers virtually all websites to be self-published. It is narrow, yes, but it is also consistent across media. It is also not a reflection on reliability in other ways, as SPS vs GREL are two different concerns.
			*::I think the "self" in "self-published" causes much confusion, as does the consideration that "publishing" is the mere act of putting information online. A publishing company is more than a person who vets content and presses a button to place material on a website. If we consider something not self published simply because the person who writes it has to go through another person before it is published, that means celebrity social media accounts where an intern reports to a manager aren't self published, which makes a nonsense of the whole thing (ie, virtually nothing is self-published by that standard).
			*::I consider "science based medicine" to be a publication as a whole rather than something that can be approached article-by-article. There is no distinct, separate, traditional publishing entity, as with a newspaper, a book, or an academic journal. The owners and editors are all the same, and that they solicit other people's content to add to their own publication which they entirely control still makes it their own self-published publication, in exactly the same way as any blog with guest posts.
			*::I know there are difficult edge cases to the whole "what is a traditional publisher" model, but I don't think a group blog like SBM is even close to that, and considering it to be one (because editors want to use it to make BLP claims about quacks) has turned into a slippery slope IMO. ] (]) 10:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Thanks for elaborating on why you consider the SBM guest articles to be SPS, even though they're not published by the authors. Re: the rest, as others have noted, USESPS is an essay, not a policy; it should be consistent with policy rather than vice versa. I think we need an RfC to clarify what the meaning of SPS is in the WP:SPS policy, and once the RfC about grey matter from advocacy orgs is closed, I'm going to try to create one for WP:SPS, though so far I've found it tremendously difficult to figure out how to word such an RfC. WP:PUBLISHED says "Published means, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form," so that's much broader than your use of it. ] (]) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::] is '''policy''', <u>not an essay</u>. It is clear '''policy''' that '''<u>blogs</u>''' like Science-Based Medicine not be used for BLPs <u>at a bare minimum</u>. ] (]) 19:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::I said "'''USESPS''' is an essay, not a policy" (emphasis added). It seems that you're confusing ] (which as I noted is an essay) with ] (which is a policy). People clearly have different opinions about whether SBM is wholly SPS or only partially SPS, and if the consensus of this RfC is that it is only partially SPS, then the part that isn't SPS can be used for statements about living persons despite identifying itself as a blog. Also, the BLP policy is for statements about living persons, wherever they occur, but AFAIK, RS expert blogs can be used for DUE statements about non-persons, even if that statement appears in a biographical article. BLPSELFPUB is also an exception. ] (]) 21:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::I'm aware. We have multiple highly debatable and contested terms, at the heart of a core policy, and radically different interpretation of them. When I raised this weeks ago I asked what I was missing, and it turned out I wasn't missing anything except a massive intractable tarpit. I think none of it is obvious. Your objection here is understandable depends very much how you interpret "author", "publisher" and the work being published, and a narrow definition restricted to natural persons means any source with two people can be argued to be not self published. But to me it remains obvious that for a self published book in which my friend writes the foreword, their content is still self published even though I acted as "editor", and I don't see a difference between a self published book with multiple contributors and a group blog with multiple contributors. And the trouble is a lot of the discussions about how we classify X or Y revolve not around what they are, but about how we want to use them, which makes it ever more messy. Personally I would like to see clarity on *why* BLPSPS exists, and define the standard clearly there, because that would inform what sort of sources are acceptable in BLPs, which is really the nub of the matter. BLPSPS feels like it might once have been shorthand for "a source who's probably had the lawyers look it over before publishing it", but that's just my impression/speculation. Absent BLPSPS, the question of whether sources like grey literature or SBM are SPS or not is largely moot. ] (]) 11:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::@] makes a great point. Literally any propaganda shop could just have TWO people and then instantly always not be SPS according to this B.S. argument being pushed for why this source is allegedly "not SPS".............. ] (]) 14:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::So basically most local news is self-published as well then. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::Yes, most local and hyper local news outlets are in fact self-published. ] (]) 17:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Not SPS for reviewed content. Where content is clearly reviewed, definitely not SPS. Where we’re not certain, treat it with extra caution. By the way “blog” and “SPS” are not synonyms. Blog is a format that can be edited and published by reputable organisations, as with eg The Conversation or perhaps the SPLC’s Hatewatch. ] (]) 20:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I would agree with you that your two examples are not SPS, however I have seen people argue the contrary in both cases. ] (]) 00:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Everything in ] is effectively an opinion piece and as such is actually treated like a SPS per ]. I also don't believe that '''any''' of the content in SBM is "clearly reviewed." ] (]) 00:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@] makes probably the most important point of this entire discussion, which is effectively "How can we determine clearly which articles by this '''<u>blog</u>''' are considered '''reviewed''', and which are not?" many, at least all published by Gorski and Novella are unquestionably 100% SPS and therefore should not touch any BLP. This excellent point has been largely or entirely ignored by the minority "Not SPS" camp which really doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on other than "If this was considered SPS then articles on XYZ subjects would get worse." Sorry. That is not an argument supported by WP policy. ] (]) 01:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::That argument is ]. To be clear, I don't think it's an argument that anyone ''needs'' to make, but ] overrides ]. The only policy-based concern, even granting the application of the SPS label despite the fact that it doesn't really fit, would be about biographies of living people, but an article on a topic like germ-theory denialism isn't a biography of a living person. ] (]) 02:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Both of those links are to IAR, if thats the policy you're claiming trumps the relevant guidelines I would question your competence (especially as you appear to be calling ] a guideline). ] (]) 13:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Both of those links were deliberate. Like I said, the only part of ] that could be pertinent here is the prohibition against using {{tq|self-published sources as third-party sources about living people}}, but that fails to apply in two different ways. ] (]) 23:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::How does "fail to apply in two different ways"? ] (]) 01:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::There seems to be a lot more than that which is pertinent, that whole section for example is pertinent not just that one sentence. Many of the "not SPS" arguments also seem to be based on ]. As for it somehow not applying you've lost me, gonna have to explain. ] (]) 07:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Comment''', several editors seem to claim something along the lines of "since Science-Based Medicine is 'reviewed' it cannot be a SPS". This claim would benefit from some proof, ideally other secondary sources validating this claim, and not just the very same source saying that it does so. Alex Jones might claim that he is reviewed and reliable etc. That claim by itself does not make it so. Also, I am not saying that Science-Based Medicine is anything like AJ in terms of reliability etc., and to be clear, this RfC is not about reliability, it is just on whether or not the SBM source is an SPS, which I think it pretty obviously is. ] (]) 01:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:When we're looking at obviously non-self-published sources, they usually fit into one of these three models:
			*:# Book publisher: External authors submit book outlines and sample chapters; if selected, the publisher contributes substantially towards editing (including ] if necessary), designing, and marketing the book. The author pays for none of this and expects to get paid (at least if sales exceed a minimum threshold). If the publisher rejects the book, then the author is free to sell it to a different publisher.
			*:# Newspaper: The publisher/publication hires editors and journalists. The editor assigns stories (to internal staff) or commissions them (among freelancers; alternatively, editors may accept external pitches, in the book-publisher model). The journalists write the stories; the editor and publisher/publication representatives decide whether to publish what the journalists wrote. If an employee instead of a freelancer, the journalist expects to get paid the same even if the article is ] (not published). If a freelancer, and the piece doesn't run, the freelancer is free to sell it to a different publication.
			*:# Peer-reviewed journal: The (usually for-profit) publisher or (usually academic) sponsoring body creates the publication and hire editors. External authors submit whole papers; editors send the papers for external review and use that information to decide which ones to publish. The authors usually pay for publication, but this is understood to be akin to volunteer work on all sides, with the money usually coming from a third-party grant rather than the author's own funds. If the journal rejects the article, the author is free to submit it to another journal.
			*:I wonder if any of these models feel similar to how you imagine SBM to work. ] (]) 04:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I have in a sandbox. I wonder whether people would find that comparison useful in, say, ]. ] (]) 04:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I do not think any of the above apply to SBM, but I'd like to see you perhaps write up a few methods for what clearly SPS look like, and then we could compare to the above, and determine which SBM most closely resembles. Again, if you write stuff, then you are the publisher, that is by definition "self-published", which is very often the case even if not always for Science-Based Medicine...even by their own admission! ] (]) 14:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I don't think defining none self-published sources are the ones we give a free pass because of our social-culture background is a good way to define them. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''SPS'''. The website describes itself as a blog. According to ] blogs are considered SPS. In addition, SBM publishes unknown proportions of articles without prior editorial review. Therefore, SBM could only be used with attribution, because it is impossible to tell which articles passed editorial review and which did not. ] (]) 17:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:@], WP:SPS says {{xt|"...self-published material such as...personal or ] blogs (as distinguished from ], above)...are largely not acceptable as sources"}}. Are you sure that this isn't a ]? They have an ] and a ], which are positions that we expect to find in news organizations. Someone in the prior discussion says they sometimes "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness", which is something that sometimes happens with ], too. ] (]) 03:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Still only a "may", not "is", acceptable, and even then we would need to proceed with extreme caution, and almost certainly exclude BLPs from being acceptable for use by the source, see the rest of the quote you left off, "{{tq|These '''may''' be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, '''but use them with caution''' because '''blogs''' may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.}}" ] (]) 04:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I think by this point, we all know that you really, really, really don't want ] to be considered an acceptable source. You don't need to keep pushing for your desired outcome. ] (]) 04:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::Normally newsblogs are run by news outlets and SBM is not an established news organization. Even if it was, per ] we are advised to {{xt|use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process}}. So I don't think SBM should be used for factual statements, it can only be used for statements of opinions. ] (]) 10:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Exactly. ] (]) 14:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Use with caution and statements of opinion are covered by other parts of the guidelines, separate from SPS. Whether a source is self-published or not doesn't mean it's reliable or unreliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Mostly SPS'''. It seems to be the Novella and Gorski show. That doesn’t make it unreliable for topics in which they are recognised experts - neurology for Novella and oncology for Gorski, apparently. That would make them reliable reviewers of any guest content on those topics too. But outside their domains of expertise, they are just blogging. Expertise in one domain does not imply expertise in another - and sometimes it’s quite the opposite, in that smart people who are accomplished in their niche start to think their opinions on everything else are equally robust (looking at you, Elon). ] (]) 00:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''SPS'''. Editorial oversight is insufficiently verifiable nor independent enough to call this something other than self-published. ] (]) 19:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''SPS''' It seems their peer-review is only for new contributers, the staff is volunteer and they explicitly say that they like to avoid as much editing as possible. There also doesn't seem to be much of editorial indepencence from the owner (New England Skeptical Society) which is an advocacy group. Especially troubling is that the Executive Editor is also the President of NESS. NESS also has two other members of the Novella family on the board. That makes three of the five board members from the same family. This is no what oversight should look like. The group of writers is also small and probably know each other well and are of course, ideologically similar. ] (]) 11:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*<s>Partial SPS</s> '''Partly unclear, partly not SPS''' As discussed above, it isn't clear which articles by Gorski and Novella have been reviewed and we should probably lean towards treating those ones like ] just to be safe. They do, however, have a very clear review policy on guest articles (see ) which states {{tq|volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using a peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a peer review step in which '''at least three of our editors evaluate the submission'''}} (emphasis added). That's pretty obviously not self-publishing. I do want to note though that this type of discussion would really benefit from more consensus on what an SPS is. Maybe some more experienced editors should consider drafting a big RfC to revise SPS with more detail on what it means in practice (probably after ARBPIA5 is over so admins have more time to focus on it)? ] (]) 00:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{Reply|CambrianCrab}}The main problem is that they currently only have two editors (one being the managing editor), so we can be relatively sure that they do not follow that policy becuase it requires a minimum of four editors to follow (the managing editor and at least three others). ] (]) 17:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Exactly. ] (]) 17:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Good catch on the number of editors, I missed that the other ones had retired/passed, but I don't really think that makes it SPS since articles are still getting reviewed. Imo, it's a red flag in terms of ''reliability'' that either the list of editors and/or review policy is out of date, but no impact towards whether or not it's ''SPS''. ] (]) 02:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::See and that is interesting because I draw the exact opposite conclusion. I think that it could be reasonably argued that SBM is reliable, but that there is no case at all that it is somehow not SPS. When there is <u>one</u> person in most cases writing something and then just directly launching it to the internet on a blog, that is self-published. Which we have no way of knowing if these <u>two</u> editors even check one another, so it is very possible that frequently this is exactly what is happening. However, how different is it really when there are only <u>two</u> editors from one checking on anything. That is practically and definitionally a self-published source by every possible measure for evaluating whether or not a source as SPS or not. We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed? And again, even if that is true, if there are only two editors doing the "reviewing", that is not due diligence, that is back scratching and ]. ] (]) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::To be clear, I don't think SBM is unreliable, just that outdated pages would be a red mark towards reliability. Whether or not pages or up-to-date has nothing to do with if something is self-published.
			:::::I don't really follow the rest of your argument. {{tq|We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed?}} Yeah we generally take sources at their word on their own policies unless we have reason to question it. SBM is a relatively long-running and well-known outlet run by experts in the topic area. I don't see any reason we should think they're lying about their policy. ] (]) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Those are fair point, review is review and it seems that at least some are seemingly getting reviewed. ] (]) 19:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Not SPS'''. What someone means by "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" is "these writers aren't dumbasses and we trust them" with an implied "if an issue is found after the piece is out, we'll put out a correction", not "these people are infallible and we will never correct them because reasons". &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 21:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:So they are essentially "Not SPS" because they claim to sometimes not be SPS. Got it. ] (]) 01:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:The purpose of oversight is due diligence, not dumbass detection. ] (]) 06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Partly SPS and generally unsuitable for contentious topics on Misplaced Pages.''' While SBM is valuable for some scientic topics, it self-described as blog with inconsistent editorial oversight, allowing authors like Novella and Gorski to pubish without review. Gorski, who often takes strong positions, is a polarizing figure, and his articles often reflect a bias and lack of nuance. For controversial topics or biographies, more neutral and independently vetted sources would better meet Misplaced Pages standards. ] (]) 22:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''SPS''' As I've said before on previous RfCs, this is explicitly a self-published source. ] (]) 22:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Not SPS unless Gorski and Novella wrote the piece''': SBM is one of the best sources for coveraging ] and ] activism we have <small> and I'll note ''some'', certainly not all, wanting to make it a SPS tend to have, at best, a ] attitude </small>. Simply put, there is editorial oversight of contributors. We don't know if there is for Gorski and Novella, and should act accordingly and treat them as subject matter experts outside BLPs, but we do know that there is for other contributors. I'm somewhat concerned with the shape of this RFC - we have longstanding consensus that SBM is a reliable source and not an SPS. Instead of challenging that, this RFC was opened to challenge specifically the SPS designation in a seemingly roundabout way to question it's reliability.
			: I also want to note that per ] {{tq|In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed.}} - so while I still maintain it's not an SPS, the standards for ] allow non-peer reviewed sources on fringe topics as long as they're reliable, so an SPS designation should not, unless we ''also'' agree it's not reliable, be used to go a purge of its use. ] (]) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''No''' due to editorial oversight. ] <small>(])</small> 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Given that the editors have stated that they do not provide oversight on all contributers prior to publication, this does not seem to be universally true. - ] (]) 09:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''SPS''' I think it's important that the arguments about whether Science Based Medicine is SPS or not are removed from our own assessment of the topics they’ve covered, otherwise we infuse topic bias on a process matter and risk floating away from the core question of this RfC. SBM is SPS simply because of the lack of editorial oversight and independence needed for subject matter of medicine.--] (]) 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::I am convinced about the validity of the maps made by PANONIAN and so are a lot of other editors that the maps are ], but the Greek editors (Athenean, Megistias, Alexikoua) work to prove that the Albanians have no connections with the Illyrians. Their theory can be summarized as follows: ''Illyrians have disappeared. Thracians have disappeared. Albanians? We don't know where they came from: they are mentioned only in the 11th century. Probably moesians? Probably Thracians? Probably this or that? No theory is plausible because they are strange and no one knows who they really are. We just don't know and no one can.'' Casting a shadow of mystery seems like a very good plan to make today's Albanians seem as if they are foreigners in their own land, not autochtonous, which in the Balkans would be only the Greek population. No other population in the Balkans can enjoy the autochtonous status but the Greeks, according to these three editors. This is the standard that these three editors are following in all the history articles especially in the Illyrian Albanian articles that have been usurpated by them and that no Albanian editor dares to edit anymore because they will be provoked to edit-warring and then reported by any of the above three editors (most likely ]) who work full time to assert the above ideas, and then an admin who will see the reaction of who took the bait will inevitably block the daring editor. Take a look at the cemetery of editors that this war has produced (]). It's full of Albanians and it's the biggest graveyard of truth you'll find in Misplaced Pages concerning the Balkan topics. The Greek editors above by working in tandem will make every edit possible to "forget" their own sources (read Ptolemy, Polibus and Stephanus of Bysantium - all Greeks), that the Albanoi Illyrian tribe has been mentioned by Ptolemy in the 2nd century BC as Arbon, in the 2nd century AD by Polibus as Albanoi, and in the 6th century as Albonios by Stephanus of Bysantium as, see ]. That is proof of the continuity of the Illyrian-Albanian population and the world's historiography has already accepted it. It's the way it's studied in Albania, Russia, Germany, France, USA. In Greece there are other orders, I am affraid, but this is not the Greek Misplaced Pages. ] (]) --Sulmues 22:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			*'''Not SPS''' when it's "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" it means that you have to become a trusted author first before you can publish without prior review, i.e., the editorial oversight comes from becoming a trusted author. ] (]) 01:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	== 100-year old Catholic encyclopedia ==
			*:Editorial oversight means reviewing content prior to publishing to ensure the content being published is factual, etc. It's not about who the author is, it's about the substance of the content. ] (]) 02:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Are you suggesting that if I write a letter to the editor of some local newspaper, and it is published, then the newspaper is a SPS? ] (]) 03:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::@] If it was published without review? Yes. A website that published unreviewed content is not a publisher, it's a self-publishing platform. ] (]) 03:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Are you suggesting that the editors of the local newspaper basically do nothing? ] (]) 03:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::I think you are using the wrong analogy. If you can publish directly, based on your own decision to publish, without anyone else reading or vetting your writing before it appears, you are self publishing. If an editor checks the material and approves it before publication, it is not self publishing. SBM allow some editors to publish without checking or vetting the material before it is published, as you akcnowledged, so in those cases it is an SPS. - ] (]) 05:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::At the very least anything written by Gorski and Novella there seems to be strong consensus that at minimum those articles are very clearly SPS. In other cases, I think it is dubious at best, since Gorski and Novella run the show and whether or not any real "editorial review" is happening on this blog appears to be very, very much in doubt. The analogy of a "local newspaper" and a ] is not actually analogous, and it is weird that an exception was ever carved out for this blog for it to somehow not be considered SPS. Thankfully it appears as if a new consensus has emerged as a result of this RfC in favor of SBM now being considered SPS, or at minimum, anything published by Gorski or Novella absolutely is without a shadow of a doubt SPS. ] (]) 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:We are all making assumptions about "what it means" because SBM is not transparent enough about its editorial policies. It pales in comparison to journals that tackle many of the same topics. This is precisely why it's SPS. ] (]) 16:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Thats right. This "Not SPS" argument is without merit. SBM is not a journal, it is a blog and is 100% SPS. ] (]) 17:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind. ] (]) 03:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks. ] (]) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Are you suggesting that they post "bogus content"? If not, how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote? ] (]) 00:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::"Bogus content" is related to an argument about reliability. Which some contributors to this RfC have mistakenly believed is part of this discussion, it is not. This RfC is on the question of whether or not SBM is SPS, which it so obviously is. Therefore, my response was simply reframing that we are not arguing about whether or not the content is "bogus" at all, instead, we are simply discussing whether or not the "editorial review" which some allege occurs at SBM (with scant evidence), is done by the very same people who publish content (Gorski and Novella).
			*::::::Given the self-publication by Gorski/Novella, which evidently is what happens, then the source is a self-published source, and "bogus" doesn't even enter into the conversation. Or at the very minimum, any article published by SBM by Gorski/Novella ought to 100% be considered SPS. ] (]) 00:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::Banedon wrote: "If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind," and you responded "If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks."
			*:::::::As best I can tell, you did not respond to my second question, so I'll ask it again: If , how is your comment at all '''''responsive''' to what Banedon wrote''?
			*:::::::Just so you're clear, the current ] "self-published" explicitly refers to reliability. When you say "we are not arguing about whether or not the content is "bogus" at all," that's not entirely true. It's relevant to whether some of the content on the site is '''not''' self-published. ] (]) 01:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::You've moved the goal posts, Banedon is arguing that none of the content on the site is self-published. ] (]) 01:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::I know that Banedon's !vote was "Not SPS," but I interpreted Banedon's comment to Iljhgtn (who claimed that SBM is "100% SPS") as a point about outside contributors to SBM (outdated description ). Maybe I misinterpreted. ] (]) 01:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			== RfC: Bild ==
	Does the 100-year old Catholic Encyclopedia qualify as a reliable source? If so, what if about when it's contradicted by more recent scholarship? It's commonly cited on religion pages. ] (]) 17:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Catholic encyclopedia, is not reliable, age(100 as you yourself say) , and it is full of grammar and syntax errors as well. Thebans written as Thesbians and other such "gems"] (]) 19:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::It depends, in this case more than in others. It's a reliable source for Catholic positions in the early 20th century, in particular in the US. It's not a reliable source for current doctrine or other viewpoints. In most cases, it should probably be be treated as a primary source. That said, I doubt that it is "full of grammar and syntax errors". There may be some shifts in English usage, but Thespians and Thebans are simply two different things. --] (]) 20:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1736895671}}
	::::Stephan has it right... The old CE is reliable for a statement as to what Catholic thinking was 100 years ago... but not for a statement as to what Catholic thinking is today. ] (]) 20:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
			What is the reliability of the German tabloid ], including its website Bild.de?
	::Yes i know but it was ThesBians in CE, not Thespians :). ] (])
			# Generally reliable
	:::Do you think the authors of the CE were referring to :>)
			# Additional considerations apply
	:::Seriously, even the most modern and up-to-date reliable sources contain the occasional typo. ] (]) 20:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
			# Generally unreliable
	:As always, reliability depends on what it is being used for. If it's about some obscure saint of a thousand years ago, and there are no more recent sources - of course reliable. Just use common sense. If more recent scholarship contradicts it, usually go with the more recent source, how much so being a matter of judgment and consensus.] (]) 20:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
			# Deprecated
	::How words are being born!But yeah its just old] (])
			] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	It's generally not considered reliable, much like other century-old tertiary sources. As far as I know, it wasn't even an official church publication, so it's really the author's/editors' views on a topic, not the Catholic church's. While it might be possible to use it as "a reliable source for Catholic positions in the early 20th century", that would essentially be using it as a primary source. And while it might also be used for information about "some obscure saint of a thousand years ago, and there are no more recent sources", if in fact there are no more recent sources, then it's unlikely the topic itself is appropriate for Misplaced Pages. It's best avoided. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
			===Responses (Bild) ===
	:I don't see any evidence it is considered particularly unreliable, via searches on gscholar and gbooks, and note it is used as a reference or resource in some articles at ]. I strongly disagree about the unsuitability of such a topic if there are no more recent sources; wikipedia shouldn't be censored by recentist bias. Common sense and consensus deals very well with such old sources, in my opinion. Reliability questions are much easier to answer if they are more specific.] (]) 21:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3/4''' Bild is a sensational tabloid, that according to Foreign Policy magazine, , routinely violates basic journalistic ethics and is regularly sanctioned for it by German Press Council, being sanctioned by them 26 times in 2021 alone. As evidenced by this piece in Deutsche Welle their process of verification and fact checking is below the standard expected for a reliable source. For those looking for a more comprehensive account of the newspaper and its ethics, I've found this freely accessible short book (less than 100 pages, including references) in German from 2023 on the topic (which can translated using google translate's PDF translate feature) Some quotes from the book (in translation) {{tq|Driven by a special editorial culture ("We are tabloids after all") and driven by editorial decisions in which sales interests take precedence over media ethics, articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers.}} ... {{tq|The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary}}... EDIT: another quote {{tq|BILD's journalism does not focus on the task of providing information, but rather on examining a suitable fact for its emotionality and framing it with commentary.}}} ] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	::"Censored" is a very harsh word, John, and, I think, entirely unwarranted here. Misplaced Pages typically judges notability based on reliable sources discussing a topic. If no sources besides the 1907-1914 Catholic Encyclopedia discuss a topic, then it is not likely the topic satisfies Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
			*:As an addendum: here are some other examples, including a fake story about migrants committing sexual assault in 2017 , as well as taking scientists quotes out of context to further an agenda regarding COVID during the pandemic ] (]) 14:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::I would only use such a harsh word in a discussion with a friend who I respect and esteem (and to say so out of place but publicly, who has been unjustly treated by the wiki-powers-that-be). I can only speak from my own POV, that of a rabid inclusionist who believes that there is a greater and more present danger of eliminating articles, sources and editors rather than including them, and with my own prediction that such an article would squeak past an AfD, based on the reliability of the encyclopedia.] (]) 11:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' - per Hemiauchenia. I'll add an argument that's weaker but nevertheless entertaining and somewhat indicative, which is that Bild's infamy is so well-established that ] is a common inclusion of university German language, German literature and media studies courses. There hasn't been any argument made, however, that our current usage of Bild is so pervasive a problem that deprecation is necessary. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Thank you John, I really appreciate your saying that. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::We use it a lot for biographies of popes, and as was said above, for obscure saints. But scholarship moves on and it isn't recentism to give preference to newer sources. ] (]) 11:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)		*'''Option 3/4'''. I don't think we should cite Bild anywhere on Misplaced Pages. It's a sensationalist tabloid like the Daily Mail or National Enquirer.--] (]) 23:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''3''' at least, and I wouldn't say no to '''4'''. This is one of the weakest sources in the region, though I could see it being cited for special purposes, like examples of "headlinese" that aren't in English, etc. But at this point I don't think it's even usable for ] material; if they claimed something as simple as {{var|X}} number of employees, I would strongly suspect it of being an exaggeration. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 23:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::For obscure saints it sounds very appropriate. After all, our articles on botany rely heavily on century-old editions of the ''Brittanica''. ] (]) 14:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
			*'''3''' I honestly have no idea how one could even come to approach the idea that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but if previous discussions haven't been enough, I suppose it's worth piling on. Sources should not be considered reliable until they prove themselves to be. ] (] • ]) 05:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''3/4''' Bild is a tabloid and well known for its lack of fact checking and heavy bias. The closest english speaking equivalent would be things like the Daily Mail. In my opinion broadly unusable. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''bad 2 for miscellaneous or political content, unusable for the private lives of BLP and particularly recently deceased people''' it's rather rare that they publish straightforward misinformation, particularly when considering the volume of content published. Having said that, they have a nasty habit of violating both journalistic and actual ethics (and ''allegedly'' breaking the law), so using them is probably broadly unwise. There are some rare cases where they can be useful, but as far as usable sources go, they are on the very lowest end IMO, being a tabloid in an area with an otherwise strong media environment. In addition, there doesn't seem to be a significant issue to justify depreciation. <small> Note: this applies to Bild only, other sources owned by that publisher are usually a lot more reliable, even if I personally consider much of what they believe to be rather questionable </small> ] (]) 10:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Option 2, provisionally''', since no examples of publishing falsehoods and misinformation have been provided so far in this thread and I couldn't find them in the article. See my comments in the discussion section. ]<sub>]</sub> 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3''', I don't see the need for deprecation. Bild is tabloid journalism, and falls far short of the high quality sources that BLP calls for. It shouldn't be anywhere near anything contentious to do with a living, or recently deceased, person. When it comes to it reliability in other areas how other reliable sources view Bild is important, I suggest reading the work by Prof Lilienthal posted by Hemiauchenia. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Option 4''' Tabloid journalism is generally incompatible with the Misplaced Pages project. ] (]) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3''', there even exist a German blog whose aim is mainly to publicize errors of Bild – . But see my comment in the discussion section below. --] (]) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' per ActivelyDisinterested. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 05:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' so no change. Most of our current usage of it seem to be interviews which per ] would be fine. I see no evidence they’re fabricating interviews. Probably usable for mundane things like sports (they seem to cover that a lot). For any contentious anything should not be cited - but they seem to get a lot of interviews with notable people, so we can keep using that. ] (]) 20:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3/4''' per Hemiauchenia... tabloids in general post sensational info that is poorly fact-checked and rife with errors. ] (]) 20:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:it's ''snowing 3'' ] (]) 21:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3/4'''. Academic coverage frequently treats it as an archetypal example of a publisher of misinformation. See eg. --] (]) 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3/4''': Tabloids usually fail reliability. It seems this one is no different. ] (]) 17:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Discussion (Bild) ===
	== ] ==
			Bild is currently used over 1,800 times on the English Misplaced Pages per {{duses|bild.de}}. It is already currently listed on RSP as "generally unreliable". This RfC was prompted by a discussion at ], where a user questioned the lack of participation in previous discussions. ] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			I asked the initial question at WT:RSP since I don't like when we classify sources based on vibes. So I'll play the role of the devil's advocate. I have very little knowledge of the German media landscape and I'm open to arguments in both directions. The sources provided by u:Hemiauchenia make two claims:
	Is Acronym Finder a reliable source for the use of neologisms? "While the database is not open content, users can help to expand the database by submitting new definitions, which are subject to editorial control" - is it enough for reliability? ] (]) 23:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
			* {{tquote|articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers." ... "The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary"}} - this should have no bearing on reliability, unless they actually published falsehoods about said celebrities
			* In 2018 Bild fell for a hoax. Someone leaked emails supposedly between a major political party in Germany and a made-up Russian online figure. Bild published an article based on it. This is definitely a failure of their editorial process but they definitely did not do it on purpose and when this became known clarified that the whole thing was a hoax. I don't think that one such issue that happened 6 years ago should automatically lead to GUNREL status. Many other RS fell for hoaxes . ]<sub>]</sub> 13:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			::This is a massive understatement of what Lilienthal 2023 cited by Hemiauchenia actually says. The better part of the text's 92 pages is a critique of Bild's practices in a systematic fashion, summarized in its introduction (translated): {{tq|From the perspective of critical readers, BILD is constantly chipping away at its own credibility.}}
	== EInsiders.com ==
			::If that's not enough, the paper includes an 8-page bibliography of other extensive studies of der Bild. It's silly to act like what should decide this source's reliability is some "gotcha" wiki-sleuthing based on recent scandal--we have the verdict of mountains of peer-reviewed research. Make a case based on that, as others have. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 14:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I'm just surprised that given the reputation of the source and all these analyses no one has come up with a examples of inaccuracies other than the 6-year old hoax. Unfortunately I don't speak German and so can't read Lilienthal's report. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. ] (]) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::@], I've managed to translate it using Google Translate, thanks!
			:::::These are the key points from the foreword
			:::::# articles are published that hurt those affected and (can) irritate readers
			:::::# BILD is running campaigns against political opponents – against Angela Merkel, Karl Lauterbach, Annalena Baerbock, to name just three examples
			:::::# is said to have felt personally affected . Because he is co-owner of such a property in Berlin. He then prompted BILD editor-in-chief Reichelt to write extremely critical reports about Adidas and the rent freeze
			:::::# A woman who says she suffered under former editor-in-chief Reichelt is suing the German media group in the USA because she felt let down by her former employer
			:::::# A particularly drastic case occurred in early 2017, when the Frankfurt edition reported on sexual assaults by men with a migrant background on visitors to a prominent nightlife district - completely fabricated by people the editorial team trusted without checking. The embarrassment was great, and the retraction in the paper itself was inevitable.
			:::::I think I understand the issues with it better now. Would you say that this is a reasonably complete summary or is there something else I missed?
			:::::In my view #5 is most relevant for the assessment of reliability. They certainly didn't a good job as journalists but it doesn't seem like they fabricated stuff and in the end they published a retraction which is what we expect from sources. #2 and #3 show that it's clearly a very ] source. I'm still not sure it satisfies the WP:GUNREL criteria. ]<sub>]</sub> 23:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Actually the example you gave after your !vote about Bild's campaign against Christian Drosten is pretty convincing. ]<sub>]</sub> 23:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I'm not really sure what is meant by {{tq|classif sources based on vibes}}, but if it means assessing the reputation of a source based on other reliable sources, that's kinda what we're required to do by policy. ] says {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}, as does ] multiple times. No reputation, no evidence of reliability. ] (] • ]) 00:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Because of Bild's outstanding importance and high circulation, politicians, celebrities and sportspeople often give Bild interviews. I consider these texts as generally reliable, in contrast to Bild's other articles. I've checked some of the {{duses|bild.de}}, most of them belong to the first category. --] (]) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Nigerian newspapers ==
	Is EInsiders.com a reliable source? The website has been around since before 1996, it has several very well known and well respected editors with editorial oversight to their content. EInsiders is on the internet, on several TV stations and has a radio show. Information is 3rd party verified. The editors are all long-term members of the Film Critics association and are high level professionals in the field of their expertise, the film industry. Other large publications use them for a source and often cite them as a source for information. They are on the list of approved film critics with Rotten Tomatoes and show up in the Rotten Tomato movie reviews as an official film critic. (I use Rotten Tomatoes as an example because they are used as a reliable source on Wiki and EInsiders.com is the source for some of that info) They attend film festivals and press-only movie screening by invitation from film PR firms and do live interviews with cast and report directly from the events. I can't find anything that would make EInsiders not a credible source. Please let me know if that is enough for reliability. ] (]) 05:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
			] has nothing about Nigerian newspapers, but references a project-list of them which seems rather too optimistic. It seems to me that these newspapers are filled with completely unreliable promopieces. You can see ], where a completely unknown Nigerian/French person supposedly got a US-only award from President Biden. Not a single source outside Nigeria confirms this, there seems to be no reason at all why she would have received this, but it got reported by , , , , ...
	:Please see the background of this dispute ]. The issue at first was not that the site was not "reliable", it was that in '''every''' one of your edits, you were adding that site. That was back in December and then in January and it was explained to you and you were warned. Now you are not only doing the same thing, you are '''removing''' existing reliable sources and adding that site claiming "the Einsiders report was posted 24 hours before the Daily Mail". However, I am glad you finally brought this issue up here. —'''<span style="solid;background: #5D8AA8;font-family: Century Gothic">] ]</span>''' 05:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
			We had similar issues with e.g. ], ], and probably many others which I can't find as easily.
	::And here is the source of the conflict - Mike Allen, who for some reason is making false allegations and harassing my edits and mytalk page. My "claim" as you call it after you posted lies on mytalk page, was that I cited EInsiders originally. EInsiders was removed and replaced with yours. I simply reverted it back to the original as I believe it is valid and reliable. So stop making stuff up Mike. ] (]) 06:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
			Isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers which routinely publish such completely unreliable promo pieces as articles? ] (]) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::This is absolute nonsense! "False allegations and harassing"? That was your fist time adding the EI source on that article (link above) and I '''reverted''' your edit (clicked one button), which in turn reverted back to the '''original''' source, Daily Mail. I didn't manually go in .. never mind it's late and I can't believe this. I'll let the edit summaries speak for themselves, as all of this is documented. Also, your talk page is there for issues like this, which I exercised ] (at first) and then ] and if this keeps escalating, I will take this to ] or ] (which ever is the correct party to go to). —'''<span style="solid;background: #5D8AA8;font-family: Century Gothic">] ]</span>''' 07:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
			: The problem is that if you deprecated these newspapers, there'd be basically no usable Nigerian sources left, which hardly seems good in terms of attempting to fix Misplaced Pages's coverage biases. I do agree that it is standard practice at a lot of Nigerian newspapers to run effectively undisclosed promotional material, and it seems good to note this somewhere on RSP, but I think deprecating them outright would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. ] (]) 17:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:: Here's a relevant BBC News story about the issue from 2015 . Apparently Nigerian newspapers also regularly suppress stories due to advertisier pressure. Another interesting story from 2020 which says {{tq| realised that their top quality journalism or influential columnists alone weren’t going to win the battle for eyeballs. Enter “viral content” and clickbait headlines. Press releases were repackaged as news stories, fact-checking and verification became redundant. Aanu Adeoye says, “the traditional gatekeepers of journalism (newspapers) in this country don’t give a hoot about the quality of what they’re churning out daily.” In a few years, stories from Nigeria’s top newspapers looked as hurriedly written as stories from blogs. It had become a game of who could break the news the fastest and who could churn out the most news. Nigerian traditional media beat the upstarts at their own game and occupied spots at the top of Nigeria’s most visited websites. But the true cost of this pyrrhic victory was quality control.}} If even mainstream Nigerian newspapers can't be trusted as factual sources then it's not clear what Nigerian sources can be trusted. ] (]) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I really don’t get arguments like this one. How does it help Misplaced Pages to use unreliable sources from countries with more limited media landscapes? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::One of Misplaced Pages and the WMF's goals is to be "diverse" and to lessen systemic bias to western nations. Limiting coverage to Western liberal democracies will obviously prevent that. ] (]) 11:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::How does it help the English Misplaced Pages to eliminate practically all English-language sources for about 1 billion English-speakers? There's not an easy answer, here.--] (] &#124; ]) 14:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Much of the editor population vastly underestimates how much of our reader base comes from these regions of the globe.
			:::Formally deprecating sources is a last resort for widely misused stuff like the ''Daily Mail'' (arguably part of the issue there was the perceived credibility of a mainstream Western paper subject to strict British libel laws). Simply following and enforcing existing P&G should address the issues adequately.
			:::Furthermore, if one of these Nigerian papers were to come under new and improved management or ownership, I doubt WP would take notice with any real celerity.
			:::] (]) 00:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:This is a problem with virtually every newspaper published in Nigeria and India. We cannot simply deprecate all news from two of the largest English speaking countries in the world. Or, we could, but we would get called very racist for doing so. ] (]) 17:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::There is nothing racist about applying basic standards of reliability to sources. If there are newspapers from Nigeria, or India, or the US, or ... which ''don't'' have these issues, then they will be treated as reliable sources. But we shouldn't be afraid to label a source as being unreliable just because someone might shout "racism" without good reason. Allowing unreliable sources just because we want to have more articles about a country is probably the worst thing we could do. ] (]) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I think the damage to the encyclopedia that comes from effectively banning most coverage of two of the most populous countries in the world outweighs the benefit here. We are biased enough towards the West as is. I do not think there are major newspapers in either country without these practices. ] (]) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Its not bias to refuse to allow falsehoods, it is racist (to my mind) to give them exceptional status. ] (]) 13:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::If it results in a racially biased coverage how is that not racist? ] (]) 11:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Becasue we allow other African news media, its just that we do not allow, falsehoods. ] (]) 11:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::It still has a disparate impact in a racially biased manner. ] (]) 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::No its not, it is based upon lack of truth, no one here has raised race once apart from you. ] (]) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Whatever the ''intention'' banning the entire media ecosystem of a developing country of 230 million people (plus India's 1.43 billion because we would ban them for the same reason) and making our encyclopedia irrelevant to large swathes of the non western world would have a biased ''outcome'' - doesn't matter the intention if it gets you the same result. Is that a sacrifice we are willing to accept? Because if so we need to stop pretending we have any interest in "combatting systemic bias". ] (]) 11:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Well, in my opinion it hasn’t been shown that reliability issues already aren’t being handled at in a nationally disparate manner. ] (]) 00:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::if these sources want to be accepted as reliable on Misplaced Pages, they should give up their practice of publishing paid news and writing puff pieces for anyone willing to pay. - ] (]) 07:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::If we are going to be banning every single news source of a country of 230 million, then we should be very aware we are doing it. And possibly throw out all the project's virtue signaling over countering systemic bias along with it, if we decide to go that route. ] (]) 10:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::We should allow perpetuation of misinformation on Misplaced Pages because it would be racist not to? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::It would disproportionately affect the writing and sourcing on articles and topics on highly populated non-Western formerly colonized countries. That’s pretty obviously racist whether it is the right or wrong thing to do (] or something analogous). If we do it, we will get called racist for it. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it but it is reality. ] (]) 21:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::It would affect them by prohibiting bad information from bad sources to be included. Sounds good. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Should we do the same and ban all news from India? ] (]) 11:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::We should ban all shitty sources. If that wipes out all of India’s news (I’d sure be surprised) then yes. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I can't see how it would be preferable to have our coverage of non-Western developing countries be dominated by propaganda, paid-promotion, tabloids, and un-fact-checked reports... ] (]) 20:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::No one is suggesting an either-or dichotomy. We should start by enforcing existing policies with regard to usage of these sources on a case by case basis. Mass deprecation was merely an impulsive suggestion someone made somewhere above, and would self-evidently be overkill unless all other options had been exhausted, which they haven’t. Cheers, ] (]) 00:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I think this claim should be presumed true but not notable. The PVSA award is given out annually by any number of authorized NGOs to their own volunteers without any US government involvement, and it does come with a form letter in the president's name. Ononiwu apparently received hers from Innovate Africa Corp. There's no reason any US press to write up such a thing, and there doesn't seem to be a public database of honorees. Note however that Ononiwu should not have been eligible for the award because she's not a US citizen or permanent resident. I guess these newspapers went along with exaggerating the award's prestige, but I don't see it as a major problem for reliability on facts. ] (]) 19:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I think it could be worth writing some guidance along the same lines as ], though I'm not sure it rises to the point of a general deprecation yet. ] report might also be helpful in developing such guidance. ] (] • ]) 20:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:As with WP:NEWSORGINDIA Nigerian news sources are full of undisclosed advertorials. It's a common practice, so editors need to be cautious with anything that uses promotional language. Their use for establishing notability needs to be seen in a similar light.
			:Formally deprecating all Nigerian news media just isn't an option, in the same way deprecating all India news media with the same issue isn't an option. I would support changing the language of WP:NEWSORGINDIA, so it highlights the same issue in other countries not just India. I doubt this is an issue limited to those markets, and one that will likely become more of an issue everywhere with the difficulties newsedia currently face. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I recall at least one instance of them churning out AI generated puff pieces e.i and . Oddly enough Daily Times NG is listed as a "generally reliable" source for Nigerian topics at ].- ] (]) 07:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Mike, why don't you just take a second to calm down. EInsiders was the original source. I am the original author on the article and I put Einsiders as the source. It was changed to the Daily Mail. I reverted it to EInsiders. A simple viewing of the history will show you that. The purpose here is to have others weigh in on if EInsiders meets Wiki's guidelines as a reputable source. It is my position that it does and, since other authors have also used it, I believe the general consensus will be in agreement with me. You need to stop the accusations and your shrill behavior. ] (]) 19:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
			:There's evidence that their promotional articles aren't reliable. But I've yet to see anyone present evidence here that other kinds of news from these sources are unreliable. Does anyone here have evidence of that? If not, I don't see why we'd deprecate these Nigerian news sources in their entirety, and instead I support Hemiauchenia's having added "Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability" to RS/P, perhaps adding something like "especially for promotional news articles." ] (]) 15:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Since the PROMO issues seem to be localized particularly to biographies, perhaps we could have guidance similar to what we use at NCORP that calls for heightened Nigerian source scrutiny re: independence when it comes to BLPs. Deprecating them just for BLPs might also be an option. ] (]) 18:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I refuse to comment on the instances that led to this proposal because they can happen on a platform with the format adopted by Misplaced Pages. However,&nbsp; I oppose the proposal to deprecate all Nigerian newspapers on English Misplaced Pages. Applying a blanket judgment based on issues with a few outlets among many is unjust and undermines Misplaced Pages's inclusivity. Nigeria's media landscape, shaped by its diverse population of over 500 languages and 300 ethnic groups, plays a critical role in democracy and accountability.
			:"While no media is flawless, treating all Nigerian newspapers as unreliable disregards their contributions and efforts to uphold global standards. Media reliability concerns exist worldwide, yet discussion of this nature is sensitive and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than through blanket exclusions. Adopting this precedent ensures fairness and avoids marginalizing voices from the Global South.
			:"I recommend individual evaluations of Nigerian newspapers, involving local expertise and ongoing monitoring, to maintain Misplaced Pages's mission of inclusivity and accuracy. A nuanced approach will preserve diversity and strengthen the platform's credibility."] (]) 02:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			Yes banning falsehoods is a sacrifice I am willing to make, be they from White people black people, or yellow people. As I said about Fiox and the Daily Myth, if you do not want to be accused of telling lies, there is a simpler solution, do not tell them. This is my last response here with a firm '''not reliable'''. Prove me wrong and I will change my mind, but it has to be proof and not emotive appeals to (so-called) fairness. ] (]) 11:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::Since you forgot to sign in with your user name and post here, . Now that I look at the page, it was the that first added the site of that page. You didn't bother to tell anyone that. I'm done speaking with you, I would like someone else to speak about this ''mess''. —'''<span style="solid;background: #5D8AA8;font-family: Century Gothic">] ]</span>''' 20:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
			:{{tq|1=or yellow people}}<br>Uhhh.... ] (]) 18:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Obviously meant as in "persons of any color, including colors in which persons don’t exist" and not a reference to the antique Western epithet for East Asians <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::It's not "obvious", even to those of us who have interacted with Slatersteven enough to presume he wasn't intending to use a racial epithet. ] (]) 20:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			I'm against this. Nigerian sources, like all sources, are entitled to be evaluated one by one. ] (]) 21:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::What "mess"? Are you really this upset because you don't like a cite that I use? None of the information has been proven inaccurate and thank goodness you now realize that your accusation that I replaced a cite with an EInsiders cite is wrong. You don't seem to have a problem with the information that I post. You aren't disputing the validity of any of my edits. You are just this upset because you want a different reference used as the cite for the same information?? Don't you think you are over-reacting?] (]) 03:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
			===Arbitrary break (Nigerian newspapers)===
	{{outdent}} I am going to bypass the above for now, and look at the original question posed by Pharaway. EInsiders does not have an "about us" link on its site. I can see nothing about who creates it. Its creators appear to be good at media marketing / linking - they've got facebook links, twitter etc, but at its core it is an unverifiable site for which a google search, and a google news search, fails to turn up other obvious commentary that might attest to its reliability. Sorry, Pharaway, but my examination suggests it fails the test. Assuming the source happens to get those death dates correct, your best bet is to use that as a heads-up, go to the newspapers online in following days and find a reliable source. If other editors replace an EI ref with a reliable source, i recommend those revisions be allowed to stand. ] (]) 04:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
			I've gone ahead and created a new section covering Nigerian news organisations at RSP ]. It's a bit stubby at the moment but it's at least a start. ] (]) 00:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::I'm going to bypass these last few days also, and comment if you will. ;-) The site has no "About us" and that is frowned upon. There's no way to find out who the website belongs too, who runs it and how do we know these editors are part of the Film Critics Association? The "editors" seem to be just regular people that review films. , . Who is Jonathan W. Hickman? His profile doesn't say anything about being part of the FCA. What makes significant over other obituaries, such as ? Who is , where did she get her sources? The site just looks like a big community site, where anyone can review films, add people as friends, etc I just can't see it being used as a reliable source for BL(and dead)P or well.. any article. I'm sorry. —'''<span style="solid;background: #5D8AA8;font-family: Century Gothic">] ]</span>''' 05:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
			:See ]. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 20:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	Regardless of whether einsiders.com is a reliable source, the discussion at ] shows a consensus that there has been an undue promotion of the site. Above, Pharaway states that the site is well known, with well respected editors and editorial oversight. However, I do not see anyway to verify these claims and I see no reason to regard einsiders as a reliable source. ] (]) 01:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			::Sure, but this is by Nigerian editors who ranking Nigerian sources relative to each other. This is different from the standards that non-Nigerian Misplaced Pages editors have for sources. There are serious issues with quality of Nigerian media across the board, as elaborated on in this article: . It's definitely useful to tell the relative quality of Nigerian sources though. ] (]) 20:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::From direct experience, I have not observed Nigerian editors to be somehow inferior to non-Nigerian editors. They’ve been especially insightful in the several Nigeria-related AfDs I’ve participated in. I invite you to go through the more experienced Nigerian editors’ edit histories and see for yourself. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I'm not saying that their judgment is poor or that Nigerian editors are inferior in any way, but that there are issues with Nigerian press across the board, such as low press freedom that is very different from say, news sources in Western Europe and North America, which should be kept in mind with evaluating their content. ] (]) 21:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I encourage you to engage with folks at ] as you develop guidance on Nigerian media. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 21:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I second this. I conversion about Nigeria WP should not be done without Nigerians editors involvement. Just because you found something wrong in some sources that doesn’t give you the right to assume all is bad. I can literally give you examples of where , in 2024! So let’s listen to these editors as they are more familiar with these sources. ] (]) 07:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Reliable sources can churn out a lot of rubbish once in a while. No matter what anyone says, the likes of Vanguard, Guardian, Daily Times, Punch, Daily Independent, The Sun, etc, would always be notable relating to general issues about Nigeria. Some weeks back, a state in Nigeria held their governorship election. These media houses in question were the source of verified information about the election. When a political appointment is made by the president, it is the same media houses that Misplaced Pages editors would use to establish the claim. If we make them unreliable, it means we are putting an end to Nigerian contents on English Misplaced Pages. These media houses will dish out promotional materials whenever they want and we can do nothing about it (it is business for them). All we can do as Wikipedians is to speedy norminate articles for deletion if they are not notable to be on the Wiki. The major issue we are having now is a result of a loophole in the notability criteria. GNG should not be used '''ALONE''' to establish notability. ] (]) 10:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::On the EInsiders site itself, there are video interviews with Jonathan Hickman and Scott Mantz, among others. Most recently, there are videos of the two of them as official press at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival. If yous listen to the videos, as I have, a good bit of these questions are answered. . On it is a movie review that he also licensed to EInsiders - not as an aggregator, but as an owner and official writer. How do I know this? Because Scott Mantz is on the video saying it on the Einsider's website. Also, he told me that in person - I had the opportunity to meet him. To prove my statement that EInsiders is well respected, here is a
