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

Revision as of 14:20, 31 October 2019 editSlatersteven (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers73,428 edits →The Guardian on Hong Kong protests← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 19:15, 8 January 2025 edit undoAlalch E. (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Rollbackers30,243 edits cannibalize comments by
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{short description|Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}}		{{short description|Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}		|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
	|maxarchivesize = 250K		|maxarchivesize = 250K
	|counter = 276		|counter = 462
			|minthreadstoarchivSee = 1
	|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	|algo = old(5d)		|algo = old(5d)
	|archive = Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d		|archive = Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
	}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__ <!--		}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__
			<!--
	------------------------------------------------------------------------------		------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	NEW ENTRIES GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE AS A NEW SECTION		NEW ENTRIES GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE AS A NEW SECTION
	---xv---------------------------------------------------------------------------		------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	-->		-->
			------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	== Liliputing.com blog as a reliable source? ==
	It is a blog. Although it lists 4 contributors in addition to "editor" Brad Linder in the about page, in reality Brad Linder is essentially the only author in 2019 (1 exception), and there have been only 2 authors since February 2016.
	I've been recently tempted to use it as a source, a couple times, to change a primary source to a secondary source, like magic; however, this seems wrong.
	It was suggested to bring it up for discussion:
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:/e/_(operating_system)&diff=913365830&oldid=913365695
	I'd appreciate other views. Below are more details. Thanks.
	It has been used as a source for many articles in Misplaced Pages:
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?search=liliputing&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1
	95 results
	Sometimes it is called "blog" in Misplaced Pages References, sometimes not.
	I believe it mostly re-words and repeats press releases, and blog posts by companies. An example, recently:
	https://liliputing.com/2019/09/first-batch-of-purism-librem-5-linux-smartphones-ships-in-late-september.html#comments
	versus
	https://puri.sm/posts/librem-5-shipping-announcement/
	In the liliputing blog post above, comments seem to confirm this:
	"Some Guy:
	...Also, this article seems to have been posted before anything about this is on purism’s website."
	"Brad Linder:
	I guess someone forgot to tell them that the embargo lifted at 11:00AM 🙂"
	"Daily Deals" are almost indistinguishable from "articles."
	https://liliputing.com/category/deals
	The about page calls Brad Linder editor; however, he is also the primary author, and the ONLY author for the last 8 months, with one exception by Lee Mathews on 8/26/2019.
	It says, "Liliputing has been mentioned on hundreds of news, and technology web sites," and gives 11 examples. However, 1 - Computer World is a broken link, most are several years old, and 1 - ], "works by scraping news websites and blogs,..."
	https://liliputing.com/about
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?sort=relevance&search=Brad+Linder+liliputing&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1
	57 results
	Lee Mathews
	https://liliputing.com/author/lee
	Last article 08/26/2019, but this is the first since 12/26/2018.
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?sort=relevance&search=Lee+Mathews+liliputing&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1
	1 result
	Lory Gil
	https://liliputing.com/author/lory
	Last article 02/05/2016
	K. T. Bradford
	https://liliputing.com/author/ktbradford
	Last article 08/20/2014
	James Diaz
	https://liliputing.com/author/cybergusa
	Last article 09/16/2011
	The site warns: "Disclosure: Some links on this page are monetized by Skimlinks and Amazon's and eBay's affiliate programs."
	It is heavily loaded with affiliate javascript from MANY different sources, as seen with noscript, etc.
	-- ] (]) 18:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
	* Ugh. That site is basically a collection of advertisements. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
	* ''']'''. Liliputing a ]. Its lists 5 staff members and ] in more reliable sources, which makes it a bit better than other group blogs of this size. However, the blog posts on this site tend to be short and promotionally toned, nowhere near the editorial quality of established blogs like ] {{rspe|Engadget}}. I don't think Liliputing is a good source for technology topics, and I definitely wouldn't count its articles toward a subject's ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 02:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
	Example of editing by readers:
	Victor C: Brad, just letting you know, the WIN is mono. They had to remove the left speaker for the fan...</p><p>Brad Linder: Whoops! Fixing that now.</p><p>https://liliputing.com/2016/10/gpd-win-handheld-gaming-pc-quick-review.html , Reference 14 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/GPD_Win -- ] (]) 16:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
	: While it's SPAMmy, It can certainly be used in a limited capacity. For instance on the ] article, https://liliputing.com/2013/05/xbmc-running-in-linux-on-a-tv-box-with-an-amlogic-am8726-mx-chip-video.html is used to support that the software supports the AMLogic VPU chip. This is not an unreasonable use. Good to see that they make corrections to articles, which is good editorial oversight. It should not be used for anything other that plain, factual coverage. ] (]) 14:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
	:: Making corrections after initially publishing inaccurate information, after readers point out the mistakes, is not "editorial oversight." Editorial oversight is having an editor, independent of the author, who catches mistakes before publishing. At this ''blog'', the author is the editor, or vice versa. -- ] (]) 15:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
	::: Blogs do not generally update their posts. If there is the ability and will to recognize errors and omissions, that implies that there is some editorial oversight. ] (]) 15:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::I understand where you're coming from. I wanted to use infosec-handbook.eu (blog) as a source too, but couldn't because it doesn't meet the criteria. BTW, it also updates based on reader feedback (and has more active authors). If we use liliputing for that video, then we could use any blog with a fancy appearance and tons of advertisements as a way of including youtube videos. -- ] (]) 15:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::: What you were restricted in using that other website's content for is not up for discussion here.