			::If these media houses(e.g The Daily Times) are churning out AI generated puff pieces then we should indeed add a cautionary clause in the guideline that care must be taken when using these sources to establish notability, especially at venues such as AfD. - ] (]) 12:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:GNG still works. The sources have to be independent. What this means is that in the case of Nigerian media, it's tricky but necessary to try and determine if a particular report is independent of the subject.--] (] &#124; ]) 11:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Judging articles on a case-by-case basis is something we (Nigerian editors) are already doing and believe it or not, we’re doing a damn good job at it. Deprecating these sources means that articles on Nigerian topics would be deleted in batches——thousands, if I might add——and this doesn’t necessarily reflect the systemic bias we are supposed to be fighting.
			:There are tells that give off a sponsored/paid article and every Nigerian editor in good standing already knows this and by this, I vehemently disagree with Hemiauchenia that Nigerian editors are not able to distinguish a reliable source from an unreliable source.
			:Also, I think sometimes, what we consider as “poor journalism” (in the Western standard) are just Nigerian journalist (correctly) using ] to write articles that it seems like it is promo. This does not mean that undisclosed paid journalism does not happen but sometimes, we confuse the two. So, this is me opposing any form deprecations as this will have unintended consequences. Best, ] 12:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::If this is something Nigerian editors are already doing then what's wrong in codifying this on RSP? Indian sources engage in same practice and we have ] that tells users what to look for in order to discount press releases and undisclosed sponsored content when evaluating notability, nothing wrong with having one for the Nigerian media. - ] (]) 12:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@], uhm, if Indian editors did so, someone took the liberty of doing it for us (]): ]; no one is opposing it. Best, ] 16:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			It is true that Nigerian news outlet like their Western counterparts (RSBIAS?) do publish opinions, promotional and advertorials like reliable news without explicitly marking them as much. In fact, this has long history in and it is mostly associated with UPE editors who want to create contents for their gain.
	(moved from a talk page)
	Off the very top of my head, ] and ] would be examples that illustrate my point. Both actors are obviously notable but their deaths were merely blips on the radar in the media. I spend quite a bit of time working on fairly obscure dead actors' articles which means I know where to look for even the smallest mention of a obit. In those cases, none can be found except for Einsiders. While I'm fully aware that any unsourced content can be removed or challenged by anyone, I do not believe a notable person's death should fall into that category. In both cases, the deaths were covered by an outside source. For whatever reason, this source is being called into question. If possible, I'd like to be pointed to the discussion regarding the reliability of this link. Aside from it being spammed by some person for whatever reason, I've never found any problem with the actual site itself. Again, if there's something I'm missing please about this situation, feel free to clue me in. '''<font color="MediumSlateBlue" face="Tahoma">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup>''' 05:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			Yet, deprecating Nigerian sources is not the solution. It will definitely do more harm than good to the visibility of the most populous black nation on earth. This means that we would have no reliable source to either curate or create contents. This is just an indirect way of saying that Nigerian content is no longer acceptable on English Misplaced Pages. This is because reliable sources are the backbone of contents creation.
	:See ]. The site doesn't cite where they get their information, there is no About Us, no one knows who those authors are. For example this is not a professional obituary:
			Prior to this discussion, we have been sending a lot of articles with promotional sources to ]. This is what we can do from our end. We can neither stop people creating them nor stop the media from doing their business.
			Also, there is currently a section at ] tagged ] notifying reviewers and editors of caution in dealing with Nigeria sources. This alongside thorough analysis of Nigerian sources should drastically reduce the promotional articles and create a better future for Nigerian contents on the English Misplaced Pages.] (]) 14:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	"DANNY DUKES Died Dec. 3, 2007
			:We cannot disregard Nigerian sources entirely. Yes, there are issues with some outlets, such as publishing promotional content or reworded press releases, but this isn’t unique to Nigeria. Even in countries with established media systems, there are sources that can’t always be trusted. The solution isn’t to write off all Nigerian sources but to evaluate them individually. Some articles might be biased or promotional, and we can avoid those. However, there are also credible reports and investigative pieces from Nigerian media that meet our standards. By treating each source on a case-by-case basis, we strike a balance, avoiding systemic bias while ensuring the content we use is reliable. A blanket approach would only create more gaps in coverage, which isn’t what we want for Misplaced Pages. And as {{u|Reading Beans}} mentioned, we Nigerian editors are already doing a good work judging sources on a case-by-case basis. ''''']''''' ] 17:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			], the only keep argument is based on just the above "so you want to dismiss all Nigerian sources?". This is why they should not be acceptable because content is being created (and defended) using dubious sources (on the very grounds those sources are being defended here, false allegations of racism or false balance). ] (]) 17:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Such a statement from a suspected UPE with limited knowledge around ] and ] shouldn't hold water let alone be used as a basis or argument for the deprecation of an sources of information. The volunteer are doing enormous tasks to ensure content that doesn't meet the English Misplaced Pages standard is nominated for deletion. ] (]) 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	Adult film actor Danny Dukes (real name Danny Salas Jr.) died of a drug overdose at age 33. Mr. Dukes acted in several adult films between 2002 and 2004. He was also a sometime agent. He leaves behind a young son. '''Prayers of comfort for his family and friends. Some say that the adult film industry leads to drug abuse. Of course there are enough examples of legit film industry insiders getting hooked on drugs to make one wonder about such blanket condemnations. However, the bottom line is this, drugs will kill you. First they will kill your soul, then your body. All that remains is the pain you leave behind because you didn't care enough to fight the addiction'''" There are more examples, but their site is down, again for me. —'''<span style="solid;background: #5D8AA8;font-family: Century Gothic">] ]</span>''' 06:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			:{{u|Slatersteven}}, like already stated above, every sources presented in an AfD discussion is analysed carefully. FYI, majority of !delete votes there are Nigerian editors and the only keep !vote there being the paid creator (whom I suspect of UPE). If you can get a deletion discussion where a non-notable article was kept and defend with unreliable sources, I would appreciate it. Like the examples shown, the unreliable of the published articles were always pointed out and the articles were (correctly) deleted. Best, ] 19:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::No. No. No. my friend, @], I have told you ever and anon that this editor is not into UPE. So STOP THE SUSPICION and even voicing it out. It is affecting the reviewing of my articles. It is a blessing in disguise that my article brought this intense discussion. My take away from here is the guide being created for Nigerian sources and the caution I will employ in future creations. ] (]) 18:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:What I'm seeing in that AfD, and in the others mentioned that all ended in deletion, is editors using their own good judgement to deal with this issue. Hopefully the new advice at NEWSORGNIGERIA will help encourage other editors to use the same caution. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:], if someone argues "so you want to dismiss all Nigerian sources?", the response should be "no, we don't. We're rejecting notability based on these specific Nigerian articles, because (a) the articles being used to assert notability all focus on a single "event," (b) the articles are extremely similar and might have been content farmed, especially since they seem overly promotional (e.g., it's not a "prestigous" award, it's solely based on number of hours volunteered and being nominated by a relevant organization), and (c) US government info about the award makes it clear that she's not eligible for that award (as she's not a US citizen or permanent resident), which means that ''these'' articles aren't reliable for ''this'' content. But the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter. Do ''you'' have evidence of the latter? ] (]) 23:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Which is what Im did say, more than once. To me met with stonewalling "but that's racism" comments (and still am), at which point if the best argument you have is emotive, I have to assume you have no others, thus Im assume its an accepted problem with them. And as this is about "reputation for fact-checking" and the best argument is "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism"...well I have to assume they dio not have said reputation.] (]) 10:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Sorry, but I'm not sure what the referent of "them" is in "Im assume its an accepted problem with them."
			:::As for the rest, my argument ''isn't'' "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism." My argument is "the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable ''doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable''. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter. Do '''you''' have evidence of the latter?" You still haven't presented any evidence that articles from Nigerian news media are ''generally'' unreliable. Either you have evidence for that or you don't. ] (]) 14:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::] ]. ] (]) 11:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Did you actually read those articles? Neither one makes any mention of any of the Nigerian news outlets identified in the OP. The BBC piece is about ''new'' websites "established around the time of Nigeria's general elections in February 2023." The SSRC piece is about "the spread of disinformation and ''how social media has only furthered this spread'' by providing new, fast-moving arenas for confirming and amplifying such false information" in Nigeria, including uptake by traditional news media, while noting that "The increasing threat to democratic institutions posed by disinformation is a ''global phenomenon''." ] (]) 14:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Vangaurd and The nation ]. ] (]) 14:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::"This story is part of a series by the BBC on disinformation and fake news - ''a global problem'' challenging the way we share information and perceive the world around us," where this particular article focused on the "spread of fake news in Africa" by looking at how five false stories — one each from five African countries, including Nigeria — was picked up by some news media in those countries. Yes, "The Nation and the Vanguard, both published stories with a very similar theme" to one of those false stories, but absolutely nothing in the BBC article suggests that Nigerian news media are ''generally unreliable''. Is there any country globally where the BBC couldn't write an analogous report? For example, another BBC in this series is "How President Trump took 'fake news' into the mainstream." ] (]) 14:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::You have it in reverse, we judge a source on its reputation for fact-checking, I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not, it down to you to show they do, We do not judge sources based upon how local editors will police pagers, but on the sources alone. ] (]) 13:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::{{tq|I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not ]}} No, you haven't. Nothing you cited says anything about their reputation or suggests that they're ''generally unreliable''. If you believe that something you cited provided evidence of ''general unreliability'', please quote what you have in mind. {{tq|it down to you to show they do}} I haven't claimed that they have a reputation for fact-checking, so I have no burden to prove that they do (and more generally, if you want me to show something that I've said is true, just quote it, so we're both clear about the claim in question). What I said is (again): "the fact that ''these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable'' doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are ''generally unreliable''. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter." Fram proposed "to formally deprecate these newspapers," and you responded with "a firm '''not reliable'''." Since you're claiming that they're ''generally unreliable'', you have a burden to show that they're ''generally unreliable''. ] (]) 14:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I finally dug up an old AfD comment I'd made after reading a bunch of literature on Nigerian sources:{{pb}}Nigerian newspapers in particular are well known to&nbsp;&nbsp;on paid advertising.&nbsp;{{tq|Professor Omenugha describes a similar trend in the print media: “In the newspapers, the so called specialised pages of the property, IT and computer businesses and finance pages are prime examples of commercialised spaces. The point is that no attempt is made to let the audience or readers know that these spaces are paid for and they end up holding them as sacred as they would news”.}}&nbsp;{{tq|Some journalists also work as paid consultants to politicians and businesses thus threatening professionalism. AIT’s Amarere says it is demeaning to journalism as “some of the concerned journalists now work for companies through which they obtain jobs. They cover their track by saying they are staff of this or that company and run offices outside the newsroom. In this situation it is difficult to balance profession with commercial interest”.}}&nbsp;"Awards" issued by media are also considered corrupt.&nbsp;{{tq|“The awards are not free, they are for money and anything that comes with a prize has implications”, says Olumide Adeyinka-Fusika, a lawyer. “If a newspaper names a bank as the best bank of the year and the bank is later indicted for corruption, that newspaper will not be willing to publish the story because that will be like passing a vote of no confidence on their own judgement”.}} ] (]) 00:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Here are some other references: {{pb}}{{tq|For example, such practices as pack journalism by beat associations of journalists which operate like cartels, the payment of protection fees by reputation managers of institutions, the granting of awards of dubious credibility to non deserving individuals and organisations are some of the ways in which corruption manifests in the media.}}{{pb}}{{pb}}{{tq|Even though over 64 % of those sampled believed that acceptance of any form of gratifications was unethical, over 75 % of the<br>journalists engage in corrupt practices with impunity. More than half of the 18 media outfits covered by the study are indifferent to certain identified corrupt practices in their organizations.}}{{pb}}{{pb}}{{tq|Adewale (2008), in his "The Rot in Nigerian Journalism Is Much Deeper Than We Thought" cited a controversial statement by Graham Greene to back up his position thus: "A petty reason perhaps why novelists more and more try to keep a distance from journalists is that novelists are trying to write the truth and journalists are trying to write fiction". This embarrassing irony aptly describes the state of Nigerian journalism and journalists in particular.}}{{pb}}{{pb}}{{tq|In its mildest form, press releases are published almost verbatim. Reporters either have an agreement with the government media men and are ‘settled’ with money, or threatened they will not be paid what is known as ‘qua”, or ‘mobilisation”. Some papers don’t pay salaries, and journalists have to make what they can on commission. In its more malevolent form, journalists are all but owned by powerful men. Newspapers have a straight conflict of interest, they are financially reliant on political adverts, full-page colour hagiographies to governors and other political players. Last year, one paper alone took an estimated £270,000 in advertisements on one edition from supporters of former military ruler Ibrahim Babangida, celebrating his birthday.}} ] (]) 01:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I think we need something similar to ] for Nigerian media as well. - ] (]) 03:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::@] the "Corruption in the Nigerian media: the brown envelope syndrome" is an auto-expiring link that doesn't let anyone else use it. Could you provide a better link/where you found the original link? ] (]) 18:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Clicking the link from should work. ] (]) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::All seriousness aside, {{tq|In its more malevolent form, journalists are all but owned by powerful men}} - those powerful men should just buy the newspaper or hell even a whole media empire to rebroadcast their personal opinions. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I was pointed to this discussion by @] after a similar discussion when I ran across ]. It does seem like much of Nigerian media simply writes whatever the highest bidder is willing to pay for. It seems like these sources should simply be banned except in cases where it is clear that the article was not purchased. ]] 00:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{ctop|unhelpful ChatGPT wall of text}}
			::::::::My humble take and summary from these deep debates:
			::::::::'''Analysis of Nigerian Newspapers as Sources for Misplaced Pages Articles'''
			::::::::The reliability of Nigerian newspapers as sources for Misplaced Pages articles—particularly in Biographies of Living People (BLPs)—has ignited considerable debate within the Misplaced Pages editing community. A complex interplay of skepticism regarding the veracity of these sources and the recognition of systemic biases in coverage dynamics has led to high-stakes discussions. This report delves into the characteristics of Nigerian newspapers that contribute to their portrayal as unreliable, as well as those that underscore their potential value as information sources, and the broader implications for Misplaced Pages's commitment to inclusivity and diverse representation.
			::::::::'''Characteristics Leading to Distrust'''
			::::::::Nigerian newspapers often face criticism for their propensity to publish promotional content, undisclosed advertorials, and sensibly sensationalized reporting. This trend raises significant concerns regarding the integrity of journalism in the country. A primary issue is the commercial influence on editorial decisions, wherein advertising dollars can lead to the suppression of unfavorable stories or the propagation of misleading information to satisfy financial backers.
			::::::::High-profile examples, such as the case of a female personality—where numerous Nigerian news outlets reported unverified claims regarding an award from America—underscored the media’s failure to provide corroborative sources from outside Nigeria. Such instances not only reveal a troubling trend toward questionable journalism but also invite closer scrutiny of the claims made by various outlets.
			::::::::
			::::::::The environment fostered by these publications has seen a shift toward prioritizing clickable, viral content over factual reporting. This prioritization can obscure quality journalism and make it increasingly difficult for both editors and readers to discern credible information from misleading narratives. Such practices contribute significantly to the stigma that Nigerian newspapers face in the eyes of the Misplaced Pages community.
			::::::::'''Reliability in Context'''
			::::::::While there exists a notable trend of unreliable reporting among many Nigerian newspapers, it is critical to contextualize this within the broader media landscape of Nigeria. Not all publications succumb to dubious practices; several outlets continue to uphold high journalistic standards, successfully publishing well-researched investigative reports and reliable coverage of current events. For instance, reputable newspapers often play an essential role in reporting on significant political developments, including elections, thereby contributing positively to public discourse.
			::::::::From the perspective of Misplaced Pages's guidelines for sourcing (specifically WP:RSNP), engaging in a case-by-case assessment of sources is pivotal. This approach emphasizes the necessity for editors well-versed in the Nigerian media landscape to identify which sources maintain their integrity and contribute substantively to Misplaced Pages’s mission. A blanket rejection or deprecation of all Nigerian sources would, therefore, overlook the valuable contributions that some publications make, ultimately hampering the representation of Nigerian voices in global discourse.
			::::::::'''Recommendations for Misplaced Pages Editors'''
			::::::::1. '''Develop Specific Guidelines''': Create detailed guidelines akin to those for other regions, such as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. This document should articulate the acceptable use of Nigerian sources while pinpointing common issues like promotional materials and the nature of reporting practices. Such clarity will assist editors in evaluating sources effectively.
			::::::::2. '''Engage Local Expertise:''' Encourage the involvement of Nigerian editors in determining the reliability of local sources. Their unique insights can significantly enhance the community's understanding of the nuances of language and reporting styles prevalent in Nigeria.
			::::::::3. '''Enforce Critical Scrutiny''': Emphasize the importance of thorough evaluations of articles from Nigerian newspapers, particularly regarding BLPs. Editors and reviewers should be trained to recognize promotional language and ensure the use of independent, verifiable sources.
			::::::::4. '''Adapt to Changes in Media Landscape''': Continuously monitor and research the evolving landscape of Nigerian media, documenting improvements in journalistic integrity and the emergence of new, credible news organizations. This ongoing reassessment will allow Misplaced Pages policies regarding sourcing to adapt in line with current practices.
			:::::::: 5. '''Maintain a Balance in Coverage''': While it is essential to prioritize accurate information and avoid systemic bias, it is equally crucial to reflect the diverse perspectives from non-Western countries. Dismissing all Nigerian sources could marginalize important voices, undermining Misplaced Pages's mission of being a comprehensive encyclopedia.
			::::::::Finally, the integration of Nigerian newspapers into Misplaced Pages remains a multifaceted challenge that requires a balanced approach acknowledging both their shortcomings and their capacity for delivering credible information. By applying informed scrutiny and developing nuanced guidelines, Misplaced Pages can adeptly navigate the complexities involved in sourcing from Nigerian media while committing to enhancing its inclusivity and representation in global knowledge sharing. ] (]) 18:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::That's not "your humble take", that's a bloated ChatGPT-generated regurgitation of this discussion. ] (]) 21:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{cbot}}
			*'''Comment''' pretty much everything has already been said; the news media in Nigeria seem to be in the habit of puffing everyone and everything. As with the Indian news sources, we almost have to evaluate each news story on a case-by-case basis. We can keep Nigerian sources, but if we can find coverage from outside of the area, it helps show notability. The sources in the country are in the habit of puffy reporting, we just have to learn to use them. ] (]) 01:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I'd be ok if we create a policy similar to the NewsOrgIndia ... We allow the sources, but to be taken with a grain of salt. ] (]) 01:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::See ]. What did you mean by “…{{tq|but if we can find coverage from outside of the area, it helps show notability.}}”? Best, ] 05:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:@]'s addition of ] is helpful but the link to the unvetted WikiProject list is not, in my opinion. It lists, for example, ] as "reliable" which is the publication I ] which seemed to have drawn the conclusion to disregard promo and use with caution. It also lists pretty much every newspaper which reported inaccurately sparking this thread as "reliable"
			*:Beyond the issue of promo, "Nigeria is one of West Africa’s most dangerous and difficult countries for journalists, who are regularly monitored, attacked and arbitrarily arrested, as was the case during the 2023 elections." ]] 10:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::@] What sort of opinionated and unstructured comment did you just make? What do you mean by "unvetted WikiProject list"? Do you, by any chance, know the efforts I and few other editors who are Nigerians have put to bring up that list? Please be careful when making comments, especially when the topic has to do with one you're not entirely familiar with. As far as I am concerned, you cannot call a list which I have put efforts in contributing to "unvetted", the comment is not only unreasonable but also incorrect.
			*::I couldn't locate the thread you linked but whatever you brough up there are your opinion. I know the efforts I have been putting at AfD when it comes to Nigerian sources. Be careful, please, with all due respect.
			*::In a more general note, this thread is not going anywhere, '']'' is a reliable source of information whether anyone "who is not a Nigerian" likes it or not, in fact, any source listed in the WikiProject as reliable is indeed reliable. The Herald, Guardian, New York Times, and other UK or US papers all publish nonsense piece as well, no one is permitted to call Nigerian sources unreliable because there are only a few Nigerian editors? I can't tell. I guess when this thread was initiated it was thought that there'd be no editor to oppose. SMH. ] (]) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::The link they are referring to has been archived, see ].<br>In regard to {{tq|who is not a Nigerian}} There are many non-Nigerians who don't agree with the comment that started this thread. I both support and encourage projects to maintain there own sources lists, as they most likely to have knowledge of that particular area, but they are subject to ] and so from to time discussions like this will happen. The net result of this discussion has been ], which only writes down the advice that has been given in many other discussions.
			*:::If any editor wants to discuss a particular source they believe has issue outside of what's already covered by ] I suggest they start a new section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::@] last time we discussed This Day, you pointed out that they . Currently, top of the advertorials is . As you noted, there is no indication on the article that this is an advertorial and it looks like a normal news item. .
			*::::How can this be a reliable source when advertorials are completely indistinguishable from reporting? ]] 15:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Because otherwise it would result in the making all news organisations in multiple countries completely unusable, and it wouldn't be limited to India and Nigeria. Such undisclosed advertorials are common in a lot of countries, and will likely become more common not less due to the changes effecting news media across the globe. It wouldn't help to improve the encyclopedia by saying that such vast swathes of the news media are generally unreliable, and in many ways that isn't a fit description for the sources. They are reliable for many things, but not for the promotional nature of these advertorials.
			*:::::As has been said before the AfDs show that noone is being fooled. Editors are correctly spotting when this is happening and acting accordingly. Promo content being added to Misplaced Pages is certainly not an issue limited to these countries, just look to all the reputation management companies found elsewhere.
			*:::::Ultimately it's what effect should be had. We don't want those advertorials being used to add promo content to Misplaced Pages, that is achieved by ]. So do we need to class all those news media organisations as generally unreliable, will that help to improve the encyclopedia? I very much doubt it would. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::Are they? How are they being spotted? For example, see ] - there are many sources here but every single one of them appears more dubious than the two advertorial examples linked above. For an active AfD, see ]. It was moved out of drafts by an editor who is now blocked and the editors voting keep simply insist that the sources are reliable without any evaluation. ]] 18:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::(Pinging you is difficult) Let me be blunter, you deletion rationale in that AfD {{tq|Sources all appear to be ]}} is not only unappealing but also vague. Why? you simply said that "ALL" of them are NEWSORGNIGERIA without telling us what analysis you did that made you come to that conclusion. I figured since we're not doing anything in-dept here, it would make sense to also tell you, since this area is my expertise, that the subject clear-cut passed GNG. If you did any analysis and showed it, then we'd be discussing what you analysed and not something else. ] (]) 18:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::I do not get the impression that advertorials are regularly passed off as real news in countries with strong protections for journalism. What the academic papers I linked earlier were emphasizing is that Nigeria has a striking systematic problem with unethical journalism that goes beyond what is seen in respectable broadsheets (the "brown envelope syndrome" being one example) and appears to affect ''all'' major outlets. The last link talks about an egregious political advert for Babangida's birthday that ran in the ]—listed as generally reliable—and characterizes the newspapers as being ''reliant'' upon such revenue sources. Some of the other journals note that several newspapers don't even pay their journalists; surely at least those should be considered generally unreliable? ] (]) 02:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Not sure why you're responding with so much emotion. It would be better to discuss this dispassionately. Your reply doesn't actually explain why a publication like This Day, which publishes disguised promotions, should be viewed as reliable. @] also provides very compelling evidence above which has not been rebutted. ]] 14:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Maybe the rather emotionally charged use of "unvetted" to describe another editors work had something to do with it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::So, my reply is emotional to you, and you think I am dispassionate, lol. I'll entirely ignore this your comment. ] (]) 18:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			People may defend ], but when I see that e.g. The Nation is considered "generally reliable" but publishes (with a byline!) e.g. pure promo drivel (used in a new article here, not something I went looking for especially), then it is hard to take that list or the defense of it seriously. It turns out to be (at least in part) a copy of a four year old article from the Vanguard, not some actual journalistic effort by the Nation, but how could one tell? ] (]) 14:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Is Danny Dukes on Wiki cited by EInsiders? Aren't there other deaths noted on EInsiders that are more formal obituaries? - YES. Pinkadelica is absolutely correct and is one of the reasons I use EInsiders regularly. The answer to who the authors are has been answered repeatedly with links to outside websites covering awards that some of the authors have been given within the industry. So Mike Allen's claim that he doesn't know who they are just doesn't hold up. Mike Allen in on a vendetta, it looks like there is a cOI with him affiliated with a competing entity. Why else this vehement stance? He has literally taken down almost TEN YEARS worth OF CITES from EInsiders and replaced the EInsider's cite with cites from his "pet" references but he has NOT changed the text/content that is EInsider's content including photos pulled from EInsiders website! No one has that much of an issue unless they are competing. A COI should be opened against him. EInsiders has met the Wiki guidelines for a reliable source - 1. longevity: EInsiders has been on the web since 1996. 2. Editorial oversight: the editors have been pointed out and shown to be high-ranking, respectable professionals in the industry with industry awards to their names. ] (]) 22:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			*<strike>'''Oppose blanket ban'''.</strike> The proponents of the ban have failed to actually demonstrate that ''all'' Nigerian newspapers have ''always'' been unreliable. As far as I can see, the evidence presented does not, for example, give any indication that the Lagos Daily News or the Daily Times were unreliable in 1925. In fact, they do not even appear to have been mentioned. , actually cited above, claims that the quality of Nigerian newspapers was better before the internet. , also cited above, only applies to the South-West geo-political zone, and not the other five geo-political zones (something not mentioned above). We need to take one newspaper at a time, and we need to look beyond the last five minutes. ] (]) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I think consensus has been established here. Thank you. —'''<span style="solid;background: #5D8AA8;font-family: Century Gothic">] ]</span>''' 01:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			**There has been no proposal to blanket ban all Nigerian Newspapers, so you are bold opposing a strawman. ] (]) 10:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			***Expressions such as "isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers" do look like proposals for a blanket ban. Everyone else in this thread seems to think that this is a proposal for a blanket ban. If you are not proposing a blanket ban, perhaps you should rephrase your comments in grammatically and semantically correct plain language that other people can actually understand. Anyway, in view of the statement that there is no proposal for a blanket ban, I have struck my !vote. ] (]) 12:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*** FWIW, I too, interpreted it as a blanket ban, and it's clear from people's comments that many other people did as well. Glad to know that that's not what you meant. ] (]) 16:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I would support RSNG in that I would support projects creating source lists. How specific sources are listed on RSNG is first a matter of discussion at the project level (as the list is only at the project level), and RSN if there is no agreement there. This is the same for all project level lists. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	What the best way is to offer further '''proof'' that Einsiders.com is not a bona fide source; information on ownership, persons involved, etc. &mdash; that is, without violating terms here, etc.] (]) 03:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			===Brainstorming RfCs===
	::I am not sure what you are asking. You have asked me previously to "vet" EInsiders as a source. Then when I went out and vetted them, finding as much information as I could about their editors, etc, you claim I "know too much" about them and use it to try and prove that there is a Conflict of Interest, and attempt to get me banned. Seems like foul play to me and a damned if I do, damned if I don't situation. Bottom line is that you don't intend to allow EInsiders as a reliable source no matter what. You could find out that they are owned by the New York Times and overseen by their editors and you still wouldn't allow them as a reliable source. EInsiders meets all of Wiki's guidelines to be a reliable source. ] (]) 15:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			It is clear that referring to the overly optimistic ] is not a good approach to determine the current reliability of some Nigerian newspapers. If we were to reconsider the status of e.g. ], to list it as e.g. "generally unreliable", what question should be posted in an RfC? Should we first try to find a cut-off date (i.e. "no longer generally reliable from year X on")? Are the above examples and reports sufficient, or is more needed? Or would it be easier to change ], correcting "As such, Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability. Wikiproject Nigeria has assembled a list of sources that they consider reliable/unreliable: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources." to "As such, Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability and verifiability", adding "verifiability" and removing the link to the project-based list? ] (]) 16:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I think correcting WP:RSNP is a good start, simply by undoing which there clearly wasn't agreement to add. ]] 16:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Because of your behavior, others have vetted your sources and discovered that EIinsiders.com is operated by an advertising company, the same advertising company that you posted from, when you inadvertently posted your ISP. Several of your edits into Misplaced Pages articles inserted the very name of a key person at both the advertising company and the EInsiders.com site. So in a short period of time it became clear that EIinsiders.com, being owned and operated by a company whose job is to among other things promote and create demand where there is none... and rather pertantly, optimize search engine results... isn't a reliable source; they are a highly biased source. It became very clear as well, that someone from that very same company, you, was doing the ref-spamming. This is a conflict of interest, and highly discouraged. The other issues, the photo issue (which is self-resolving) and your aggressive suggestions that Mike Allen or others in the discussion are sinister representatives of other media outlets (are, in other words, your competition) are ruses, meant to divert attention from your behavior. So, essentially, game over. There may be some formalization of these findings, blockages, etc. In the meantime, take care.] (]) 16:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			::What to include or not include on the RSP (outside of the results of discussions at RSN) are probably best discussed at the RSP talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::It was ]ly added without discussion, though, so I've removed it for now as a first step. --] (]) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I would suggest that editing the section be done this way. RSP is no different from any other page, edit, discuss on talk page, then third opinion or noticeboard. Exact wording in the section doesn't immediately necessitate an RFC unless there is unresolvable differences of opinion. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I would suggest against one RFC to cover all the sources, unless there is a very specific question about the sources (more specific than 'are they reliable?'), as it will likely result in a train wreck.
			:If the issue is just to add 'and verifiability', or removing the project link, I would suggest ]. Consensus is first built through editing, and the RSP is no different in that matter. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Whatever way the discussion goes it, I suggest an RFC should be in a completely new section. RSN gets overloaded, and this section is already very large. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Absolutely. ] (]) 08:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I have been reading old RfCs about unreliable medias to reference. Many of these discussions start with a blanket question. For example: "Is ]
			:# Generally reliable
			:# Additional considerations apply
			:# Generally unreliable
			:# Deprecated"
			:From there, editors can make their own arguments so if there should be a cut-off date for reliability. I think we can start with the more egregious media with examples and those who do not view them as unreliable should make the argument for why and when they should be considered reliable. ]] 19:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::If the TechCabal article is correct, then Nigerian newspapers were better before the internet. This might not apply to ], which began publication in 2001. One of the earliest accounts of "brown envelopes" dates to the ] (1979 to 1983): . On a search of Google Books, I found no references to "brown envelopes" in Nigeria in any book published before 1983. I found no more than 8 such references in books published before 1990, and 5 of those were from 1989: . In the absence of further evidence, I think we could take 1979 as a complete cut off point. Even after that, the evidence is not unequivocal. The study from 1984 says that ] journalists may not be as corrupt as journalists are depicted: . And the claims of bribery during the Republic seem to relate more to government journalists, than to independent newspapers. The sources also suggest that ] was more reliable. ] (]) 19:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			== ] / ] ==
	:::::What edits have the name of an advertising company? I put in mostly death notices? The rest were film edits. This is becoming ridiculous.] (]) 16:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::You made edits including quotations from a "film critic" who happens also to be elsewhere self-described as "president" of EInsiders.com, whose web site was created by a certain advertising company... for whom said "film critic" is also listed under that same advertising company's website "who we are" section, which lists... three people. Here the "film critic" and "president" is listed as "producer." ] (]) 19:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::The "film critic" Jonathan Hickman. Which is the editor-in-chief of einsiders.com. Funny that you didn't bother to post the company that owns einsider.com, about us. BrightNight Media, which is an ''advertising company''. —'''<span style="solid;background: #5D8AA8;font-family: Century Gothic">] ]</span>''' 19:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	{{outdent}}
	I brought the issue up about ], Scott Mantz is a critic for Access Hollywood, but his profile on einsiders says nothing, on RottenTomatoes the same search for Scott Mantz gives you his full bio and links to his original reviews, einsiders passes him off as one of their reviewers. Scott Mantz et al. are legit reviewers, einsiders is not. ] (]) 01:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
			Used for many claims throughout pages for CBM movies, such as ], ], ], and ], including those which are otherwise unverifiable like Victor von Doom appearing in the first or that Spider-Man was supposed to appear in ] but was cut.
	== Move of WP:Reliable Sources, and implied promotion of RS to WP:V policy ==
			I really do not see why his claims is so widely allowed and accepted as fact, even though he is undoubtedly more reliable than random blogs or posts on Twitter he's still a journalist making claims without evidence. I would like to establish here definitively if we continue to site theinsneider.com as a source, as we currently do in many articles. ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 21:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	My apologies if this isn't the normal place to post this, but apparently a significant change was made to WP:RS and I wasn't aware of the debate, despite being very active in reliable sourcing debates, and I'd like all the regulars here to know about it. For some reason, the WP:RS guideline was retitled as "Identifying Reliable Sources". Which seems a little stilted to me though not too bad, and a new shortcut ] was created.
			:I did a Google News search and when other outlets report his stuff it is described as a rumour or "reportedly". He is also described as a "scooper". I don't think most of that should be used on Misplaced Pages because of NOTNEWS. Rumours about media that haven't been released yet aren't even news yet. Does he say that he got his info from a source? Then it should be attributed to that source. It also looks like a SPS. So everything sourced to him should be attributed, but even then it probably shouldn't be used. ] (]) 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	However, the shortcut ] was moved to a section within the policy ], which is a very big deal which seemed to happen without a separate debate. To me, this has the effect of promoting the reliable sourcing guidelines to the level of a policy, because when most people discuss reliable sources, they think "RS". Also there are many links to the RS guideline all over Misplaced Pages, including anchor links which will be broken if the shortcut is changed.
			::Right now, much of what is sourced to him is just taken as face value, for example Doom is listed in the cast for the Fantastic Four movie without clarification that it's based off a claim by him. My changes to remove such information from the pages were undone, so there seems to be some ambiguity if he is currently accepted as a RS. ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 18:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:For any stories about named people (e.g. casting), ] would probably bar use of this source, since he's self-published. His record on this is at best mixed from a quick search. For example, he reported that ] would be starring in a new Johnny Depp film, which was swiftly denied, kept posting that it was true, and then a few months later, ] was announced as the co-star.
			:I did some digging and apparently he made a recent post, copied here, , in which he says {{tq|This may speak to my own reckless vanity, but I’d rather be wrong sometimes than sit on 100 accurate stories and stand idly by and watch as Nellie Andreeva breaks every single one of them. Yes, it’s nauseating to get a story wrong — seriously, it makes me sick to my stomach — but it’s an even worse feeling when you don’t report something and then get beat by the competition.}} If that's his attitude to reporting, then it would probably be best if we don't use him for non-BLP subjects as well. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I've removed everything that clearly failed ] and tried to beef up non-BLP uses of this (e.g. filming dates, projects in development) with better sources that cite his work. Honestly most reputable don't really cite him and hedge by using "rumoured" or "reportedly" and cannot corroborate. Definitely not an ideal source and probably runs afoul of ], especially if not picked up by better sources citing him at all. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			In the future it would be appreciated if you notified other editors of such a discussion rather than going on what I would describe as a deletion rampage, making dozens of edits to remove a source that is widely deemed to be reliable. Sneider clearly meets the SME requirement at ], he is a long time film and entertainment journalist whose work has previously been published by various reliable sources. The fact that he is now self-publishing his reporting does not now make him unreliable, which is what the wording at SELFPUB caters for. If you take issue with specific claims he has made or the wording of specific claims then the place to discuss those is at the talk pages of the articles in question, not here where the majority of editors will never see it. - ] (]) 09:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	There's also been a large amount of instruction creep within ], which is supposed to be only the basics of citing your sources; compare a 2006 version with today. I've decided to "be bold" and change RS to point back where it belongs. ] (]) 14:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Good for you. ] (]) 16:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
			:I have notified editors at ], ], ], ], and ]. I think that should cover all the articles impacted so far by this discussion. - ] (]) 09:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Gay Erotic Video Index ==
			:For a lot of these pages, the relevant policy isn't ], but ], since the InSneider is self publishing reporting about living people (e.g. A didn't role B, C got fired because of D, E might be in F). BLPSPS is a bright-line rule and while ] exists, superhero movie rumours isn't going to justify that. This is especially true when non-selfpublished exist to cover the same claims or when ] applies.
			:For example, your revert at ] restored The InSneider when the material in the sentence is already fully supported by the already cited ] piece and your revert at ] restored material alleging very specific allegations of sexual misconduct with young men that is corroborated by independent sources . I've reverted the latter given the serious BLP issues there.
			:It's less of an issue when the BLP-connection is less direct such as when it's talking about a film production in general (e.g. G starts filming in H, I was delayed to J, K is in development at L), but even SELFPUB recommends replacing with better sources when possible and I highlighted some reliability issues with Sneider above.
			:I have also notified ] since this touches on BLPSPS. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I think you are forgetting that there is a very big distinction between Sneider's pieces written for Collider and other RS and those he written on his own blog. He speculates much more and gives unverified, evidence-free information on his blog than he does when working with publications, and he isn't impeded by an editor or journalistic oversight in his own website.
			:If you want to see ''proof'' that Sneider has made false and provably false claims on his own website before, then there's of all the time he has made false claims thanks to the people at the subreddit for Marvel spoilers. Among the falsehoods he has promoted on his site include that the Fantastic Four movie would start filming in March, that Adam Driver was cast as Doom, that Jack Quaid was cast as Johnny Storm, and that Tom Holland was going to appear as a full role in Across the Spider-Verse. Sneider should be used in articles ''only'' when he is writing for reliable sources, otherwise we are inviting unsourced and oftentimes completely imagined speculation on our pages. ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 18:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Oh wow, so he's basically correct about 2/3 of the time. Not terrible, I guess for online postings, but this would seem to fall well-short for ] purposes, much less making an exception for ]. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I don't think we should be letting some people from a Reddit community dictate what they think is true or false to determine notability on this encyclopedia. I understand Sneider gets a bad rap from some people and in the press, but he does qualify as a ] in the field of entertainment news. I am subscribed to his newsletter and Sneider does a pretty good job clarifying what he is actually reporting from what are his own opinions and beliefs. A lot of what he says in his newsletter tends to be blown out of proportion or taken out of context, and not everything pans out in the film industry. For the Sydney Sweeney thing, I read that as the actress either being in talks or close to a deal but it likely fell apart and thus, Cruz came onboard, not that it was somehow false or intentionally misleading. A lot of the major trades do not cover every aspect of these film productions (because they get ad revenue from major companies involved) but Sneider has a good track record of reporting on industry details, deals, and events as they are in progress, which goes for the Fantastic Four castings and Black Widow. I have been working on adding third-party sources for some of his recent newsletter issues being cited to help make verifying his reports easier, though this takes time. I do not agree with removing his published articles from Collider, Variety, or his newsletter outright as we cannot disregard a source simply because ] or you don't believe in it. We go by ], and report all the facts as presented, which is how an encyclopedia ought to be. I have not found any instances to my immediate recollection where editors cited a Sneider report only for it to be proven intentionally wrong or misleading. The Madame Web report was not disputed or debunked, and the recent reports of Superman and Beyond the Spider-Verse have since been clarified as a matter of semantics, not actually being intentional false news reporting on Sneider's part. A lot of what he says is regurgitated through aggregators and social media which tends to be less reliable or transparent than what he actually says in his newsletter or on his podcast The Hot Mic. I would not go as far as to say Sneider's newsletter reporting is "speculation", as he is an independent working journalist with 20+ years of experience in this profession. He knows his stuff but gets a lot of bad publicity from his social media activity and because some of his reporting hits a nerve with select communities. I would consider him a reliable source, but with clarification needed to specify when he is making an educated guess or providing an opinion alongside what he is reporting from his industry sources. ] (]) 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Also, because @] questioned what Sneider's sources are, I suppose it ought to be explained that every journalist gets their information from sources. These individuals are usually people who work within the industry they are reporting about, so they are often talent agents, managers, PR workers, producers, involved creatives in a production, etc. who have first-hand information and provide information as a tip to a journalist. Most of these sources prefer to remain anonymous, so we cannot just find who his sources are to verify their tips. That's just not how this industry works. Filming schedules and castings change all the time, so to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a ] and ] concern because no sources said these were absolutely false, and if you have any reliable sources saying Sneider specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report, that should be presented rather than just going off of some editors' opinions of a controversial figure. ] (]) 05:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Anonymously-sourced reporting obviously can be used in RSs, but you're not really making a strong case for reliability and encyclopedic quality by defending Sneider with {{tq|to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS concern because no sources said these were absolutely false,}}. In respect to the Holland thing, it's not a good look to be confidently stating things about major casting at the tail end of February 2023 that then don't pan out upon release in at the end of May that year. Maybe he was right at the time, though no one else has corroborated this from what I can tell, but even then he would've published too early given he was ultimately wrong.
			::::{{tq|specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report}} would meet the standard for defamation of a public figure, but it isn't the standard for assessing if a particular source is reliable or a good indicator of if something is encyclopedic. If someone gets a lot of stuff wrong in good faith, they're still not reliable, especially in ] situations. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 05:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Yes, using anonymous sources is common in journalism, but is not standard. The standard is to cite their sources. Sure, NYT and WaPo don't always follow their own guidelines on anonymous sources. Usually such guidelines involve mentioning that the information is from an anonymous source and giving clues as to the credibility of the source. When including information from anonymous sources, wikipedia should follow suite. If the NYT cites a "source close to the president" for a claim, the wikipedia article should also mention a "source close to the president" So how much info does Sneider give?
			::::Also, information should be verified. This might involve asking another source if they object to the publication of the information. Also, really, the studio should be asked to comment. If there is not a comment from the studio or a line saying that comment was sought, then best practices have not been followed.
			::::The idea that Sneider is a SME is questionable. The reporting in question seems to be a matter of insider knowledge not expertise. Basically, people are leaking the information to Sneider or gossiping to him about who will get the part. ] (]) 15:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::FYI, we are also not here to be ]. It is completely acceptable to note what an SME reports about an industry topic they have been covering for two decades now. The reports should be judged on a case-by-case basis to determine if Sneider has ever actually intentionally made any false or misleading statements and passed them off as a report directly by himself, and not by sheer opinion or a lack of or misunderstanding of the filmmaking process and journalistic procedures. ] (]) 05:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Even if he is 100% correct (which he isn't), none of his tweets and InSneider reports can be used per ] to verify anything about living people since they are self-published. There's presumably no issue with his work in non-self-published sources with editorial control like Collider, but for the self-published stuff in respect to living people (e.g. castings, cut scenes, staffing), Misplaced Pages has a bright line rule against it. The only stuff that is even allowed to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for self-published stories would be for instances where it's being used for stuff that is general enough to not really implicate BLP (e.g. filming schedules, runtime, episode length). -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 05:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::The whole sum of BLPSPS is that no self-published blogs may be used. Sneider's publishing is via a newsletter and is part of his job as a journalist. In what ways are his newsletter reports violating any core and basic BLP policies or how are they of a major concern to it beyond the X-Men '97 allegations. A lot of journalists nowadays are posting on their own outside of major trades or news organizations because those options have become more prevalent to do so. Anonymous sourcing is also how all journalists operate, so if we say journalists who post on their own cannot be cited as reliable sources for doing their job without disclosing their sources and having a company watch over them, that sets a very bad precedent for the freedom of the press and what we actually allow to be included, let alone mentioned, in this encyclopedia. If it applies to Sneider, it ought to apply to all self-published journalists and newsletters, and I don't see how that could go well. ] (]) 06:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::That's a misreading of BLPSPS, which says: {{tq|Never use self-published sources—'''including but not limited to''' books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—}} (emphasis added). Unless there's a clear organizational structure (e.g. ]), most newsletters are little more than self-published blogs. There's tons of great journalists with their own newsletters that I think are most likely reliable that I would love to cite (though Sneider may not be one of them), but BLPSPS is crystal clear on this front and for good reason. If you want to start a new discussion somewhere (here, ] ], etc.) on whether we should move to a case-by-case basis for journalistic SPSs, you can do that, but until then BLPSPS is policy and can't be overridden by ]. Don't really care about the anonymous sources issue, since that is an accepted norm for journalists. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Not all of the instances of Sneider's reports are about people themselves. They are primarily about the Hollywood projects which naturally involve people's jobs and castings. I fail to see how a technicality should prevent us from using a decent source at all. If the issue is of verification, find a third-party source verifying the report. This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that. ] (]) 07:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::{{tq|This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that.}} The InSneider can be separately assessed for reliability for any claims not about living people, but as ] makes clear in the first sentence, it applies regardless of if the article is a biography or not, so the fact that Sneider is cited on movie articles is immaterial in respect to ].
			::::::::There's been multiple discussions on this noticeboard about Substack and other newsletters involving much more prominent journalists than Sneider and the consensus has always been that BLPSPS bars their use in respect to living people unless the publication has editorial oversight and a reputation for reliability (e.g. ] , ] , ] , in general )
			::::::::I don't object to the underlying facts per say if they are indeed verifiable through third-party sources. I did try to find non-self-published sources that independently corroborated what Sneider reported, and replaced InSneider with them when I did. I only removed when I was unable to do so. ] makes it clear that the onus to restore material removed for BLP issues is on those who want to restore it to do so in a policy-compliant way, which seems unlikely since nothing in this section has challenged the individually self-published nature of InSneider. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Thank you for your lengthy examination of Sneider as a reliable source. I think a potential compromise that I hope the editors here could agree on- is to restructure all current citations to his self-published website so that it clearly states that it is journalist Jeff Sneider reporting. The example on ] that spurred me to open up this discussion in the first place, for example:
			:::{{tq|Additionally, the character Mole Man is expected to appear, and Robert Downey Jr. is expected to appear as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene.}}
			:::could be reworded to:
			:::{{tq|Journalist Jeff Sneider reported in 2024 that the character Mole Man is expected to appear, as well as Robert Downey Jr. as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene.}}
			:::This would be done for every single citation that uses his personal site. I see your arguments defending his inclusion as a verifiable source, but I also feel as the central issue here- that a lot of pages take him at face value as equivalent to official news from Deadline or Marvel Studios themselves, should still be rectified. We could also add him to the RS list as a source that can be used in the articles ''with attribution only.''
			:::Thoughts? @] @] @] ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 05:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::For anything that involves stories about living people, this would be BLP violation, attribution or not, since The InSneider is a self-published source and that's barred by ]. If no other sources are writing about it besides a self-published report from Sneider, that's a good indicator that we shouldn't include it on Misplaced Pages. Attribution for stuff like "Mole Man" might be okay depending on Sneider's reliability and how tied that is to a specific actor in the text. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 06:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I support attribution being applied to Sneider's reports, and most of the instances where his reports are used already do this in prose while third-party refs are being added to them. The BLP violation reads to me like a bit of a stretch with semantics itself and could probably be re-evaluated when it comes to journalists reporting as part of their job. Reporting on allegations should not be a reason to be barred as a source when major news outlets do the same. ] (]) 06:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::{{tq|Reporting on allegations a reason to be barred as a source}} is a straw man. Major news outlets have a reputation for fact checking and reliability, while Sneider has had multiple confirmed reports not pan out. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Which ones have not panned out? ] (]) 07:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Sweeny, Lindelof, and Holland make at least three incorrect reports in approximately a year. If I did more spot checks from the spreadsheet, there would probably be more. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Again, not everything in Hollywood pans out. That does not mean the reports were false. Unless other independent sources confirmed they were false, you are assuming they were not true, which draws into some dangerous POV issues here on your apparent bias. I have asked you to provide sources which confirm Sneider's reports were false, and you have provided none of the sort. ] (]) 07:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Lots of stuff in all kinds of different fields don't pan out. However, if a source often reports things as confirmed and they don't pan out, there's a reliability/jumping the gun issue and its starts falling into unencyclopedic ] territory. The end result is that Sneider either misjudged how correct the story originally was or how likely that status quo was going to remain. If you look at the Deadline and Variety archives, they only reported on certainties in respect to the Sweeey/Holland/Lindelof stories (i.e. Cruz hiring/nothing/hiring and departure).
			:::::::::Genuine question, does Sneider ever issue corrections/retractions or do retrospectives on why he got stories wrong? Obviously sometimes reliable sources get it wrong, and the proper thing to do in that case is to issue corrections/retractions.
			:::::::::I think I've seen only even heard of Sneider once before (when the X-Men '97/Beau DeMayo story was happening) so to accuse me of bias is wild when you've created a position where it is functionally unfalsifiable that Sneider could ever be wrong. If it pans out, he was correct. If it doesn't, he was correct but things changed afterwards, despite in many cases no reliable sources backing up his original story. Sneider isn't important enough for something like the ] or an an actual reliable source to investigate his methods and he uses anonymous sources (which isn't an issue in and of itself) so it's essentially impossible to prove if any of his reports are false in a way that would satisfy you. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::I think that is an argument for waiting until things are officially announced, before putting them in the article. The problem isn't Sneider, but the kind of reporting that he is doing. He is reporting other people's predictions. He also isn't a SME. He is a reporter that chases leads and reports what may be hearsay or leaks or outright lies by his sources. He is reporting on Hollywood, after all. ] (]) 16:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::{{reply to|HadesTTW}} I just saw that you pinged me in this message. I agree that a good resolution here would be to add Sneider to the RS list as an SME for entertainment reporting as long as he is attributed, and potentially with the caveat that his self-published sources should be replaced with non-self-published sources if available. - ] (]) 15:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::You can spot check the examples used and some definitely seem to hold up as poor reporting. Besides the Holland/Across the Spider-Verse example I discussed above another one I spot checked was this comment made March 9, 2023, in which Sneider says it's 100% confirmed that ]'s Star Wars film would be coming out in December 2025 film. On March 21, 2023, Lindelof's departure is announced.
			:::{{tq|I am subscribed to his newsletter}} Can you confirm if the quotation from the post I cited is correct then? It matched the title of this post from InSneider and it went unchallenged in the thread and seemed to match the style from what I've found.
			:::{{tq|not everything pans out in the film industry.}}, {{tq| I read that as the actress either being in talks or close to a deal but it likely fell apart...not that it was somehow false or intentionally misleading.}} and {{tq|A lot of the major trades do not cover every aspect of these film productions}}. I don't think Sneider is maliciously creating false reports or anything, but if he's reporting too early on things that aren't confirmed yet while the major trade publications are reporting when it's certain, that does not bode well for his reliability nor for the encyclopedic value of his coverage (]).
			:::{{tq|removing his published articles from Collider, Variety}} Pretty sure no one here is suggesting that. The main issue is ] and then reliability as a ]. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 06:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Sneider's report and those quotes are correct from his newsletter. I have no idea what "thread" you are referring to, but a lot can change and happen in the 12 days between Sneider saying Lindelof's film was confirmed for that release and when Lindelof ultimately exited the film. That's just how Hollywood, and all of business, pans out. You can't seriously hold that against Sneider to say his statement is false when Disney's Star Wars films have pretty much languished with ] issues for years. Even major trades report on projects in early development and when directors or writers are in talks. That's just what the trades do. They report on the production process, which is always in flux. ] (]) 07:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Thank you for the confirmation. I copied the quotation from a Reddit thread from a film podcast subreddit which I linked in my comment above. I dealt with how the other trades operate and the issues with using Sneider for the truth of what he's reporting above, so I won't repeat them here. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{OD}}
			<br>
			Alrighty, I wrote the below on ] and I'm copying this below.
			'''Jeff Sneider being used as a source in Hollywood reporting'''.<br>
	I would like an opinion on the . It seems to have editor control, but it lacks an "About Us" page.
			Jeff Sneider's reports, found in his ''TheInSneider'' blog and also ''Above the Line'', have been covered in several other reliable sources.
			His career besides his self-published blog: He has had two notable tenures at '']'', and in between those two tenures, he had a stint at '']'' covering the film industry. This is confirmed , with information on his tenure at ''Variety''. '']'' also as Senior Film Reporter, and says he did work at '']'' before his venture into trade publications, and at one point he contributed reports for '']''.
			These following perennial sources have cited his self-published blog, exemplifying ''']''':
	'''Warning:''' contains pornographic images. - ] (]) 16:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
			:*'']'', including and
			:''Forbes'' describes him as, "Jeff Sneider, an industry insider and reporter", and covers his reporting, even providing a link to another site he contributes to, ''Above the Line''.
	Citation: ^ {{cite news| last = | first = | title =Who are the most prolific performers? | work = Gay Erotic Video Index | language = | publisher = www.wtule.net | date = | url = http://www.wtule.net/Show?n=faq | accessdate =2010-02-15 }}
	*This suggests that it's unreliable: "''This is a not-for-profit Queer Community site that ... counts on content contributed by the Public such as Yourself.''" ] (]) 11:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	**The same page that makes that statement also clarifies what user contribution ought to be - "Of particular interest are reviews, information on older videos, profiles of performers, directors and studios." - the index itself was compiled by the site editor from multiple sources and invites readers to suggest corrections. Compared to, say, IMDB, this seems far more controlled. In particular where user submitted information is added, these are clearly marked as such and so distinct from the principle facts quoted in the listings. This may not be as credible as a publisher's catalogue but seems a suitable source for checking an actor or director's general body of work, including highlighting awards won, printed sources that the site editor has checked and clearly marking information that is not verified (such as uncredited performances). I suggest this site is suitable as an external link or for use as a general profile reference or to confirm professional awards but as not all information has primary sources, unsuitable to confirm detailed biographical data or to be considered a fully comprehensive listing of works. As a source for comparative analysis (the "who are the most prolific" list on the FAQ for example) the site editor's research seems reasoned and credible. So long as it is made clear that the analysis is quoted from this website, I find this as credible as almost any independent book one can find that includes "interesting" film facts. ] (]) 21:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
			:* '']'' covers his reporting
	***'''COMMENT''' I relisted this source in RSN (See below) specifically asking that users involved in the porn project post their comment in this listing instead. Again I received two comment from two opposing view points from two users involved in the porn project who are actively debating each other. I was hoping for fresh, neutral, expert opinions. I regard the above opinions to be biased (as is own) and request unbiased opinions in relisted posting below. - ] (]) 05:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			:* '']'' covers his reporting
	== Pakistani and Iranian media, and Cageprisoners ==
			: and here's him reporting that ] was chosen to play ] in ] of '']'', which ended up being '''spot-on correct''', via '']'':
	Hi. I would appreciate peoples' views on whether the below news sources (primarily Pakistani and Iranian) are RSs for controversial reports concerning ], a Pakistani accused of being an al-Qaeda member (who was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and attempting to kill U.S. soldiers and FBI agents).
			:* per a ] publication, '']''{{'}}s own '']'', covers one of his reports
	There has been a deep divide over many Pakistani reports (which the ''Boston Globe'', for example, has described as "sketchy") and many RS reports in this area.
			:* '']'', (] as {{tq|considered reliable for entertainment-related topics}} but not for {{tq|controversial statements related to living persons}}, which in this case, we're sort of concerned about that stuff in relation to Sneider's reporting) '''covers Sneider in many, many instances'''. <br>
	# <s>(Discussion suggests no).</s> whoops -- as pointed out below, prior conversation (which mentioned DT in passing) is about different paper.
			: and reported by ''Screen Rant'' an ''InSneider'' report that '']'', (a film with Austin Butler and Norman Reedus) was dropped by Disney's ]. Sneider's report '''ended up being true''', as Disney let the rights go to ].
	# (Discussion suggests it is questionable for a range of topics).
	# (also mentioned in the above Press TV discussion)
	# (an organization, not a newspaper)
	#
	#
	#
	# (Discussion suggests possibly)
	Thanks. --] (]) 23:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
			:* And '']'' - reporting on the ''InSneider'' report mentioned above concerning ''Bikeriders'', right . Can hardly get better than trade publications.
	:Well, the Globe article doesn't say which reports from Pakistan it thinks are sketchy; they could be refering to anything. If we're writing about events in Pakistan, we're going to be citing some Pakistani newspapers. One jumps out at me; the ''Daily Times'' of Pakistan is not the same as the ''Pakistan Daily'' which is what the linked debate is about. ] (]) 23:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
			:* '']'' - that Sneider was the first to get the news that ] were coming back for '']'' and ''].
			:* via '']'' - Sneider that ] was playing ]'s son in '']''.
			<span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I also find the ''Mary Sue'' story about Johnny Depp and Sydney Sweeney to be drama mongering. Their punchline about Sneider's story amounted to "and <u>internet users</u> were pissed about the actress potentially working with the subject of the ]" - like who cares about internet people being ticked? Was there doxxing? was ] or a world government involved? '''No!'''
	Quick notes: '''' is arguably the most influential/reputable newspaper in Pakistan. '''' is published '']'' (which IIRC is the largest newspaper publisher in the country) and is also a well-established mainstream source. is relatively new but a legitimate and mainstream newspaper. is also a genuine and well-established newswire service. FWIW, ] archives, ''Daily Times'' and ''The Nation'' among these Pakistani sources. Though I am sure that all these sources can be faulted with a pro-Pakistan bias (not same as pro-Pakistan ''government'' bias, except that APP is partially govt. controlled), I'd regard these newspapers as reliable sources, as defined on wikipedia. Of course, we need to take the usual precautions i.e., consider due weight, use attribution when warranted, and beware of redflag claims, or claims contradicted by other sources etc. ] (]) 00:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
			:If Sneider gets something wrong, nobody gets mangled or tangibly harmed. The ] policy is for claims concerning living people themselves, not films and casting processes or anything of the like. and for randoms who are not, something that is not what Sneider is doing.
			:Let's ] the concept of this policy and apply it to ]. Even though the chunk of rock is the subject of the article, there are parts of the article for the Moon which concern living people, like ] and how he walked on it. '''Holy hell!''' the very association of living people to a subject of an article clearly not about people means we '''must NEVER''' use any ] about the Moon in the article because it is ].
			:I don't think that Sneider should be used to state facts about casting. I certainly don't believe we need to add a person to a cast list because he says something on his podcast: while I question his nature of jumping the gun on reports, I don't believe the rationale should be that the info he reports is concerning a living person. I figured that saying ] was gonna be in ''Fantastic Four'' was bold, but it's concerning that a character is going to be in a film, not some claim about a person's life and times. Besides his casting scoops, I think he gives worthy insight into the film industry and its processes. I think that his branding is corny and I'm concerned that but hey, ] was cruel yet he was still held in high regard for his work. Same thing for Sneider. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 21:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Agreed, I started this discussion because I was bothered by the Fantastic Four page where he's used for the cast list. I hope we are able to at least agree that he shouldn't be cited without attribution, lest he gets something wrong (not maliciously, but because his sources may have been wrong, or events changed in the production process that he was not aware of). Advocating him to be deprecated for BLP violations is a massive stretch that I do not agree with- he's generally reliable, and I trust that his self-published site can be used for article content. He just shouldn't be taken as absolute fact. ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 01:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Precisely. I agree with all of that. The Fantastic Four page's cast section is something that is being discussed at ] and would be best handled there rather than here, though I agree with the core points with the attribution and use with non-BLP content. ] (]) 01:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I think it's best if we formalize it here, anyways. It's my hope that we can get a consensus enough to write an entry on ], which would be helpful for everyone editing CBM articles that refer to his claims. ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 04:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I would prefer listing Sneider at perennial sources. The ] taskforce already has an entry for his reports at ], for reference. ] (]) 04:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Just to note that this wouldn't meat the criteria for inclusion on the RSP. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I don't know, saying someone was going to get a job, and then it turns out they didn't might have a negative effect on their career. A casting director might wonder why they weren't chosen. This is just speculation, and it probably helps the actors, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. The stakes are low either way, and it makes sense to wait for an official announcement. As it has been said, things don't always pan out. Speculation on casting seems like news to me. ] (]) 15:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:All three of the listed ''Forbes'' articles are written by ] ] {{rspe|Forbes.com contributors}}, which are ] due to lack of editorial oversight. Please note that Forbes.com contributor articles do not count toward ]. As a policy, ] takes precedence over the ] guideline. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 02:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::alright, we can consider the other 97 out of 100 <small>joking exaggeration</small> sources I've laid down here. We've still got use by Hollywood trades, reliable entertainment websites, and other popular sources. My point stands still. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I believe that Sneider's reporting of casting is 90% of the time on point, but the margin of error warrants attribution and additional consideration. I do not believe that info about a person being cast in a film constitutes ''personal'' information, and thus I believe that BLP does not apply to that extent. I believe additional considerations and attributions should apply for the first reason, rather than depreciation for a grossly WikiLawyered reading of BLP policy. I believe he is considered reliable for general behind-the-curtains technical info about Hollywood, having been at it for a long-o time and that he would know about these things. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::] is a bright-line rule that prevents self-published sources from being used for third-party claims {{xt|"about a living person"}}. The policy is phrased with the word {{xt|"Never"}} to emphasize that routine exceptions for claims such as film castings are not appropriate. This language is repeated in the ] policy in more explicit terms: {{xt|"'''Never''' use self-published sources as ] about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."}} Like the remainder of ], this rule applies to all claims about living persons, and not just {{!xt|"''personal'' information"}}. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 02:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Okay. We seem to agree to not use it as a third-party source. We seem to agree to give Sneider attribution and consideration of ] in these reports he does.
			::::If there are any concerns, I suggest you turn to the great policy that is ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::What do you mean by {{tq|behind-the-curtains technical info about Hollywood}}? Like what a gaffer is? Or the type of camera used? Or does he know more about things like how casting directors and location scouts work? I thought he was a reporter that covered the Hollywood beat. Does he do anything besides report what industry people tell him? ] (]) 15:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I wonder if reporting what industry people tell you is, uh, what trade journalism is the definition of? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I don't think he is a trade journalist, either. A trade journal covers an industry with people in that industry as the target audience. ] describes him as an Entertainment Journalist and describes him writing for publications aimed at the general public. His own website describes itself as {{tq|Scoops and insider analysis}}. This isn't about being an expert, it is about being in the know and chasing down leads. A lot of the articles are even labelled "Hot Rumor". He is a reporter, he reports things. The nature of what he reports means that it involves making predictions as well as discussing rumours and other gossip. A lot of it involves upcoming movies, that is, events that haven't happened yet. It also means a lot of his stuff isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. ] (]) 11:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::know what? I think his insights have merit. Glad to see you found the article about the journalist that I wrote. Did you see the part where he threatened to drive his car into a tree when he lost a Christopher Nolan scoop, then got fired from ''Variety''? Or when he said something racially insensitive and got fired from ''Mashable''? I personally enjoyed the part where he went on about getting his butt kicked by ] in a boxing match.
			::::::Anybody think that he does a self-published newsletter because he can't hold down a job? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::It did strike me as surprisingly negative considering the defence he is getting here. It is basically a hit piece. The boxing thing was confusing, it is probably undue. ] (]) 16:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Reliable sources describe Sneider the way that they do, so that should be reflected in the article. This is a rationale that is based on a concept which is probably best explained by ].
			::::::::As for the boxing match, that is a notable event he was involved in. Fighting the director of ] is plenty notable for inclusion. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I like Paul Tassi's work, but per ], he can't be used in USEBYOTHERS analysis. However, he, like the other links in this post generally refer to Sneider's reports as in terms of rumors instead of certainties. The one exception is , where it is corroborated by THR, and they suddenly switch to writing in certainties. The last three links here from the major trades are clearly doing their own independent corroboration of Sneider's story and doing the polite thing in journalism and crediting him with being the first to break the news.
			:As for accuracy, many of the links were about the Beatles casting, which Sneider was actually wrong about Charlie Rowe as George Harrison, which was immediately denied, and ultimately ended up being wrong. The many commentary pieces about the rumored casting that it sparked might justify inclusion, but the miss doesn't speak well to his reliability. So even from your own links, it seems that for content that doesn't run afoul of ] and is encyclopedic enough to include, it would have to be attributed and written as though it's a certainty. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 04:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			I have not kept up with this discussion over the holidays but I see a bunch of dubious arguments have taken place. Trailblazer was correct above when he said that Sneider makes it clear when he is noting rumours versus reporting on something that his sources have confirmed to him, and the high-profile instances where he "got something wrong" are not examples of him lying but clearly examples of things being true or potentially true at the time which did not pan out. Several instances have been mentioned where a potential casting was reported but did not pan out. That is not a lie or a "miss" or anything of the sort, he is reporting on people being eyed by a studio or even entering negotiations but he can't guarantee that everything will work out in the end, and his wording reflects that. The exact same can be said for any of the Hollywood trades who have reported on potential casting that ended up falling through. The level of scrutiny being put on the accuracy of his reporting here is a bit ridiculous considering the same would not be done if he was still writing for ''TheWrap'' or ''Variety'', which is what WP:SELFPUB protects. If any of these reports had come from a journalist who was still working at the trades we would not be having this conversation at all. As for WP:BLPSPS, its wording is oddly vague. "Never use self-published sources... as sources of material about a living person" -- what does that even mean? Any sentence that mentions a living person cannot be sourced to any self-published source, regardless of what that source is or what the sentence says? If an expert on the life of Donald Trump had a meeting with him and then tweeted out something Trump had said, we could not include that in any articles even if it was not a detail about Trump's personal life? I think it is crazy to say that we can't use a tweet or a blog post from a person we otherwise consider to be reliable to note when an actor is being considered for a role in a film or that they may have a scheduling conflict that could prevent them from doing a certain job. I am sure the wording at BLPSPS could not have been meant to prevent that. - ] (]) 14:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	Note: ''Boston Globe'' saying that "With her whereabouts unknown, sketchy reports in Pakistani papers suggested ..." simply means that the newspaper reports are not detailed/confirmed, which reflects the difficulty in obtaining verifiable information, and is not a comment on the Pakistan newspapers reliability. ] (]) 01:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
			:In your example, if that expert's tweet contained anything of substance, a reliable source would mention it, and you would be free to cite that reliable source. Alternatively, you could wait until the ] policy no longer applies to Trump, although I highly doubt that the tweet would constitute ] in any Misplaced Pages article if no reliable source mentions the tweet by that time. In all other cases, yes, ] would prohibit that tweet from being cited on Misplaced Pages to support a claim about Trump, despite the tweet being written by an expert, because the tweet is self-published. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 22:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	I guess my first question would be, is there freedom of the press in Pakistan? Any people here particularly knowledgeable in that arena? <font color="green">]</font> 02:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
			::There are situations where DUEWEIGHT allows a mention even if there is no wider coverage, which is the case here where useful context is being provided. Regardless, I still think the vague wording at BLPSPS is being used to inappropriately prevent additions that should not be covered by it. A subject-matter expert on the entertainment industry is providing noteworthy context on the development process for high-profile film and television articles, we are not talking about unreliable sources making exceptional or contentious claims about individuals and their personal lives. - ] (]) 22:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Well it gets complicated. The newspapers are not state controlled and are often known to take confrontational position with respect to the government of the day. There is no widespread press censorship ''per se'', or administrative review of articles before publication. On the other hand, the government can restrict reporters (esp. foreign media) from geographical areas citing security, and there are many tools (licensing, advertising support, paper prices, political pressure, general harassment) that it can and does use to ''pressure'' journalists and newspapers. There is no equivalent of the first amendment right, and finally the journalistic standards are themselves not as high as the most highly regarded media in US and Europe. So it's not as bad as North Korea, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia or communist era USSR etc, but not really comparable to Western countries either. Don't know if this helps much. ] (]) 03:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
			:::The ] policy, {{xt|"'''Never''' use self-published sources as ] about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer"}}, is as explicit as can be. That longstanding requirement has been part of the ] since ], and part of the ] when it ]. (It was added to the latter page as a guideline requirement ].) If you would like to contest these policies, you are free to do so on their respective talk pages. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 23:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	: Ah, this might give a rough idea: ]. Note that the conditions can change considerably depending on the prevailing political situation. ] (]) 03:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
			:::I was going to mention the wording in ], as it's more explicit, but Newslinger beat me to it. I've found this annoying in the past, where the project of a living person is detailed in a otherwise reliable third party self-published source. However that exact situation is meant to be covered (and excluded) by it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::As I and others have said, the policies against self-published sources used for anything about living people is a bright line rule. And as for ] and ignoring the self-published/BLP issue, if the only source that mentions an aspect of an article subject is a self-published newsletter, then it would more likely to be undue to include based on the proportion of RS coverage. Misplaced Pages is not the great place to ] about what reliable sources should be covering. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 06:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I am not denying what BLPSPS says or how long it has said it, I am taking issue with the way it is being applied. I do not agree that we are violating BLPSPS by sourcing film production and development information to a self-published SME. I also do not agree that it is UNDUE to include information that only a single self-published SME has provided, particularly when it aligns with other details from other reliable sources. I'm not advocating for building an entire article based on such a source or for prioritising it over contradictory reliable sources. - ] (]) 11:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::When I went through and removed most of the mainspace uses of InSneider, the overwhelming majority were reports of people being cast, people being considered for a acting/directing role, when an already cast role was going to make a secret appearance in a film, or creative decisions that can only be made by a very small number of people at a studio (i.e. director, producer, executives) that the guidance at ] leans towards applying the policy.
			:::::If something aligns with what other reliable sources have said, then it would be best to use what those sources have said instead of a SPS. But in any case, UNDUE is not an avenue to bring in content that doesn't meet our verifiability/sourcing policies. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Again, we are not writing a biography about James Gunn or Peter Safran and using Sneider to source claims about their person. Sneider is used to write about the particulars of film production.
			::::::One side of this discussion is looking at the forest, while the other side is focused on the trees. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::BLPGROUP doesn't seem to be relevant to this discussion, it is talking about "corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons" and specifically refers to harmful claims, neither of which apply here. - ] (]) 11:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::The subsection is about when BLP applies to "legal persons" AND "groups". It does not displace ] and in no way limits the applicability of BLP to groups to instances of potentially harmful material.
			:::::::The first part of the paragraph is a clarification about how ] existing as a term of art in law doesn't mean that they are always covered by BLP, which is meant to protect natural persons. The second half of the paragraph applies to all groups and tells us to look at each group on a case by case basis to see where it fits on the spectrum between groups that are small enough that BLP should apply and ones where they are too large. The part about harm is simply noting it is part of the analysis. For creative decisions on films, the people actually making that decision would be very small, so it should attract BLP protections, which means BLPSPS applies. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 03:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::The fact that people make creative decisions on films does not mean we cannot use self-published sources to support those creative decisions, that is such a ridiculous stretch of what the policies say and mean. - ] (]) 09:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Besides the stories involving named people where BLP would obviously apply, the level of creative decisions that InSneider reports on and that Misplaced Pages uses him for are those that would clearly be attributable to a very small number of people (5-10 max). They're typically stuff such as what projects a studio is considering, what characters will be cast, and what the plot of film will be about.
			:::::::::We're not using InSneider for lower-level stuff like what belt buckle was used on a particular costume, what brand of communication devices the PAs use, or what shade of a color was used in a particular CGI shot. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 15:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::I'm going to leave this discussion with two absolutes. #1: Sneider is a dude who knows the industry of which he speaks about, and so long as we consider in-text attribution and consideration of ], we are fine. #2: ]. if BLPSPS or otherwise are keeping us from something helpful and insightful to the subjects of articles, it's within our power to ignore it. These policies don't exist to keep us from expanding the encyclopedia with expertise, especially from sources who don't have to worry about holding back information from seeing publication because of ulterior motives. That is where self-published sources are at an advantage ahead of traditional media. If you wish to hear tales of another subject-matter expert journalist putting a major media organisation on blast for withholding information for ulterior motives, see ] on this very page. '']'' censored CEO killer ]'s face for shady purposes. Not saying all legacy media is compromised, but I'm saying I enjoy seeing self-published journalists actually giving uncompromised coverage of their subjects that is made possible by self-published status. Just like Sneider. If ''general association'', not even ''direct'', with living people makes these sources unusable despite clear merits, then ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::The one policy that ] does not bypass is ]. From this discussion, there is no consensus on ignoring the ] and the ] policies to use Sneider's self-published claims about living persons. That type of content would be permissible on a wiki hosting site like ] {{ndash}} which typically uses minimal reliability requirements for the sake of completionism, but Misplaced Pages's sourcing standards are higher than that of most Fandom wikis. Per ], {{xt|"Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful"}}, particularly if it does not meet Misplaced Pages's reliability requirements. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 17:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::A few editors here are trying to stretch the BLPSPS and SPS policies to prevent Sneider from being used at all, which shouldn't override the existing community consensus and clear evidence that he is a reliable source for film-related reporting. HadesTTW suggested wording that is a good start towards a common-sense solution where Sneider is used, with attribution, for reports on film-related coverage where better sources do not exist. This should lead to a compromise, with Sneider being used in situations where his reports are improving articles while editors become more aware of whether he should be used (and not using him in situations where his reports genuinely fall into BLPSPS territory, could be replaced by a better source, or some other issue such as DUEWEIGHT). All that is preventing us from moving on to that conclusion and ending this discussion is the idea that BLPSPS and SPS apply to every little mention of a living person in a source, which I maintain is ridiculous and inappropriate. - ] (]) 18:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::If you do not agree with excluding self-published sources from being used for claims about living persons, you may propose a change to the relevant policies at ] and ]. What you believe is {{!xt|"ridiculous and inappropriate"}} is actually how these policies have been applied on Misplaced Pages for 18 years, per community consensus. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 18:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::I never said I was against the central ideas of BLPSPS, I completely understand why we want to have a higher standard of verifiability when it comes to exceptional/controversial claims about real people who may take issue with said claims. That makes sense from multiple angles. What I take issue with is using the same standard for non-exceptional claims that happen to involve people. In my opinion, there is a very big difference between (which I accept) and . - ] (]) 19:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::exactly! If I actually paid any attention to X-Men 97, I would have rm'd that in a hot second. Sneider making claims that ] was doing heinous stuff to his staffers is some outrageous content that I would insist we wait on reports by '']'' or '']'' or '']'', any particular source of merit to include those claims in the article. Outrageous claims require usage of especially reliable sources like ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::In the 18 years since that BLPSPS policy was enacted, the industry of journalism has changed drastically with a variety of seasoned journalists and subject-matter experts publishing their reports on their own accord, and I believe it is about time that the policies are updated to compliment such changes to update with the times. I do not think Sneider's status as a self-published source should discount his reliability with his actual reporting in his newsletter, and am more than happy to raise concerns for the policy to be updated elsewhere, but that is not the central issue to determine reliability in {{em|this}} discussion. ] (]) 02:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::Most people on this board are aware of the poor state of traditional journalism and the rise of indie outlets. I myself noted in a ] that ], who has a track record of good journalist work and whose stories I think are accurate, should nonetheless not be used without corroboration and/or discussion by non-SPS RSs because he's a BLPSPS. If any of you think there's appetite in moving from the current bright-line rule to another system for BLPSPSs (e.g. limited carve out where RSN endorses use with attribution), that might be a worthwhile discussion to have. As its stands though, BLPSPS is quite clear and the overwhelming majority of the uses of InSneider are in such cases.
			:::::::::::::::If we do want to go back to discussing the reliability of InSneider for non-BLP claims, I would start with something I asked earlier, are you as a subscriber to InSneider, able to provide examples of if he retracted, corrected, and/or explained why he missed on the Sweeney/Day Drinker, Holland/Spider-verse, Lindeloff/Star Wars stories? Getting a story wrong isn't fatal to use as a reliable source since even the best sources aren't 100%. However, for assessing new sources, correcting mistakes is an indicator of reliability (as long as the miss rate is not too high), but not addressing them is a sign of unreliability. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::The language in ] and ] does not provide an exemption for self-published content about other living persons that is deemed to be uncontroversial. The "central idea" of this requirement is to ensure that any claim (not just controversial claims) about a living person passes adequate editorial oversight before it can be included in Misplaced Pages. There is nothing special about Sneider or his self-published newsletter that would warrant an exception to this requirement, which applies to every other individual who meets the ] criterion. If anyone wants to amend this requirement, which has been applied on Misplaced Pages for more than 18 years, a discussion at ], ], or ] would be the first step to enact the change you are looking for. Such a change, if it gains community consensus, would apply to all sources of this kind and not just Sneider's content. Until then, the use of Sneider's self-published claims about other living persons remains a violation of core content policies. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 06:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::Once again, that is your ''interpretation'' of the policies which is clearly not shared by all editors. I fear a discussion at one of those other places will have similar luck due to a few editors that like things the way they are, but I am happy to give it a go. As for wrapping up this discussion, I still think we should return to the wording that I suggested above in response to HadesTTW. I am not concerned about these apparent "misses" that Patar knight keeps harping on about. Some of these may have been genuinely wrong, but not many of them (which is the case with almost all reliable trade sources as well). Most would have been accurate at the time but then things changed due to the developing nature of films (i.e. Lindelof leaving his SW film, Driver being considered for FF but not getting the part). The Sweeney instance seems to be a blatant case of him getting it wrong and being called out immediately, but that one time isn't enough to make him an unreliable source especially when nearly everything else he has reported aligns with other sources. - ] (]) 10:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::I've started a policy talk page discussion at {{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Self-published claims about other living persons}}. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 20:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			I don't have a particular problem with using Sneider as a source, as long as we attribute his speculations properly. He has a generally good track record and is used by reliable sources. But I have come across situations where we report his speculations as fact. When he has an expectation that is not attributed to an official or at least genuinely connected source, if we choose to report that expectation at all, it needs to be attributed as "Sneider's expectation that such and such will occur", not as a Wikivoice statement that "such and such will occur." ] (]) 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	Some background on freedom of the media in Pakistan (or lack of it) can be found and , and info on pressures on the media in Pakistan can be found and . Information on Iran's freedom of the press can be found .--] (]) 04:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Regarding ] it seems clearly reliable and important to use for neutrality, for such edits as . Despite the recent conviction, the fact that the people and government of Pakistan strongly and formally contend that she is innocent should be represented better. Such Pakistani sources are surely reliable when used with attribution in text, and the US government version should not be presented as fact, but as a (majority) view where there is a discrepancy. Abecedare's statements seem sensible to me.] (]) 11:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	:I think Abecedare has got it right. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 12:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			{{Hatnote|Once Telegram gets mentioned on ], its shortcuts would be ] and ].}}
	== Toon Zone ==
			Telegram is unreliable because:
			*Telegram is an ] platform, which means that it is highly unreliable as a source because it is used by the alt-right to evade censorship and publish far-right opinions and pseudoscientific conspiracy theories.
			*Telegram is a ] because it is a social networking service.
			*Most far-right things (such as ], ], and ]) have escaped to Telegram after getting suspended on several mainstream social networking services.
			*Telegram has been described as a "safe haven for spammers and crypto scams" because of how most Telegram groups are flooded with cryptocurrency scammers and other types of spammers. However, t.me links are barely seen on Misplaced Pages (or i just don't see them often).
			*].
			Telegram would either be ] (like all other self-published sources) or ] (because it is alt-tech). However, if t.me links are commonly used to violate ], it would be ].
			] (]) 16:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	Toon Zone (), sometimes credited as ToonZone, is a news and information website on the animation industry, ranging from American cartoons to ]. A yields several pay-per-view articles from the '']'', '']'', and '']'' that cite toonzone.net. It was also cited by ] and ] , among others. Of course, their forums and wiki would not be considered reliable per policy. ] (]) 02:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
			:I wasn't aware there was anyone suggesting that it might be reliable. ] (] • ]) 10:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	:It doesn't look good based on . Some of their writers may be experts and able to stand on their own, though. - ] (]) 03:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
			:Telegram doesn't need to be on the RSP, it's obviously unreliable and I don't see anyone arguing that it is reliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Agreed, it's just a user-generated source (]). Reliable for ] claims and posts by respectable experts/journalists/reliable sources, unreliable generally. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 16:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Aside from the fact that the ] i.e. '''''literal''' neo-Nazis'' use it (which is ]), Telegram, as a platform where ] with no clear editorial oversight, is a ] and unreliable, except in cases such as ]. I thought this was pretty obvious. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 00:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson ==
	::Thanks, I considered that as well but wanted to get a broader opinion. There is a listing of the "army of volunteers" . ] (]) 05:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
			] is cited in the''' Media outlets''' section of ]. He's an independent journalist who self-publishes and doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist. Reliable or not? I say no. Some other editors from that article might come here with more context. ] (]) 02:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	::I don't see how this can be considered a reliable source as a whole. Most of the "staff" are just random animation fans, and it is primarily hosted content of other people rather than an actual legitimate content provider and news agency itself. One of the "site owners" qualifications is "I love cartoons". Its basically a large fansite that gives hosting to apparently anyone and I couldn't find anyone in the list who is an actual expert. While some folks may site them sporadically (those two ANNs are from 2002), I think it would be better to just citing the reliable sources rather than ToonZone (i.e. if the Chicago Sun-Times chooses to site them in a story, then we're trusting that the reliable source itself checked/confirmed what they reported). -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 07:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
			:. Mr. Klippenstein is being used to cite:
	== Glantz/House Kursk ==
			:# {{tqq|Klippenstein also alleged that '']'' directed their staff to "dial back" on showing photographs containing Mangione's face.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Klippenstein |first1=Ken |date=December 11, 2024 |title=NY Times Doesn't Want You to See Shooter's Face |url=https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/ny-times-doesnt-want-you-to-see-mangiones |access-date=December 15, 2024 |website=kenklippenstein.com |language=en}}</ref>}}
			:# {{tqq|A report on the killing by the ] was obtained by independent journalist Dan Boguslaw, and published by Klippenstein on December 26. The report focused on Mangione's motive and people who express sympathy for him, whom they labeled as "extremists". Klippenstein alleged that multiple media outlets had access to the report, but selectively quoted it in a way that focused on Mangione. He said that "By withholding documents and unilaterally deciding which portions merit public disclosure, the media is playing god."<ref>{{cite web |title=Read the NYPD’s Mangione report the media won't publish |url=https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/post-luigi-the-extremist-threat-is |publisher=Ken Klippenstein |access-date=28 December 2024}}</ref>}} {{reflist}}
			:] (]) 03:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:It's crap. "Media reactions" or "in the media" sections in Misplaced Pages articles too often, like this article, become dumpsters where Wikipedians simply like to show off how good they are at finding random sources and shoehorning them into an article, for reasons. ] (]) 04:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Agreed. ] (]) 04:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Right, but the focus here is on the reliability of Ken Klippenstein and whether or not his statements (sourced to his own website and attributed) are usable in the article. ] (]) 12:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{tq|doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist}} That's not accurate, as you could have confirmed by checking out the references in the Klippenstein WP article that note that he's been a journalist for outlets like The Nation and The Intercept. Both of those are generally reliable on the RSP. He's also seen as serious by other journalists (e.g., in Columbia Journalism Review interview, which describes him "as one of the most fearless reporters of the Trump era").
			:His self-published work cannot be used as a source for WP content about living or recently dead people (e.g., about Mangione's letter), per ]. He could be used as a source on a BLP if the WP text sourced to him is not itself about a person (e.g., if it's about mainstream media). But in this case, I don't see how to disentangle his statements about the press from content about Mangione. Some other news outlets have reported a bit about the content currently sourced to Klippenstein, such as this , noting Klippenstein's apparent publication of Mangione's letter. ] (]) 15:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I was just going to say something similar - it's definitely inaccurate to say he hasn't written for other reliable sources in the past. It's true that his own stuff would fall foul of ], but his stuff picked up by other reliable sources is usable, conceptually, with proper context and attribution. ] ] ] ] 15:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Hell no, get rid of this Kenny guy now. ]: this content directly involves a living person (Luigi), and to make self-published claims about info regarding these living persons is against policy. And, Kenny boy over here is using his blog to write ] things about an American newspaper of record. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{U|BarntToust}} - Dial it back a bit. ] applies to all BLP is all Misplaced Pages spaces. You calling him weird names like "Kenny Boy" probably doesn't constitute "written with the greatest care and attention". ] ] 16:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::If this was like '']'' or '']'' writing this about ''NYT'' then yes I would support inclusion. This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here. "Ken" should be more concerned that he is writing damning blog posts accusing a reputable newspaper of compromised journalistic integrity. Who else will pick this up? Who else will corroborate this bold as all hell claim with trusted journalistic process? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::"This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here" is false, as is "he is writing damning blog posts." More than one person here has noted that he's a reliable journalist. Unbandito explained why he chose to start his own journalism Substack (not a blog). There are a number of established writers using Substack to host their reporting; here's ]. It's bizarre that you put his name in quotation marks, especially after calling him "this Kenny guy" and "Kenny boy." Nothing is stopping you from answering your own questions. I already noted a couple of sources that had picked it up; here's . ] (]) 18:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I personally believe that bold claims against these news organisations need other comparable news organisations to corroborate them, to establish ]. the spreading of claims by sources who are especially biased and opinionated means nothing. "Ken" can make a bombshell accusation against NYT for spineless reporting but can we get ''The Guardian'' or some other prestigious institutions to back these claims? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::A reminder that WP:RS states "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject," so I don't agree that his reporting "means nothing." This thread started off with the false claim that he "doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist" and the question "Reliable or not?" The false claim has been addressed. The question shows that people have different opinions. Whether some mention of Klippenstein is DUE is not a matter of reliability and belongs on the Talk page. ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Having been employed by two ultra-partisan outlets for some short period, and then by "The Young Turks" which is marginally better than InfoWars, does not indicate this individual's self-published works meet the encyclopedia's reliability standards. And it has not been shown that I made a false claim, only if you think these ultra-partisan sources are "mainstream". Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent, which is laughable. ] (]) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::He was employed by The Young Turks ''before'' he worked for The Nation and The Intercept, not ''after'', and those aren't the only other media for which he's written. Partisanship doesn't determine whether a given media outlet is/isn't mainstream media. They're both listed on Harvard's . {{tq|Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent}} Please quote whomever you're referring to, because I don't see any comment suggesting that. I'd be happy to be corrected, but otherwise, it's counterproductive to characterize people's comments as more extreme than they actually are. Again: people clearly have different opinions about whether he's "Reliable or not?" You have your opinion, and I have mine. Personally, I consider the ] interview as evidence of his reliability; if they happen to focus on someone who's unreliable, I think they say so, as . ] (]) 22:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Funny, Misplaced Pages lists The Federalist as "generally unreliable due to its partisan nature" yet they're listed as mainstream on Harvard's index. Seems like some kinds of partisanship are more acceptable than others. ] (]) 23:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::I didn't claim or imply that all MSM on Harvard's list are ''reliable''. Reliability, partisanship, and mainstream media status are all distinct dimensions. A source can fall into any one of their 8 combinations. The full RSP sentence is "The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature''' and its promotion of conspiracy theories'''." Maybe you think a source that promotes conspiracy theories is reliable, but I don't. ] (]) 23:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::I don't think a source promoting conspiracies is reliable, and I'm not disputing the decision against The Federalist. I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here. Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview, and I disagree. Even the content in question isn't just a professional critique of editorial decisions, but it's couched in nefarious undertones, even going so far as to accuse MSM of "playing god." ] (]) 00:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::{{tq|I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here.}} That's a very general claim for which you've provided no evidence and that also seems way beyond the scope of this particular thread. {{tq|Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview...}} Another very general claim, though this one at least touches on the thread's topic. Focusing just on Klippenstein, if you have evidence that he "''frequently'' write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a ] worldview" and not reliable, you should present it. If you do have that evidence, then you really should have presented it when you first asked "Reliable or not?" ] (]) 00:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::I would just refer you over to the article's talk page where discussion of this issue has continued, and a resolution has been reached. As to Klipp's conspiratorial worldview, see his latest media rant which I also submitted in talk.. ] (]) 18:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::I don't see how anything on the talk page provides evidence for your claim that he "'''frequently''' write of large corporations as dark plotters," and either you have evidence of that or you don't. So far, it looks like you don't. The only thing I see in your link relative to a "conspiratorial worldview" is his claim that "every self-appointed moral arbiter from politicians to major media outlets conspired to forbid the public from engaging in debate about how inhumane our healthcare system is," which hardly rises to the level of "frequently." ] (]) 19:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::is that a conspiracy or is that just actually saying a ]? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::It's a BLP violation to keep calling him a conspiracy theorist is what it is. One that Jonathan f1 seems quite committed to. ] (]) 19:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::Like I explained to you on the talk page, I'm using his own words. He's alleging that politicians and major media outlets "conspired" against the public. ] (]) 19:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::Him using a turn of phrase one time doesn't give us cause to start throwing insults at him on Misplaced Pages talk pages. Please provide a couple of reliable sources calling Klippenstein a conspiracy theorist or desist immediately. ] (]) 20:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::::], do we need reliable sources? I don't think we should explicitly be throwing around the ]-word, but rather ]. Keeps BLP vio away. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::::I'm not putting him in the same bucket with Alex Jones, but his repeated attacks on major media followed by a remark about them "conspiring" with each other is what it is. But okay, to move past all this pointless tone policing, I'll find a new phrase. ] (]) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::I'm not going to rehash his entire career as a journalist here, and particularly his time with The Young Turks which will certainly provide you with ample evidence of this. It isn't even relevant here -the articles in question are attack pieces where he is either implicating major media outlets in a plot or calling their journalistic ethics into question. That we are even debating inclusion with no corroboration from high-grade sources is remarkable. ] (]) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::Again, I said {{tq|if you have evidence that he "'''frequently''' write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a conspiratorial worldview" and not reliable, you should present it.}} You're the one who made the claim, and you're the one with the burden of proof for it. Don't try to shift the burden onto me. I'm not "debating inclusion" of any specific edit right now. I'm telling you that if you can't or won't substantiate your claim, then you should retract it, as it's an unsubstantiated contentious claim and a BLP violation. The BLP policy applies to any statements about living persons on all WP pages, including this one. ] (]) 20:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::I'll retract it just to move on from this. My objection to Klippenstein in this particular case does not hinge on this little side issue. ] (]) 23:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Why did you put his real name in quotes like that? ] ] 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::As an indicator that I generally distrust Substack reporters and their methods. I can't believe that anything will pass as qualified journalism nowadays 😐 <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:In this case, I'd say keep it. Klippenstein obtained and published the manifesto, which mainstream sources begrudgingly admitted was the same one they refused to publish. It appears that the citations in this article are of secondary coverage of his work, which makes them even more admissible. Klip is not just some guy, he has journalistic credentials and a past of reliable reporting for multiple reliable orgs. He's one of a number of journalists who was laid off from major outlets in the last year or so as part of a broader trend of restructuring in media that is ongoing. He and others like Ryan Grim and Jeremy Scahill have moved on to independent work, but despite the loss of their association with an established organization, their reporting remains influential and they've made a number of valuable contributions to our knowledge of and discourse on current events. I worry that Misplaced Pages policy, which assumes that mainstream media has a static financial and ethical position in perpetuity, is not adequately nuanced to accommodate major shake-ups in the press such as what we're seeing today. I think it's also worth noting that while Ken publishes on substack, at least in some other articles he's written (such as his publication of a US intelligence report on Israeli preparations to strike Iran) he employs an editor to review his work. This is the same sort of self-publishing that mainstream RS do, and another argument in favor of his reliability. ] (]) 16:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::"multiple reliable orgs."
			::Really, like what? The Young Turks? I'm aware that Nation and Intercept are considered generally reliable, but there's also consensus that they're opinionated, biased and partisan, and should be used with caution. Klipp doesn't work for any of these publications anymore; he self-publishes on substack and has made a career for himself publishing MSM polemic. That's what this section includes currently -Klipp's self-published polemic directed at NY Times, CNN etc. Even if this appeared in The Nation, there'd be weight issues. ] (]) 17:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Yes, The Nation and The Intercept. All media has bias, and any media-literate person should understand this. I think weight arguments are a lot stronger regarding content that is more than a few sentences or a short paragraph long. I don't think the due weight for this content is zero, and therefore I think the material is appropriate. If there is a significant view in opposition to Klippenstein, I think the page would be better improved by expanding it. ] (]) 17:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Of course all media, and all humans, are biased, but when a consensus on here comes with that caveat, you know you're not dealing with a gold standard RS. And this is only relevant here if you think his past employment with these outlets, however brief, in some way lends credibility to his self-published substacks. ] (]) 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I think what his past employment in media shows is that he has the training and follows the same standards of verifiability as prestige media organizations. I think it's worth noting that when a fake version of the manifesto was making the rounds, Klippenstein declined to publish it and called it out as misleading because he couldn't verify its authenticity. Regardless of where he's publishing them, I think his publication of several leaked documents ahead of the mainstream press as well as his history as a FOIA journalist shows that he is well connected to valuable sources of information and is engaged in "real" investigative journalism of the sort that prestige outlets are increasingly unwilling to pay for when opinion pieces get them just as many clicks.
			:::::His perspective on the unwillingness of the media to publish a document which they had verified is true is granted some additional relevance by the fact that he is the one who published the document and inquired to these organizations as to why they hadn't, as well as by the fact that journalists from those legacy organizations leaked internal communications to him which showed the decision those organizations had made.
			:::::I think that this is frankly a strong example of the way that Misplaced Pages's current RS policies are inadequate to handle the reality that with the traditional media in financial and organizational crisis, sometimes breaking news is going to be published by small independent outlets or individuals. Any conception of reliability that uniformly dismisses sources like Klippenstein as if they're some random blog post by John Q. Public while reifying legacy media despite the history of its errors and shortcomings and the media studies scholarship that problematizes a simplistic conception of source reliability, is sure to exclude some valuable material and include a lot of junk. Without getting too far off topic, I think the solution to this is to emphasize verifiability and source consensus over things like editorial process and organizational prestige, and to attribute wherever there is controversy or disagreement. ] (]) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::: Anyone using phrases like "MSM polemic" ought to be stepping well away from deciding the reliability of ''any'' sources, to be honest. ] 19:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::NY Times and CNN are mainstream media, a polemic is "a piece of writing expressing a strongly critical view of someone or something." Thus, Klippenstein's hit pieces on MSM are polemics. I don't see why me knowing what these words mean implies I need to "step well away" from assessing reliability. ] (]) 19:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::if someone else reports on it, its not sps, its secondary coverage of SPS, which should be admissible in BLP, right? I think we can't directly use any details in his blog that aren't vetted and cited by another non-SPS news source ] (]) 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Yes, secondary sources can be used for a BLP, if they are RSs. For example, this article confirms that Klippenstein published Mangione full "manifesto." And this article could be used re: his criticism of other media for not releasing the whole thing, though RSP says "There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement." Perhaps there are other reliable non-SPSs that are better sources for the content about Klippenstein's criticism of other media; I'm not going to take time right now to search further. There may still be questions about due weight, whether a claim needs to be attributed, etc., but those are distinct from the question of reliability and what can be used for BLP material. ] (]) 17:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::See, this is the thing, we've got LA Times, a high quality RS for news, so there's no reason to cite Klippenstein. But that covers the manifesto issue, which I wouldn't object to including. But the hit piece on those MSMs? Yeah, that's not found in LA Times or any other source on that level, only a "marginally reliable" source. I do not think Klipp is any position to critique editorial decisions at these publications, and do not see how that's due weight anyway. ] (]) 18:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I had to read the section again (didn't remember it from memory) so let me rephrase this:
			:::::* I don't object to the bit about media not publishing the manifesto, and this could be sourced to the LA Times (the secondary source referencing Klippenstein).
			:::::* The next line about the NY Times not showing the suspect's face -no RS is talking about this and I personally find it irrelevant.
			:::::*The last part about media outlets selectively quoting from the NYPD report -this exceeds weight limits and makes the section read like a hit piece against MSM, all sourced to one man. Klippenstein objects to the NYPD using the term "extremists" to describe the suspect's supporters, and cites a report by security firm Dragonfly to argue that the risk of violent attacks on corporate leaders will likely remain low. If you read his source, they, too, use the word "extremists" to describe people who support the killing.
			:::::] (]) 19:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I read his work and personally trust Klippenstein. However, his substack is clearly a self-published source. Unbandito's comments on broader issues with Misplaced Pages, while interesting, don't address the ] issue. Ultimately, Klippenstein is the person with final approval on what he wrote.
			:I would consider Klippenstein's views ] if they are reported on by reliable sources. Based on what I know and see here, I can't consider him to meet the ] criteria in this topic area. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 07:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I agree with Chess here - ] is appropriate here. Klippenstein is a respected journalist. He's also self-publishing. But, in this case, he's an expert who is self-publishing. ] (]) 14:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::See talk page (article linked up top). ] (]) 18:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'll endorse this as position as well. Klippenstein has a good track record with reputable outlets and hasn't had issues so far on his own, but is ultimately a ] that should only be included when corroborated and/or discussed by non-SPS RSs. That appears to be the case with the manifesto itself, but not the other reports. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 01:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Pretty much yes. There's no issue with the manifesto content, but the other reports are not mentioned in any secondary RS of any quality (ignoring Washington Times and the art website). There's also the fact that he's mentioned 3 separate times in a section of only 8 lines, which is hard to defend. ] (]) 01:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I merged the 'Media outlets' section with the 'Other' section. An editor made a ] on the talk page that according to Klippenstein's article, he's a FOIA document expert, and that {{tq|much of his journalism draws on information he has uncovered from records requested at state and national levels of the US government}}, which {{tq|also frequently include information from leaked documents}}. ] (]) 02:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Regardless of expert status, BLPSPS applies and would bar the use when it's not corroborated. It seems the new combined section has some sources that discussion Klippenstein's work in and of itself, which partially solves that issue. The issue then is if the amount of coverage is DUE. Klippenstein is an established journalist and some inclusion is probably due given the coverage, but a lot of the paragraph is repetitive, so I would probably cut it down by half. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 19:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Could you comment in the ], because despite what is being said here in this thread, certain editors still think he's a ], ], and unreliable ], ], ]. ] (]) 19:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:From what I can tell, a consensus has not yet been achieved here. I don't wish to step on anybody's toes, but I have reverted ]'s blanking of a large portion of the disputed section . ] (]) 10:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Please see ]: {{tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} You should self-revert your reversion until consensus has been reached in one way or another. ] (]) 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::But ] is also relevant: {{tq|When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.}} ] (]) 17:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The discussion is still ongoing, so I don't see that as relevant yet. ] (]) 19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The material that User:Toa Nidhiki05 removed had been in the article since December 13 without any dispute (until now). ] (]) 19:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Slayage ==