	::::: We're not using the video itself, in the case I quoted, it's a specific discussion that is being used to support one fact. It is not generally reliable, as is the case with most other blogs. However, even blogs may be used under some circumstances. This is not a binary use vs. do not use situation, it's a large scale and judgment must be used to determine whether an entry can be used to support a fact.
	::::: Also, as stated above, it cannot be used to help determine if a topic meets ]. ] (]) 15:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::: The point was other blogs also '''do''' make corrections based on reader feeback, contrary to your claim.
	:::::: Go down the list; Liliputing breaks most criteria: NO editorial oversight (aside from readers), self-published, blog, examples of making mistakes, sponsored content or primary purpose of showing you ads and getting you to click affiliate links. As I understand the process, if two of these discussions conclude it's a non-reliable source, then it goes on the "binary" list as such.
	https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_and_self-published_sources
	:::::: If that "one fact" is really worthy of being included, you should be able to find a reliable source for it. -- ] (]) 16:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
	=== RfC: Liliputing ===
	<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- ] 03:38, 4 October 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1885779501}}<!-- END PIN -->
	{{anchor|rfc_1F16146}}{{Rfc|media|sci|rfcid=EA3D22E}}
	Is Liliputing () a ] for technology-related topics, or should it be considered a ] ]? —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
	==== Survey (Liliputing) ====
	* ''']'''. I'll repeat what I originally wrote on 10 September: Liliputing a ]. Its lists 5 staff members and ] in more reliable sources, which makes it a bit better than other group blogs of this size. However, the blog posts on this site tend to be short and promotionally toned, nowhere near the editorial quality of established blogs like ] {{rspe|Engadget}}. I don't think Liliputing is a good source for technology topics, and I definitely wouldn't count its articles toward a subject's ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Not reliable'''. Advert-infested clickbait of no real merit and no evident quality assurance, much better sources exist. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Generally Unreliable''' Anything but a factual statement is not reliable. Cannot be used for GNG or other reliability criteria. ] (]) 23:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Not reliable'''. Should not be used as a source. -- ] (]) 02:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Not reliable'''. (bot brought me here) Not anywhere close to the level of ], ], or even krebsonsecurity(]).---''']]''' 05:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Not reliable'''. . For Christmas' sake, I can blog that I am God, if anyone built a church for me, I'd instantly be an atheist. No verifiable facts, no studies, no external review, just a claim. Secondary sources are used for a reason, hopefully review and verification. I suggest either filing this in the circular file, file 86 or file 13, aka the bit bucket.] (]) 04:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
	==== Discussion (Liliputing) ====
	* I've created a new subsection for the RfC to meet the {{tq|"brief and neutral"}} requirement for ]. {{u|Yae4}} originally created the RfC in ], but the RfC statement was too long to be transcluded into the ]. Discussion on Liliputing originally started at ], then sprawled to other pages including ]. According to {{np|Yae4}}, Liliputing was used in 95 articles on 9 September, but this count has since declined to {{duses|liliputing.com|12 articles}} after removals. Pinging previous commenters {{u|JzG}} and {{u|Walter Görlitz}} as a courtesy. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
	{{block indent|em=1.6|<small>Notified: ], ], ], ], ] —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 20:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified -->
	== ''The Epoch Times'', once again ==
	'']'' is currently listed as a questionable source on ] and usually described as a "falun-gong mouthpiece" in ]. They have recently come under scrutiny for being a Trumpian partisan outlet as well, to the point where . At the moment they still have those same video ads running on YouTube, with a guy snapping his fingers to changing headlines, using alt-right bingo buzzwords like "mainstream media", "hidden agendas", or "Russia hoax" that could've just as well come from a Trump campaign spokesperson. I think it is time to reclassify this website in the same category as the '']'' and the '']''. --] (]) 23:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
	* '']'' {{rspe|The Epoch Times}} is currently classified under "]", but we haven't had any noticeboard discussions since the August ] report . ] ''The Epoch Times'' would require consensus in a formal ], which this discussion could easily be converted into. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 02:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	:Bias does not make it not RS as such, usable with attribution.] (]) 08:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	:<s>Exactly. This is a typical "biased source" and as such can be used per policy with appropriate attribution. ] (]) 15:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)</s>
	::The Epoch Times isn't a matter of bias. It's a matter that it deliberately and calculatedly publishes misinformation. It should be '''deprecated.''' ] (]) 15:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	:*Bias doesn't make a source unusable, but ''intentionally'' misleading its readers does. The Facebook ban was for that sort of misinformation, which I feel is a decent reason to consider them unreliable - Facebook doesn't ban ads from news sources lightly (after all, doing so costs them money.) NBC News' coverage describes them as about Trump's political enemies, and the says the same thing, which would at the very least make them a ] source, not one we can really use for very much. --] (]) 17:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	:*Yeah this isn't just bias. In addition to more or less openly campaigning for Trump, they've got and , as well as , and . Reporting from , make it pretty clear that they're pushing false or misleading viral content related to contemporary politics. This is exactly the sort of content that has no place on Misplaced Pages. ]<sup> ]</sup> 17:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::That does not look good at all... ] (]) 18:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Blacklist ASAP'''. How has this propaganda machine not been blacklisted yet? It's really remarkable—it couldn't be clearer that under no circumstance is ''The Epoch Times'' a reliable source, IMO. ] (]) 18:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support RFC''' I'm not sure if this came up the previous discussion, but the also reported on some issues with Misplaced Pages's use of the Epoch Times at the entry for ]. This search of turns up a number of cases where they're cited for pseudo-science ( at ], and heavy use of at ]), and it is still cited on a number of BLPs and on stories related to Trump-Russia (], ]). It's even cited ]. The site is ubiquitous on social media, and it looks just presentable enough that users might sometimes mistake it for a reliable source. Based on this, I think its worth establishing a general consensus. ]<sup> ]</sup> 19:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	=== RfC: '']'' ===
	<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- ] 19:13, 4 October 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1885835638}}<!-- END PIN -->
	{{rfc|media|pol|reli|prop|rfcid=F730273}}
	Which of the following best describes the ] of '']'' {{rspe|The Epoch Times}}?