	i have big doubts regarding this book. i explained on the discussion page of battle of kursk. first of all the book is convicted with using rotmistrovs steelguard as source, the book is claiming that the myth of prokhorvka is true. furthermore the claims of the strenghts are rediculous. i explained on the dischussionpage. while i think glantz is a reliable historian his book kursk seems to be punked by russian sources ( rotmistrov for example ). without checking german archival sources this book printed claims created by soviet propaganda. glantz is supporting the opinion that the red army was superior in many cases ( which is maybe possible but this is not the point) , he supports this claims with taking wrong strenght numbers and comparing them. his "ratios" are cited in the "battle of kursk" articles. for example he gives and overexxagrated number of german tanks and "forgots" the steppe front. so his ratios are simply ridicolous... . newer research is discrediting many statements of him. zetterling/frankson , have written an book about the statistical analyse of kursk and we see that glantz simply faked the numbers. "Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg Vol.8 " (2007) has an entire chapter regarding the prokhorovka myth. i explained this problem on the discussion page but nobody responed glantz is still even cited for the prokhorvka battle which is very sad... ] (]) 16:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Can you give a more complete description of the source please? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			''Slayage: The International Journal of Buffy+'' {{ISSN|1546-9212}} https://www.whedonstudies.tv/slayage-the-international-journal-of-buffy.html
	Glantz, David M. & House, Jonathon (1995). When Titans Clashed; How the Red Army Stopped Hitler. University of Kansas Press. iam not sure if the user who makes the dubios statements is citing this book because he seems to own Glantz/ House ... Kursk too. but most of the dubios statements are from when titan clashed. i can present more dubios statements of the book about kursk. again i have to say that i dont think glantz is not reliable, but his statements about kursk are more than wrong] (]) 11:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			{{tqb|''Slayage'' (ISSN 1546-9212) is an open-access, blind peer-reviewed, MLA-indexed publication and a member of the Directory of Open Access Journals. ​​ journal. All content is available at no cost, in downloadable, full-text PDFs. ''There is no submission or publication fee for authors.''}}
	::This user has misquoted from sources and trying to elbow this author out because his figures don't fit with his distorted view of events. Please ingore this. ] is one of the most formidable academics in the field of Soviet military art. It is a disgrace that some anon of the internet questions that he 'ain't releiable'. ] (]) 11:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			* https://www.whedonstudies.tv/editorial-team.html
	ok than explain to me why he is forgeting entire fronts for his strenght ratios. explain to me? u cant... explain to me why he is using rotmistrov. u cant.... . Rebut my points and dont say "ignore the user"....
			* https://doaj.org/toc/1546-9212
			** Links to the www.whedonstudies.tv site
			* https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/1546-9212
			* There is also a site at https://slayage.ejournals.una.edu/. https://una.edu/ is ]'s website. UNA hosted the 2018 ''Slayage'' Conference,<sup></sup> but I have not found more about their relationship.
			* {{-r|Slayage}} and {{-r|Slayage: The Online Journal of Buffy Studies}} (a previous title) redirect to ]. It has a few sentences about ''Slayage'', but they are out of date.
			Context: ] and ]
	: so i ordered the newer book Kursk 1943, i will check what this book says then we can go on. ] (]) 21:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			Apologies, I am not familiar with what information is relevant and helpful. ] (]) 05:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:From the listed information, the fact, that the journal has fixed editors and a fixed , the mission statement of "" and "", and the fact, that most contributors are associated with universities, I believe that this is a serious academic source, even though it is focussed on a niche topic and may not be quite as organized as publications by long-standing publishers in the field. I think this is a reliable source which can provide commentary as expected by ] on its subject matter. ] (]) 12:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:My initial thoughts was "Obviously not", but searching Google books its cited in works published by credible publishers (McFarland, Routledge, etc). It could be reliable per ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			* I think the fact it's such a niche source (an academic journal dedicated to a specific TV show of all things) suggests that while it's probably not unreliable, it's questionable whether it should count towards the notability of fictional elements from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. ] (]) 18:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:That's special pleading. We don't dismiss topics from journals dedicated to other authors, do we?
			*:Grok gives the following as peer-reviewed, indexed journals of 20th century authors:
			** '''James Joyce Quarterly''': This journal is dedicated to Joyce's works, offering scholarly articles, reviews, and bibliographies. It is indexed by several databases, including JSTOR and Project MUSE.
			** '''The Faulkner Journal''': Focused on the study of Faulkner's literature, this journal publishes scholarly articles, book reviews, and special issues on various aspects of his work. It is indexed in databases like MLA International Bibliography.
			** '''The Hemingway Review''': This journal delves into Hemingway's writings, life, and influence, providing critical essays, reviews, and notes. It is indexed by several academic databases, including Project MUSE and JSTOR.
			** '''Virginia Woolf Bulletin''' (also known as the "Virginia Woolf Miscellany"): This publication explores Woolf's literature, life, and cultural impact. Although not as widely indexed as some others, it is recognized by the MLA International Bibliography.
			** '''T.S. Eliot Studies Annual''': This newer publication focuses on in-depth studies of Eliot's poetry, criticism, and cultural contributions. It is peer-reviewed and indexed in academic sources.
			** '''D.H. Lawrence Review''': This journal features scholarly articles on Lawrence's work, with a strong focus on his novels, poetry, and letters. It is indexed by resources like JSTOR.
			** '''Kafka Studies''': Although not as universally known, this journal offers critical analysis of Kafka's literature and philosophical themes. It's indexed in humanities databases.
			** '''Samuel Beckett Today/Aujourd'hui''': Dedicated to Beckett scholarship, this journal publishes articles in both English and French, focusing on Beckett's plays, novels, and other works. It is peer-reviewed and indexed by databases like Scopus.
			** '''Marcel Proust Bulletin''': This focuses on Proust's extensive oeuvre, particularly "In Search of Lost Time," with articles that explore his influence and interpretations. It's indexed by various literary databases.
			** '''Thomas Mann Jahrbuch''': This German-language journal studies Mann's literature, life, and cultural impact, featuring peer-reviewed articles. It is well-indexed in European academic circles.
			** '''Sehnsucht: The C. S. Lewis Journal''': Established by the Arizona C. S. Lewis Society in 2007, this is the world's only peer-reviewed journal devoted exclusively to the study of C. S. Lewis and his writings. It promotes interest in Lewis's literary, theological, historical, biographical, philosophical, and cultural contributions. The journal is indexed in databases like JSTOR, making it accessible for academic research.
			*:I'm sure there may be more. Grok tends to overlook things even when you tell it to be exhaustive; the last one I specifically queried but it wasn't included in the first set. ] (]) 19:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::: I'm not dismssing the journal as a reliable source, I'm just saying that its focus on a particular TV show means that it may not demonstrate notability for fictional elements of this particular TV Show. I would say that this goes for the others sources you conjured using an AI chatbot and their particular purviews. If the particular fictional element is found to be notable I see no reason against using it as a source. ] (]) 19:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::AI chatbot just more or less summarized ]. The above are all legit scholarly journals. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 20:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Actually Kafka Studies don't seem to exist. ''Journal of the Kafka Society of America'' does however. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 20:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I'm not denying that they are legitimate scholarly journals. It's a question of ]. ] (]) 20:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::DUE is demonstrated by the fact that an entire journal exists about the topic. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 20:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I don't see why having a journal dedicated to a TV Show means that every minor aspect of its characters and worldbuilding is automatically notable. ] (]) 20:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::No more than any minor aspect of CS Lewis characters become automatically notable. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 20:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::What is the intended use? ] (]) 21:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Cynically, I'd say ''Slayage'' is evidence that there's a whole lot of academics who liked (like?) Joss Whedon's work and decided to put together a journal so they could write about their favorite fiction and have it count towards their career advancement. But that's still not reason to discount it as a source, is it? ] (]) 21:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::No but reliability is contextual. Without understanding thd context all we can really say is, "yeah it's a journal." ] (]) 15:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Is reliability even being seriously questioned here? Seriously, has anyone looked at it and compared it to similar academic journals? Because I'm seeing a lot more "Who would have a whole journal on this?" than "This isn't really a peer-reviewed, indexed journal." That is, no policy-based arguments against reliability are being advanced here. ] (]) 00:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::OK I found the context (was on my phone mostly over xmas which is a horrible interface) and I'd say that mention in a single journal is a bit weak for establishing independent notability of a seasonal antagonist in a TV show unless that mention was particularly in-depth. ] (]) 14:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::But that's not an RSN decision; that's an AfD topic. RSN is to debate whether a peer-reviewed, indexed journal is, in fact, a peer-reviewed, indexed journal. If we're agreed that this is, in fact, a peer-reviewed, indexed journal, even if a niche one, our job here is done, isn't it? ] (]) 22:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I limited it to 20th century authors, though, in an attempt to force a more contemporary focus, which is what we're really concerned about here. No one doubts Augustine is a topic of legitimate scholarly inquiry. ] (]) 22:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I don't really see why, when there are no objections against the content of the magazine, it should not be used for notability. The reason ] in the first place is to only create articles on topics where there really is enough to say. If there ''is'' enough, then why not? ] (]) 15:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			I searched for ''Slayage'' and the papers from the AfD in ] after finding it mentioned at ] (how-to guide), ] (guideline), ] (essay), and ] (untagged). Is there a quick way to add up citation counts for ''Slayage'' across its papers? Do journal citation counts estimate impact, and is impact relevant here?
	::: to make my point clear, iam not disputing the reliability of glantz in general but his book when titans clashed. and here particulary his numbers . now the examples. operation zitadelle is the name for the german pincer attack for kursk. glantz(i can only say what the user is citing ) lists 3,xxx russian tanks. when i check the latest sources i see this number are correct but only the numbers for two of three fronts. the first defensiv lines were manned by 2 fronts and behind them the steppe front as reserve (reserves are always listed in strenght because they are important for the outcome used or not doesnt madder), this steppe front was used very ofthen with more than 1000 tanks in action and fighting. even if this front would not participated it should be mentioned but it was used. so if glantz really gives this numbers for zitadelle he simply faked the numbers. after this he takes his numbers to create tank ratios, he explaining 1:1,5 tanks , because russian only had this 3000 tanks.... than the user is arguing glantz uses this ratio to explain their was no numerical superiority . this totally absurd because this tanks were fighting . and i not even mention that the brijansk front with its 1xxx tanks started to attack the 2nd Panzerarmy. iam not sure what glantz really says but this dubios. the user who cites glantz own both books "when titans clashed(1995)" and "kursk 1943(2070)" but he is always citing the older one so i think glantz himself uses other numbers in his newer book. if the user only owns the old book than forget what i wrote. there are more examples if u want i can explain. dont hesitat to ask me] (]) 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			* https://www.whedonstudies.tv/volume-110.html Daniel A. Clark and P. Andrew Miller (Northern Kentucky University)
	::::I am an interested editor from the Kursk article. ] is a well known and respected WWII historian. I believe that to consider his book, or just some specific numbers from it, as unreliable, it will take more than having differences with another reliable source. ]'s recent study is considered seminal for Russian figures, but I don't think it's enough to prove Glantz unreliable in the wikipedia sense; that would require exceptionally good sources who specifically opine that Glantz's research was flawed. My understanding is that when reliable sources differ, editors don't get to play favourites unless there is consensus to prefer particular sources (and so, Krivoshe(y)ev's figures should also be considered reliable.)
			** https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=11208910260268275851 – Cited by 17
	::::I'd suggest that trying to play one source against another to decide that another must be "wrong" is ], unless the evidence is so overwhelming as to prove one is a fringe opinion. I note there is no bulk of reliable sources to criticise Glantz.
			*** Clark, Daniel A., and P. Andrew Miller. "Buffy, the Scooby Gang, and Monstrous Authority: BtVS and the Subversion of Authority." ''Slayage: The Online International Journal of Buffy Studies'' 3.9 (2001).
	::::Also, I would ask fellow editors to be civil, and focus on the question, not other editors. ] 21:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			** (no user profile)
			** (no user profile)
			*** – Cited by 5345, but seems to be a different person
			* https://www.whedonstudies.tv/volume-41.html Michele Paule (Oxford Brookes University)
			** https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=14669897941185192559 – Cited by 2
			*** Paule, Michele. "" You're on My Campus, Buddy!" Sovereign and Disciplinary Power at Sunnydale High." ''Slayage: The Online International Journal of Buffy Studies'' 4.3 (2004).
			** – Cited by 87
			] (]) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	lets stick to the point. i dont say he is unreliable but i think his numbers for zitadelle are. thats why iam really interested in his book Kursk, we talk here about "when titans clashed" this book is 12 years older. and please hohum tell me your opinion about "forgeting" the steppe front? i know our opinion is irrelevant....
			==RfC: NewsNation==
	: he only lists central and voronezh front. why? and again i have to repeat myself iam not sure if glantz says this or the user who cites him. glantz doesnt count the reserves, while he is counting the germans reservers which took not part. hes counting german passiv reserves but not russian activ ones. who can we use his numbers then ? we have zetterling 200x and frieser 2007. even if we say glantz is reliable than his numbers should be not used for this article. ] (]) 21:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			What is the reliability of ]?
			* '''Option 1: ]'''
	:: If two experts disagree, we generally write the disagreement. "The Soviet forces included 5000 tanks (according to Glantz) or 10000 tanks (according to Krivosheyev)". Experts do sometimes disagree. But we do need to be able to cite the disagreeing experts on each side, we can't just write "Glantz writes 5000 tanks, which we're sure is wrong." --] (]) 21:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			* '''Option 2: ]'''
			* '''Option 3: ]'''
			* '''Option 4: ]'''
			] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Survey (NewsNation)===
	they both have the same number but one of them is missing a front/armygroup/Heeresgruppe. i think we can give both numbers but than the infobox becomes very huge. is there a possibility that somebody decides which source is better for the box. zetterling frankson wrote a book only about the numbers of kursk.... .the other numbers can be explained in the text, in the text its easy to explain the numbers and the reader will see fast that glantz simply missed a front which took part and his numbers are nonsense.... . another issue: glantz is quoting the myth of prokhorovka , what now? ] (]) 22:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light).
			**NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
			***In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the ], Coulthart said {{xt|"... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"!}} . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including ] and ], all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects.
			***Writing in ''The Skeptic'', Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: {{xt|"Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."}}
			***He wrote a UFO book titled ''Plain Sight'' which ] described as a {{xT|"conspiracy narrative"}} and a {{xt|"slipshod summary"}}.
			***The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for {{Xt|“espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”}}
			***The ] did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking {{xt|"Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary?}} while strongly implying the former.
			***The '']'' has described him as a {{Xt|"UFO truther"}} with {{xt|"little appetite for scrutiny"}}.
			***Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked ] investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians.
			**Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs:
			***In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the ''Washington Post'': ), the channel {{xt|"was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health"}}.
			***In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said {{xt|"... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing"}}. The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to ]'s analysis, a Boeing 737 .
			:] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage ] (]) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. ] (]) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' per Chetsford. – ] (]&nbsp;<b>·</b> ]) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative.] (]) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. Compare ]. ] (]) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' why are we putting ''any'' stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “]” syndrome. ] (]) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Discussion (NewsNation)===
	:::The purpose of wikipedia is to reflect the information provided by reliable sources, not compare a bunch of reliable sources and then only use our favourites, even if the others seem wrong to us (whether it be authors, their books, or a specific number). It's not up to us to critique why one author came up with one number, and another author a different one. As long as they are both/all reliable, and Glantz, Krivosheev, Zetterling, and several others are, then we repeat what they say. If the quality of particular sources is obviously higher - as decided by knowledgeable book reviewers, then it's suitable to prefer one, but I don't much difference in praise for Glantz, Krivosheev, Zetterling, etc.
			*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)
	:::If the numbers quoted are for different groups of troops, then we ought to point out those differences, not just keep the ones a particular editor likes. ] 22:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			== Pop Crave ==
	*" not just keep the ones a particular editor likes."
			I know what you're going to say. This is a social media page, and it can't be reliable. But '']'' is also that conducts interviews and breaks news. Pop Crave itself is reliable on Twitter and other sites.
	argh, this has nothing to do with "like" or POV or bias, here its : correct or wrong. its simply wrong. and we have more then one historian saying this. most historian include all participating troops and one does not! and what is with prokhorovka, what is neccessary that wikipedia dont uses historians which are punked by the myth? ] (]) 22:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			I know there's a small chance of this going through. But I think it's also worth seriously re-examining our social media sources policy. The younger generations are getting their news from these sources way more than any others. That number will only increase as the years go by. And as a result, these sources will become more reliable. We need to get in touch. ] (]) 03:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:No, we have ''you'' saying you think one author is wrong, because ''you'' think another author is right, while another editor does the opposite.
	:Read ]:
	:{{xt|"The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is '''verifiability, not truth'''—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true."}}
	:"Most" historians disagree? You've given ''one'', and he isn't ''disagreeing with Glantz'', he's just presented different numbers, since he is using different sources. ] 22:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			:Others are free to chime in, but the fact that a source is considered "reliable" on another website -- especially social media -- is of little consequence in the context of determining its reliability on Misplaced Pages. What ultimately matters is how it conforms to policies and guidelines such as ] and ]. Assessing the source on its own merits, I Googled their staff page since I couldn't find it on their homepage (, for those interested), and there is no information provided about these people beyond their roles at the site, which frequently strikes me as the sign of a dubious source. Furthermore, there are no authors listed on any of the articles presented on their homepage, which is not a good sign. All things considered, this really does just look like a social media-type fansite, which in addition to not meeting the criteria of ], would also make it unusable on ] articles.
	no he is not using other sources -.- frieser and zetterling and frankson are counting all participating tanks and glantz not. i explained it so well i think, glantz is giving the number for central and voronez and the other historians give central voronez and steppe, which is the "truth" because steppe fought in the south. but when your green sentence is correct than the discussion is over because glantz is glantz. but its a bit sobering, isnt it ? i only hope that glantz dont decide to say germany won WWII because than wiki will start publishing this . iam sure there is a wikirule against being funny. so sorry for this.... ] (]) 23:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			:Finally, I will conclude with this: As a young enough person (22, as I write this), I certainly view news from sources that don't meet Misplaced Pages's standards for verifiability and reliability, but that doesn't mean I'm going to cite them on Misplaced Pages. So I don't see using popular sites that younger audiences get their news from as a good idea -- using that standard, TikTok and Instagram posts could be regarded as potentially acceptable for, say, information about living persons. Sorry, but that is just not how Misplaced Pages functions. ] (]) 06:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I concur with JeffSpaceman's assessment. The site does list it's staff, but the bios are the same humorous take on ]. There's no way to assess reliability, which has the markings of it being unreliable. The publishing medium - social media vs. website - doesn't really matter. It's the credentials, editorial oversight, and reputation for fact-checking that matter, and on that there's nothing to go on.--] (] &#124; ]) 16:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:] says that for articles about living people you should be {{tq|very firm about the use of high-quality sources}}. Celebrity news and gossip sites are not high-quality sources. Separately interviews can be used for ] statements, as long as it's not overly promotional (etc) and your only quoting the subject and not the comments by the interviewer. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			* I'm familiar enough with PopCrave to say with confidence there is no world in which it should be used as a reliable source. It's a prime example of churnalism. ] (]) 14:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Pop Crave doesn't have a track record of reliability we would want for a RS, especially in the BLP space. Looking at the bios of some of the authors that I was able to find (Dylan Anthony, their most prolific writer, does not appear to be on LinkedIn). most have little journalism experience, especially with RSs. That being said, they do have some experience, do not seem like grifters, and do get interviews. It seems like their interviews should be safe enough for ] statements if it's not egregiously self-serving. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:If Glantz ever says that, there will be no shortage of reliable sources specifically criticizing his reliability on that point. ] 01:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	] is a respected historian, with many published works to his credit. The book was published by a university press. As such, it would generally be considered to be a very reliable source. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			Look, guys, gals and either or else, if we have to have a discussion about every website that has become a ] we've already eliminated half of the sources considered generally reliable a decade ago, and if we consider bias and opinionation to be a damning factor, there's the other half gone.
	== Britball Now ==
			How about we agree to encourage practice of good ], and learn to take each article on a given website on a basis-by-basis account? If it is recognised as churnalism or slop, don't use it. If it's an example of helpful content, use it. We live in the ] age of AI garbage. Deal with this conundrum smartly. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	Hi. For a while I've been using as a source for a number of articles relating to American football in the UK. During the course of a peer review, the ] about whether this could be counted as a reliable source or not. So far I've seen no errors or causes for concern and I can personally vouch for one of the main contributors but I would like to gauge other people's opinions on this. <span style="font-family: Segoe Print, sans-serif;text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.4em">]&nbsp;]</span> 16:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
	:The fact that is written in the first person indicates that it is a ], and should be treated as such. And because there is no indication that the author (who is apparently anonymous) is an expert, it does not meet Misplaced Pages's ] requirements. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Fair enough. Thanks for your response. <span style="font-family: Segoe Print, sans-serif;text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.4em">]&nbsp;]</span> 12:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			:This is an awful response to give at the ''reliable source noticeboard''. Discussing sources is what is done here, and this person is asking a good-faith question on the use of a source. Your participation isn't required if you're already exasperated for some reason. ] ] 03:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Nice guys and HBI ==
			::look, it's exasperating to see literally all pop culture / video games sources going down the proverbial shitter for sakes' of engagement and leverage of AI. most sources have the whispers of decent journalism drowned out behind the great content farm, and it's probably prudent to know how to pick the meat from the shells, so to speak. Yes, it is tiring, and it is sad to see journalism turn sour. If it bothers you to see concern expressed and grievances given, eh. it's reality. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::That's besides the point. Lament it somewhere else. This is a place people are ''supposed'' to be asking about sources, and your grumbling creates a chilling effect on editors who wish to learn how to go about things the right way. I'm well aware of the state of journalism in 2025, and I don't blame anyone bemoaning it. But there's a time and place for things, and this is not the place for it. It lacks common sense - just as it would if I were to head over to ] and say "''Oh great, yet another question about ]!''" That's...what they do there. If you're tired of fielding questions, do something else. ] ] 16:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I get your frustration. Frankly it is what motivates a lot of my strong and loudly expressed preference for academic work and books published by reliable presses over journalistic content in these discussions. Because, yeah, journalism is in a dire place. Globally. (And I say this as someone who aspired to be a journalist early in his career only to watch the profession die.) I also agree there are certainly degrees here. In fact my antipathy toward ] is mostly motivated from the fact I ''fully agree with you'' that we should be treating reliability contextually most of the time rather than making general statements.
			::::However, in this specific case, I'd say PopCrave, as a particular outlet, was never farther up the journalism ladder than the bottom rung. ] (]) 17:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::that system I propose is seriously the only way I believe we'll get anything sourcable. Journalism is a lobster, @]. That means it is mostly a shell (useless and non-consumable) and we must look for and dig out the meat (useful and consumable content). I'm not posting to bitch and moan only, I'm trying to hit the nail on the head and I'm providing a method of thought to deal with how to wade through the swamp of garbage journalism. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::and each site is probably a lobster, so to speak. Each site, some more than others, is a shell, but with careful judgement, substance can be drawn from it. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::The "system you propose" doesn't exist yet, and its not appropriate to propose it in the middle of someone's valid question. Go take it to ] or something. Stop derailing this thread. ] ] 17:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq|it's probably prudent to know how to pick the meat from the shells}} I completely agree with this, but your comment doesn't help the OP know how to do that. If your not going to offer advice or knowledge then you're posting to the wrong place. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Editors come here looking for advice on how to make a good judgement on a source, so telling them they need to use their own good judgement doesn't help. Answering questions simply as YES/NO is equally as bad, instead try to answer question in a way that helps the OP understand policy and how to make good judgements.
			:Also although for some reason people believe Misplaced Pages considers bias or opinion in reliability matters it doesn't, see ] and ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Is this article declaring the ] a 12th c. baptistry a reliable source for the tower?? ==
	My question is whether Heartless Bitches International, http://www.heartless-bitches.com, can be considered a reliable source for the article ]. I don't think it can be, as they call their essays "rants", which suggest they fall under ], even if not ]. I have pointed the participants there to this discussion. As I seem to be alone among the editors there, I thought I'd bring the matter to the relevant noticeboard. — ] ] 16:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
			The autho rhas emailed me demanding it be added to the Newport Tower article as it has been peer reviewed.] press.... Other non-peer reviewed papers of his can be found here. ] ] 15:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Statements of opinion are reliable sources that such an opinion exists. (Notability is a separate question, which I'm not going to address - I have no idea whether HBI is enough to establish notability of an opinion.) However, it appears that the article in question is proferring the "not-really-nice-guy" idea as a possibly-correct explanation for a phenomenon, not just as an unsubstantiated opinion on that phenomenon. This goes somewhat beyond what can be established from this source. ] (]) 19:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
			:For reference the tower is ] The answer is no. The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming. Even academic presses slip up sometimes and Istanbul University Press is frankly quite a bit distant from Rhode Island such that I would be cautious about the level of rigour of its fact checking (if any) on the topic. ] (]) 15:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:ps. As always, you should seek consensus when addressing this issue. ] (]) 22:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
			::In addition to this, the author is retired from the U.S. Navy and a student of aeronautics, while this paper involves a great deal of cartography, religious history, etc. In other worlds, far outside of the author's field, even if there was some question about its reliability. Looking at the non-peer reviewed papers, I see that the author also believes the ] is legit. ] (]) 15:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::], that WP article has an entire section on ], so it's not clear to me that "The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming" is a reason to exclude this hypothesis. Given that context, what does it means to be a RS for a fringe theory? A source may be reliable for the existence of the fringe theory but unreliable otherwise.
			::It's unclear to me whether this chapter is truly peer-reviewed. It appears in an , and the editors are on the faculty of Istanbul University, but it's not clear to me that they have expertise in this area, whether they reviewed all of the chapters for accuracy or only for things like pertinence and organization, or if they sought any outside review for any of the chapters. Their Google Scholar info: , . The book was just published, and I couldn't find any reviews for it. What the author of the chapter "demands" is irrelevant. ] (]) 20:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The question is, does this source add anything to the "Norse hypothesis" such that it is worth adding the article to include it? I think the answer is no. There's no evidence that this paper has had any impact on the wider discourse surrounding the tower. ] (]) 20:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I haven't read the paper, but the abstract says "Two Turkish cartographers, the earliest being Maximus Planudes (c. 1260-1310), and later, Piri Reis (c. 1465-1553), illustrated the North American Baptistery on their respective cartographic works." I know nothing about the "Norse hypothesis" and so cannot judge whether this is something new; the current WP text makes no mention of Turks, but perhaps that's just a matter of what was judged to be DUE. The book link above says that the book was only published last week, so at this point the chapter cannot possibly have had any impact on wider discourse. ] (]) 22:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It seems the text is mostly taken up by attempting to divine meaning from certain blotches on an old map. This is not a particularly convincing hypothesis for what it's worth. ] (]) 14:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Peer review is only as good as the peers in question... Istanbul University and history have a rather fraught history when it comes to Turkish nationalist historiography (which I would fit this under given the elements of Turkish exceptionalism). We have a long history of disregarding those views because academics outside of Turkey do (especially as it concerns claims of Ottoman voyages of discovery, the Kurds, and the Armenian Genocide). ] (]) 16:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:No, obvious crank. I would take it as evidence that Istanbul University Press is not reliable. I imagine he was stationed at the base in Newport and got interested, but he should seek professional training in history and learn to read some relevant languages before leaning in on a claim this unlikely. There's really nothing in his article except some maps so extremely magnified that they don't resemble anything in particular. ] (]) 01:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Pinkvilla ==
	::If a source isn't reliable, then it isn't reliable, and can't be used, even to indicate "that such an opinion exists". There are millions of websites out there, and there's no indication that this one has significant editorial oversight or a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Looks like a fun site to read, but it can't be used as a source. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			] has been flagged as an unreliable source, and there is growing consensus around its exclusion from the list of acceptable sources on ]. Previously dicusssed (see ], ]). Due to concerns about the site's editorial standards, accuracy, and potential biases, I propose to dicussss the credibility of Pinkvilla. The aim is to ensure that Misplaced Pages articles are supported by sources that meet higher standards of reliability and credibility. Pinkvilla itself states that the figures provided may be approximate and does not make any claims regarding the authenticity of the data. However, it asserts that the numbers are generally reflective of the box-office performance of the films in question ().] (]) 09:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I disagree wtih Jay. Context is important in reliability... In the context of verifying that an opinion exists, any source that contains the opinion is a "reliable source". However... we need to remember that "reliability" is not the be-all and end-all of Misplaced Pages... there are other policies and guidelines that need to be considered, and there are other questions that need to be asked. The most important being: ''Should the article be discussing the existance of the opinion in the first place?'' If the best source you can find for the existance of an opinion is some nut job's website... then the answer to this question is probably "No, we should not include discussion of the opinion, because doing so whould give the opinion ]." The issue of whether the nut job's website is reliable in the context of the statment becomes purely accademic, because you should not be making the statement in the first place. ] (]) 03:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			:Do you think there's a difference between the box-office numbers in Pinkvilla and their general articles? Could one be considered reliable and the other not, or is this looking at the site as a whole? ''']''' (]) 20:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::I see no evidence of having earned a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. No, it's not a ]. Without third-party reliable sources addressing HBI's opinions, it also fails on ]. Unfortunately, we have editors who think that just because something is one a website, that means we can use it to source an article. Completely untrue. ] (]) 13:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			:{{tq|the figures provided may be approximate and does not make any claims regarding the authenticity of the data}} it probably shouldn't be cited then. ] (]) 23:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Reliability discussion took place previously ] putting it as one of the best sources for movie related news and box office collections. ] (]) 07:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Is a book on "banishing belly fat" a RS for ice cream manufacturing? ==
	::::Blueboar, context is indeed important, but you are completely incorrect when you say "In the context of verifying that an opinion exists, any source that contains the opinion is a "reliable source"." Remember, Misplaced Pages is simply not interested in the opinions of unreliable sources, not what they are, nor even if they exist, ''except if reliable sources comment on them''. If reliable sources discuss the opinions of www.heartless-bitches.com, then Misplaced Pages may also do so. Otherwise, their opinions are not relevant to Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is an encylopedia, not a summary of the internet. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			presents the startling headline "Avoid Antifreeze" when referring to ice cream brands that used propylene glycol (PG) more than a decade ago as a texture-control ingredient for commercial ice creams. In small amounts, PG has been used in thousands of prepared foods since the 1980s (including ice creams and frozen desserts), is universally considered ], and is regulated under law by several national food safety agencies (].
	:::::As to whether reliable sources are commenting on the content of the HBI website, some mentions of HBI in US, Canadian, Irish, Danish, UK, Australian and New Zealand media can be found at the following url, including several interviews/articles specifically devoted to the 'Nice Guy' issue: http://www.heartless-bitches.com/press/sitings.shtml
	:::::If there are doubts about the prevalence of the opinion expressed on the HBI site within popular culture, then logically there are at least two remedies: 1. remove the source, or 2. provide additional sources of the same opinion appearing in art and popular culture. One such source is the XKCD web comic which treated the subject along the same lines as the HBI site (http://xkcd.com/513/). --] (]) 16:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::One can cite reliable sources that discuss the opinions of www.heartless-bitches.com, not the website itself. I'm not sure why you think a web comic would qualify as a reliable source. And citing "additional sources of the same opinion appearing in art and popular culture" is quite blatant ] based on a Misplaced Pages editor's analysis of primary sources. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
			Is the "belly fat" book a RS for ice cream manufacturing? The book is sourced in ] about one ice cream brand. What purpose is served by mentioning PG - a common GRAS ingredient - using the "belly fat" book as the only source? ]. ] (]) 17:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:From ]: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public." HBI is not a reliable source from this perspective. , for example, would be. But unless other sources are profferred, it's still just a throwaway line in just one source and does not merit a whole section in the article. ] (]) 16:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			:Are you linkng the right work? ] is a respected publisher, so the work you linked isn't self-published. The author, ], has a history in publishing about health issues. If you are linking the right work, it's not self-published and would be reliable for the use of the additive and why it's added. Whether those details should be included in the article or not is a matter to discuss on the articles talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	== gibnet.com (separate discussion to gibnews.net) ==
			::There doesn't appear to be any history of Random House vetting or having peer-review on topics of ice cream manufacturing or regulatory law on ingredients - that was the point of the question. It's a stretch to infer Zinczenko is a health guru, as he has no history of science education or peer-reviewed publishing on food law or manufacturing practices, and . The Zinczenko book seems to be only an ] for diet advice, leaving open the question: can it be RS for ice cream manufacturing? ] (]) 20:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::It isn’t self published. Whether it reliably supports a specific statement in a specific article is a different issue. There is more to reliability than just who the publisher is. ] (]) 21:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Random House is a reliable publisher, Zinczenko is a journalist, not a scientist, so I'd say he's reliable for trends and stuff in that vein, but not for scientific or medical conclusions. So when it comes to propylene glycol I think he can say that it's an ingredient, and even that some people think it's unhealthy, but not ''how'' or ''why'' its unhealthy. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I never said he was a heath guru, and why would he need prior scientific publishing to say what ingredients happen to be used in icecream? Sources need to be of a quality to match the content that they support, icecream ingredients don't require that someone have citations on PubMed. If this was used for medical or health claims then it wouldn't be reliable, but it's not being used for that. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Help us understand what purpose is served by isolating propylene glycol as one minor ingredient among many using a non-expert book as the source? In frozen desserts manufactured in 2013 (propylene glycol appears to have not been used by any major ice cream manufacturer since), it was one of some 12-20 ingredients, and by law, could not be more than 2.5% of the total ingredients mix. FDA food labeling stipulates that ingredients are , where propylene glycol would not be in the top 5 of ingredients by volume. Highlighting one additive with this book as a source creates a false impression to the casual reader that there may have been a health risk or manufacturing problem due to propylene glycol (which is why I searched PubMed and ]). As a manufacturing method no longer used, what purpose to the encyclopedia does it have being mentioned with a 12 year old source that fails to say it was safe? ]. ] (]) 22:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::You appear to be arguing about whether it should be included, which is a separate matter from reliability. The book makes no claims, and isn't used to support any claims, about health implications of consuming the additive. It's reliable that the ingredient was included in icecream at that time. Again whether that should be included is a matter for the articles talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I agree. I think there's a reasonable argument that it doesn't need to be included. It's outdated and not a very important detail. I don't think the source is the reason why, though. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::{{u|ActivelyDisinterested}} and {{u|AndreJustAndre}} - appreciate the fair comments which seemed to suggest an ]. ] (]) 06:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			== RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu ==
	Following on from the discussion on gibnews.net , I would like to raise another site, gibnet.com, also operated by ]. I have also raised it at ] because, separate to the reliablity matter, there is a COI matter too.
			The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (B and C):
	This site is a totally different kettle of fish to gibnews.net. It's a clearly partisan site which is doing much more than archiving the material - there is also opinion there, unsourced research, and yet it's being used as a factual reference and promoted in External Link sections.
			* '''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) ===
	This site is used in the following places .
			* A: See "Geni.com" at ].
			* B: See ], in particular ], where this RfC for the 3 sources in question was prepared together with @]. The other sources discussed there fall outside the scope of this RfC.
			* C: See ] (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Preliminaries ===
	To pick some examples:
			: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 ] (a very hot potato), is being used as a reference
			::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)
	* On numerous pages, this clearly partisan page ("The Struggle Continues...") is appearing in External Links
			:::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)
	* On several pages, this appears as a reference - a piece of original research which is totally unreferenced.
			::::PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. ] (]) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	* (note the "no 2 id" logo) is being used as a reference at ]
			Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. ] (]) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC? &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	I submit that - even before we consider the COI issues (please note, it's Gibnews' site and he himself is adding many of the links to it ) - this site is totally unreliable for usage on Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 23:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
			::These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I agree entirely. This is plainly an unreliable source and from your description, that's a completely inappropriate use of it. -- ] (]) 23:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
			:Read Background: B. ] (]) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:No indication that it satisfies Misplaced Pages's ] guidelines. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			::<strike>I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc.</strike> --] (]) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Unreliable on it's face. ] (]) 13:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
	:I agree. Why not propose it at ]? ] (]) 13:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Sorry to come to this late. I agree also. It's just a personal (or at most small-company) website. There's no way it's up to the level of reliability - e.g. known reputation as a publication - expected by ]. ] (]) 00:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			=== Survey A: Geni.com ===
	::I have just found this discussion by accident, and am really amazed how quickly a lynch mob assembles on wikipedia.
			:'''Deprecate'''. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. ] (]) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''.<strike>'''Question'''. Isn't it already deprecated?</strike>--] (]) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate''' A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			: '''Unsure'''. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) ] (]) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley ===
	::gibnet.com has been around for a very long time, longer than most websites and it has a lot of content. It would not be appropriate to link to a lot of the material presented there, and I have not done so. '''HOWEVER''' the section www.gibnet.com/texts contains original texts related to Gibraltar which are a useful resource and are presented and labelled accordingly. Some are not available elsewhere in a computer readable form, for instance all the UN resolutions are there and some are very hard to find.
			:'''Deprecate''', per background discussion. ] (]) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Comment'''. I think this source has been often discussed in a superficial way, together with other sources, which does not always lead to a clear perspective. This is not like the other two. It collects a lot of useful extracts from primary sources than can be helpful for getting a grip on a topic. Although it is basically the work of one editor, this editor was assigned to do this for an organization which does make some efforts to maintain a reputation for quality. (The FMG publishes a journal, and it posts some online corrections to Keats-Rohan's reference works for the 11th and 12th century, and she has noted those helpful efforts in print.) On the other hand, Medlands does not use secondary material very much, so it is normally not going to the type of source we would use on WP on its own for anything non-obvious. I note these complications because I see that sources like Ancestry.com and Findmypast also have special notes about how they can sometimes have useful primary materials. To give a practical example of what might go wrong, what I saw in the past whenever this source was discussed, is that it was even deleted from external links sections and so on. I think this is a source that can be used for external links at the very least. I feel hesitant to say that it should NEVER EVER be used even in the main body to be honest, although I don't use it on WP.--] (]) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate''' Crawley has no academic background in history and MedLands is self-published. It is not published by FMG only hosted by them. That it contains a lot of useful information is not the same as it having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, something it doesn't have. Deprecation isn't blacklisting, editors are warned against adding it not blocked. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "'''the source is generally prohibited'''". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) ] (]) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Editors who know the fine print will be the ones using the source correctly, and will know how to handle the situation. The issue is that editors who don't know keep adding this as a reference to support content, and the many discussions on the source show they isn't support for that. Adding a warning when editors post will at least get editors to ask why they are getting the warning, and help them understand the situation.
			:::Deprecation of this source will ''reduce'' the pointless pseudo-legal debates, by reducing the problem of the source being repeatedly readded. Editors should use their own good judgement, but as repeated discussion about this source have shown that isn't happening. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--] (]) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--] (]) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Yes the cost of not having to continuously patrol for this source and have the same discussion about it's reliability again and again.
			:::::::Separately before the two of us fill the survey section with our disagreement (mea culpa), should we move this discussion to the Discussion section? -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Generally unreliable'''. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) ''Generally unreliable'' is the one which says this: {{tq|"questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published"}} I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would ''only'' allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be ''prohibited''. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--] (]) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at ] shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he ''knows'' {{xt!|may be of little factual significance}} at face value just because he finds them "]" ({{xt!|but is reproduced by way of interest}}), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't ]. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. ] (]) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the '''Generally unreliable''' category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then ''only as far as we have to''. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --] (]) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Generally reliable''', in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav ===
	::That section is cited by the House of Commons Library as a source, and is included in the UK National Archive of websites.
			:'''Deprecate'''. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. ] (]) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--] (]) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as {{xt|genealogy.eu}} and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). ] (]) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
			:'''Comment'''. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the ], Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". ] (]) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Deprecate'''. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; . --] 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			** This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site . And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. ] (]) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)===
	::The features section is different. I fail to see how the comment that it is 'original research' is significant, it is NOT wikipedia. Features in other media are generally original research, they are cited. The section on the Eurovote details the steps that Gibraltar went through in order to exercise the right to vote, obstructed at every stage. These things are a matter of record and references are given. Its the ONLY detailed explanation of what went on over a period ten years that is around.
			{{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} my apologies also. To be clear, I respect your concern, and I think I understand it. I think we've conveyed our concerns, and laid out some pros and cons, and background principles. I'm not stressed about that. I think its a point of getting the balance right. In practical reality the three sources should not normally be used, and I see no big disagreements. I just think the difference between the two categories offered is (or should be) meaningful, and I wanted to make that clear. I am not really disagreeing with any other specific point.--] (]) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Although I disagree I can understand you position. It's to easy to get stuck in disagreement spirals are part of RFCs. Let's see if anyone else brings any new ideas. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	::From the point of view of RH of course its ''unreliable'' because he does not like the content. In the same way he asserted that gibnews.net was unreliable, and also tried to get me banned by claiming I was a sock of user:gibraltarian.
			:I previously commented that a seperate warning for generally unreliable sources would be helpful, for ones that are problematicly readded on a regular basis would be useful. That way a warning would appear but wouldn't come with the baggage of deprecation. At the moment deprecation is the only resource available, but it is a somewhat blunt hammer. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Franklin Open ==
	::The features section on the fishing dispute does not actually offer 'an opinion' but presents original documents of the time. The site presents a view of things important to Gibraltar. It would be a bad source of things related to Blackpool.
			I would like to know what is known about "Franklin Open" (). It claims to be peer-reviewed but charges $1900 to publish an article. Should we count this as an RS, or should its articles be treated as self-published? (Apologies if it's already dealt with somewhere &mdash; I searched and couldn't find it.) --] (]) 22:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I read the page is 'partisan' I suggest you read it. The description is factual and the statement shown at the end was the one read out on the platform. The BBC and SKY covered the event. I expect they said much the same thing and had much the same pictures. Not that you can find any record of it on their website, what exactly IS the problem with that page? not that it is AFAIK linked in any way to wikipedia excepting I donated a copy of that picture to the wikipedia commons. Any event where nearly the whole population of a country take to the streets to protest something IS pretty notable though.
			:It's published by Elsevier on behalf of the Franklin Institute. So not self-published. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 04:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	::So what IS the game? Get everything from Gibraltar banned because it IS from Gibraltar? and RH does not like it? Gibnet.com does not have to have a NPOV in its content. But the reference documents are presented 'as is' comment is labelled as 'comment' and other material in that section strictly according to its source. --] (]) 23:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			::But the question is, is the stuff peer-reviewed in any meaningful sense? --] (]) 05:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Like any other Elsevier/Franklin Institute journals. Reliable in its area of expertise, which is mostly engineering and applied mathematics. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 05:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::: Well, here's the thing. They published a paper with no meaningfully new content on the so-called ], . This thing should never have gotten past peer review, not because anything in it is ''wrong'' per se, but because it's not a novel contribution (and is also not a survey). It's a bunch of trivial calculations, put together well with nice illustrations, but with an overall conclusion that is not remotely new.
			:::: So this makes me wonder about their standards, and whether they should be treated as a predatory journal or something similar. --] (]) 19:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::]s are completely standard, expected, uncontroversial aspects of nearly all ]s, including ''Franklin Open''. If a journal can't charge for subscriptions or article access, it needs to make at least some money through APCs. Does this discussion concern the journal itself and every article it publishes, or rather a single article regarding monkeys and typewriters? If the latter, then the qualifications of the authors and which salient points of the paper merit mention should be discussed on article talk pages per ], ] & ]. Not all articles ever published warrant stuffing into every Misplaced Pages article about a topic, no matter how much individual Wikipedians may slobber over the authors, and thousands of perfectly reliable and decent-quality articles should not be cited per ] and ]. But I'd almost always place more importance on published academic journal articles, even if I dislike the methods or conclusion, over the quibbles and beard-strokings of Wikipedians. ] (]) 23:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Per the scope of the journal "Original manuscripts and special topic issue are welcome as well as multidisciplinary topics or application-oriented articles, reviews, surveys, and '''educational articles'''." (emphasis mine) There's zero issue with a journal publishing an educational article with routine calculations and no new conclusions. You said yourself the illustrations were nice. What's the reliability concern here? &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 08:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::What? reliable journals publish educational articles all the time and they're preferable to novel hypotheses and research. ] (]) 08:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::It doesn't seem to be an educational article. The authors seem to ''think'' they're making a novel contribution. --] (]) 04:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Even if that is the case why would this have any bearing on the reliability of the journal? ] (]) 04:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::: Well, it might not, or at least not very much. In my opinion they should not have published this particular article, and I think that reflects badly on them, but of course that is going to happen from time to time. I was trying to find out what was known about the journal, specifically whether it was predatory or predatory-adjacent, and I did that because I didn't think a reputable research journal would publish this. But it seems that that was not the issue. --] (]) 04:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Twitter ==
	Based on the views of editors here, at COI/N and at ANI, I have submitted gibnet.com for inclusion on the blacklist here . I will also remove all links to it from Misplaced Pages articles once that has been actioned, as I wish to preserve the record of links for the editor who deals with it. Gibnews, this noticeboard is for RS matters - please stick to those rather than discussing ''me'': I'm utterly irrelevant to the reliability of the source, on which - unlike gibnews.net - there has been a unanimous response. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 00:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			I want to raise a concern about ] or known now as '''X'''. I'm planning to nominate a list to ] and some awards are cited as a tweet from a Philippine Record Label, ], and some cited on YouTube but originally from a significant subscribers (1 Million plus subscribers) and have a Official Artist Channel and can be treated as a reliable source per ]. So, is it okay to cite a tweet directly from record label because some awards aren't covered on a news article, which is only acknowledged on their social media.
	:Although I agree that this is not a reliable source, I do not see a level of abuse that warrants blacklisting, and have as such suggested to mark that as declined. I do believe that a (maybe careful) cleanup should be performed. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 13:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			P.S: I added a discussion just in case some reviewers have a disagreement on citing a tweet. ] ] 01:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Although all things could be better, some of the material in the reference section there is simply not available anwhere else in a computer readable form, and it is presented in a consistent reliable manner. I note that RH has tried very hard to have me and gibnews.net banned and started this particular discussion when he knew I was not active on wikipedia and did not notify me until some time afterwards. some of his descriptions of pages on Gibnet.com are as missleading as his recents attempts to get me banned from editing claiming I was a sock of user:gibraltarian. --] (]) 16:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	::: I support blacklisting as well, given that pattern of ] edits, in addition to the site not appearing to meet ]. <b>] ]</b> 16:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			:From your description alone, it sounds like you're asking if Star Music's tweets about (themselves or their bands) winning awards can be cited as sources? If that's the case, the tweet would be a self-published, primary source, and inherently self-serving. So no, I wouldn't consider that appropriate. Reliable, independent, secondary sources reporting on the awards are what makes them important.