	*'''Option 1:''' ] ] for news
	*'''Option 2:''' ]
	*'''Option 3:''' ] ] for news
	*'''Option 4:''' Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be ] as in the ] of the '']'' {{rspe|Daily Mail}}
	—&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 19:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	] Please indicate if you have different opinions on different aspects of ''The Epoch Times''{{'}}s news coverage, such as edition (the English edition at {{duses|theepochtimes.com}} and the Chinese edition at {{duses|epochtimes.com}}), topic (e.g. Chinese politics, American politics, international politics, and ]-related topics), and year of publication. The closer is advised to evaluate whether there are separate consensuses for different aspects of the publication. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 19:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	==== Survey (''The Epoch Times'') ====
	*'''Deprecate ASAP'''. Under no circumstance should this Falun Gong propaganda machine be considered a reliable source. The links provided by other users above make the source's utter unreliability crystal clear. For those new to the topic, , think ''Russia Today''—as the ''New Republic'' article puts it: "The Times has built a global propaganda machine, similar to Russia’s Sputnik or RT, that pushes a mix of alternative facts and conspiracy theories that has won it far-right acolytes around the world." ] (]) 19:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''2 or 3''' This isn't a good source, but judging by its complete usage, I don't see a reason for general prohibition on its use. The domains (English version) and (Chinese version - is this RfC about both?) are used 1,348 times in Misplaced Pages. Most that I glimpsed through were rather uncontroversial, especially from the Chinese domain. The discussion ] was rather insincere in my view. The was due to circumventing Facebook's political advertisement rules, ''not'' its news coverage. A is being cited in support of deprecating it, but all I see in that story is reporting what the QAnon is, ''not'' advocating for it. Yeah, they also have more trashy stuff like the vaccine story as a "VIEWPOINTS" article, but ] many other lower-end sources like The Huffington Post. As for being pro-Trump: ] applies and it should not be used for controversial statements. It's not feasible to deprecate all lower-end sources from the right-wing of the political spectrum. --] (]) 20:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	::According to the ''Epoch Times'', they are unaware of why they were blocked from Facebook (). Whether that's true or not is unclear, as the source is itself not unreliable, but what ''is'' clear is that the ''Epoch Times'' is a propaganda outlet for ]—it's about reliable and journalistic as '']''. ] (]) 20:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	:: {{tq|If the Q posts are real, they may indicate that the Trump administration has established an alternate channel to speak to supporters, bypassing news outlets and social media altogether for something more direct.}} They're clearly pushing this as a plausible idea. Also: they were banned by Facebook because they created sockpuppet domains so that they could continue to run conspiracy themed ads that failed to meet Facebook's absurdly lax standards. This isn't just a low quality source. ]<sup> ]</sup> 16:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Deprecate'''. "Context matters" is not an appropriate approach for a source that just makes stuff up while claiming not to - ] (]) 22:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2'''. I'd say close to RT or Global Times for Chinese politics and controversial statements, close to CS Monitor or Deseret News for general topics. Epoch Times is a publication associated with a new religious movement suppressed by China. It's obviously biased against China and its ruling party (thus WP:PARTISAN applies), but it runs both ways: Global Times is unlikely to be much better of a source for Epoch Times than vice versa. ] (]) 02:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Deprecate'''. ''The Epoch Times'' peddles unconfirmed rumours, conspiracy theories such as QAnon, and antivax propaganda, causing itself to be banned by Facebook. See , , and . According to , its European sites are even worse, and have become the mouthpiece of the far right fringe. -] (]) 05:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Deprecate''' As per sources on the Epoch Times page they "peddle conspiracy theories about the 'Deep State,' and criticize 'fake news' media" and "its network of news sites and YouTube channels has made it a powerful conduit for the internet’s fringier conspiracy theories, including anti-vaccination propaganda and QAnon, to reach the mainstream." ] (]) 05:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''2''' As I said bias is not a criteria for exclusion. We can use it if we attribute it.] (]) 08:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Deprecate''' - per Zanhe above and MarioGom below. ''']] (])''' 08:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
	* '''4 (Deprecate) or 3''' Some news pieces are just fine, but usually a more realiable source exists for the same events. On the other hand, they insist on pushing for ] theories, they use news pieces as a hook for conspiracies (see my comment in the discussion) and you cannot just single them out by excluding opinion pieces. This undermines the reliability of ''The Epoch Times'' as a whole. Their magazines include a lot of ] commentary of notable wingnuts and charlatans, which may be useful for attributed quotes of these subjects' views when they are ]. --] (]) 08:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Deprecate''' - per Zanhe--] (]) 10:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Generally unreliable''', would need a very strong reason to include this as a source for anything. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Deprecate''' - The Epoch Times was founded as a propaganda outlet for a new religious movement and has, over time, gotten less reliable rather than more. While it was previously a relatively trashy outlet that was generally untrustworthy for anything controversial but might serve for routine, non-controversial information, it has transformed into a platform for pseudoscience, conspiracism and misinformation. The veneer of respectability and the ubiquity of Epoch Times newspapers in major urban centers makes it a substantial risk as a source of RS-looking misinformation on Misplaced Pages. We need to eliminate this source once and for all. ] (]) 13:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Deprecate''' both versions. A source that merely has a perspective (even a strong perspective) is usable, but a biased source that ''also'' spreads conspiracy theories or fringe theories in the service of their bias is not; it's clear that this source lacks the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that ] requires. Since both versions are under the same management and seem intended to serve the same purpose, neither seems like a usable source. --] (]) 15:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Deprecate''' This does not seem reliable, especially given its history of consipracy theories and support of what elsewhere could be considered Fake news. --- ] (]) 02:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Deprecate''' seems appropriate here because they publish conspiracy theories and hoaxes, and . From what I can tell, the overwhelming majority of the content is unattributed aggregations of other news stories. The writers for the site are doing dozens of stories per day. , none of those stories appear to involve any original reporting, and there are plenty of other sources for all of them. The content that is "original" to the site is garbage. They've repeatedly , , and their is rife with quackery. Stories like appear to be unmarked advertising, and they've given coverage of the ]. None of that coverage discloses that the performing group is a project of the Falun Gong. Obviously there are worse sources out there, but this one seems to pose a high risk of causing a problem here because they have the look of a credible website ]<sup> ]</sup> 16:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Deprecate'''. No reason for an encyclopedia to use such a low-quality publication. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2'''- per feminist and Slatersteven. --] (]) 19:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Option 3''' (first choice) or "2" (second choice). Looks similar to Fox news or RT (Russia). ] (]) 20:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Deprecate/Option 4''' Too unreliable. If they have reliable articles, it will be covered by other news outlets too. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 21:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Option 3''' I dislike the trend towards deprecating sources willy-nilly. I think it should be reserved for extreme cases. I looked at some of the examples of allegedly "fake" reporting listed here, and my impression was that the Epoch Times was writing a story about something that didn't need a story written about it, but I didn't see anything that was obviously false. That said, I couldn't find a corrections page on their site, so I'd go with option 3. ] (]) 00:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
	* 1, 2, or 3 - depends on the context I think, and not a broad category. Cheers ] (]) 03:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Option 4''' or possibly 3, per Nblund. If a person with a Misplaced Pages article wrote an opinion piece that appeared on Epoch Times, I'd first ask myself why they couldn't get it published elsewhere, and potentially use it with direct attribution, but never for regular news reporting. I don't think they'd tamper with other people's opinion pieces but that's a low bar. Anything Epoch Times can provide reliable coverage for should have reliable coverage elsewhere.-<b style="background:#00ffff">'']''</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-size: 87%">(])</span> 21:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Option 4''' per Zanhe and others above. ] (]) 06:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Option 4''' - Epoch Times is an unreliable source, publishing alarmist "news" stories that are often fringe theories or conspiracy theories. Definitely not up to the standards of Misplaced Pages for a reliable source. ] (]) 12:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Deprecate''' - Epoch Times has always been unreliable for Chinese political news, but it seems to have been moving toward fringe conspiracy theories on a host of other issues, as others have highlighted. I don't think it meets our standards for general usage.--] (]) 00:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Option 4 / Deprecate:''' There's been weak to no support in this discussion for ET's journalistic integrity. Per :bloodofox: and Nblund: while the patently partisan bias alone isn't enough to justify its deprecation, there's been much ado about how far their writers will alter their stories to sway readers towards their own views. →‎ <b>]</b> →‎ ] → 10:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2 or 3''': They cover conspiracy theories ''as conspiracy theories''. They're not trying to say any of that nonsense is true, just that it's a notable part of the discourse. And the "mouthpiece" argument makes no sense given that 99% of their article are not about that. Are newspapers started by Christians automatically mouthpieces for Christianity? ] (]) 17:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Option 3''' - Generally unreliable but not completely useless as a source in all contexts. ] (]) 22:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	==== Discussion (''The Epoch Times'') ====
	* I was initially reluctant to start this RfC, but many editors in the above discussion proposed measures that should undergo wider community review. With ], '']'' is a controversial source that deserves a thorough examination. Pinging previous commenters {{u|Bender235}}, {{u|Slatersteven}}, {{u|My very best wishes}}, {{u|Simonm223}}, {{u|Aquillion}}, {{u|Nblund}}, and {{u|Bloodofox}} as a courtesy. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 19:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	**{{re|Newslinger}} please clarify whether this would deprecate the Chinese edition () in addition to the English version ()? --] (]) 20:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	***{{bcc|Pudeo}}That's a good question. The options are just suggestions and it's up to individual editors to specify which editions of ''The Epoch Times'' their classifications apply to. If there are two separate consensuses for the English edition and the Chinese edition, we would create a split entry on the ], e.g. ] and ], and the editions would be treated differently. An opinion without a qualifier would apply to all aspects of ''The Epoch Times'' (including edition, topic, and time period) as a whole. I'll clarify this below the RfC statement. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 20:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	{{block indent|em=1.6|<small>Notified: ], ], ], ], ], ], ] —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 04:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified -->
	* ''The Epoch Times'' pushes for all kinds of ] theories, not just QAnon and antivax as others mentioned. They have a lot of articles promoting the ] (, ). Note that this is not confined to opinion sections, they also use news pieces as coatrack for it. Let's take . If we wanted to use that story, we could just use the original from ] (), since ''The Epoch Times'' just uses the Sky News report as a hook to promote theories about communists promoting homosexuality to undermine the family and so on. --] (]) 07:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
	* Note also the push for pseudoscientific theories on medicine such as ], promotion of bogus claims on cancer treatment by ], etc. It seems related items have been used as a source in Misplaced Pages: --] (]) 08:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
	{{block indent|em=1.6|<small>Notified: ] ] (]) 08:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified -->
	* Why are we even having this discussion? Did someone blank ] without telling me? Does the FAQ at WT:V which has said {{xt|"The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support"}} for years, suddenly disappear? This source, like every other source, can only be judged to be reliable in context. It's not "reliable" or "not reliable". As a general rule, this source is going to be "reliable for certain narrowly written and carefully contextualized statements". It may be best to use it with ] attribution. It may not be the best possible source for general information. But reliability is not a yes-or-no situation. The whole concept behind this RFC (also: an RFC on a high-traffic noticeboard? What's going on with that?) is flawed. ] (]) 15:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