	::::I don't support a blacklist. It doesn't seem even slightly warranted, read ]. A blacklist is for a site that is being spammed all over Misplaced Pages and all other attempts to keep it away have failed, either because someone is using multiple sockpuppets or there are a lot of people adding it. Nothing remotely like that has occurred here. Gibnews certainly has a conflict of interest in regards to the site, but that just means he shouldn't be linking to it, that doesn't mean that everyone on Misplaced Pages should be disallowed from thoughtful use of the contents of the web site. -- ''']'''] 00:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
			:If I've misunderstood your question, can you give us some examples of the tweets and how they would be used? ] (]) 01:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] one of their post is here , they recognized the awards for the Best Inspirational Secular Song at the 46th Catholic Mass Media Awards, and this is only the piece of sources i searched. ] ] 02:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::the ] a Featured list was cited from a Facebook too cause they considered it. and ] cited this on ref 28. So, I think needed to be considered to since it was awarded. ] ] 02:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The problem isn't really Twitter/X or Facebook, it's that you want to use a post by the record label about an award they received. That's inherently self-serving, which means we should avoid using it.
			::::The Facebook sources at ] were posted by Awit Awards (still a primary source, but not the recipient) and the Philippine Movie Press Club (a secondary source, though I wonder how reliable they are), so I'm assuming that's why they were included. Personally, I think both of those should be removed until they can be supported by better sources, but that's just me. ] (]) 02:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{u|Woodroar}} I think it can be considered? because {{tq|The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.}} The claim made in the post is specifically about ] under the record label Star Music, which is not considered a third party in this context.
			:::::{{tq|The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim}}
			:::::The award mentioned is neither excessively self-serving nor extraordinary (such as a prestigious recognition like the Grammys). Instead, it is a straightforward of Bini achievements. ] ] 05:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Of course it's self-serving, it's about an award that one of their bands received. As far as the claim about third parties, I hadn't considered that. But Star Music's tweet ''does'' involve claims about third parties, both the group Bini ''and'' the organization Catholic Mass Media Awards.
			::::::As others have pointed out, there are also NPOV concerns. Alongside reports from reliable, secondary, independent sources, it's ] to include an award sourced only to a self-published, primary tweet from the record label. ] (]) 15:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::*I would say that coverage of winning an award is obviously {{tq|unduly self-serving}}. As I said below, we're not just relying on the source for the statement that the award was given but for the implication that it is worth noting; we can't rely on the recipient for that! --] (]) 21:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:If an award isn't covered by secondary independent sources, how is it BALASP on the page? ] (]) 02:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::exactly. Had it recieved media coverage, it would've been notable and due for inclusion. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 03:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I agree with the sentiment overall for due weight in articles, but this is a list after all. Per ], a high-quality list would; {{tq|"comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items"}}, suggesting that all items would ideally be included in the list, even if not a requirement. I'm inclined to agree with opinions above that documenting an award you have received is not ''unduly'' self-serving, even if publishing such information is entirely self-serving. I otherwise don't agree with the argument that publishing an award won is effectively unwarranted. The question should be more about the awards themselves, for example if the awards were meaningless or irrelevant then sure it would be unwarranted. Give the awards referenced above, the ''Catholic Mass Media Award'' by the ], I'd say it's questionable, but otherwise there are enough secondary sources reporting on them even if not widespread, even if not those in question it seems. ] (]) 13:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Twitter, when cited that way, is ], which carries several restrictions; it's also obviously ]. One key thing is to avoid such about-self cites for anything self-serving - things companies post on Twitter are often promotional in nature and therefore potentially self-serving. "We intend to release this at date XYZ" would be something we could cite to Twitter. Winning an award, unfortunately, is almost certainly self-serving and therefore is probably something we can't. Note that even if you're absolutely certain they're not making it up, you're still relying on them for the implicit statement that this award is ''worth noting'', which they are obviously not a good source for. And similarly, even beyond that, it raises ] issues - if there is no coverage of the award anywhere except by the recipient (who is obviously not a neutral party and could therefore be expected to highlight even exceptionally marginal things, providing little weight to them), this makes it hard to justify as worth including. --] (]) 21:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			== is infobae reliable? ==
	I've removed all the links, replacing them with "fact" tags, and have started on the process of finding reliable sources to replace those. As I stated elsewhere, I'm finding this relatively easy, thanks to the power of Google. There really is no need to link to gibnet.com. (There is, however, one potential exception. The Bahá'í organisation's own website links to gibnet.com . So, should we link to the Bahá'í website which lists Gibraltar, or should we link to gibnet.com too?) <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 01:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
			i found this source while doing a GA review for ] (for the jan backlog), and im not sure about its reliability. the source did not have an author name, which could be a read flag.
	== Reliability of Mark Weisbrot, The Nation.com and Common Dreams.org on Haiti ==
			P.S. i read the previous discussion, and it said that it is widely used in the spanish wikipedia. also, researching its wikipedia article did NOT work out well. ] <sub><small>]</small></sub> 07:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	Hey everybody. I was wondering if I could reach out to the wiki community at large to get an outside opinion on the ] and ] of some sources that keep being brought into the article on ]. To me, these cited articles come across as editorials, but I, myself, may be biased against them in that I do not believe the extent of their claims. Can we get some outside opinions?
			:It seems reliable. SandyGeorgia, who has worked extensively with FAs, noted ] that the site is reliable. Sammi Brie, who also has experience with FAs, mentioned its reliability ]. I would take their word. ] (]) 11:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	Here are some examples of cites in question:
			:I read it from time to time and it has always seemed generally reliable. A bit clickbaity with a lot of pop culture stories but no real accuracy issues. ] (]) 17:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Per the ], mainstream news organizations are assumed to be ] absent evidence to the contrary. As , ] is a mainstream news organization. Despite tending to than '']'' and '']'', I have not found any patterns of concern that would warrant considering Infobae less than generally reliable. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 17:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Far Out Magazine ==
			Would ] be considered a reliable source for music and the arts? ] (]) 23:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	--] (]) 04:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
	: These two seem to be different. The first is an article from the ], which is a news service. They may have a slant, but if they say a specific person said something, I would tend to believe them. Statements by Sachs can be attributed to Sachs, by Boyle to Boyle, etc. The ones that are from anonymous sources or otherwise not attributed probably shouldn't be used. The second is an article by ] in ], and is basically an editorial. The Nation is a noted journal, but unabashedly "left", and Weisbrot is a noted expert, but also has a definite point of view, so this article is not neutral. So, for example, if it's being used to cite that the CIA destabilized Aristide's regime, that should definitely be marked "according to Mark Weisbrot" or something like that. Can you please be specific what statements these two sources are being cited to support? --] (]) 19:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			:Only RSN-comment I could find on it here: ]. I can't find an "about"-page. Currently it's used on WP quite a bit, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be. ] (]) 08:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	== encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com (AKA "Cambridge Encyclopedia") ==
			:Comments at ] indicate caution is called for. ] (]) 08:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			I make it a point to remove this source whenever I see it because of the fact that, beyond the ] concerns noted on the talk page linked above, many of their articles seem to republish content from years ago, while titling them to make it sound as if new insight has come out recently. For a few examples as of late, see , , and are all examples of this website recycling content from other, more reliable sources that can (and should) be cited instead. For all I know, there may be minor instances where this site can be used, but I'm familiar enough with Far Out Magazine to say that, for the most part, their content is clickbait churnalism, and in particular, should not be used for information about ]. ] (]) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Credit to ] for explaining the unreliability of this source ]. ] (]) 13:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	An editor wanted to use this as a source with this edit (and back through redacts) and seemed pretty adamant it was a valid source . But AFAIKS the site states that "Portions of the summary below have been contributed by Misplaced Pages.". I have added it to . This entry is added should the other editor want to question this addition. If there is no questions then I'll zap whatever we have in other articles. ] (]) 04:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			== Are the sources in these articles primary or secondary? ==
	:One hint that a web site is a reliable source is contact information, including names of the editor-in-chief or equivalent, and a snail mail address to write to. Since this site has nothing like that, I would dismiss it as a reliable source. ] (]) 05:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			Are the sources in these two articles primary or secondary? ] and ]. The book provided is just a collection of parliamentary records, elections, terms served etc. an example is here: ] (]) 08:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::How about this...
			: Those articles are sourced to contemporary newspapers, which would be secondary sources; one of which, the ''New Zealand Herald'', is included in the "perennial sources" page and categorised as "Generally reliable". ] (]) 10:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Russia and the Former Soviet Union (Cambridge World Encyclopedias) ~ Archie Brown (Editor), Michael Kaser (Editor) # Hardcover: 622 pages
			**Newspapers are interesting to discuss because their classification evolves with time. Historians usually classify recent newspaper reports as being secondary, but ''old'' reports are classified as primary (this is because the sources used by the newspaper have been lost, and so the newspaper becomes the earliest available record of the events… with more modern sources based on that old newspaper). ] (]) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	# Publisher: Cambridge University Press; 2 edition (November 25, 1994) # Language: English # ISBN-10: 0521355931 # ISBN-13: 978-0521355933<br>
			*:Reliability isn't the issue here. It is if the sources are primary or secondary. Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, and Berkeley considers contemporary newspaper articles as primary sources: ] (]) 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	Is this a reliable source? ] (]) 16:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::That book has nothing to do with the web site that you quoted from and linked to. Please check that the source you link to is the actual source you mean. We are not clairvoyant. ] (]) 17:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			== AdWeek ==
	::::I don't know how stateuniversity.com gets away with calling something Cambridge Encyclopedia, but it has nothing to do with Cambridge University or CUP, and it definitely can't be used, see ]. It isn't globally blacklisted anymore though. ] (]) 19:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::???? So if the article I quoted and linked to is in the Cambridge book I posted and that article is then also mirrored on the State University Website you are saying I have to use the book to source the article rather then the website. Even if I have the book on my book shelf and confirm that it contains the article mirrored on the website? As the wiki article here on the Russian Orthodox Church seems to have "lifted" allot of it content from the ''book'' I posted here which is then only mirrored or reposted or copied to the website in question.] (]) 13:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	Also what is blacklisted? Where can I check that to confirm my sources here on Wiki?] (]) 13:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			Would ] be considered a reliable source in terms of advertising campaigns? ] (]) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Last.fm ==
			* AdWeek is a perfectly reliable advertising trade magazine. ] (]) 21:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:The thing is public relations notices aren’t usually considered reliable for companies. ] (]) 22:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::As an established trade magazine, I consider ''AdWeek'' ] for topics related to the ]. ''AdWeek''{{'s}} , which consist of a small number of articles published under {{code|adweek.com/press}} between 2017 and 2022, are ] ] that are ], and should not be considered the same as ''AdWeek''{{'s}} standard content. Are these press releases the public relations notices that you are referring to? —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 05:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Langweiledich.net ==
	Is Last.fm considered a reliable source? I always felt it wasn't, it depends on user-submitted content. For example, the band genres are based on users "tagging" the band with their own opinions on what the band is. ] (]) 05:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
	:It might depend on what the source was being used for (eg. info about last.fm itself might be OK), but in general would say not. ] (]) 05:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			I came across being used in the ] article to support this claim:
	== RS issues at ] and ], possible ] issue ==
			{{tq|In 2023, users of the ''Touhou Project'', '']'' and ] subreddits collaborated to recreate "Bad Apple!!" on ] ] canvas, during its 2023 event.}} It's in German, so I can't really judge the reliability of this site myself - would it be considered a reliable source? ]] 22:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It's the self-published blog of Maik Zehrfeld. There's some advice about self-published sources here ]. I don't think it would be considered reliable, best to find a better source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	The issue is an alleged 16th century document which is claimed to have been discovered in 1995, a timely event as it coincided with the deliberation of the canonisation of Juan Diego. It purportedly described the apparition of the Virgin Mary in 1531. This is, unsurprisingly, highly contentious. An IP is adding a claim from the Texas Catholic Herald, which is the official publication of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, that ""This document has been subjected to several scientific tests and all of them indicate that it is an original of that period of time.". See . I removed this as I can find no sources saying anything about these tests other than this 'house organ', which I don't see as a reliable source. In any case, I think this is a ] issue. I've made my reasons clear in the edit summaries I've made, the IP's response was " Sarcasm is what it is, but hey, let the reader judge. Reliable source? Please point me to the rule that distinguishes "reliable" from "unreliable")". ] (]) 08:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
	:A further red flag is that it contradicts the most reliable sources on the issue that are extremely sceptical (to say the least) about the codex's authenticity.] 08:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
	:: In this case it is clear that the Texas Catholic Herald can only be used as an example of a source making a claim, not as a source of fact. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
	:: Zero is correct. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			== Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] ==
	== Gale Group or Gale Research or ] ==
			This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] on the multiple issues regarding that article.
	Previously:
	* ]
	* ]
			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>
	I acknowledge that Gale Group has previously been thought of as reliable, and they certainly have the trappings of reliability. However, I am very concerned that they are not actually reliable: editors have used Gale Group works to insert two (and arguably three) factually questionable items into the ] article relating to his 1967-70 tenure at Newsday.
			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.
	The editor claims (I cannot , as my library does not hold, and the source is ) that the Gale bio says:
	::''Moyers was hired by Newsday, a Long Island-based publication, as its publisher in 1970. Before Moyers, the paper had a conservative bent and was somewhat unsuccessful''
	:: -- "Bill Moyers." Contemporary Heroes and Heroines, Book IV. Gale Group, 2000. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2010
			]: 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>
	But this contradicts contemporaneous sources.
			]: 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):
	* '''conservative'''
			*
	::The newspaper endorsed ] in 1964, ] in 1960, and ] in 1956, all before Moyers got there. I don't see how it can possibly be considered "conservative" in any meaningful sense. (I acknowledge that newspaper owner ] was conservative, but he gave the paper independence--demonstrated very much by the fact that Moyers had free rein while Guggenheim owned the paper.)
			*
			*
			* (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)
	*'''somewhat unsuccessful'''
			::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)
	::This claim contradicts contemporaneous views of the success of Newsday. Contemporaneous and other encyclopedic sources say that Newsday was successful, or even . Also saying Newsday was succesful: , , .
			:::{{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)
			== Bossip ==
	Separately, another editor points out that Gale Group to describe Moyers's role on the paper.
			Hello. I am debating on improving the "]" article for a possible ] nomination. I have a question about a potentials source. Would '']'' be considered reliable and high-quality enough for the FAC process (or for Misplaced Pages in general)? I would be using the following source: . The page says that the site has earned awards in the past and has been mentioned in various reliable sources. I am hesitant about it as ''Bossip'' is a "gossip" website. Apologies if this site was already discussed before, and thank you for any help and insight on this. ] (]) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	All in all, when a reference work makes so many basic errors, I find it hard to treat as "reliable." What say others at RSN? ] (]) 11:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			:Looks marginally reliable to me. Like it's not great. But by the standards of pop culture media it's not as bad as it might be. ] (]) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	: As for political differences, they seem to be a big deal, and backed by most sources. Here's '']'' saying that Moyers moved the paper noticeably to the political left, enough so that Guggenheim viewed him as a traitor, and sold the paper because of it. Here is an entire article about their political differences, contemporary: So I'd support Gale Group on that, unless you find some specific sources saying Newsday was considered liberal. The successful point is different, your first link isn't a great source, being a hagiography of Patterson, and it's not clear who wrote it, but your Time Magazine article statements are quite strong; I'd bring those two to the other editors, and see if they could re-read what their source says. If they don't change their minds, I'd at least cite them as a strong counterpoint to the Gale group statement that Newsday was not successful before Moyers. --] (]) 14:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			::Thank you for the response. That is fair. I had a similar opinion about to be honest. If I do decide to work on this article in the future, I may use other sources first and then see if this one would even be necessary in the end or not. For the purposes of a FAC, which has stricter requirements for sources, it may not be the best option for that context. ] (]) 19:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:What exactly would 'Before she was the illest female in her Dillard’s department, Amil was the illest in all of Hip-Hop, making $40K/guest verse as the Roc’s first lady? Riiiiiiiight.' be used to source? ] (]) 20:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: It would be used as a negative review for the song as it is criticizing Amil's lyrics. ] (]) 20:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Yeah. The use of slang isn't the issue here. Reliability isn't a register of specific vocabulary. I suppose the question would be whether, Amil was, in fact, making $40,000 per guest verse previously. Should they be reporting that factual statement accurately and should they have a decent history of accuracy in reporting and clarity in corrections when they make an error then the rest is just aesthetics. ] (]) 20:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::: It wouldn't be reported in the article as a factual statement. The "$40,000 per guest verse" bit is part of the song's lyrics and would be addressed in that context, not as an absolute fact. ] (]) 21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Seems pretty odd if not outright illogical to use a gossip website if you're going to bring this to FAC. The typical reviewer there expects the '''''cream of the crop''''' of sources, not tabloid gossip. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 00:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Read some of the articles on the site and it's overly unserious and pretentious BS; my advice is to not use this source. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 00:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: Okay. Thank you for the response. I agree with your assessment. I have removed it from the article. I am honestly not sure why I used it in the first place. I just thought that it would be beneficial to open a discussion about it here to get further feedback. I believe my question has been answered, and hopefully this can be used to help any other editors in the future. ] (]) 02:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Science-fiction fanzines ==
	== South Florida Gay News ==
			I see the question of science fiction fanzines has come up many times in the archives. My question is fairly simple. Writer and translator Philippe Hupp, the founder of the Metz science fiction festival, sent a letter to ''PKD Otaku'', a sercon fanzine that is notable in the PKD community and is often referred to by PKD scholars, but is admittedly obscure in the grander scheme of things when it comes to reliable sources. (pp. 4-6), Hupp goes into some historical detail of his relationship with ] and how he was able to get him to speak at the festival in 1977, and provides important historical documents (correspondence, photos) that is reprinted with permission by ''PKD Otaku''. Currently, I'm citing this letter in an article about the festival to say some basic facts about the history. While Hupp and Metz have been covered by numerous reliable sources in France and elsewhere, I believe this kind of exclusive historical detail has only been revealed in ''PKD Otaku''. Is it acceptable for me to carefully cite this info from Hupp (it is, after all, about him and his relationship with PKD) and point to ''PKD Otaku'' as the source? The article I am working on, ], is currently on GAR, and it has been pointed out that this fanzine may not meet the criteria for a RS. It does have two editors, however, but I think it is safe to say it is self-published like most fanzines. It would be a shame for this historical information to be ignored. What is the best course of action? If it isn't acceptable to use as a primary source, I've thought that a brief mention of it in a footnote might be okay. Please let me know your thoughts. ] (]) 22:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	Is a sufficiently reliable source for a claim that ] is a convicted felon? I worry that the allegation is not sufficiently backed up for WP standards (] and current lengthy discussion on deletions). It is possible that there might be some dislike for the person, to be sure. ] (]) 13:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Do other, obviously reliable sources use this source without specific attribution? ] (]) 13:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
	::The Advocate in its blog section gives a precis of the article and a link to the SFGN site. No other sources are provided, nor do I find any on a Google search, so clearly no RSs appear to use this source without specific attribution. ] (]) 13:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
	Wait, did this website hire the entire staff of the ]? ] (]) 13:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			:If it's the only source available, and the facts are not controversial, and cited as being from Hupp's account of things, it seems fine to me. ] (]) 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''', I was concerned about this as well but as the talkpage notes "There were not two NJ Deputy Attorneys General named Arthur Goldberg" and in a 2007 Goldberg, of the ex-gay groups, is noted as "a former law professor at the University of Connecticut and past deputy attorney general of New Jersey". To me that settled that this was one and the same person. As to the Gay News article I rewrote the content, which to me seemed a bot POV to now read {{cquote|In February 2010, a joint investigative report by activist organization Truth Wins Out, formed to counteract what it refers to as the "ex-gay" myth, and South Florida Gay News reported that Goldberg was fined $100,000 and sentenced to eighteen months in prison for fraud in 1989. They tied the conviction for fraud to what they see as his "dishonest present-day work" with JONAH and NARTH.}} Looking at the current easy-accessed sources there is a long history here of the man forming groups and championing causes as well as books discussing his finance work including starting a credit union which was central to the fraud case. There is a lot there but it can be presented NPOV and RS'd. ] 13:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Definietely an improvement - though is the primary source for the court case which reduced his punishment needed or proper here? Is the reduction of penalty a source for the conviction? ] (]) 14:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)		::I believe it meets that criteria, however, I will revise it further to make sure that it does. ] (]) 01:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I'd like to allow the two editors there interested some latitude to piece together a larger narrative. Frankly in ''every'' source I found another organization or business or thing he did, it's a bit endless and IMHO has to be woven chronologically whereas all this ex-gay stuff seems his retirement hobby. His notability as far as I can tell was first as a pillar in the Eastern US Jewish community and as a bond financier/semi-public figure. Then after jail his two sons came out as gay when they were in college which prompted the whole ex-gay stuff largely because Goldberg was uncomfortable with the ex-gay groups/movement which is dominated by the charismatic Christian/right-wing experience. At some point it may be clear that he singlehandedly legitimized the ex-gay movement to many by having another religious ex-gay group that wasn't intertwined with the rest. Consequently this latest revelation of his fraud will likely by picked up by the LGBT press and many in the US are sensitive to bank fraud issues so all that legitimacy he brought may melt away. There was a similar ex-gay scandal, or I may be combining a couple, where ex-gay leaders were caught doing "research" in gay bars. Many of the other ex-gay groups have been funded and used as political pawns. Clearly people believe what they write and go to their meetings, what happens from there I haven't a clue although Will & Grace did an episode that was amusing. BUt back to the point I'd rather leave it at least temporarily, I have a feeling the article is about to significantly grow. ] 14:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			== Beebom.com ==
	== Gay Erotic Video Index (relist) ==
			Beebom has been in a few discussions previously about reliability but they've had few responses. I'm asking about their reliability after in ] where their opinion is being used as fact ]. Issues below also make it difficult to establish reliability via ].
	I'm relisting this because previous post had been commented on by users involved with ] and I was hoping to get a fresh perspective. If you're involved in the porn project and wish to comment please use previous post.
	*I would like an opinion on the . It seems to have editor control, but it lacks an "About Us" page.
			I'm not familiar enough with Beebom to know their overall reporting but I've come across issues.
	*'''Warning:''' contains pornographic images.
			* They don't have a masthead so I don't know who their writers are or what their expertise is. The most they have is an with a few higher roles not in editorial and then two editors without any information. This makes it difficult to establish their level of independence and editorial control. A previous RS discussion pointed out some of their content being written by "Beebom Staff" which is still the case but not often.
	: I'm embarrassed I hadn't seen that and I've been looking for sourcing and leads. The general rule is that exceptional claims require more exceptional sourcing and is upfront that it's just an index but pulled from primary and secondary sources to compile information. This is exactly the kind of index a museum or archive specializing in sex or sexuality looks to guide their work. So there is some editorial control and they look to reliable sources to make changes which is a good sign. As long as you are clear in the cite and clarify any exceptional claims with "''Gay Erotic Video Index'' lists ___ as ____ " it keep the line clear that the fact asserted rests on that source rather than Misplaced Pages making the statement. Similarly if we state "''Gay Porn Blog'' notes ___ as one of the top ten male porn actors over the last decade" we clarify what source is asserting something so the reader can decide what weight to afford it. ] 15:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			* Their are limited and don't disclose important information. For example, they don't state a separation of ads from editorial. They don't mention here the affiliate programs they're in or the sponsorship deals they do. They don't mention their Beebom Gadgets storefront where they sell phones and make videos on them. However, they disclose having an Amazon affiliate program in their . But they don't disclose the other "affiliate partners" they use. These issues brings into question conflicts of interest which they don't have a policy on. Alongside other basic guidelines like a corrections policy or how they handle accepting samples (if they do).
	::The site's intro notes the lack of accuracy ''"This INDEX was compiled from many sources, the videos themselves, the internet and printed matter. If all the videos had been viewed by this author, he would have no skin, time or money left, so the veracity of each detail is only as good as the resources. The porn industry is known for supplying erections, not accurate data and with this much data, even this author has trouble keeping things 100% accurate. If you have a proven source and would like to correct or add to the INDEX please let the creator of this web site know via the contact page."'' Although it may be useful for finding information that leads to reliable sources, this should not be considered a reliable source in itself. ] (]) 16:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			**A 2016 interview explains that they make money from sponsored posts and partnerships. This isn't included in their editorial guidelines. I bring it up since they feature this interview on their About Us page, but Misplaced Pages blocks links to the interviewer's site, YourStory.
	:::'''Note''' Both users above are involved in a debate concerning the notability of gay adult movie stars. Still looking for neutral opinions. -] (]) 01:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			**They as "#sponsored" 5 years ago but stopped. It seems they now use a byline named "Partner Content" for those articles. But they don't mention anything about a sponsorship or partnership in their latest article under this byline. Nor is there anything about this in their policies. So I can't confirm if they do this for all paid content or not.
			*I tried looking into their gaming coverage after seeing them on the ] page and found a where they deliberately lie. The headline is, "Black Myth: Wukong Is Now the Most Played Steam Game of All Time", which they almost immediately state isn't true. While also stating "Yes, Black Myth Wukong is now the most-played Steam game of all time!" This makes me question their overall fact checking and reliability when they lie in a news headline.
			I can't find much mention of Beebom aside from their own social media on google. Even after removing their social media, I can't find anything. ] (]) 02:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	== The Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century ==
			:It should probably be removed as a source for the example you brought, since an "opinion" piece is not "reporting." As for the site as a whole, it seems to fit more the model of YouTube gadget reviewer, and could probably be used as a source for certain product reviews where appropriate. But they haven't shown that they have much editorial oversight. The two editors I see listed do not have bios. ] (]) 15:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	Is the Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century a valid and reliable source to provide in whole or in part estimated statical information for articles here on Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 17:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			::So I did a bit of digging and they haven't really been keeping their website up to date. One of the two editors has now moved into the position of "content strategist". This looks like a very marginal source. I've definitely seen worse in the video game space but I'd personally hesitate to use it for anything controversial. I would also suggest that opinion from this source is likely undue unless there is a named author on the byline with some sort of expertise independent of the outlet. ] (]) 16:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Jacobin ==
	:Absolutely not... if you go to the author's home page and then to the link "Who Am I?" you quickly discover that it is a personal webpage run by someone who admits that he is "No one in particular... " and that "My academic credentials are pretty slim -- a couple of years of college and that's about it. I'm not a university professor or anything like that, and I currently earn my living as a librarian." ] (]) 17:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
	:Blueboar has pretty much nailed it here. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	Just an observation but- Ha, by that standard Misplaced Pages is pretty hypocritical...Thanks for clarifying though.] (]) 13:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	: Not if you think about it. We don't consider ourselves reliable sources either. That's why it's so important we do have reliable sources, because "a Misplaced Pages editor says so" doesn't mean much. --] (]) 03:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
	== KavkazCenter ==
			Jacobin is currently listed as "generally reliable" under ]. ] (]) 08:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	Is this a reliable source?
	In my eyes of-course not if you look at the header of this website you will see some of the most cruel terrorist of the world who committed a lot of terroristic acts around the world.
	http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/
	But a lot of wikipedia articles rely on this source.<br />
	A short quote of an article:<br />
	''"At least 3 US '''invaders''' were killed and another 3 injured during gun battles in which the''' enemy coalition forces''' were forced to retreat, said the report, adding a bomb tore apart a US invaders tank while trying to flee from the certain areas, killing the US invaders who were on board."
	''
	<br />
	And Headlines such: ''"Clarification of the invaders propaganda in Afghanistan"''
	http://www.kavkaz.org.uk/eng/content/2010/01/31/11329.shtml
			:There are definitely issues with Jacobin, and a reevaluation of its reliability is probably going to come sooner or later. I don't think a Reddit page full of amateur pundits, who are in turn discussing another social media discussion, is going to give us anything meaningful to work with. ] (]) 08:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	::well, from an Afghani POV, the US forces ''are'' "invaders"... and to the Taliban they are definitely the "enemy". Just as a US source might call the taliban the "enemy". The question is... rhetoric asside, does the source have a reputation for accuracy on the underlying facts? If not, then it should probably be limited to statements as to what the Taliban POV is. ] (]) 20:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			:Not a good look, but I will note that the says at the bottom: {{tpq|q=y|Correction: An earlier version of this article overstated the amount of US housing stock that Blackstone owns.}} So far as I can tell, the sentence in question is removed from the current version of the article entirely. --] (]) 08:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::We have a page about this site, ]. It published numerous statements by Chechen rebels during Chechen wars and still publishes interview with people like ]. It is reliable in the sense that interviews with Doku Umarov (or earlier with people like ] or ]) are indeed their interviews. It can be used as a ] in this regard. During wars, they also reported losses on the Chechen side, and such reports can be regarded as official reports of losses by the Chechen side (which does not mean that their numbers are the "truth", just as numbers by any other combatants). However, any claims by the Kavkaz Center about their "sworn enemies" like Russians are hardy reliable and should be used with care.] (]) 20:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			::That would indicate, notwithstanding snark on Twitter, the website for snark, Jacobin actually did the thing we expect of a reliable source and made a correction to an article with a factual error, identifying with a correction notice that a correction had been made. ] (]) 14:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I think this justifies a significant increase in caution towards the author at the very least. In general, an in-depth look at it's reliability is probably due, even though a Reddit discussion isn't evidence. ] (]) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It's strange that it was closed as 'generally reliable' in the first place, when most respondents voted either 'no consensus' or 'generally unreliable' in the last RFC. ] (]) 10:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: Had a quick perusal of the r/neoliberal subreddit. It appears to be discussing one sentence in one (possibly opinion) article in Jacobin. Are you asking whether that particular article is a reliable source for that one sentence? ] (]) 10:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Just as an aside, RFCs are ] (if they were then reliability would be based on the personal opinions of those taking part). I can't speak for the closer of that RFC, but it appears those saying that Jacobin is 'general reliable' had better policy based reasons. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Sources making corrections, as has happened in this case, is a sign of reliability. Things that happen on social media, and reactions on social media, are mostly irrelevant. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The ] that supposedly found ''Jacobin'' to be reliable really is a bit of a tenuous close. A simple beancount in that RfC would lean against treating it as ], and I'm not really able to discern ''why'' the arguments for reliability were so much stronger than those in opposition that an affirmative Option 1 consensus was declared instead of a no-consensus close (at minimum). I do think that it's ripe for re-evaluation. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			I don't think reviewing this again is going to change anything much, the "worst" outcome is likely a 2, but because it often mixes news and opinion, even a 1 is going to be caveated with caution or attribute, so absent falsehoods, etc might as well let sleeping dogs lie. ] (]) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors ==
	== John Birch Society ==
			{{Archive top|status=|result=The discussion is partially non-topical for this forum. The discussion about the issues that belong here continues below in {{slink||The Heritage Foundation}}.—] 19:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Taking this here based on a recommendation from {{U|Aquillion}}. The conversation began where a report from forward was shared . According to this report, the Heritage Foundation {{tq|plan to use facial recognition software and a database of hacked usernames and passwords in order to identify contributors to the online encyclopedia}}. A copy of the Heritage Foundation proposal deck is available . This Heritage Foundation plan to dox wikipedia editors also {{tq|would include creating fake Misplaced Pages user accounts to try to trick editors into identifying themselves by sharing personal information or clicking on malicious tracking links that can identify people who click on them. It is unclear whether this has begun.}}
			Clearly this situation is alarming in the extreme and the discussion at the arbitration case brought forward the very reasonable suggestion of a project-wide block of all Heritage Foundation domains. So why here? Well Aquillion suggested a reasonable first-step toward this would be to get the site deprecated and blacklisted via RS/N. So that's what I'm here to do. ] (]) 14:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	Are the following reliable sources for the statement in the ] (JBS) article that it "has been described as far right":
			:I am unsure about a retalitory deprecation (or whatever). ] (]) 14:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Danielson, Chris (Feb 2009). ""Lily White and Hard Right": The Mississippi Republican Party and Black Voting, 1965-1980". ''The Journal of Southern History'' (Athens) 75 (1): 83.
			::No this would be a preventative deprecation. The idea, to my understanding, is to remove the ability of Heritage Foundation domains to interact with en.wp as much as possible. ] (]) 14:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Lee, Martha F (Fall 2005). "NESTA WEBSTER: The Voice of Conspiracy". ''Journal of Women's History'' (Baltimore) 17 (3): 81.
			:::Is that not best done with range blocks, to prevent them from setting up accounts? ] (]) 14:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I think this is a discussion to be had at the Village Pump, as it's not a matter of reliability. Deprecation wouldn't have the effect that your looking for, you would need blacklisting and I don't think this would fall within the normal process of blacklisting. So a discussion at VP seems more appropriate as it's something outside of prior policy or guidelines. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::A village pump discussion was created and the suggestion to bring the conversation here actually arose from discussion of that conversation at the arbitration page. Honestly I'm pretty nervous about a pseudo-governmental organization trying to interfere with individual Misplaced Pages editors in this way so I'll happily take the conversation to whatever board we think is most appropriate. But right now we've got a whole lot of conversations pointing to different places as a precis to discussing the actual problem. ] (]) 14:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Hostile actions by a third party against Misplaced Pages or it's editors isn't a reliability issue, and this isn't a forum for anything but reliability issues. If anything it sounds more like safe guarding, a much bigger issue that should probably involve the WMF. However if editors want to start a discussion about it's reliability, per the sources below, that would be a seperate matter. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I will point out that part of what I said there was that they're already used on some , and are probably ''already'' depracable for publishing obvious disinformation (especially since the 2020 election.) I wouldn't have suggested going through RSN to deprecate them if I didn't think they were ''also'' worthy of deprecating on their own merits, entirely separately from the threats to use their websites to dox Misplaced Pages editors; but deprecating them would make it easier to add them to the spam blacklist and would help avoid situations where editors are forced into a situation where they have to consider whether to click a link to an obviously Heritage Foundation-controlled site in order to verify a presented source. I suppose we could just move ahead with trying to get those sites added to the spam blacklist ''without'' deprecation, but for a site that also publishes disinformation, it seems easier to get it deprecated first, since it ought to be an easy call. --] (]) 14:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Apologies if I misinterpreted. I'll admit that reading the thread at the arbitration case upset me rather considerably. ] (]) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::That is a more valid reason, there do seem to be issues with the recent work. ] (]) 14:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:This discussion should be closed and a proper thread should be opened with substantiated concrete claims about problems with this source. —] 15:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The thread itself is the precursor to an RFC. That said, they've published misinformation or disinformation about climate change,<ref name="Washington_2011">{{Cite book |last1=Washington |first1=Haydn |title=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |title-link=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |last2=Cook |first2=John |publisher=Earthscan |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-84971-335-1 |location=London |page=75,77 |oclc=682903020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Fisher |first=Michael |title=Heritage Foundation |url=https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210808183550/https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |archive-date=August 8, 2021 |access-date=September 1, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first1=Ruth E.|last1=McKie|title=The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America|url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|publisher=Springer International Publishing|date=2023 |location=Cham|isbn=978-3-031-33592-1|pages=19–50|via=Springer Link|doi=10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|quote=Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...}}</ref> the FDA<ref>{{cite book|first1=Zane C.|last1=Wubbena|first2=Derek R.|last2=Ford|first3=Brad J.|last3=Porfilio|title=News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XAcoDwAAQBAJ|publisher=Routledge|date=1 March 2016|isbn=978-1-68123-401-4|via=Google Books|pp=49|quote=For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.’s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...}}</ref> elections and politics,<ref name="Kessler_2021">{{Cite web |last=Kessler |first=Glenn |date=March 31, 2021 |title=The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511214334/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |archive-date=May 11, 2021 |access-date=April 2, 2021 |newspaper=]}}</ref><ref name="NYT-GAvideo-2024-09-07">{{Cite news |last1=Bensinger |first1=Ken |last2=Fausset |first2=Richard |date=September 7, 2024 |title=Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |work=The New York Times |access-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240907203454/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Fields |first1=Gary |last2=Swenson |first2=Ali |title=Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force |url=https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |publisher=Associated Press |date=July 12, 2024 |access-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713110730/https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |url-status=live }}</ref> and more. --] (]) 16:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::That's enough to open an RFC. ] (]) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Can I suggest closing this section and starting another, to afford accusations that questions of reliability are based on animosity to the source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{+1}} I think it's time we started a RfC (perhaps in a new section, as suggested by AD). ] (]) 17:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes, new section. —] 18:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::An RFC is in a new section already? You mean a new RFCbefore section? Titled Heritage Foundation? (ie without the dox part) ] (]) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::New level 2 section. —] 19:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I certainly have no objection to closing this discussion and opening a new one to host an RfC / RfC Before.] (]) 19:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{reflist-talk}}
	My objections to these sources are that 1) they are being used as primary sources for the conclusion that the JBS has been described as far right and 2) the articles are not about the JBS or the far right and therefore not relevant to the topic. It is not as if there is a lack of relevant sources for this article.
			{{abot}}
			== Could someone who can read Bengali take a look at ]? ==
	] (]) 22:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
	:This is being discussed at great length in ]. The Four Deuces omitted the third source being used:
	:*] (January 27, 2008). "In the Heart of the Heart of Conspiracy". ''New York Times Book Review'': p. 23.''
	:And those are just three of 44 sources that call the group "far right". See ]]. We're already bending considerably by not simply saying that the JBS ''is'' far right and by simply saying that it has been described that way instead. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
	::The problem is that an editor is using a laundry list of adjectives for the JBS, each of which is "sourced" but which concatenated would be the equivalent of having a sentence "Hitler is claimed to have been 'insane,' a 'nut case' an 'extremist', a 'killer'" and so on ... Once you establish that critics frequently call it "far right" that is ''sufficient.'' Adding more stuff does not improve the article, and actually harms any image of articles as being written for reference. The tendency for citation overkill (Ossa on Pelion) is quite regrettable indeed. ] (]) 23:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			Hello, I started the title AfD in response to some users recreating a rejected draft in mainspace and they responded by filling the discussion with sources that don't pass ]. I'm unable to read some of the sources, though, in particular one that the users claim has a whole chapter on the subject of the article. Could someone who can read the Bengali sources take a look at the discussion and see if the article passes ]? --] (]) 18:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::With 44 sources perhaps we should alter the article. With that much unanimity between sources from all over the political spectrum we can flatly declare the JBS to be "far right" rather than just saying it's described that way. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			:You may have more luck asking at ] or ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Let us leave all that discussion to the talk page and let other editors reply to the question posted. ] (]) 02:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			::Thanks, will repost there (West Bengal, since it's the Wikiproject whose scope covers the article's subject). --] (]) 22:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::Given the preponderance of reliable sources describing the John Birch Society as "far right", there is no issue with Misplaced Pages describing it that way too. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			== The Heritage Foundation ==
	::::::The issue goes beyond one adjectival phrase - the issue is one of a laundry list of such phrases in the article, concatenated in a single sentence. ] (]) 11:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			] has published misinformation or disinformation about climate change,<ref name="Washington_2011">{{Cite book |last1=Washington |first1=Haydn |title=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |title-link=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |last2=Cook |first2=John |publisher=Earthscan |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-84971-335-1 |location=London |page=75,77 |oclc=682903020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Fisher |first=Michael |title=Heritage Foundation |url=https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210808183550/https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |archive-date=August 8, 2021 |access-date=September 1, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first1=Ruth E.|last1=McKie|title=The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America|url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|publisher=Springer International Publishing|date=2023 |location=Cham|isbn=978-3-031-33592-1|pages=19–50|via=Springer Link|doi=10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|quote=Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...}}</ref> the FDA<ref>{{cite book|first1=Zane C.|last1=Wubbena|first2=Derek R.|last2=Ford|first3=Brad J.|last3=Porfilio|title=News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XAcoDwAAQBAJ|publisher=Routledge|date=1 March 2016|isbn=978-1-68123-401-4|via=Google Books|pp=49|quote=For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.’s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...}}</ref> elections and politics,<ref name="Kessler_2021">{{Cite web |last=Kessler |first=Glenn |date=March 31, 2021 |title=The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511214334/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |archive-date=May 11, 2021 |access-date=April 2, 2021 |newspaper=]}}</ref><ref name="NYT-GAvideo-2024-09-07">{{Cite news |last1=Bensinger |first1=Ken |last2=Fausset |first2=Richard |date=September 7, 2024 |title=Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |work=The New York Times |access-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240907203454/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Fields |first1=Gary |last2=Swenson |first2=Ali |title=Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force |url=https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |publisher=Associated Press |date=July 12, 2024 |access-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713110730/https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |url-status=live }}</ref> and more. It has been publishing obvious disinformation especially since the 2020 election. Its website heritage.org is used as a source on some <s></s> (<u>correction</u>: I copied "5000" with this search link from another editor uncritically. "heritage.org" includes all of "english-heritage.org" links; the real count is —00:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)). I'm inviting editors to consider whether this source should be deprecated. Another thing to consider are possible other sources such as websites and publications operated by or published by the Heritage Foundation.—] 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::That's not really a reliable sources issue. Do you have any comments about the sources, either the two listed here or the ]? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 11:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			:We should definitely be avoiding using sources that intentionally put forward disinformation. ] (]) 19:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Journal of Genetic Genealogy ==
			::What about the ]? —] 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Nothing of value would be lost if we had to do away with that one. ] (]) 19:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I like how the United States is 0.6 points away from not being green in that index. ] (]) 20:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::What about the books published by the Heritage Foundation?
			::What about https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future as a source in ]? —] 19:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Not sure I would want to go direct to deprecation unless they are demonstrably churning out falsehoods.
			:On a quick search, I only found in the archives, about the Daily Signal, which looks like a pretty partisan affair. ] (]) 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:A lot of these are country rankings on the foundation's ]. Not sure if we want this used or not. ] ] 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I was a bit flip above with my comment regarding that index but I guess my question would be what value it is? I mean, let's be honest, the methodological claim in our own article on the index {{tq|The creators of the index assert that they take an approach inspired by Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations}} suggests they've derived their index from theories in an outdated treatise on economics from 1776. Furthermore we could probably reproduce the index just by measuring how deregulated any given economy is. I'm not sure what neutral value there is to Misplaced Pages giving breathing space to an index that equates economic deregulation with freedom on the basis of a 250 year old book. ] (]) 20:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I mean, just as an example, their benchmark for Government spending is $0. IE: The ideal case, for this index, is that there is no government at all. ] (]) 20:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That just means you personally disagree with them. I could turn it around on you by asking what value there is to the contributions of editors who describe themselves as socialists in their userboxes.
			::::Obviously the index in question is from a particular point of view, but I don't see any evidence adduced that it's not reliable for descriptions of countries according to that POV, which is something that can be of interest. --] (]) 21:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Oh do stop. I've heard that particular ] violation a thousand times. My argument is that they have no valid methodology and a ] ] perspective, it is not that they are an extreme right-wing group. ] (]) 22:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::: I don't know much about their methodology; that's something that could be explored. As to the perspective, I think the reference to Smith is more normative than descriptive. I don't think you can apply AGEMATTERS to moral propositions. --] (]) 22:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::It's a moral proposition tp build your economic worldview on a text that predates electricity? ] (]) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::It's a moral proposition to value lesser regulation per se (as opposed to achieve some other goal). --] (]) 23:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Their index is pseudoscience. We aren't supposed to use that in Misplaced Pages except to critique it. ] (]) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::That's a bold claim. Evidence? --] (]) 04:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::I don’t really care about whatever their wacky economic index dealio is, we just flat-out shouldn’t trust an organization that wants to systematically attack our userbase and will most likely harvest any data it finds for that purpose. It’s like reaching for a source in a bear trap. ] (]) 11:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::What about https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB850689110237569500 (). We are not worried that the Wall Street Journal will systematically attack our userbase etc. —] 11:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It appears that the use in these pages are not problematic and supported by ], replacing sources in 5000 pages would be a ton of work. I would like to first know in which pages did the actual use of this source appear unreliable, such as promoting ]. ] (]) 20:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I don't think they can be counted as a reliable source but I see no objection to saying what they think since they are important if it is obvious they are being quoted as a heavily biased party. They make it fairly clear what they are rather than trying to be deceptive about their aims which at least is a mercy. Really most of these 'think tanks' and 'foundations' and 'institutes' and even 'research organizations' are like that and we'd be well off if they were specially marked as such instead of being mixed up with reliable sources. ] (]) 20:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I would consider it ] since it’s self published and openly partisan. ] (]) 21:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::It's not self-published in the sense we use that term. Lots of reliable sources publish their own materials, including e.g. serious thinktanks. It may be GUNREL, but SPS is not a valid policy-based argument in this case. ] (]) 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::There was recently (may still be going on) a very extensive discussion about whether ] applies to "gray" sources such as think tanks and advocacy groups. This line of reasoning probably is coming out of that discussion. ] (]) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::There was an ] as well, there wasn't a consensus on how to define such sources but there was consensus against ''always'' considering them to be self-published. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I think it can be used, but like with most such sources attribution is appropriate. ] (]) 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] Please review reference no. 6 in ] ({{tq|Additionally, each state is entitled to select a number of electors to vote in the Electoral College, the body that elects the president of the United States, equal to the total of representatives and senators in Congress from that state}}). Is the source adequate? Would we want to replace it? —] 23:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Yeah thats somewhere where I just don't see using Heritage (or any other think tank) being due. That seems like a place where academic sourcing should be pretty easy to find. ] (]) 23:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Thanks. What do you think about the following paragraph found in ], supported by the Project 2025 publication, ''with attribution'': {{tqq|], a conservative think tank, dubbed the Space Development Agency "a model for the military". In their ''2025 Mandate for Leadership'', they call to develop new offensive space capabilities to "impose will if necessary". They further claim the Biden administration "has eliminated almost all offensive deterrence capabilities" in space that were planned under the Trump administration.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf|title=Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise|first=Heritage|last=Foundation|date=1 February 2023|website=]|access-date=1 September 2023|archive-date=16 November 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231116113522/https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>}} Is this where "attribution is appropriate", or should this entire paragraph simply be removed unless there's a secondary source on the fact that the Heritage Foundation has said so and so. —] 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Given what we now know, this can be cited as another example of their modus operandi: do what they say, or else. ] (]) 11:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It could go either way, I'm not familiar enough with the topic area. ] (]) 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I don't think the issue is them being unreliable. I think the issue is them tracking the IP of anyone who visits their sites and trying to doxx editors with that info. There might be a way to just archive all the links and then replace the links with links to the wayback machine or something to avoid sending people directly to their site. ] (]) 23:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::That's not a topical matter on this noticeboard. —] 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I don't know about that. If a source is willing to go to such extent to silence people, then I don't see how it can possibly be considered reliable. ] (]) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yeah, if a source is operating in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, that is ''directly'' relevant to an evaluation of whether they are a reliable source; namely, it's (additional) direct evidence that they do dishonest and untrustworthy things and are unreliable. Together with the other evidence of unreliability presented in OP's first post, I think they have gone beyond unreliability, into territory where deprecation and blacklisting is in order. ] (]) 05:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support ''' blacklisting ''']]''' 07:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Minor point but it's used on not 5000. The search caught false positives such as english-heritage.org. ] (]) 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			Should just be considered unreliable for unreliability in general, but the implications they would go to doxxing is icing on the cake to suggest blacklisting at this point. ] (]) 04:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	seems to be a zine for genealogy hobbyists, albeit with upmarket "academic" aspirations. As has been pointed out (JOGG was mentioned on this board, but not discussed), JOGG is an outlet for non-geneticists, and even non-scientists, to publish research that may not be acceptable to established scientific journals. (: "The main emphasis of this journal will be to present a forum for articles that may not be appropriate for other established genetics journals since they may be based on datasets in which a statistically random sample cannot be guaranteed (i.e. surname studies).") Further, only one person in their entire staff (Editor, Associate Editors and Editorial Board) has credentials in genetics. So, even though there is a "peer-review" system, JOGG is clearly a journal for hobbyists.