	** We're having this conversation because the argument has been made that this outlet has equivalent reliability to sources like ] and ] while still being used as a source in multiple articles. As it is actively anti-reliable as a source, site-wide action is necessary. ] (]) 15:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
	*** Was there a series of real dispute that editors had difficulty resolving? I'm not seeing evidence of that. ] (]) 20:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
	**{{u|WhatamIdoing}}: Sources can be used in certain contexts even if they are ]. You may have to argue with someone who thinks that deprecated means completely blacklisted, but it should be ok otherwise if it is justified. Do you see any problem with this specific RfC? Or you are against the source deprecation process itself, or maybe the perennial sources list? --] (]) 19:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
	*** I'm against anything that indicates to other editors that the rest of us think don't think they can figure out how to write a decent article without the rest of us telling them to follow some more rules first. People with a classical education might be thinking about the ] here, and I admit that it's not far from my mind. {{pb}}], I see your account is just two and a half years old, so you probably don't remember when ] was taken seriously as a policy, when ], and when "You may have to argue with someone" to be permitted to do what was right by an article meant that a policy or process was fundamentally broken. If RS/P results in editors having to argue with mindless rule-followers about whether it's okay to improve an article, and if it's putting the emphasis on what's "allowed" instead of what's best for the article, then I'll be against it. If it provides practical help to editors writing articles, then I'll be all for it. Perhaps you can tell me which category you think it's most likely to fall into. So far, all I see is that the list grows endlessly, and it is largely populated by people who aren't creating much content, and largely used by people who aren't genuinely trying to figure out whether a source is desirable in a particular article. ] (]) 20:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
	**** The way I look at it (certainly others may feel differently) is that, given the (absolutely appropriate) emphasis on Reliable Sourcing, the RS/P is an incredibly useful tool, especially for new editors who may not have a firm grasp on what constitutes a reliable source or know how to dig through the RSN archives. I know it certainly was for me. I also believe that its usefulness is directly connected to its accuracy, and these discussions help to improve that accuracy by giving an accurate measure of a source's basic credibility. Even RSCONTEXT says "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Discussions like this help us assign a rough reliability, according to this exact metric, to sources. Yes, context is still important, but that doesn't mean that the New York Times and the National Enquirer should be treated the same, as if they each require the same amount of scrutiny to determine whether a given article in either is acceptable to cite for an article here. ] (]) 21:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
	*****], could you explain that bit about RSCONTEXT better? I'm not sure how it relates. That sentence, in plain English, means "''The New York Times'', which has more than four thousand employees, is usually more reliable than little tiny newspapers like '']'', whose sole employee has to do everything from selling subscriptions to writing articles to sweeping the floor". I don't see how any discussion on Misplaced Pages could realistically "help to improve that accuracy", because "according to this exact metric", the only way for a source to become more reliable is to hire more journalists. The number of Wikipedians involved in these RFCs is irrelevant "according to this exact metric". "This exact metric" is about what they do, not about what we do. ] (]) 22:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
	******] Certainly. My reading on that sentence is slightly different than yours. I don't see it as being the same as "More employees = more reliable" because not all publications utilize their employees the same way. It is about how many people are actually engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing. More employees does not necessarily mean that they have more people doing those things. A large paper could employ thousands of people and still not commit any sizable number of them to fact checking, and a small paper could have relatively few employees but still conduct robust and thorough fact checking on what material they publish. It is what they do with their employees, and how well they do it, that matters. Yes, this metric is about what they do, but our part in it is elucidating what it is that they are doing. Our part is figuring out how robust their reputation for fact checking is, how strong their editorial oversight is, how readily they retract and correct errors. Publications that knowingly publish false claims, or unknowingly publish easily disprovable ones, clearly show a lack of such robustness. We can improve the RS/P by accurately assessing how well a given publication commonly meets these criteria. There is value in having a list that accurately represents the general quality of various sources according to the established criteria of what constitutes reliability, but to do that we must determine how well a given source meets those criteria. I believe that is something we can do, and I believe that discussions like this aid in achieving that goal. Treating every source as though they are all equally likely to produce reliable reporting seems shortsighted to me. Yes, reliability is about what they do. Our discussions do not make a publication reliable or unreliable. But our discussions do help accurately assess whether they are doing the things that are considered indicative of general reliability (Robust fact checking, editorial oversight, etc.), or whether they are engaged in behavior that is indicative of pervasive unreliability (Intentionally publishing false or misleading claims, pushing fringe conspiracy theories, etc.) ] (]) 07:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
	**** {{u|WhatamIdoing}}: So if I understand correctly, you are against the deprecation of sources itself or this kind of RfC, but you have no particular concern about this specific RfC. I can understand that. It has certainly been problematic for me in the past. For example, when spotting an inaccurate story published at a sourced marked as generally reliable on perennial sources. But that's beyond the scope here, I guess. --] (]) 21:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
	*****That's the issue as I see it, and not beyond consideration here, that commentary must be distinguished from credible news, even in articles that are reporting some news. A neutral point of view doesn't sell many books or newspapers. ] (]) 07:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
	******Frankly I think the use of newsmedia is generally inappropriate for an encyclopedia and leads to many of our woes surrounding ], ] and ] across the site. When a newsmedia source compounds this problematic character by straight-up fabricating news to push a POV, well, if I think we shouldn't be leaning so hard on the NYT you can imagine what I think about such tabloids. And the Epoch Times, which was founded with the intent of being used as a propaganda outlet is one of the worst of a bad bunch. I'm sure an ] case might exist where deprecation might prove a challenge, but honestly I don't see it. And avoiding a 99% improvement to avoid a 1% chance of future impediments seems like weak cost-benefit analysis. ] (]) 12:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
	******^agreed. The consensus on deprecation can always change, but I have spent some time browsing the site, and I really haven't found a single story that appears reliable and not covered by a more reputable source. that the majority of the staffers are mostly part-time/volunteers rather than journalists, so it seems pretty unlikely that you're going to see any real reporting coming from them. ]<sup> ]</sup> 17:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
	*******I agree with ]'s point. That's why we avoid {{tl|one source}} articles. Librarians make a distinction between having "a balanced book" and "a balanced library": while there's a place in the world for a balanced book (history textbooks for schoolchildren spring to mind as an example), it's usually better to have multiple books (e.g., a book about a war that argues persuasively that it was all economics, a book that promotes the diplomatic aspects, a book that that focuses on the ], etc., so that you end up with a balanced view). But you have to read multiple sources to figure out where the sources differ from each other. {{pb}}], it's always good to find an idealist on the English Misplaced Pages. <code>;-)</code> {{pb}}], I believe that's true. However, the definition of "reliable" isn't "the most reputable source we could use for this statement". "Barely reliable" is still reliable. (IMO this source is probably "reliable enough" for some claims. You won't see me seeking it out, however.) ] (]) 17:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
	******Just a warning even about high school history books. It's reliably reported that conservative groups attend trustees meetings as in Texas and New York, and any '''trustee''' who approves of a book that criticizes capitalism or American democracy is '''"history"'''. The few publishers don't take a chance with such books. To get a more objective course in American history one needs to use a college textbook. ] (]) 17:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
	== ]: ] ==
	<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- ] 03:38, 4 October 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1885779534}}<!-- END PIN -->
	{{rfc|media|soc|rfcid=3D2100E}}
	Other than sales data, what would best describe the reliability of VGChartz '''as a whole'''? (More detailed query below.) ] (]) 03:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	It's already been informally established that ] is unreliable for everything pertaining to sales data. One excerpt from a ] of a ] even summed up the following ]:
	:{{tq|Due to its popularity and being the most immediately visible source when researching sales data, it's hard not to address VGChartz.}}
	:{{tq|Much<ref>Carless, Simon. (June 23, 2009). . ''Gamasutra''. Retrieved November 7, 2013.</ref><ref>Kohler, Chris. (June 23, 2008). . ''Wired''. Retrieved November 7, 2013.</ref> has been written about the reliability of VGChartz. As explained , it has access to data from an undefined sampling of "retail partners", filling in the rest by guessing based on various trends (while the aforementioned trackers do not have access to every retail chain and do some number of "filling in the blanks", they are proven to track a substantial amount of retailers, unlike VGChartz). The fact that VGChartz numbers have frequently been contradicted by more official channels and other anomalies (In one instance, the site reported the game '']'' as a best-seller for June 2010 despite the game not being released until the end of July<ref>zeldofreako. (July 4, 2010). . ''GameFAQs''. Retrieved November 7, 2013.</ref>) have led to several sites banning it as a source. As far as the wiki is concerned, '''VGChartz is not reliable and should not be used as a reference for sales data'''.}}
	{{reftalk}}
	However, I have repeatedly seen VGChartz ; most of it is to cite release dates and companies behind certain games, with some relevant news articles as well. Moreover, most of the criticism towards the site is usually limited to just the site's methodology in obtaining sales data. And so as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, what options would best describe VGChartz's reliability?
	#Generally reliable
	#Generally reliable, with the exception of sales data (recommend better source)
	#Generally reliable, with the exception of sales data (require better source)
	#Generally unreliable
	Cheers - ] (]) 02:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	=== Survey (VGChartz) ===
	*'''Option 4''' per above. I also '''strongly oppose option 1'''. After some digging around, I learned that most of the articles on the site are ], while the news coverage could use better sources. ] (]) 02:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Option 4''' - there’s already a pretty solid consensus on this amongst anyone who understands how Misplaced Pages defines an RS, and nothing has changed. ] ] 03:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	* It has been listed at ] for who knows how long. Why are we having an RFC about it? --] (]) 03:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	*:{{ping|Izno}} This is about addressing the reliability of other parts of the site (articles, news, previews, etc), not necessarily their sales data. ] (]) 03:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Option 4''' - there have been multiple discussions on VGChartz that show it is unreliable. What makes this discussion any different? ]] <sup>]</span></sup> 03:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Option 4''' Ive yet to see data sourced to VGChartz that cannot be sourced to better quality sources. --] (]) 03:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Option 4''' Seems it has a reputation for non accuracy.] (]) 08:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Option 4''' It's pretty clear that it can't be trusted. I've never seen it be viewed as reliable before, and we shouldn't start now. ] (]) 21:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Option 4''' Not reliable. ] (]) 05:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
	=== Discussion (VGChartz) ===
	{{block indent|em=1.6|<small>Notified: ], ], ] —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 02:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified -->
	{{ping|Sergecross73|Namcokid47}} In case this wasn't already clear to either of you, I'm addressing the entire VGChartz website, not necessarily their sales data (which has already been proven unreliable). ] (]) 03:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	:I am fully aware of that, and I am still opposing it. Nearly all of the content on there is user-generated, and lots of the articles are not in the best of quality. I still consider them unreliable. ]] <sup>]</span></sup> 03:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	::Okay, thanks for the clarification. ] (]) 03:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	== RfC: ''"]"'' (October) ==
	<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- ] 08:50, 18 October 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1887007837}}<!-- END PIN -->
	{{rfc|media|pol|prop|rfcid=C5A925C}}
	Should '']'' be deprecated? ] Or listed as ]? ] Or something else?