	The quesion therefore is to what extent, and for what kind of material, could JOGG be considered a reliable source in subjects pertaining to genetics? What is acceptable to cite, or to quote, or to incorporate?
			As with ALL think-tanks, I think they should be considered ]; though if some of their reports see ] than those could be used with attribution.---''']]''' 06:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	In particular, is the content of a research paper -- a primary source -- suitable for inclusion in a WP article when it is clearly original, i.e. ''not'' treated in any of the usual reliable academic sources, such as articles in high-impact journals by established experts? This goes beyond cases of ] to apparently "reasonable" ideas which may not have been covered yet in the regular outlets, i.e. are in the nature of ] with respect to the established literature. ] (]) 22:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
	:It is in no way a reliable source. The current editor is "a student at the Syracuse University College of Law where he is studying intellectual property law", with no background in genetics. The past editor was "a retired physicist" with the F.D.A.
	:The editorial board consists of
	:*"a retired engineering manager who earned his MBA in mid-career",
	:*"an attorney in private practice specializing in family law",
	:*"a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Illinois"
	:*a "Coordinator of Reference Services at the University of Houston M.D. Anderson Library" with a degree in law, and
	:*and someone who "received her undergraduate degree in biology in 1964 and her M.D. from Stanford University in 1970".
	:The associate editors are
	:*an economist with the World Health Organization with "a Ph.D and M.A. in economics from Clark University, MA, and a License-Doctorandus degree in economics from the Catholic University in Leuven (KUL, Belgium)."
	:*an "Associate Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science at Memorial University of Newfoundland", and
	:*a retired "research geneticist", the only person with a genetics education or profession.
	:It is a hobby journal, for non-geneticists who like to play geneticist on the internet. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			Could we see some evidence of doxing please? If this is something they do to people it is a safety concern and we probably need to deprecate. As for the rest, I think they are an over-used fringe source, but there are probably times when their attributed opinion is due. The Economic Freedom Index was something you used to see quoted a lot in newspapers and on TV in the UK, not so much now. It shouldn't be mentioned in our ] or ] type articles.--] (]) 06:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: So, citing (an article in) JOGG cannot save material from being ], because the requirements of ] are not being met. That's basically what I wanted to confirm. Thanks. ] (]) 17:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			: expose in ], a respected progressive Jewish outlet, is the main source of information on this scheme. ] (]) 11:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I depends on the JOGG article. Some are really quite poor, while a few have been noted by geneticists. In all likelihood the current complaint somehow involves the recent pair of articles by Klyosov, which though of some value are overreaching and unreliable. It's fine to cite most JOGG articles for their samples and basic results, and ignore their conclusions. We do the same thing with many properly 'academic' conclusions/speculations in multi-authored peer-reviewed studies. Professional geneticists themselves tend to make uninformed conclusions on language spread, archaeological cultures, and peoples. ] (]) 19:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::That's right, and people put those uninformed conclusions in our articles and then argue that the journal article is a reliable source - which is true only to the extent the author is working within their area of expertise. I was waiting for someone to say that it depends on the article, that's what I've been told when I asked. ] (])
	::::It isn't just bad, it's worse. They do it for the attention (and possibly for the funding that attention might garner). This is an . The effects have been singularly disastrous for the noxious mess posing as research on what R-M17 might have to do with Indo-European languages and/or "peoples". It has seriously compromised the integrity of academic research in India (where the barely concealed agenda now of all ostensible "research" is actually the seriously political business of "proving" that all Indians have been in India since time out of mind.) In fact, this entire "deep ancestry" field is a crock, a cottage industry founded on and sustained by geneticists pronouncing on subjects outside their competence (linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, sociology, ancient history, whatever.) None of this has been critiqued, because no secondary, ''evaluative'' literature exists. It's all primary source, and it's all blather. All the more reason to apply ] strictly and disallow marginal sources. ] (]) 20:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::JOGG really can't be cited for anything, not even "their samples and basic results". I suppose, if pushed, one could treat articles on it as ]; that is to say, if a ''real'' geneticist published an article there, one could treat it as if he or she had published it on his or her blog. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
			'''Support''' blacklisting. I don’t know if it’s “spam” per se but an organization that has stated an intent to dox editors is obviously just a simple threat to user safety. And I don’t think there’s any debate their content is all garbage, disinfo, and propaganda. Even ] content should easily be obtainable via respectable 3rd-party sources. ] (]) 11:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::I think that's an extreme position. Personally I trust what they publish at JOGG more than I trust anyone associated with Oxford, e.g. Stephen Oppenheimer and Bryan Sykes, also Spencer Wells. Their sort are the real problem. ] (]) 01:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
			'''Support''' blacklisting. ] am I right in thinking your script marks this as unreliable? ] ] 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::In a scientific context, a reliable source would have to show its contributors are established experts in that area, with appropriate academic publications and credentials, and/or citations by other scientific publications. They could also be journalists reviewing published scientific work. But in general, a source which consists of amateurs could not be used to present scientific information. ] (]) 02:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::While you may personally trust JOGG, that doesn't make it qualify in any way as a reliable source. That's not "extreme", it's just the way the ] policy works. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::: I agree with the ] exception, but it needs to be used ]. Klyosov has already been mentioned; that's a good case. He is a , so depending on his specializations he could know plenty about genetics, but still he is not an established geneticist (i.e., it is not what he is known and noted for in the academic literature). Therefore, in JOGG he is jut another hobbyist, and to cite or use his material (on time depths of haplotype diversity) is some combination of ], ] and perhaps ]. ] (]) 04:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
			:Heritage.org is marked as unreliable, yes. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 11:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::::I did not say I trust 'it', just not Oxford at the moment. Of course what you say about policy is right but you also need to need to have read an article or two from the journal to make sure 'they' are actually contradicting whatever it happens to be. I'm not getting that sense regularly. In fact many of the articles they publish are in unexplored areas, and can derive from the results of legitimate haplogroup projects under FTDNA and other companies, of which the authors are sometimes the managers and leaders. This is why we can generally trust their results but are safest ignoring any speculative conclusions, which again can be found anywhere. ] (]) 04:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
			'''Support''' blacklisting of this Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". ] (]) 12:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Anonymous testimony in journalist piece ==
	Do anonymous testimonies in a RS journalist piece count as RS? The source in question is , specifically in this passage:
			'''Support''' blacklisting. The Heritage Foundation produces two things: disinformation and opinion. I don't think the opinion of a disinformation vendor is particularly noteworthy except in ] contexts. With such minimal value to use of this group as a source let's just show them the door. ] (]) 13:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:''Neighbors recalled there was something both strange and sad about Liu Chunling, that she sometimes hit her child, that she drove her elderly mother away, that she worked in a nightclub and took money to keep men company.''
			* '''Support blacklisting'''. The site is published by an ideologically-motivated group which is well-documented for making false claims of fact, using dubious methodologies in their work, and is now engaged in efforts to damage this very project. There's absolutely no use, and much potential harm to come from using them. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	It is a piece originally by the Washington Post, and is disputed primarily in ]. Specifically whether it's acceptable to describe that woman as "night club worker" and "took money to keep men company" without the neighbour caveat. Although I am not here to dispute whether the Washington Post is a reliable source or not, I do strongly dispute whether that also covers anonymous testimonies from unreliable sources. This is nothing more than neighbour hearsay, the tabloid type material that would be instantly rejected if that woman was alive (]). The article gave its reader a caveat ("Neighbours recalled") on the unreliability of the source, and it can not be treated as something that Washington Post itself endorses. --]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup> 00:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			=== RFC: The Heritage Foundation ===
	:If the information is potentially important to the article, the simple solution is to phrase it that ''The Washington Post reported that X said Y''. ] (]) 01:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 16:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739462471}}
			{{rfc|pol|rfcid=08190DC}}
			What is the reliability of ] and should it be blacklisted? ] (]) 15:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 1: ]'''
	::I agree, and the caveat is "if it is potentially important". I would argue it's not. Some of the information in the piece is already used in the article. Admittedly, it's a bit selective, but if we cite the more outlandish claims, the risk is that this type of anonymous testimony may give even greater ] than is already given or warranted. ] ] 06:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			* '''Option 2: ]'''
			* '''Option 3: ]'''
			* '''Option 4: ]'''
			* '''Option 5: ]'''
			==== Poll: The Heritage Foundation ====
			* <s>'''Option 5: Blacklist'''</s>: Multiple examples of the foundation publishing complete misinformation. The use of links to try to determine and datamine user identity moves to a trust issue and indicates a need to blacklist links to protect users and editors. ] (]) 15:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Pinging @]@]@]@]@], they voted above before I made this RFC. ] (]) 15:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Barnards.tar seems correct... We need to be able to cite some of their opinions, and pure blacklist would harm our mission... but i'm not certain its worth using their material if this is the new world we are in.
			*:is there a way to place warnings on links when you click on them that would warn users about this scenario though? that would be a good compromise.. otherwise keeping vote for 5] (]) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I honestly don't see how blacklisting such a garbage source would harm this project. ] (]) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::@]: There is a way to warn users attempting to ''add these links'' (filter {{edit filter|869}}), but warning users who click on them would likely require some JavaScript magic that's above my pay grade. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support option 5''' - Allowing this website to exist on wikipedia is a danger to editors' privacy and safety. The Heritage Foundation needs to be blacklisted ASAP ''']]''' 15:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:The Heritage Foundation is not a website. It's an organization. You can treat the website as one of its publications. There may be other websites. There are further publications, such as the paperback yearly Indices of Economic Freedom: https://isbndb.com/book/9780891952930. We can't blacklist paperback sources. What's the status of that going to be? How does your recommendation answer this question? —] 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Not our problem. We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization. ''']]''' 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::They are works published by the organization. If an organization is such an unreliable source (in the conception of an organization as a source as per {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Definition of a source}}; that's point no. 3), which is the framing of this RfC, as to be "blacklisted", should we really retain the status quo wrt its printed works? —] 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Do paperbacks get special dispensation in policy from reliability requirements? If (say) David Irving published a paperback would it magically become reliable? ] (]) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Yes, according to Abo Yemen. He said: {{tqq|We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization}}—] 16:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Ay dont be quoting me on that. I didn't give a complete answer. I have no idea how unreliable this source is but according to other editors, it is not reliable. But if the paperback was reliable enough compared to stuff they publish on their website then i dont see why it shouldn't be used. All i did was try to give an answer to your question ig ''']]''' 17:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::They don't. ] (]) 17:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::What is the status of (a printed work) going to be then, according to you: perhaps a deprecated source? —] 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Whatever we decide, but (again) it being a paperback has no relevance. ] (]) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::This is an RfC, Slatersteven, it's the time when things are decided. Saying "Whatever we decide" is clearly not moving things forward. —] 17:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::Its status now is that is is an RS, its status when this is over will be determined by this RFC. ] (]) 17:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::Please start engaging more meaningfully. It doesn't appear that you're getting it. How do you blacklist a printed work? Only web domains can be blacklisted. What is the consequence for the printed work as the outcome of this RfC if the consensus is to "blacklist the Heritage Foundation"? —] 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::We do it all the time, we have plenty of blacklisted printed works (the Daily Mail for one). Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? So it would not, in fact, be covered by any ban on the heritage foundation. ] (]) 17:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::::If ''Daily Mail'' is blacklisted, how is this possible (edit: I intentionally broke the link later after a complaint that a source highlighter script is painting too much red):{{blist|
			<nowiki>{{cite web |last1=Earle |first1=Geoff |title=Justin Trudeau glares at Trump amid his threat to absorb country |url=https://www.d ailymail.co.uk/news/article-14267497/justin-trudeau-glares-trump-jimmy-carter-funeral-canada-threats.html |website=Mail Online |access-date=9 January 2025 |date=9 January 2025}}
			</nowiki>}}...?{{br}}I'll help you: ''Daily Mail'' is not blacklisted.—] 17:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::]. ] (]) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::::::That's not an entry marked as blacklisted. Please find me an entry which is in fact blacklisted, for me to believe that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking when discussing specifically blacklisting something. —] 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::::Ahh I see, well yes we cannot blacklist spam if is hardcopy, but we can depreciate it, and it can be assumed that if you choose 5, you are choosing to also depreciate it. Are you you arguing that if you vote 5 it will not cover hard copy? ] (]) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::::::::I think there is a misunderstanding of what is meant "blacklisting the source". Please see ] below. ] (]) 17:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::::::::Ok, I'll give more responses to your slightly earlier comment: {{tqq|Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing).}} Yes, nothing says so; I wasn't arguing otherwise. {{tqq|But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal?}} Does not appear to be. The sole publisher of this paperback edition is The Heritage Foundation.{{pb}}Going onward... You said that this country ranking, which is a primary source and an unscientific publication from a think tank, is a RS. On no day would that simply be a reliable source. So I'm going to circle back to my original question, to which you replied with the rhetorical question of {{tqq|Do paperbacks get special dispensation ...}}. That original question, mildly rephrased, is:{{pb}}''How does the recommendation to blacklist heritage.org the website for safety reasons answer the question of how to treat the reliability of The Heritage Foundation as a source, whereby "source" means publisher, consistent with ], which is how this RfC's question is also formulated ({{tqq|'''What is the reliability of <u>The Heritage Foundation</u> ...'''}})''?{{pb}}Your answer to this question is that blacklisting an organization's website creates an assumption that all publications from that organization which can not be blacklisted are treated as deprecated sources. This answer is ''possible'', but it is not what, say, ] thinks. He wrote: {{tqq|... we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question ...}}. —] 18:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::Hey Alalch can you change the source you change this to a normal link because the entire section is now colored red because of the source reliability gadget thing ''']]''' 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::::::Yes, I'll break the link. My highlighter doesn't work like that. It only colors the link red, not the whole section. —] 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::::Ultimately I think this is somewhat moot as, notwithstanding the safety concern, they're also a deeply unreliable fringe source that has been spammed all over our project. As such I do sincerely think there is a justification for options 4 and 5 even if this group wasn't trying to target Misplaced Pages editors. That they're also doing this is, in my view, an inflaming element but I think that getting this pervasive fringe source out of our project is a good for the project on its own merits. ] (]) 18:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Also this is an online source, so may be a security risk. ] (]) 17:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::You are mistaken. The link I posted is a link to a database entry on the website isbndb.com. It contains information about a printed work published by The Heritage Foundation. —] 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' already said why, garbage source that’s a threat to user safety. ] (]) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support option 5 and option 4''' per my statements above. ] (]) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*: I added option 4 to my support message to clarify I support both blacklisting and deprecating this source. ] (]) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3,''' with '''Option 5''' post 2016 and '''Option 4''' for any hard copy after 2016. ] (]) 15:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Only blacklisting/deprecating content from a certain time period is not possible unless the domains are different. ] (]) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::@] You're correct separately about blacklisting but you're not correct separately about deprecating, but maybe (probably) that's not what you meant specifically ("blacklisting/deprecating" was probably not separately addressing deprecating)—see Lenta.ru at ]; deprecated status only extends to content published from March 2014 onward. I.e., it's possible to deprecate content from a certain time period. —] 00:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3: generally unreliable'''. Too many examples of them publishing bunk. However, blacklisting would also be wrong, because they seem to have a deep archive of relevant material, such as by ] which we link to on his article. For readers who want to read the subject's writings, that is a useful link. Putting the heritage.org domain on the spam blacklist would prevent this. This is far from the only example. Furthermore, the call to blacklist seems to be a misguided attempt to prevent the doxxing op that they have planned. Blacklisting will not prevent any of that plan being executed. It's just the wrong tool. By all means aggressively block accounts and IP addresses implicated in doxxing, but blacklisting their domain is a completely unrelated action. ] (]) 15:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Is TV.com a reliable source or wikipedia mirror? ==
			*'''Option 5''' and '''Option 4'''. this is literally a Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". ] (]) 15:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' maybe the doxing threat would be a good enough reason, but the fact it publishes misinformation is an overwhelming reason. ] ] 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 2 for pre-2016''' (meaning: same status as the Cato Institute and the other "]" think tanks) and '''Option 4 for 2016 and later'''. While spam websites can get spam-blacklisted if they're recognized as obvious spam in discussions held in this forum (happens rarely), I oppose the notion that this forum has an ability to decide to blacklist a non-spam source for computer security reasons, because the subset of editors at large interested in reliability of sources used on Misplaced Pages, who are predominantly the editors commenting here, here do not have the competence to make an informed decision on matters of user safety. Facts and arguments should be collected in a discussion devoted to that specifically, which discussion has a chance of attracting editors with suitable knowledge and skill, and decisions should be made going forward from that (i.e., ''']''' (])), not from value judgements.—] 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Actually, we do have the competence and the right to decide whether a source should be blacklisted in this appropriate venue. ] (]) 16:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Disagreed. I.e., agreed for spam, disagreed for safety.—] 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I'm noting that multiple other editors also disagree in a discussion a bit further below, or state that blacklisting is pragmatically poor on its own merits as a protective measure. —] 00:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 5''' We can't control what they do with their site, and they've indicated their willingness to use malicious applications and methods to harm Misplaced Pages. Allowing links from our site to theirs is a fundamental cybersecurity concern, given their announced intention to target our editors. And given their use of misinformation, their all but explicitly stated goal of engaged in broad political activity to undermine the constitution of their home nation, which is also the host nation of this project and whose constitution outlines fundamental principles of this project, there will be no appreciable loss to the project from doing so. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 5''' - blacklist website for cybersecurity reasons. Not sure about non-website references. --] 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' blacklist for security reasons, noting that they have brought this on themselves - I would otherwise oppose blacklisting, as they sometimes carry content from individuals whose opinions we would give weight to. ] (]) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' Blacklist -- ''but this does not mean removing the reference''. Rather, we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question, but with their announced intent to use links to try to break Misplaced Pages privacy, they are a malware site and should be treated as such. This needs to be done to all links to their websites, regardless of date. -- ] (]) 17:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' They are often publishing pure opinion, and what they publish is definitely the opinion of the people writing. Where these opinions might be due is to be discussed on the relevant talkpages. Their editorial content (i.e. anything published by them without a name attached) is generally unreliable ('''option 3''') as they are into ] conspiracy theories and disinformation. I don't get how anybody is voting 4 or 5 on merit here though, and this board no jurisdiction over their alleged cyber-stalking attempt.] (]) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' per Vanamonde93, the known security risks make this an exception to past precedent, basically they have now entered "]." I would guess anything notable published there would be picked up by on other news outlets and/or scholarly sources that can be cited instead. The Clarence Thomas article mentioned above, for instance, is widely cited and also has a Google Books entry which at least is not a technological risk. ] (]) 17:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' per Vanamonde93. If necessary to use, we can use other sources that refer to the organization, to an offline publication, or use an archival link (which I think would resolve security issues). Perhaps archiving all existing links might be an option as well? -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' I have seen enough to make me think that attribution is insufficient here, gunrel leaves the door ajar for citations but not that many, hopefully. Blacklisting their websites seems more of a technical question, but wouldn't it require a 4 first? ] (]) 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. ] (]) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? ] (]) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::{{re|JoJo Anthrax|Bluethricecreamman|Abo Yemen|Dronebogus|Doug Weller|MjolnirPants|SarekOfVulcan|Vanamonde93|NatGertler|Boynamedsue|Gnomingstuff|Patar knight|1AmNobody24|Tryptofish|Chaotic Enby|Horse Eye's Back}}
			*:::While it's reasonable to assume that "option 5" would automatically include "option 4", some editors seem to think that it doesn't. Please ignore this request if you agree with them, otherwise, you might want to adjust your !vote (i.e., also comment on the reliability) to alleviate any confusion. Thanks. ] (]) 19:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::My comment is only on security grounds. I don't believe that in the current context it is possible to evaluate their reliability independent of those security concerns and so will not be attempting to do so. ] (]) 19:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I did already comment on the reliability in my !vote, but thanks for the reminder! ] (] · ]) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I don't have a strong opinion on this - if it weren't for the security risk I'd be somewhere between options 3 and 4. ] (]) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::I do have a strong opinion on this, but am backing it down to 3+5 for NPOV reasons. As said elsewhere, named op-eds might be legitimate references. --] 20:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' Don't think this needs any explanation anymore. ] (]) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 6''', ]. We're trying to solve a very real issue of not giving out personal information, but blacklisting isn't really a way to do this. The risk by clicking on the link is something like the risk of clicking on a link to a state-owned media site, or frankly any potentially hostile website. This is because there's no malware required to be installed to get one's IP; the execution is extremely simple because you ''give out your IP when you visit any website'' and, if you allow cookies to be downloaded generally, ''this is the exact way that advertisers track your browsing''.{{pb}}The way that spearphishing to get one's IP address works is that you have to click on a ''very specific link'', and they have to be fairly certain that ''only you'' could have clicked on that link (or that a very small number of people could have done so). Blacklisting one domain name is sufficient to start a game of Whac-A-Mole, but it doesn't really protect us against this sort of thing; all they have to do is register a new domain name that ''outwardly looks like'' something benign and send it to you in an email (or even posting it on a rarely-viewed talk page). And, if they're already engaging sockpuppet burner accounts to do this, we're going to see this often and possibly without even knowing it.{{pb}}If the concern is spearphishing, blacklisting a public website that has some legitimate uses is the wrong approach. In fact, it would wind up making the spearphishing be ''more effective'' by necessity, since people who are alert to Heritage urls would be directed to click on something that doesn't look like one. And perhaps it would even lull people into letting down their guard in this respect.{{pb}}The is used in >5000 articles often as a supplementary/] source. And that's because it's influential in the course of AmPol and it's often useful to include those links in a reference work. This sort of spearphishing would appear to be a new low.{{pb}}What I really don't want is for editors to have a false sense of security here; blacklisting is not going to stop this sort of activity, and it's somewhat trivial to get around this. The proposal would give us as much extra security as blacklisting state-owned media/government-controlled websites from countries known to try to de-identify and harass Wikipedians. We don't generally do that, and we really don't need to; it would be ineffective in achieving its goals of protecting our users. (Perhaps I'm off-base here, and the community would want to blacklist those too.) But it really is a bit of a feel-good measure more than an effective one for privacy from a sophisticated actor.{{pb}}The technical solutions offered at ] are in some ways more robust than a blacklist. What the technical solutions ''would'' do is make it harder to trace back traffic to ordinary (i.e. non-spearphishing) links on the website to Misplaced Pages, and it would reduce the risk associated with existing citations. They're not perfect; ultimately nothing can prevent you from clicking the outlink to a burner website, but those solutions don't lull users into the false sense of security that blacklisting the Heritage website would. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 18:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:We can do both. We can remove a ] source that is being far too pervasively used across Misplaced Pages and we can also pursue those technical solutions to protect privacy. And this would have a tertiary effect of pointing out that the Misplaced Pages community will vigorously protect itself from this sort of ] interference.] (]) 18:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:The issues outside of reliability or blacklisting is out of scope for this noticeboard. Discussion about protecting editors from hostile actions should continue on the village pump. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is ''very'' relevant. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Yeah that isn't really a valid reason for blacklisting. The point of closing ] above, and starting a new section, was to focus on reliability issues. That they appear to be taking hostile actions against Misplaced Pages's editors isn't a V/RS policy reason for blacklisting.
			*:::Blacklisting won't protect editors, which is something that will proby need WMF involvement, which is why I suggest the VP discussion continue. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::This is a really pertinent point, there are genuine security concerns, we need to discuss them in the correct place. Most of the people here are clueless about online security, I know I am, it's not a reliability issue. The comments on here seem to be completely reactionary, and more about sending a message to the ghouls in question that they can fuck off. Let's be honest, the people voting option 5 are doing so as retaliation. I understand that instinct, I'm fuming about this myself, but it's making us look daft. We shouldn't be getting into bunfights with organisations that are so clearly beneath us. --] (]) 19:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'm all for discussing the Heritage Foundation based on the merits of its reliability and protecting Wikipedians from their harassment, but I completely agree with Redtail here. I really doubt that we'd need to blacklist new Primary additions, and Heritage can't doxx Wikipedians through existing citations without doxxing everyone who visits a Heritage link; we don't have trackers on our Heritage reference links. What we should do instead is try and rangeblock Heritage or other stuff already discussed. ] (]) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			So, in fact it IS being argued that 5 does not also include 4, so if you also think derpication as well you need to (explicitly) say it, as I now do. ] (]) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5: Blacklist''' (along with '''4: Deprecate'''). For our security as editors, and for the security of our readers – and yes, they brought this on themselves. --] (]) 18:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I want to add: it seems to me that any organization that says that it will do what is described in the ''Forward'' piece, is not a source that we can trust to be reliable. It would be a disservice to our readers to use such a source. --] (]) 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::{{+1}} ] (]) 23:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5: Blacklist''', primarily for editor safety reasons. While I agree with Red-tailed hawk that blacklisting this specific source will not be a perfect solution, editors posting unknown websites for spearfishing purposes can be dealt with individually (in fact, I don't think they would wait for heritage.org to be blacklisted to do so, and blacklisting the main site keeps us more alert on that fact). If the Heritage Foundation intends to directly endanger Misplaced Pages editors, blacklisting their website and treating it as potential malware is the minimum we should do. In terms of accuracy, '''generally unreliable''' at least, and neutral on deprecation, although NatGertler's approach (removing the links in existing citations) can also be up for consideration. ] (] · ]) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			NO security is perfect, and if its not they even black list spam (they will find a way). it is about not making is casual. So easy that it just means copying and pasting nickyouriddotcom into a cite. Making it even slightly harder might be enough to prevent its casual use. ] (]) 18:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	This version of ] was virtually word for word reproduction of at TV.com. I have edited the content to the point that I think any copyright violations have been addressed, but the sole source for the article is the TV.com article and if that is just a wikipedia mirror, then the whole article needs to be resourced. MM ] (]) 01:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			* I've got a multi-stage vote of sorts, if that makes sense:
	:No. Notice on TV.com the little "edit" button at the top of sections. Anyone with an account can edit it, much like IMDb. It looks like either someone copied the TV.com bio over to Wiki or vise versa. TV.com should '''not''' be used as a ].—'''<span style="solid;background: #5D8AA8;font-family: Century Gothic">] ]</span>''' 01:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			:*In general, '''Option 5''' for editor security reasons, as per all above.
	:No, per MikeAllen. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			:*With specific regard to HF-authored pieces/editorials, '''Option 4''' as they repeatedly publish dis/misinformation intended solely to serve ] theories.
			:*With specific regard to op-eds that have an actual name attached to them, '''somewhere between option 2 and option 3''' - ] would typically lean toward the former, but even the op-ed pieces veer into FRINGE often enough that I'm not comfortable with an outright 2. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 18:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' Because as Bernards points out, there are still some good links, particularly in archives. And as Red-tailed explains, Blacklisting creates its own set of problems that won't solve what many think it will ie. it's a dangerous solution because it puts a veneer on the problem that looks like solid wood underneath that is not. -- ]] 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	::This came up before and it was determined that certain sections of the site are user generated while other sections aren't. Pages with a URL of www.tv.com/story are professionally written and should be reliable (assuming they haven't reorganized their site or anything since the last time this came up). ] (]) 17:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' on security grounds, this is a bit atypical but we don't have a large history of sources purposefully turning their links into honeypots with the explicit intent of harming wikipedia editors and readers. ] (]) 18:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' for any web-based source connected to the organisation on grounds of cybersecurity. No comment as to reliability. ] (]) 19:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 5''' This foundation knowingly and intentionally publishes disinformation, and it has self-identified as a threat to Misplaced Pages and its editors. ] (]) 19:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Um why does anybody think the links they would use would be to a heritage foundation url? Also, this isn’t a social media site, this isn’t some place where the interests of the users are supposed to trump the interests of the product, that being our articles. If there is some evidence that an actual heritage.org link has been used for some nefarious purpose then you can talk about blacklisting, but other than that this is supposed to be judged based on what’s best for our articles, not our editors. ''']''' - 19:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Yeah, this is the main problem with blacklisting. It’s ], which generally does more harm than good, as I think Red-tailed hawk articulated well. Using heritage.org as the actual spearphishing domain doesn’t line up to the MO given in the leaked slides, which talk about using redirects. It would also be weirdly amateurish to create that kind of paper trail leading directly to the perps, especially now that they (presumably) know we’re onto them and any of their agents caught in such an obvious blunder could be subject to countermeasures. ] (]) 20:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5: blacklist any and all known Heritage Foundation websites''' as soon as possible, past and present links included. The organization has made its malicious intentions clear. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' this is purely retaliatory behaviour based on an alleged document. The usage of this source hasn't been shown to be problematic and a few bad articles doesn't inherently make a source unreliable. If you're worried about your safety then block the links yourself, but Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to serve you and your paranoia. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --] (]) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::The document mentions nothing about using phishing links nor would their references serve as a useful phishing link. ] (]) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' (like all think tanks). This seems purely retaliatory. I mean sure, they want to spy on us, but famously so did the NSA, for which we sued the NSA and lost. And it’s not like we are banned from citing US websites. This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity, do you think an FBI agent led attempt to steal our information would use their basic domain? They have millions of dollars they will just buy more or use connections to do it to other sites. This does nothing and is performative. And I don’t find the evidence above convincing, it’s a think tank, producing think tank type fare. ] (]) 21:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' per {{u|PARAKANYAA}}. Well said. - ] (]) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' There is absolutely no downside to blacklisting this source. Nothing of value is lost, and unreliable information is kept out - it's a win-win situation. ] 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' Those sites are not reliable enough. Privacy wise, those sites are dangerous for editors and readers to visit. ] (]) 21:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' and in case it's considered seperate '''Option 4''' as well. THF are not only publishers of ] but are posing an active threat to ] ] (]) 22:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 5:''' While blacklisting does not preclude HF from using any number of other domains for various malicious schemes, it's the least we can and should do. Any source that seeks to subvert the encyclopedia and harm its editors thereby confirms it is inherently unreliable. HF now demonstrates it is barely this side of a criminal organization. ] (]) 23:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Barely this side of a criminal organization? I would ask if you are serious but you probably are. ] (]) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2-3''' There are a lot of problems with this RfC. First, like them or not, the Heritage Foundation is a widely cited think tank. As a think tank, and like basically all activist type organizations, we should be very careful about directly citing them for anything. However, if they release a report or study that is widely reported on or if they release a metric which is quoted by many source then we are doing our readers a disservice by deciding the source must be avoided. This would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge. As for the idea that the source is a danger, what evidence do we have? A single source has made claims. Do we have any corroboration? Absent concrete evidence the idea that we would blacklist the site is a very bad precedent. ] (]) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''', at the very least. Heritage Foundation has long since departed from typical think tank-ery into axe-grinding, conspiracy theories, disinformation, and artificially stoking culture wars. Reliable sources from journalism (, '''' and academica ( and ) have identified Heritage Foundation as a publisher of disinformation, falsehoods, and exaggerations. It is unreliable as a source. Obviously, the news from '''', a reliable and reputed journalism outlet, that the Heritage Foundation plans to doxx Wikipedians who contribute content with which they disagree—something that would basically amount to a campaign of ideologically motivated harassment—is also chilling and troubling. It suggests the Foundation, unable to win in the marketplace of ideas, is trying to impose itself by force. This is not the behavior of trustworthy coverage or analysis. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 00:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Reference Subsection ===
	:::Ahem. Like IMDB, it's not ''quite'' true that anyone with an account can edit it, in that edits have to vetted by someone (perhaps the topic moderator). Still, we don't know that that someone has a reputation for fact-checking, so it's not generally reliable, except for signed sections. — ] ] 17:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			{{reflist-talk}}
			== Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) ==
	== Fake references ==
			*] (PCORI)
	Editor ] is inserting in ]. Galassi supports this with two refs.
	* http://www.krotov.info/lib_sec/17_r/rez/reznik.html - Russian-language source that calls Purishkevish "leader of early Russian fascism" but says nothing about Purishkevich connection to blood libel. I guess, putting this fake reference, Galassi hoped that most readers of English Misplaced Pages will not understand what was really written in Russian-language text.
	* http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/studies2.html - text by ] (lobbyist on international issues for B’nai B’rith). There are two sentences about Purishkevish in the text. "One of the Union's reactionary leaders, V. M. Purishkevich, was referred to by his Sovbiographer as a “fascist” who had set an authentic style for a movement that would blossom forth in Europe a decade later.", "While the Union's chairman was a physician, Dr. A. I. Dubrovin, and his two deputies were a nobleman-landowner (Purishkevich), and an engineer, the majority of the membership ranged from petty-bourgeois elements to unemployed workers, peasants, skilled proletarians, and professionals." Again, nothing is written about Purishkevich connection to blood libel.
			Are PCORI statements a ] for medical claims? Do PCORI statements pass ] as coming from a ]?
	Can this sources be used to support the content? Attention from uninvolved editors needed. ] (]) 06:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
			I say yes. The organization is non-governmental, but was established by the United States government, and they have awarded about US$2 billion in grants over the past 10 years. They are a large research organization which takes care in making conventional statements. Also, they have good alignment with wiki community organizations, and have hosted and joined wiki editing events in the United States and with Wikimedia Medicine for almost 10 years. That alignment is because of PCORI's patient advocacy, and because typical people find this organization's statements to be more relevant than those from more industry-oriented medical organizations. While PCORI does drive a lot of research through peer reviewed journals, they also make expert consensus statements in the name of PCORI which are not peer reviewed.
	::If the sources do not back the claim then they are not reliable for that claim... you have essentially two options... 1) reword the passage so it better reflects what the sources ''do'' say (ie talk about his fascism, but not about "Blood libel")... or 2) remove the citations and tag the statement (don't remove the statement right away). If you go this route, leave a good edit summary and explain in detail what the problem is on the talk page.
	::There is no rush on fixing this, since the article is not a BLP. The key is to ensure that the article discusses the subject accurately and in a neutral tone. Be willing to work towards a compromise and build a consensus. ] (]) 13:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	::I can't comment on the Russian text, but I don't see any evidence that the William Korey reference is "fake". It says that Purishkevich was a leading figure in the Union and that the Union "was a major backer of the notorious blood libel trial of Mendel Beiliss". I don't think we can reasonably consider it to be ] to see these two statements together as inevitably implying that Purishkevich backed the blood libel trial. ] (]) 14:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	::: It is clearly ] since it is not at all unusual for leading members of organizations to disagree with some of their policies. The solution is to say just what the source says and no more. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	::THat seems more than a stretch to me given that it was central to the Union's very role, but thesentence canbe reasonably rephrased. ] (]) 01:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
	: I can speak to the Russian text. The entire article is about the blood libel, that's its title, "КРОВАВЫЙ НАВЕТ В РОССИИ", "Blood libel in Russia". However Purishkevich is only mentioned in passing, as an early Russian Fascist leader. The article does connect Russian Fascism to the blood libel, but doesn't specifically say Purishkevich did it. Not a good source for that. --] (]) 15:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	So far as we have seen here, we have no source that justifies the text inserted by Galassi. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
			{{ping|Zefr}} said that some PCORI statements are "neither vetted by peer-review nor is it mainstream clinical practice", which is correct, but I feel that they still meet MEDRS by being a statement from an authoritative organization. Similarly, {{ping|Whywhenwhohow}} reverted saying the sources were not MEDRS compliant. {{u|FULBERT}} made the statements as Wikimedian in Residence at PCORI, and I collaborate with FULBERT through United States Wikimedia groups and through the University of Virginia, where I also am a Wikimedian in Residence.
	The insertion involves too much ]. The articles establish some sort of link, but not one that warrants the claims being made. This is really a question for the ] board. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
			Here are the talk notices about reversion. The statements are
	== Can a reliable source become an unreliable source through its own admission? ==
			*]
	I'd like some opinions pertaining to ] regarding Avatar ticket sales in regards to ].
			*]
			*]
			Here is an actual PCORI statement from the ] article. The reverted claim from this statement was that 40% of patients using a drug have adverse effects.
	Box Office Mojo is regarded as a highly reliable source on the film articles and is used almost exclusively on Misplaced Pages (and in the mainstream press) as the primary source for financial data. There is no question about its status as a reliable source, and that is at the root of the problem I am facing.
			*https://www.pcori.org/evidence-updates/comparing-treatments-multiple-sclerosis-related-fatigue
			I support using this source for this claim.
			Thoughts from others about PCORI generally? Thanks. ]] 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	The chart mentioned above includes the film grosses adjusted for ticket price inflation, and also the number of ticket sales via the Box Office Mojo chart here: . However, since ticket sales aren't tracked Mojo clearly states where the ticket sales are unknown it works it out using the ''average ticket price'' for the year the film was made. This is fine in most cases where the ticket price is static, but has caused a problem with Avatar, where it states that Avatar has sold over '''87 million''' tickets in grossing $668 million.
			:Bluerasberry - in the case of my , the was just a summary of preliminary results (n=33, i.e., primary research) from the "Treatment of Fatigue with Methylphenidate, Modafinil and Amantadine in MS" (TRIUMPHANT-MS) trial, which had been funded by PCORI.
	Because ticket prices are different for the different formats Avatar was released in (2D/3D/IMAX), the simple model of dividing the gross by the average ticket price for that year no longer applies, as noted in their own article about Avatar's performance: . They clarify the general methodology for how they calculate admissions: ''Unfortunately, the industry does not track admissions, only dollars. Absent proper admissions tracking, estimated admissions are determined by dividing the grosses by the average ticket prices, but this method is certainly iffy and should not be seen as definitive.''. Their article provides a breakdown of teh ticket sales in each format (and at the different prices for those formats) to extimate that "'''All told, Avatar's estimated admission count is 60.7 million thus far'''" in grossing $600 million.
			:At this early stage,TRIUMPHANT-MS was actually just a ] reported . That study is not a MEDRS source for the article statement, "modafinil has been shown to be effective in managing fatigue in people with MS" when other more substantial sources, including a meta-analysis, are used.
			:Further, the PCORI statement is that ''"These findings <u>can contribute to clinician and patient discussions</u> about treatments to reduce MS-related fatigue."'' In other words, the PCORI article is a) a progress report, and b) an advice source for a physician-patient discussion.
			:In this case, such a brief update on funding for preliminary research is not an appropriate reference, and does not comment on the wider issue of PCORI as an organization. ] (]) 17:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I wouldn't say its non-governmental... It seems to be more semi or quasi governmental (Interestingly enough a notable concept that we seem to lack a wiki page for) ] (]) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Law&Crime Network ==
	The dispute is over whether to include the ticket sales estimate from their chart, which Box Office Mojo clearly indicates is inaccurate in the case of Avatar. Avatar clearly didn't sell another 27 million tickets going from $600 million to $668 million. So yes Box Office Mojo is a reliable source, its chart is usually considered reliable, but the Box Office Mojo analysis indicates the estimate is not reliable in the case of Avatar.
			Hello! I would like to know your opinion about youtube channel and their news site . Are they reliable source for information about murders/trials? ] (]) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	So what should take precedence in a case like this? The chart or the article, both published by the same source? It seems to me the article acts as a kind or errata in this instance. Would appreciate any opinions. ] (]) 12:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	::Why not account for ''both'' estimates... list it as "60.7 or 87 million", and explain the issue of calculation method in a foot note. ] (]) 14:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Ah... I see the article does this already. ] (]) 14:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::Yeah, I thought it might be the better solution. The other party may still contest it though. ] (]) 14:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Oh really, from your reverts and discussion, I thought you were against using the '''87 million''' altogether. I am assuming I am the other party you are referring to and no, I will not object to using both sources at all until and if the primary source ever decides to unify these counts on both instances. ] (]) 20:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::The stability of the article is the priority, but all things considered if Box Office Mojo have provided two estimates, I believe we should go with the estimate they consider to be the most accurate. Both Entertainment Weekly and MTV.com provide estimates that corroborate Box Office Mojo's revised estimate with ticket sales at 62 million and 59 million respectively. ] (]) 00:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
			:Youtube channels are generally not reliable sources. Please see ] for additional context. ] (]) 17:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	==Sites providing birth info for ]==
			:I can't speak to their YouTube channel at all. Re: their website, ] used to be their managing editor (he's now a with ]), and I found him to be a very reliable reporter on legal issues. ] (]) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	Is a reliable source for the birth info of entertainers? ] (]) 18:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	*I can't imagine it being accepted. They are a classified ad site. That is their function. ] (]) 01:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)		:Their website is RS. However many of the sources there, you have to deal with BLPCRIME, for which you must be cautious anyway. But I have found them to be fine. ] (]) 01:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	::What about for Alexandra Daddario's birth info? It looks like a fan site, but I wanted to be sure. ] (]) 01:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::*Again, I don't think you'll find many people that would consider that a RS. If it were the movie studios site, yes. But that is a fan site. ] (]) 03:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::*Try this link: . ] (]) 03:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
	== Encyclopedia Iranica ==		== Catholic-Hierarchy.org ==
			'']'' is a self-published source that has been featured in two prior discussions (2016 and 2020). Multiple editors appear to consider it a reliable source specifically because it is used in other independent publications. This is a noted exception for self-published sources that can be found in WP:RS/SPS. However, users also acknowledge that it should never be used in biographies of living people.
	Encyclopedia Iranica is used extensively in ] to prove that he was Persian. The author of the , Dimitri Gutas gives a different account about al-Farabi's ethnicity in a published on the Stanford University site. ] (]) 19:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	: There does not seem to be any conflict or contradiction between Gutas' two articles. In both he quite clearly states that there is no resolution for Al-Farabi's ethnicity.
	:So, do you really mean that EI has been quote-mined and cherry-picked to push a pro-Persian POV? Well, that's just your garden variety POV-pushers' tug of war, EI has nothing to do with it.
	:(obRS: Is anyone doubting that EI is a RS?) ] (]) 20:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	I assume that most of the people here will not read the long Iranica article to make their conclusions about my claim. In the Iranica article, Gutas is "refuting" the Turkish ethnicity claim. He is saying that the primary sources that say al-Farabi was Turkish are pro-Turkish and should not be relied on.
			Is there more discussion that should be had? Should these details be added to WP:RSPSOURCES? This source is used several thousand times on the English WP, so centralized standards for it might be desirable. ] (]) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	Regardless, the main question is: Is Iranica a RS in a disputed matter that relate to Iran. ] (]) 21:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			:Is there any context, any new disagreement about the source that would warrant a new discussion? If not the RSP has ] and can be discussed on ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	: EI is certainly RS. However, your contention about Gutas seems mistaken. Only the first two out of the four sections of the article are relevant to issues of ethnicity and "refutation" (because the third section "STORIES AND LEGENDS" starts with this: ''"The above is all that can be said with certainty about Fārābī’s biography"''). The second section ("LIFE") says nothing about ethnicity at all. So where in the first section ("BIOGRAPHY") did you find a "refutation"? ] (]) 22:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			:{{Reply|OldPolandUpdates}} Where can that noted exception for self-published sources be found in WP:RS/SPS? ] (]) 19:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	::People have to decide for themselves, but I doubt that Iranica would publish an article that talk about pro-Persian bias. Quote: "], in line with his pro-Turkish bias, makes the outlandish claim that Fārābī knew no Arabic when he came to Baghdad but only “Turkish and numerous other languages,” and that he mastered Arabic only afterwards." ] (]) 23:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			::Mid-paragraph ]. ] (]) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	::: That passage is in the "STORIES AND LEGENDS" section. It has no bearing on the facts. Your problem is with tendentious editing in the ] article, and quite possibly a misuse of the EI source. But not with EI source itself, which is still RS. ] (]) 23:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			:::I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others, that isn't there. The self publisher here is an amateur, a self described "Random Catholic Dude" ] (]) 19:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::: That passage is related to the question of wether EI is partial or impartial. ] (]) 00:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
			::::What is WP:EXPERTSPS? It redirects to ]. Do we have standards on who is/is not an expert? If ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is not an expert source, then it is not a reliable self-published source, and this has implications for thousands of WP articles.
	::::: Ibn Khallikan's pro-Turkish bias is simply a fact, and properly explained by Gutas. Note that Gutas early on dismisses the third primary source, Bayhaqi. But he does ''not'' similarly dismiss Ibn Khallikan, which he clearly would have if he wanted to imply that only Usaibi was right and Al-Farabi was indeed Persian. But Gutas did not do this. Like a true scholar, he laid out ''all'' the facts. Anyone reading the article without an ] should realize this, and not try to second guess his informed scholarly conclusion that, all said and done, Al-Farabi's ethnicity is ''not'' known. ] (]) 00:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
			::::] seems to imply that if one's material is used by reliable publications, then one might be considered an established expert. ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is used in peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and other types of articles. Some of the usage is described here: ]. Therefore, the discussion might revolve around whether ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is used ''enough'' by external publications.
	::::::I did not ask you about Gutas. My question: Would EI publish an article that talk about pro-Persian bias in the same way? Do you think EI is completely impartial in matters related to Iran? ] (]) 01:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
	::::::: I see no reason to doubt it. The roster of scholars is stellar. There is no evidence whatsoever that Iranophilia, either of the author or in the content, is a precondition of contributions to EI. ] (]) 01:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)		::::If you consider ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' not reliable, then would you also agree that it be depicted as such in the WP:RSPSOURCES table? ] (]) 20:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The standard is mid-paragraph ] "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." which does not appear to be the case here. ] (]) 22:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::: OK. You made yourself clear, you think that "EI is '''certainly''' RS", "Ibn Khallikan's pro-Turkish bias is '''simply a fact'''" and wondering whether Encyclopedia Iranica is impartial in subjects related to Iran is "a '''conspiracy theory'''" all emphasizes are mine. ] (]) 01:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
			:::::I would also note that there appears to be a consensus from 2020 that this is a SPS, see ] ] (]) 22:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I have added the source to the WP:RSPSOURCES list. Please take a look. ] (]) 23:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::From the wording you've used there ("Other editors do not consider the website to be a ] in its field.") I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others... Its not the website which isn't a subject-matter expert, its the self publisher who isn't. The argument that "some editors have considered the website to be reliable because some of its content has been published in reliable, independent publications" is seperate from the argument about whether or not its a SPS... A SPS which is used by others still has to follow SPS rules. ] (]) 01:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			== RfC: The '']'' ==
	==When an editor says a reliable source is wrong==
	There has been a dispute on ] regarding a local high-rise building called the Thread. that I cited as one of the sources says that that building is a former embroidery factory. But ] has asserted that this is not true, that the building is an original building, and that ''The New York Times'' is wrong. An anonymous IP editor whose IP is traced to Amsterdam (I don't know if this was also Djflem editing outside of his account) called the source . I don't dispute that otherwise reliable sources can make mistakes, but for an editor to remove such info based solely on their assertion seems like ], just as ''including'' such info on personal knowledge would be. What should we do? ] (]) 21:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	:See if you can find more sources to either support or deny the challenged source you have. Try and discuss the issue on the talk page of the article to get a consensus. Removal of information is not ]. ] (]) 23:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
	: There are lots of old maps of the area on the web, maybe you can find one that settles the question. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
	::This would seem to be a question of policy rather than consensus; I wouldn't want people in a consensus discussion to decide based on their ''persona'' feelings about the assertion. As for maps, I don't see how this would help. I actually have a number of old maps of the area, but none are going to indicate if a building on a given block was a factory. I've sent emails to the writer of the article and to the building itself to ask them. Hopefully that will do it. ] (]) 01:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
	:::Newspapers are often wrong, including ''The New York Times''. However, we consider newspapers such as ''The New York Times'' to be reliable sources, and go by what they say, absent any other reliable sources stating something different. And an editor's personal knowledge carries little weight in such a discussion, and there's no need to e-mail the articles' author etc. Feel free to use the article to support the claim that the building is a former embroidery factory. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 00:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739491284}}
	== Digital Spy ==
			{{Rfc|media|rfcid=CFA931E}}
			The ''London Standard'', formerly known as the '']'', has 18,703 links on the English Misplaced Pages. Its reliability has not been discussed since 2018, and there is currently no consensus on its reliability. Therefore, '''what is the reliability of the ''London Standard''?'''
			* Option 1: ]
			* Option 2: ]
			* Option 3: ]
			* Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be ]
			]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I think you should also post some examples of the articles from this publication. People would then know why this outlet is now up for discussion. ] (]) 01:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Can we stop doing RfCs with no background? That is not what this is for. ] (]) 01:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	Is ] considered reliable? I've doubted its reliability for quite awhile, but I would like to get the opinions of other editors. –''''']''''' (]</font>) 22:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			::@]: I brought it here (a) because of its recent change in format and (b) because it hasn't been discussed in seven years. I figured that the previous discussions would have been sufficient for ], so I didn't think to start a regular discussion beforehand. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 01:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	:] Do you have a particular aspect in mind? ] (]) 22:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
			:::You don’t start off with the RfCs, for which you provided 0 context. ] (]) 02:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Hmm, I seem to have missed that when I searched the archives. It still seems pretty tabloidy and gossip blog-y to me. I don't think consensus was ever gained on the issue, so perhaps now would be a good time to? –''''']''''' (]</font>) 00:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 02:10, 10 January 2025

Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context

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

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

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

Additional notes:

Shortcuts

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

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

Start a new discussion

---

RFC Science-Based Medicine

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

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

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

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

Responses (Science-Based Medicine)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Bild

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

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

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

Responses (Bild)

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

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

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

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

• Option 3/4. Academic coverage frequently treats it as an archetypal example of a publisher of misinformation. See eg. --Aquillion (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3/4: Tabloids usually fail reliability. It seems this one is no different. ToThAc (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Bild)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are the key points from the foreword

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nigerian newspapers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break (Nigerian newspapers)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

unhelpful ChatGPT wall of text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brainstorming RfCs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeff Sneider / The InSneider

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

could be reworded to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Forbes, including here and here

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

• HuffPost covers his reporting here

• NME covers his reporting here

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

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

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

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

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

BarntToust 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Telegram (software)

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

Telegram is unreliable because:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"multiple reliable orgs."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slayage

Slayage: The International Journal of Buffy+ ISSN 1546-9212 https://www.whedonstudies.tv/slayage-the-international-journal-of-buffy.html

Slayage (ISSN 1546-9212) is an open-access, blind peer-reviewed, MLA-indexed publication and a member of the Directory of Open Access Journals. ​​ journal. All content is available at no cost, in downloadable, full-text PDFs. There is no submission or publication fee for authors.

• https://www.whedonstudies.tv/editorial-team.html
• https://doaj.org/toc/1546-9212
  • Links to the www.whedonstudies.tv site
• https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/1546-9212
• There is also a site at https://slayage.ejournals.una.edu/. https://una.edu/ is University of North Alabama's website. UNA hosted the 2018 Slayage Conference, but I have not found more about their relationship.
• Slayage and Slayage: The Online Journal of Buffy Studies (a previous title) redirect to Buffy studies. It has a few sentences about Slayage, but they are out of date.

Context: WP:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 27#Principal Snyder and WP:Articles for deletion/Principal Snyder

Apologies, I am not familiar with what information is relevant and helpful. Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

From the listed information, the fact, that the journal has fixed editors and a fixed board of officers and members, the mission statement of "the scholarly exploration of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and its related texts" and "meant to invite analyses of not only Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse, etcetera", and the fact, that most contributors are associated with universities, I believe that this is a serious academic source, even though it is focussed on a niche topic and may not be quite as organized as publications by long-standing publishers in the field. I think this is a reliable source which can provide commentary as expected by WP:NOTPLOT on its subject matter. Daranios (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

My initial thoughts was "Obviously not", but searching Google books its cited in works published by credible publishers (McFarland, Routledge, etc). It could be reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• I think the fact it's such a niche source (an academic journal dedicated to a specific TV show of all things) suggests that while it's probably not unreliable, it's questionable whether it should count towards the notability of fictional elements from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  That's special pleading. We don't dismiss topics from journals dedicated to other authors, do we?

  Grok gives the following as peer-reviewed, indexed journals of 20th century authors:

  • James Joyce Quarterly: This journal is dedicated to Joyce's works, offering scholarly articles, reviews, and bibliographies. It is indexed by several databases, including JSTOR and Project MUSE.
  • The Faulkner Journal: Focused on the study of Faulkner's literature, this journal publishes scholarly articles, book reviews, and special issues on various aspects of his work. It is indexed in databases like MLA International Bibliography.
  • The Hemingway Review: This journal delves into Hemingway's writings, life, and influence, providing critical essays, reviews, and notes. It is indexed by several academic databases, including Project MUSE and JSTOR.
  • Virginia Woolf Bulletin (also known as the "Virginia Woolf Miscellany"): This publication explores Woolf's literature, life, and cultural impact. Although not as widely indexed as some others, it is recognized by the MLA International Bibliography.
  • T.S. Eliot Studies Annual: This newer publication focuses on in-depth studies of Eliot's poetry, criticism, and cultural contributions. It is peer-reviewed and indexed in academic sources.
  • D.H. Lawrence Review: This journal features scholarly articles on Lawrence's work, with a strong focus on his novels, poetry, and letters. It is indexed by resources like JSTOR.
  • Kafka Studies: Although not as universally known, this journal offers critical analysis of Kafka's literature and philosophical themes. It's indexed in humanities databases.
  • Samuel Beckett Today/Aujourd'hui: Dedicated to Beckett scholarship, this journal publishes articles in both English and French, focusing on Beckett's plays, novels, and other works. It is peer-reviewed and indexed by databases like Scopus.
  • Marcel Proust Bulletin: This focuses on Proust's extensive oeuvre, particularly "In Search of Lost Time," with articles that explore his influence and interpretations. It's indexed by various literary databases.
  • Thomas Mann Jahrbuch: This German-language journal studies Mann's literature, life, and cultural impact, featuring peer-reviewed articles. It is well-indexed in European academic circles.
  • Sehnsucht: The C. S. Lewis Journal: Established by the Arizona C. S. Lewis Society in 2007, this is the world's only peer-reviewed journal devoted exclusively to the study of C. S. Lewis and his writings. It promotes interest in Lewis's literary, theological, historical, biographical, philosophical, and cultural contributions. The journal is indexed in databases like JSTOR, making it accessible for academic research.

  I'm sure there may be more. Grok tends to overlook things even when you tell it to be exhaustive; the last one I specifically queried but it wasn't included in the first set. Jclemens (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not dismssing the journal as a reliable source, I'm just saying that its focus on a particular TV show means that it may not demonstrate notability for fictional elements of this particular TV Show. I would say that this goes for the others sources you conjured using an AI chatbot and their particular purviews. If the particular fictional element is found to be notable I see no reason against using it as a source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

AI chatbot just more or less summarized List of academic journals about specific authors. The above are all legit scholarly journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually Kafka Studies don't seem to exist. Journal of the Kafka Society of America does however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not denying that they are legitimate scholarly journals. It's a question of WP:DUE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

DUE is demonstrated by the fact that an entire journal exists about the topic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why having a journal dedicated to a TV Show means that every minor aspect of its characters and worldbuilding is automatically notable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

No more than any minor aspect of CS Lewis characters become automatically notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

What is the intended use? Simonm223 (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Cynically, I'd say Slayage is evidence that there's a whole lot of academics who liked (like?) Joss Whedon's work and decided to put together a journal so they could write about their favorite fiction and have it count towards their career advancement. But that's still not reason to discount it as a source, is it? Jclemens (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

No but reliability is contextual. Without understanding thd context all we can really say is, "yeah it's a journal." Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Is reliability even being seriously questioned here? Seriously, has anyone looked at it and compared it to similar academic journals? Because I'm seeing a lot more "Who would have a whole journal on this?" than "This isn't really a peer-reviewed, indexed journal." That is, no policy-based arguments against reliability are being advanced here. Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

OK I found the context (was on my phone mostly over xmas which is a horrible interface) and I'd say that mention in a single journal is a bit weak for establishing independent notability of a seasonal antagonist in a TV show unless that mention was particularly in-depth. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

But that's not an RSN decision; that's an AfD topic. RSN is to debate whether a peer-reviewed, indexed journal is, in fact, a peer-reviewed, indexed journal. If we're agreed that this is, in fact, a peer-reviewed, indexed journal, even if a niche one, our job here is done, isn't it? Jclemens (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I limited it to 20th century authors, though, in an attempt to force a more contemporary focus, which is what we're really concerned about here. No one doubts Augustine is a topic of legitimate scholarly inquiry. Jclemens (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see why, when there are no objections against the content of the magazine, it should not be used for notability. The reason why we have a notability requirement in the first place is to only create articles on topics where there really is enough to say. If there is enough, then why not? Daranios (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I searched for Slayage and the papers from the AfD in Google Scholar after finding it mentioned at WP:Search engine test (how-to guide), WP:Notability (academics) (guideline), WP:Notability (academic journals) (essay), and WP:Journal sources (untagged). Is there a quick way to add up citation counts for Slayage across its papers? Do journal citation counts estimate impact, and is impact relevant here?

• https://www.whedonstudies.tv/volume-110.html Daniel A. Clark and P. Andrew Miller (Northern Kentucky University) "Buffy, The Scooby Gang, and Monstrous Authority: BtVS and the Subversion of Authority"
  • https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=11208910260268275851 – Cited by 17
    • Clark, Daniel A., and P. Andrew Miller. "Buffy, the Scooby Gang, and Monstrous Authority: BtVS and the Subversion of Authority." Slayage: The Online International Journal of Buffy Studies 3.9 (2001).
  • Daniel A. Clark (no user profile)
  • P. Andrew Miller (no user profile)
    • Andrew P. Miller – Cited by 5345, but seems to be a different person
• https://www.whedonstudies.tv/volume-41.html Michele Paule (Oxford Brookes University) "You're on my campus, buddy!: Sovereign and disciplinary power at Sunnydale High"
  • https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=14669897941185192559 – Cited by 2
    • Paule, Michele. "" You're on My Campus, Buddy!" Sovereign and Disciplinary Power at Sunnydale High." Slayage: The Online International Journal of Buffy Studies 4.3 (2004).
  • Michele Paule – Cited by 87

Flatscan (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: NewsNation

What is the reliability of NewsNation?

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

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

Survey (NewsNation)

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

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

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

Discussion (NewsNation)

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

Pop Crave

I know what you're going to say. This is a social media page, and it can't be reliable. But Pop Crave is also a website that conducts interviews and breaks news. Pop Crave itself is reliable on Twitter and other sites.

I know there's a small chance of this going through. But I think it's also worth seriously re-examining our social media sources policy. The younger generations are getting their news from these sources way more than any others. That number will only increase as the years go by. And as a result, these sources will become more reliable. We need to get in touch. Personisinsterest (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Others are free to chime in, but the fact that a source is considered "reliable" on another website -- especially social media -- is of little consequence in the context of determining its reliability on Misplaced Pages. What ultimately matters is how it conforms to policies and guidelines such as WP:V and WP:RS. Assessing the source on its own merits, I Googled their staff page since I couldn't find it on their homepage (, for those interested), and there is no information provided about these people beyond their roles at the site, which frequently strikes me as the sign of a dubious source. Furthermore, there are no authors listed on any of the articles presented on their homepage, which is not a good sign. All things considered, this really does just look like a social media-type fansite, which in addition to not meeting the criteria of WP:RS, would also make it unusable on WP:BLP articles.

Finally, I will conclude with this: As a young enough person (22, as I write this), I certainly view news from sources that don't meet Misplaced Pages's standards for verifiability and reliability, but that doesn't mean I'm going to cite them on Misplaced Pages. So I don't see using popular sites that younger audiences get their news from as a good idea -- using that standard, TikTok and Instagram posts could be regarded as potentially acceptable for, say, information about living persons. Sorry, but that is just not how Misplaced Pages functions. JeffSpaceman (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I concur with JeffSpaceman's assessment. The site does list it's staff, but the bios are the same humorous take on lorum ipsum. There's no way to assess reliability, which has the markings of it being unreliable. The publishing medium - social media vs. website - doesn't really matter. It's the credentials, editorial oversight, and reputation for fact-checking that matter, and on that there's nothing to go on.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLP says that for articles about living people you should be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Celebrity news and gossip sites are not high-quality sources. Separately interviews can be used for WP:ABOUTSELF statements, as long as it's not overly promotional (etc) and your only quoting the subject and not the comments by the interviewer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'm familiar enough with PopCrave to say with confidence there is no world in which it should be used as a reliable source. It's a prime example of churnalism. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Pop Crave doesn't have a track record of reliability we would want for a RS, especially in the BLP space. Looking at the bios of some of the authors that I was able to find (Dylan Anthony, their most prolific writer, does not appear to be on LinkedIn). most have little journalism experience, especially with RSs. That being said, they do have some experience, do not seem like grifters, and do get interviews. It seems like their interviews should be safe enough for WP:ABOUTSELF statements if it's not egregiously self-serving. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 22:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Look, guys, gals and either or else, if we have to have a discussion about every website that has become a content farm we've already eliminated half of the sources considered generally reliable a decade ago, and if we consider bias and opinionation to be a damning factor, there's the other half gone.

How about we agree to encourage practice of good media literacy, and learn to take each article on a given website on a basis-by-basis account? If it is recognised as churnalism or slop, don't use it. If it's an example of helpful content, use it. We live in the enshittification age of AI garbage. Deal with this conundrum smartly. BarntToust 02:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This is an awful response to give at the reliable source noticeboard. Discussing sources is what is done here, and this person is asking a good-faith question on the use of a source. Your participation isn't required if you're already exasperated for some reason. Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

look, it's exasperating to see literally all pop culture / video games sources going down the proverbial shitter for sakes' of engagement and leverage of AI. most sources have the whispers of decent journalism drowned out behind the great content farm, and it's probably prudent to know how to pick the meat from the shells, so to speak. Yes, it is tiring, and it is sad to see journalism turn sour. If it bothers you to see concern expressed and grievances given, eh. it's reality. BarntToust 16:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That's besides the point. Lament it somewhere else. This is a place people are supposed to be asking about sources, and your grumbling creates a chilling effect on editors who wish to learn how to go about things the right way. I'm well aware of the state of journalism in 2025, and I don't blame anyone bemoaning it. But there's a time and place for things, and this is not the place for it. It lacks common sense - just as it would if I were to head over to WP:NORN and say "Oh great, yet another question about WP:SYNTH!" That's...what they do there. If you're tired of fielding questions, do something else. Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I get your frustration. Frankly it is what motivates a lot of my strong and loudly expressed preference for academic work and books published by reliable presses over journalistic content in these discussions. Because, yeah, journalism is in a dire place. Globally. (And I say this as someone who aspired to be a journalist early in his career only to watch the profession die.) I also agree there are certainly degrees here. In fact my antipathy toward WP:GREL is mostly motivated from the fact I fully agree with you that we should be treating reliability contextually most of the time rather than making general statements.

However, in this specific case, I'd say PopCrave, as a particular outlet, was never farther up the journalism ladder than the bottom rung. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

that system I propose is seriously the only way I believe we'll get anything sourcable. Journalism is a lobster, @Sergecross73. That means it is mostly a shell (useless and non-consumable) and we must look for and dig out the meat (useful and consumable content). I'm not posting to bitch and moan only, I'm trying to hit the nail on the head and I'm providing a method of thought to deal with how to wade through the swamp of garbage journalism. BarntToust 17:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

and each site is probably a lobster, so to speak. Each site, some more than others, is a shell, but with careful judgement, substance can be drawn from it. BarntToust 17:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The "system you propose" doesn't exist yet, and its not appropriate to propose it in the middle of someone's valid question. Go take it to WP:VILLAGEPUMP or something. Stop derailing this thread. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

it's probably prudent to know how to pick the meat from the shells I completely agree with this, but your comment doesn't help the OP know how to do that. If your not going to offer advice or knowledge then you're posting to the wrong place. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Editors come here looking for advice on how to make a good judgement on a source, so telling them they need to use their own good judgement doesn't help. Answering questions simply as YES/NO is equally as bad, instead try to answer question in a way that helps the OP understand policy and how to make good judgements.

Also although for some reason people believe Misplaced Pages considers bias or opinion in reliability matters it doesn't, see WP:RSBIAS and WP:RSOPINION. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pinkvilla

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

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

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

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

Is a book on "banishing belly fat" a RS for ice cream manufacturing?

This self-published diet book from 2013 presents the startling headline "Avoid Antifreeze" when referring to ice cream brands that used propylene glycol (PG) more than a decade ago as a texture-control ingredient for commercial ice creams. In small amounts, PG has been used in thousands of prepared foods since the 1980s (including ice creams and frozen desserts), is universally considered GRAS, and is regulated under law by several national food safety agencies (PG guidelines and government sources).

Is the "belly fat" book a RS for ice cream manufacturing? The book is sourced in this article about one ice cream brand. What purpose is served by mentioning PG - a common GRAS ingredient - using the "belly fat" book as the only source? WP:RSCONTEXT. Zefr (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you linkng the right work? Random House is a respected publisher, so the work you linked isn't self-published. The author, David Zinczenko, has a history in publishing about health issues. If you are linking the right work, it's not self-published and would be reliable for the use of the additive and why it's added. Whether those details should be included in the article or not is a matter to discuss on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any history of Random House vetting or having peer-review on topics of ice cream manufacturing or regulatory law on ingredients - that was the point of the question. It's a stretch to infer Zinczenko is a health guru, as he has no history of science education or peer-reviewed publishing on food law or manufacturing practices, and no citations on PubMed. The Zinczenko book seems to be only an imprint for diet advice, leaving open the question: can it be RS for ice cream manufacturing? Zefr (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It isn’t self published. Whether it reliably supports a specific statement in a specific article is a different issue. There is more to reliability than just who the publisher is. Blueboar (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Random House is a reliable publisher, Zinczenko is a journalist, not a scientist, so I'd say he's reliable for trends and stuff in that vein, but not for scientific or medical conclusions. So when it comes to propylene glycol I think he can say that it's an ingredient, and even that some people think it's unhealthy, but not how or why its unhealthy. Andre🚐 21:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I never said he was a heath guru, and why would he need prior scientific publishing to say what ingredients happen to be used in icecream? Sources need to be of a quality to match the content that they support, icecream ingredients don't require that someone have citations on PubMed. If this was used for medical or health claims then it wouldn't be reliable, but it's not being used for that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Help us understand what purpose is served by isolating propylene glycol as one minor ingredient among many using a non-expert book as the source? In frozen desserts manufactured in 2013 (propylene glycol appears to have not been used by any major ice cream manufacturer since), it was one of some 12-20 ingredients, and by law, could not be more than 2.5% of the total ingredients mix. FDA food labeling stipulates that ingredients are shown in descending order, where propylene glycol would not be in the top 5 of ingredients by volume. Highlighting one additive with this book as a source creates a false impression to the casual reader that there may have been a health risk or manufacturing problem due to propylene glycol (which is why I searched PubMed and cited the safety regulations). As a manufacturing method no longer used, what purpose to the encyclopedia does it have being mentioned with a 12 year old source that fails to say it was safe? WP:AGE MATTERS. Zefr (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You appear to be arguing about whether it should be included, which is a separate matter from reliability. The book makes no claims, and isn't used to support any claims, about health implications of consuming the additive. It's reliable that the ingredient was included in icecream at that time. Again whether that should be included is a matter for the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I think there's a reasonable argument that it doesn't need to be included. It's outdated and not a very important detail. I don't think the source is the reason why, though. Andre🚐 23:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested and AndreJustAndre - appreciate the fair comments which seemed to suggest an RfC, now underway. Zefr (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu

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

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

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

They should be:

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

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

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

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

Preliminaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey A: Geni.com

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

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

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

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

Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Generally unreliable. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) Generally unreliable is the one which says this: "questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published" I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would only allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be prohibited. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at the May 2023 MedLands RSN shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he knows may be of little factual significance at face value just because he finds them "interesting" (but is reproduced by way of interest), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't verify. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. NLeeuw (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the Generally unreliable category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then only as far as we have to. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Generally reliable, in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. Ghirla 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Franklin Open

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

is infobae reliable?

i found this source while doing a GA review for this article (for the jan backlog), and im not sure about its reliability. the source did not have an author name, which could be a read flag.

P.S. i read the previous discussion, and it said that it is widely used in the spanish wikipedia. also, researching its wikipedia article did NOT work out well. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 07:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems reliable. SandyGeorgia, who has worked extensively with FAs, noted here that the site is reliable. Sammi Brie, who also has experience with FAs, mentioned its reliability here. I would take their word. APK hi :-) (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I read it from time to time and it has always seemed generally reliable. A bit clickbaity with a lot of pop culture stories but no real accuracy issues. Astaire (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Per the news organizations guideline, mainstream news organizations are assumed to be generally reliable absent evidence to the contrary. As "the most popular online portal in Argentina", Infobae is a mainstream news organization. Despite tending to "feature a stronger component of sensationalism" than Clarín and La Nación, I have not found any patterns of concern that would warrant considering Infobae less than generally reliable. — Newslinger talk 17:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Far Out Magazine

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

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

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

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

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

Are the sources in these articles primary or secondary?

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

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

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

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

AdWeek

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

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

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

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

Langweiledich.net

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?Abo Yemen✉ 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. The Independent is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the Quaiti Sultanate was a thing according to a Facebook post made by a high school that he attended). He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others . He also published a book about the city of Shihr . He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023

References

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

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

Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.GordonGlottal (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the Special:diff/1266430566#Background Special:diff/1266430566#Losses and Special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city Internet Archive a txt version of the book that can get machine translated can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) Abo Yemen✉ 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. Javext (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Javext If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in this letter, which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from the catalog description but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! GordonGlottal (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @GordonGlottal. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this:

"Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India , his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." Javext (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

capturing Al-Shihr
hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? Abo Yemen✉ 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder.

I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. Javext (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city Abo Yemen✉ 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. Javext (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

"Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, (Never happened btw) and how important it would be to conquer Diu."
Abo Yemen✉ 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

"Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? Abo Yemen✉ 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned Abo Yemen✉ 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

capturing a city != sacking it
your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here Abo Yemen✉ 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. Javext (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Bossip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Science-fiction fanzines

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

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

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

Beebom.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jacobin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Heritage Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

What about the books published by the Heritage Foundation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC: The Heritage Foundation

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

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

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

Poll: The Heritage Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  That's not an entry marked as blacklisted. Please find me an entry which is in fact blacklisted, for me to believe that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking when discussing specifically blacklisting something. —Alalch E. 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ahh I see, well yes we cannot blacklist spam if is hardcopy, but we can depreciate it, and it can be assumed that if you choose 5, you are choosing to also depreciate it. Are you you arguing that if you vote 5 it will not cover hard copy? Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think there is a misunderstanding of what is meant "blacklisting the source". Please see this comment below. M.Bitton (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, I'll give more responses to your slightly earlier comment: Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). Yes, nothing says so; I wasn't arguing otherwise. But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? Does not appear to be. The sole publisher of this paperback edition is The Heritage Foundation.Going onward... You said that this country ranking, which is a primary source and an unscientific publication from a think tank, is a RS. On no day would that simply be a reliable source. So I'm going to circle back to my original question, to which you replied with the rhetorical question of Do paperbacks get special dispensation .... That original question, mildly rephrased, is:How does the recommendation to blacklist heritage.org the website for safety reasons answer the question of how to treat the reliability of The Heritage Foundation as a source, whereby "source" means publisher, consistent with Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Definition of a source, which is how this RfC's question is also formulated (What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation ...)?Your answer to this question is that blacklisting an organization's website creates an assumption that all publications from that organization which can not be blacklisted are treated as deprecated sources. This answer is possible, but it is not what, say, User:NatGertler thinks. He wrote: ... we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question .... —Alalch E. 18:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hey Alalch can you change the source you change this to a normal link because the entire section is now colored red because of the source reliability gadget thing Abo Yemen✉ 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I'll break the link. My highlighter doesn't work like that. It only colors the link red, not the whole section. —Alalch E. 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ultimately I think this is somewhat moot as, notwithstanding the safety concern, they're also a deeply unreliable fringe source that has been spammed all over our project. As such I do sincerely think there is a justification for options 4 and 5 even if this group wasn't trying to target Misplaced Pages editors. That they're also doing this is, in my view, an inflaming element but I think that getting this pervasive fringe source out of our project is a good for the project on its own merits. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Also this is an online source, so may be a security risk. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  You are mistaken. The link I posted is a link to a database entry on the website isbndb.com. It contains information about a printed work published by The Heritage Foundation. —Alalch E. 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5 already said why, garbage source that’s a threat to user safety. Dronebogus (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support option 5 and option 4 per my statements above. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I added option 4 to my support message to clarify I support both blacklisting and deprecating this source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3, with Option 5 post 2016 and Option 4 for any hard copy after 2016. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Only blacklisting/deprecating content from a certain time period is not possible unless the domains are different. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu You're correct separately about blacklisting but you're not correct separately about deprecating, but maybe (probably) that's not what you meant specifically ("blacklisting/deprecating" was probably not separately addressing deprecating)—see Lenta.ru at WP:RSP; deprecated status only extends to content published from March 2014 onward. I.e., it's possible to deprecate content from a certain time period. —Alalch E. 00:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3: generally unreliable. Too many examples of them publishing bunk. However, blacklisting would also be wrong, because they seem to have a deep archive of relevant material, such as this article by Clarence Thomas which we link to on his article. For readers who want to read the subject's writings, that is a useful link. Putting the heritage.org domain on the spam blacklist would prevent this. This is far from the only example. Furthermore, the call to blacklist seems to be a misguided attempt to prevent the doxxing op that they have planned. Blacklisting will not prevent any of that plan being executed. It's just the wrong tool. By all means aggressively block accounts and IP addresses implicated in doxxing, but blacklisting their domain is a completely unrelated action. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 and Option 4. this is literally a Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". M.Bitton (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 maybe the doxing threat would be a good enough reason, but the fact it publishes misinformation is an overwhelming reason. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 for pre-2016 (meaning: same status as the Cato Institute and the other "yellow" think tanks) and Option 4 for 2016 and later. While spam websites can get spam-blacklisted if they're recognized as obvious spam in discussions held in this forum (happens rarely), I oppose the notion that this forum has an ability to decide to blacklist a non-spam source for computer security reasons, because the subset of editors at large interested in reliability of sources used on Misplaced Pages, who are predominantly the editors commenting here, here do not have the competence to make an informed decision on matters of user safety. Facts and arguments should be collected in a discussion devoted to that specifically, which discussion has a chance of attracting editors with suitable knowledge and skill, and decisions should be made going forward from that (i.e., this (permalink)), not from value judgements.—Alalch E. 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Actually, we do have the competence and the right to decide whether a source should be blacklisted in this appropriate venue. M.Bitton (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Disagreed. I.e., agreed for spam, disagreed for safety.—Alalch E. 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm noting that multiple other editors also disagree in a discussion a bit further below, or state that blacklisting is pragmatically poor on its own merits as a protective measure. —Alalch E. 00:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5 We can't control what they do with their site, and they've indicated their willingness to use malicious applications and methods to harm Misplaced Pages. Allowing links from our site to theirs is a fundamental cybersecurity concern, given their announced intention to target our editors. And given their use of misinformation, their all but explicitly stated goal of engaged in broad political activity to undermine the constitution of their home nation, which is also the host nation of this project and whose constitution outlines fundamental principles of this project, there will be no appreciable loss to the project from doing so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 - blacklist website for cybersecurity reasons. Not sure about non-website references. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 blacklist for security reasons, noting that they have brought this on themselves - I would otherwise oppose blacklisting, as they sometimes carry content from individuals whose opinions we would give weight to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 Blacklist -- but this does not mean removing the reference. Rather, we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question, but with their announced intent to use links to try to break Misplaced Pages privacy, they are a malware site and should be treated as such. This needs to be done to all links to their websites, regardless of date. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 They are often publishing pure opinion, and what they publish is definitely the opinion of the people writing. Where these opinions might be due is to be discussed on the relevant talkpages. Their editorial content (i.e. anything published by them without a name attached) is generally unreliable (option 3) as they are into WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories and disinformation. I don't get how anybody is voting 4 or 5 on merit here though, and this board no jurisdiction over their alleged cyber-stalking attempt.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 per Vanamonde93, the known security risks make this an exception to past precedent, basically they have now entered "find out." I would guess anything notable published there would be picked up by on other news outlets and/or scholarly sources that can be cited instead. The Clarence Thomas article mentioned above, for instance, is widely cited and also has a Google Books entry which at least is not a technological risk. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 per Vanamonde93. If necessary to use, we can use other sources that refer to the organization, to an offline publication, or use an archival link (which I think would resolve security issues). Perhaps archiving all existing links might be an option as well? -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 I have seen enough to make me think that attribution is insufficient here, gunrel leaves the door ajar for citations but not that many, hopefully. Blacklisting their websites seems more of a technical question, but wouldn't it require a 4 first? Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  @JoJo Anthrax, Bluethricecreamman, Abo Yemen, Dronebogus, Doug Weller, MjolnirPants, SarekOfVulcan, Vanamonde93, NatGertler, Boynamedsue, Gnomingstuff, Patar knight, 1AmNobody24, Tryptofish, Chaotic Enby, and Horse Eye's Back:

  While it's reasonable to assume that "option 5" would automatically include "option 4", some editors seem to think that it doesn't. Please ignore this request if you agree with them, otherwise, you might want to adjust your !vote (i.e., also comment on the reliability) to alleviate any confusion. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  My comment is only on security grounds. I don't believe that in the current context it is possible to evaluate their reliability independent of those security concerns and so will not be attempting to do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I did already comment on the reliability in my !vote, but thanks for the reminder! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't have a strong opinion on this - if it weren't for the security risk I'd be somewhere between options 3 and 4. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I do have a strong opinion on this, but am backing it down to 3+5 for NPOV reasons. As said elsewhere, named op-eds might be legitimate references. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5 Don't think this needs any explanation anymore. Nobody (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 6, Mu. We're trying to solve a very real issue of not giving out personal information, but blacklisting isn't really a way to do this. The risk by clicking on the link is something like the risk of clicking on a link to a state-owned media site, or frankly any potentially hostile website. This is because there's no malware required to be installed to get one's IP; the execution is extremely simple because you give out your IP when you visit any website and, if you allow cookies to be downloaded generally, this is the exact way that advertisers track your browsing.The way that spearphishing to get one's IP address works is that you have to click on a very specific link, and they have to be fairly certain that only you could have clicked on that link (or that a very small number of people could have done so). Blacklisting one domain name is sufficient to start a game of Whac-A-Mole, but it doesn't really protect us against this sort of thing; all they have to do is register a new domain name that outwardly looks like something benign and send it to you in an email (or even posting it on a rarely-viewed talk page). And, if they're already engaging sockpuppet burner accounts to do this, we're going to see this often and possibly without even knowing it.If the concern is spearphishing, blacklisting a public website that has some legitimate uses is the wrong approach. In fact, it would wind up making the spearphishing be more effective by necessity, since people who are alert to Heritage urls would be directed to click on something that doesn't look like one. And perhaps it would even lull people into letting down their guard in this respect.The Heritage foundation is used in >5000 articles often as a supplementary/WP:PRIMARY source. And that's because it's influential in the course of AmPol and it's often useful to include those links in a reference work. This sort of spearphishing would appear to be a new low.What I really don't want is for editors to have a false sense of security here; blacklisting is not going to stop this sort of activity, and it's somewhat trivial to get around this. The proposal would give us as much extra security as blacklisting state-owned media/government-controlled websites from countries known to try to de-identify and harass Wikipedians. We don't generally do that, and we really don't need to; it would be ineffective in achieving its goals of protecting our users. (Perhaps I'm off-base here, and the community would want to blacklist those too.) But it really is a bit of a feel-good measure more than an effective one for privacy from a sophisticated actor.The technical solutions offered at the Village pump are in some ways more robust than a blacklist. What the technical solutions would do is make it harder to trace back traffic to ordinary (i.e. non-spearphishing) links on the website to Misplaced Pages, and it would reduce the risk associated with existing citations. They're not perfect; ultimately nothing can prevent you from clicking the outlink to a burner website, but those solutions don't lull users into the false sense of security that blacklisting the Heritage website would. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  We can do both. We can remove a WP:FRINGE source that is being far too pervasively used across Misplaced Pages and we can also pursue those technical solutions to protect privacy. And this would have a tertiary effect of pointing out that the Misplaced Pages community will vigorously protect itself from this sort of bad-faith interference.Simonm223 (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  The issues outside of reliability or blacklisting is out of scope for this noticeboard. Discussion about protecting editors from hostile actions should continue on the village pump. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is very relevant. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah that isn't really a valid reason for blacklisting. The point of closing #Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors above, and starting a new section, was to focus on reliability issues. That they appear to be taking hostile actions against Misplaced Pages's editors isn't a V/RS policy reason for blacklisting.

  Blacklisting won't protect editors, which is something that will proby need WMF involvement, which is why I suggest the VP discussion continue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a really pertinent point, there are genuine security concerns, we need to discuss them in the correct place. Most of the people here are clueless about online security, I know I am, it's not a reliability issue. The comments on here seem to be completely reactionary, and more about sending a message to the ghouls in question that they can fuck off. Let's be honest, the people voting option 5 are doing so as retaliation. I understand that instinct, I'm fuming about this myself, but it's making us look daft. We shouldn't be getting into bunfights with organisations that are so clearly beneath us. --Boynamedsue (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm all for discussing the Heritage Foundation based on the merits of its reliability and protecting Wikipedians from their harassment, but I completely agree with Redtail here. I really doubt that we'd need to blacklist new Primary additions, and Heritage can't doxx Wikipedians through existing citations without doxxing everyone who visits a Heritage link; we don't have trackers on our Heritage reference links. What we should do instead is try and rangeblock Heritage or other stuff already discussed. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

So, in fact it IS being argued that 5 does not also include 4, so if you also think derpication as well you need to (explicitly) say it, as I now do. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5: Blacklist (along with 4: Deprecate). For our security as editors, and for the security of our readers – and yes, they brought this on themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I want to add: it seems to me that any organization that says that it will do what is described in the Forward piece, is not a source that we can trust to be reliable. It would be a disservice to our readers to use such a source. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  +1 M.Bitton (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5: Blacklist, primarily for editor safety reasons. While I agree with Red-tailed hawk that blacklisting this specific source will not be a perfect solution, editors posting unknown websites for spearfishing purposes can be dealt with individually (in fact, I don't think they would wait for heritage.org to be blacklisted to do so, and blacklisting the main site keeps us more alert on that fact). If the Heritage Foundation intends to directly endanger Misplaced Pages editors, blacklisting their website and treating it as potential malware is the minimum we should do. In terms of accuracy, generally unreliable at least, and neutral on deprecation, although NatGertler's approach (removing the links in existing citations) can also be up for consideration. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

NO security is perfect, and if its not they even black list spam (they will find a way). it is about not making is casual. So easy that it just means copying and pasting nickyouriddotcom into a cite. Making it even slightly harder might be enough to prevent its casual use. Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• I've got a multi-stage vote of sorts, if that makes sense:

• In general, Option 5 for editor security reasons, as per all above.
• With specific regard to HF-authored pieces/editorials, Option 4 as they repeatedly publish dis/misinformation intended solely to serve WP:FRINGE theories.
• With specific regard to op-eds that have an actual name attached to them, somewhere between option 2 and option 3 - WP:NEWSOPED would typically lean toward the former, but even the op-ed pieces veer into FRINGE often enough that I'm not comfortable with an outright 2. The Kip 18:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3 Because as Bernards points out, there are still some good links, particularly in archives. And as Red-tailed explains, Blacklisting creates its own set of problems that won't solve what many think it will ie. it's a dangerous solution because it puts a veneer on the problem that looks like solid wood underneath that is not. -- GreenC 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 on security grounds, this is a bit atypical but we don't have a large history of sources purposefully turning their links into honeypots with the explicit intent of harming wikipedia editors and readers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 for any web-based source connected to the organisation on grounds of cybersecurity. No comment as to reliability. Daveosaurus (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 This foundation knowingly and intentionally publishes disinformation, and it has self-identified as a threat to Misplaced Pages and its editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Um why does anybody think the links they would use would be to a heritage foundation url? Also, this isn’t a social media site, this isn’t some place where the interests of the users are supposed to trump the interests of the product, that being our articles. If there is some evidence that an actual heritage.org link has been used for some nefarious purpose then you can talk about blacklisting, but other than that this is supposed to be judged based on what’s best for our articles, not our editors. nableezy - 19:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, this is the main problem with blacklisting. It’s security theater, which generally does more harm than good, as I think Red-tailed hawk articulated well. Using heritage.org as the actual spearphishing domain doesn’t line up to the MO given in the leaked slides, which talk about using redirects. It would also be weirdly amateurish to create that kind of paper trail leading directly to the perps, especially now that they (presumably) know we’re onto them and any of their agents caught in such an obvious blunder could be subject to countermeasures. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5: blacklist any and all known Heritage Foundation websites as soon as possible, past and present links included. The organization has made its malicious intentions clear. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 this is purely retaliatory behaviour based on an alleged document. The usage of this source hasn't been shown to be problematic and a few bad articles doesn't inherently make a source unreliable. If you're worried about your safety then block the links yourself, but Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to serve you and your paranoia. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  The document mentions nothing about using phishing links nor would their references serve as a useful phishing link. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 (like all think tanks). This seems purely retaliatory. I mean sure, they want to spy on us, but famously so did the NSA, for which we sued the NSA and lost. And it’s not like we are banned from citing US websites. This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity, do you think an FBI agent led attempt to steal our information would use their basic domain? They have millions of dollars they will just buy more or use connections to do it to other sites. This does nothing and is performative. And I don’t find the evidence above convincing, it’s a think tank, producing think tank type fare. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 per PARAKANYAA. Well said. - Amigao (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 There is absolutely no downside to blacklisting this source. Nothing of value is lost, and unreliable information is kept out - it's a win-win situation. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 Those sites are not reliable enough. Privacy wise, those sites are dangerous for editors and readers to visit. Ahri Boy (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 and in case it's considered seperate Option 4 as well. THF are not only publishers of WP:Fringe but are posing an active threat to WP:NOTCENSORED Bejakyo (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5: While blacklisting does not preclude HF from using any number of other domains for various malicious schemes, it's the least we can and should do. Any source that seeks to subvert the encyclopedia and harm its editors thereby confirms it is inherently unreliable. HF now demonstrates it is barely this side of a criminal organization. soibangla (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Barely this side of a criminal organization? I would ask if you are serious but you probably are. Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2-3 There are a lot of problems with this RfC. First, like them or not, the Heritage Foundation is a widely cited think tank. As a think tank, and like basically all activist type organizations, we should be very careful about directly citing them for anything. However, if they release a report or study that is widely reported on or if they release a metric which is quoted by many source then we are doing our readers a disservice by deciding the source must be avoided. This would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge. As for the idea that the source is a danger, what evidence do we have? A single source has made claims. Do we have any corroboration? Absent concrete evidence the idea that we would blacklist the site is a very bad precedent. Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3, at the very least. Heritage Foundation has long since departed from typical think tank-ery into axe-grinding, conspiracy theories, disinformation, and artificially stoking culture wars. Reliable sources from journalism (Associated Press, New York Times and academica (Springer International and Routledge) have identified Heritage Foundation as a publisher of disinformation, falsehoods, and exaggerations. It is unreliable as a source. Obviously, the news from The Forward, a reliable and reputed journalism outlet, that the Heritage Foundation plans to doxx Wikipedians who contribute content with which they disagree—something that would basically amount to a campaign of ideologically motivated harassment—is also chilling and troubling. It suggests the Foundation, unable to win in the marketplace of ideas, is trying to impose itself by force. This is not the behavior of trustworthy coverage or analysis. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Reference Subsection

References

1. Washington, Haydn; Cook, John (2011). Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. London: Earthscan. p. 75,77. ISBN 978-1-84971-335-1. OCLC 682903020.
2. Fisher, Michael. "Heritage Foundation". Archived from the original on August 8, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
3. McKie, Ruth E. (2023). The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 19–50. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2. ISBN 978-3-031-33592-1 – via Springer Link. Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...
4. Wubbena, Zane C.; Ford, Derek R.; Porfilio, Brad J. (1 March 2016). News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education. Routledge. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-68123-401-4 – via Google Books. For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.'s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...
5. Kessler, Glenn (March 31, 2021). "The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 11, 2021. Retrieved April 2, 2021.
6. Bensinger, Ken; Fausset, Richard (September 7, 2024). "Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 7, 2024. Retrieved September 7, 2024.
7. Fields, Gary; Swenson, Ali (July 12, 2024). "Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force". Associated Press. Archived from the original on July 13, 2024. Retrieved July 13, 2024.
8. Foundation, Heritage (1 February 2023). "Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise" (PDF). The Heritage Foundation. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 November 2023. Retrieved 1 September 2023.

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)

• Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)

Are PCORI statements a WP:Reliable source for medical claims? Do PCORI statements pass WP:MEDRS as coming from a medical organization?

I say yes. The organization is non-governmental, but was established by the United States government, and they have awarded about US$2 billion in grants over the past 10 years. They are a large research organization which takes care in making conventional statements. Also, they have good alignment with wiki community organizations, and have hosted and joined wiki editing events in the United States and with Wikimedia Medicine for almost 10 years. That alignment is because of PCORI's patient advocacy, and because typical people find this organization's statements to be more relevant than those from more industry-oriented medical organizations. While PCORI does drive a lot of research through peer reviewed journals, they also make expert consensus statements in the name of PCORI which are not peer reviewed.

@Zefr: said that some PCORI statements are "neither vetted by peer-review nor is it mainstream clinical practice", which is correct, but I feel that they still meet MEDRS by being a statement from an authoritative organization. Similarly, @Whywhenwhohow: reverted saying the sources were not MEDRS compliant. FULBERT made the statements as Wikimedian in Residence at PCORI, and I collaborate with FULBERT through United States Wikimedia groups and through the University of Virginia, where I also am a Wikimedian in Residence.

Here are the talk notices about reversion. The statements are

• Talk:Modafinil#Clarification_on_a_WP:MEDRS_sourced_claim_that_was_reverted
• Talk:Amantadine#A_recent_WP:MEDRS_sourced_claim_that_was_reverted
• Talk:Methylphenidate#Update_on_a_WP:MEDRS_sourced_claim_that_was_reverted

Here is an actual PCORI statement from the Modafinil article. The reverted claim from this statement was that 40% of patients using a drug have adverse effects.

• https://www.pcori.org/evidence-updates/comparing-treatments-multiple-sclerosis-related-fatigue

I support using this source for this claim.

Thoughts from others about PCORI generally? Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Bluerasberry - in the case of my revert at Modafinil, the PCORI report was just a summary of preliminary results (n=33, i.e., primary research) from the "Treatment of Fatigue with Methylphenidate, Modafinil and Amantadine in MS" (TRIUMPHANT-MS) trial, which had been funded by PCORI.

At this early stage,TRIUMPHANT-MS was actually just a pilot study reported here. That study is not a MEDRS source for the article statement, "modafinil has been shown to be effective in managing fatigue in people with MS" when other more substantial sources, including a meta-analysis, are used.

Further, the PCORI statement is that "These findings can contribute to clinician and patient discussions about treatments to reduce MS-related fatigue." In other words, the PCORI article is a) a progress report, and b) an advice source for a physician-patient discussion.

In this case, such a brief update on funding for preliminary research is not an appropriate reference, and does not comment on the wider issue of PCORI as an organization. Zefr (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't say its non-governmental... It seems to be more semi or quasi governmental (Interestingly enough a notable concept that we seem to lack a wiki page for) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Law&Crime Network

Hello! I would like to know your opinion about Law&Crime Network youtube channel and their news site Law&Crime News. Are they reliable source for information about murders/trials? SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Youtube channels are generally not reliable sources. Please see WP:RSPYT for additional context. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't speak to their YouTube channel at all. Re: their website, Adam Klasfeld used to be their managing editor (he's now a journalism fellow with Just Security), and I found him to be a very reliable reporter on legal issues. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Their website is RS. However many of the sources there, you have to deal with BLPCRIME, for which you must be cautious anyway. But I have found them to be fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Catholic-Hierarchy.org

Catholic-Hierarchy.org is a self-published source that has been featured in two prior discussions (2016 and 2020). Multiple editors appear to consider it a reliable source specifically because it is used in other independent publications. This is a noted exception for self-published sources that can be found in WP:RS/SPS. However, users also acknowledge that it should never be used in biographies of living people.

Is there more discussion that should be had? Should these details be added to WP:RSPSOURCES? This source is used several thousand times on the English WP, so centralized standards for it might be desirable. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there any context, any new disagreement about the source that would warrant a new discussion? If not the RSP has inclusion criteria and can be discussed on WT:RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@OldPolandUpdates: Where can that noted exception for self-published sources be found in WP:RS/SPS? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Mid-paragraph here. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others, that isn't there. The self publisher here is an amateur, a self described "Random Catholic Dude" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

What is WP:EXPERTSPS? It redirects to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Do we have standards on who is/is not an expert? If Catholic-Hierarchy.org is not an expert source, then it is not a reliable self-published source, and this has implications for thousands of WP articles.

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources seems to imply that if one's material is used by reliable publications, then one might be considered an established expert. Catholic-Hierarchy.org is used in peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and other types of articles. Some of the usage is described here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_203#catholic-hierarchy.org. Therefore, the discussion might revolve around whether Catholic-Hierarchy.org is used enough by external publications.

If you consider Catholic-Hierarchy.org not reliable, then would you also agree that it be depicted as such in the WP:RSPSOURCES table? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The standard is mid-paragraph here "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." which does not appear to be the case here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I would also note that there appears to be a consensus from 2020 that this is a SPS, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#Catholic-Hierarchy.org Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I have added the source to the WP:RSPSOURCES list. Please take a look. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

From the wording you've used there ("Other editors do not consider the website to be a subject-matter expert in its field.") I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others... Its not the website which isn't a subject-matter expert, its the self publisher who isn't. The argument that "some editors have considered the website to be reliable because some of its content has been published in reliable, independent publications" is seperate from the argument about whether or not its a SPS... A SPS which is used by others still has to follow SPS rules. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: The London Standard

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

The London Standard, formerly known as the Evening Standard, has 18,703 links on the English Misplaced Pages. Its reliability has not been discussed since 2018, and there is currently no consensus on its reliability. Therefore, what is the reliability of the London Standard?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Marginally reliable, or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

JJP_Master (she/they) 23:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• I think you should also post some examples of the articles from this publication. People would then know why this outlet is now up for discussion. Shankargb (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Can we stop doing RfCs with no background? That is not what this is for. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: I brought it here (a) because of its recent change in format and (b) because it hasn't been discussed in seven years. I figured that the previous discussions would have been sufficient for WP:RFCBEFORE, so I didn't think to start a regular discussion beforehand. JJP_Master (she/they) 01:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

You don’t start off with the RfCs, for which you provided 0 context. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories:

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