	See {{duses|thegatewaypundit.com}}; and for earlier {{URL|https://www.thegatewaypundit.com|thegatewaypundit.com}} discussion see earlier ]; along with other previous mentions at: ], ], ], and ]. ] (]) 00:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
	===Survey (''The Gateway Pundit'')===
	* '''Depreciate /''' '''Unacceptable as a source'''. It's a batshit insane far-right conspiracy blog. I don't know the difference between "depreciation" and "generally unreliable", but I support whatever ensures that this rubbish doesn't get cited here. ] (]) 00:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Not reliable''' for just about anything outside of their opinion, with in-line citations, in rare situations where their opinion is directly relevant; they're a blog with no particular reputation for fact-checking or accuracy (obviously.) That said, see my comment below - they're only that I can see. As far as I can tell nobody is arguing that they ''are'' reliable anywhere for stuff outside that. We don't need to hold RFCs for things that are already universally-accepted; there are far too many unreliable sources in existence to enumerate them all. --] (]) 01:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
	:*{{u|Aquillion}}, are you opposed to '''deprecating'''? ] (]) 22:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Unreliable''' for statements of fact, and opinion wouldn't/shouldn't carry much weight in most cases, but as Aquillion says, it's not exactly a frequent problem. Certainly '''not opposed to deprecating''' if there's evidence it would save a nontrivial amount of effort. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 16:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
	*In the very least '''unreliable'''. ] (]) 17:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Unreliable''' for anything beyond their own opinion. ] (]) 17:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Not reliable''' for ... anything. Given that it's a hoax/fake news site I wouldn't even use them for their own "opinion" since those could just as well be trolling.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Deprecate''' this fake news website known for partisan hackery and hoax articles. This is never an acceptable source. '''] ]''' 17:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Not reliable, do not deprecate''' Clearly not a reliable site. No reason to deprecate as it clearly isn't being treated as reliable. We need to stop the deprecation game even with sites like this. ] (]) 18:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
	:*{{u|Springee}}, but they are often cited on Talk pages, per "everywhere search". Again, why do you say {{tq|deprecation game}}? ] (]) 22:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
	::*You are free to disagree with the term game but I'm firmly against going around and deprecating sources left and right. I'm not sure how deprecation is even supportable under WP:RS. My concern is two fold. First, let's assume a number of deprecated sources are all talking about the same thing. That means there might be some WEIGHT for inclusion in an article. That doesn't mean we treat the material as reliable but I do think deprecated sources can help establish weight if not reliability of some information. Here is another problem ]. An article about Mossberg cited The Daily Caller for a basic factual claim (company had produced X number of some shotgun). This isn't a critical fact but for readers who are interested in firearms the article is better for it's inclusion and it certainly isn't a controversial claim. The citation was removed since DC has been deprecated. Now do we actually think the DC isn't reliable for that particular claim? So the typical reply when someone brings up such a point is, well if it's DUE then a RS will mention it and we can source it there. So I looked. I didn't check every link but what I found was a Mossberg press release (likely the DC's source of information) and a number of firearms blogs and forums discussing the topic. None of those sources would pass RS muster. However, the fact that so many websites are talking about the production stat suggests that, for that narrow audience, this is something that improves the Wiki article. If DC were treated like we treat a low quality source like Splinter News we would use them cautiously but we wouldn't have editors seeking out all references and removing the citation or even worse, removing the article content with the citation. I see no advantage to marking such sources with a "kill on sight" order. So, even in a case like there where I would be very suspect of any claim made by this source, I'm against deprecation here because I think it is problematic in principle. ] (]) 02:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::* I don't know if we deprecate sources ''only'' for the AP2 area, but that is where they are completely unreliable. -- ] (]) 02:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::* I would be more comfortable with the concept if we specified something like AP2. ] (]) 03:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Not reliable''' in the slightest. '''Depreciate''' &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 18:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Deprecate'''. ] (]) 19:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Deprecate''' I'm not sure this is necessary, because it seems like they are essentially already ] since they're a of fake news. I don't see any problem with formalizing that classification, though. ]<sup> ]</sup> 21:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Unreliable''' and '''OK with deprecating''' - ] (]) 13:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Deprecate''' The fewer of these blatant misinformation sites we entertain, the better the whole project will be. They have a tendency toward supporting conspiracy theories, don't fact check much at all and exist as a propaganda tool. An encyclopedia should not be depending on such outlets. ] (]) 13:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''In the very least unreliable'''. I agree with {{u|Simonm223}} and most others, '''deprecate''' is appropriate. This ] as noted by various contributors, particularly highlighted by {{u|Aquillion}}'s . It will be useful to point novices, contrarians, etc to the ] citation of discussion if it gets a place on the table (hopefully). I don't understand {{u|Springee}}'s "deprecation game" comment. How is it a "game"? ] (]) 00:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Deprecate''' {{u|X1\}} and {{u|Simonm223}} make excellent points. The source regularly reports on conspiracy theories under the guise of news, which immediately calls into question whether any of their genuine news coverage is tainted with the desire to drive readers towards their own partisan views. Their SEO is structured so anyone looking to affirm a personal bias could easily search for say, "Badger Party planning frisbee ban", and get something resembling a WP:RS that could be injected into an article and left standing as authoritative information until another editor eventually susses it out. →‎ <b>]</b> →‎ ] → 05:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Unreliable''' not "Deprecate" Deprecation is an extreme option over-used but not consistently used (leftist sources are usually spared the measure of deprecation). We have good, workable guidelines in ] which allow editors to use their judgment with sources like the one we're talking about. Deprecation when there's no signifcant pattern of a given source being used to prop POV up in our articles is itself deprecated in ]. --] (]) 06:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
	:*Leftist sources rarely engage in conspiracy theories treated as reportage. Those that do should be deprecated too. ] (]) 16:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
	:*I agree with {{u|Simonm223}}'s {{tq|Those that do should be deprecated too.}} For useful list of ] (collected by {{u|BullRangifer}}). ] (]) 19:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
	::*I don't see any appropriate sources on that list. Though I wouldn't call any of them extreme left so much as extreme anti-Republican with poor or non-existent standards for fact checking. Thx X1.] (]) 11:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Deprecate''' I'm a latecomer to this but can't see a good rationale not to. Given the 3 posts above I'll add that this treatment should be even, any source that reports conspiracy theories as fact should be deprecated whatever their politics. ] ] 16:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	:* Bingo! ] there is another thread here about Fox News talk show hosts (not the News division). "Any source that reports conspiracy theories as fact should be deprecated whatever their politics." The same applies to them, and they should be deprecated. -- ] (]) 20:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	:* ] I support the sentiment, but the application is lacking. This is particularly noticeable in the area of criminal justice. Freddie Gray was hurt before he was put in the van, not while he was in it. Daniel Holtzclaw's conviction is laden with red flags strongly suggesting that he didn't do any of it. And the Duke Lacrosse case was proven BS long before the NYT, WaPo, etc. said so. Each of the above has been documented in voluminous detail on sites that often remain relatively obscure and/or are treated as "unreliable" by WikiConsensus, while media that push "mainstream" narratives that fly in the face of demonstrable facts escape WikiPunishment. ] (]) 02:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	::*{{re|Adoring nanny}} provide RSs for your claims. ] (]) 22:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	::: I can do that in the Duke case. In the Freddy Gray case, I have a source that is likely ] via ], namely , but even there, there are ] issues, as the conclusion is obvious from listening to the whole thing, but I'm not sure if it's stated explicitly. In the Holtzclaw case, there appears to be consensus that the sources are not ], and that's the problem. When it is determinable that the non-RS have the story right and the RS have it wrong, yet we continue to keep our definitions of what is and is not reliable, then exactly what kind of world are we living in. ] (]) 02:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::A YouTube video by Michelle Malkin is your purported source? The same ] who , , and ? Alrighty then. (And your first link is to a website self-published by a member of Holtzclaw's legal defense team.)
	::::Your apparent personal belief {{tq|that the non-RS have the story right and the RS have it wrong}} about Holtzclaw is ] and can have nothing whatsoever to do with article content. ] (]) 02:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::: That's typical of the type of response I get on this. I can't blame anyone for not wanting to take the considerable time and effort that would be required to determine who has it right and who has it doesn't. It is frustrating to see people respond by lashing out at me and/or the sources. ] (]) 11:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::: {{re|Adoring nanny}} You appear to be off-topic on judging whether ''The Gateway Pundit'' should ] ], or listed as ] ], or something else? Citing a book is fine but irrelevant, ] is irrelevant, <code>HoltzclawTrial.com</code> is inappropriate, '']'' is considered per ] to be ] debatable, and YouTube is ] generally unreliable (depends on subsource). In your arguments, using only "generally reliable" ] sources will add credibility. This isn't {{tq|the world}} per your {{tq|what kind of world are we living in}} comment, it is Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages is built on generally reliable RSs, not ]. We remove wp:OR and unreliable RSs, and in some cases we are ''obligated'', by law to remove them. If you are interested in the topics in which you commented and gave sources, that is fine, but this RfC thread is on judging ''The Gateway Pundit'' as a source, not ] ], see ]. ] (]) 23:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Not reliable''' ] (]) 17:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	:*{{re|Gerntrash}} "Deprecate" since they spread "not" and anti-reliable information? ] (]) 23:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Deprecate'''. It's far too '''unreliable'''. They regularly push conspiracy theories and lies, often from the Trump administration, passing them off as truth. "Any source that reports conspiracy theories as fact should be deprecated whatever their politics." (Doug Weller). -- ] (]) 20:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Deprecate''' - I see it as misleading, sensationalist clickbait. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 01:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Unreliable'''. No corrections page for example, and definitely no reputation for accuracy. ] (]) 01:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	:*{{re|Adoring nanny}} "Deprecate" since they spread "not" and anti-reliable information? ] (]) 23:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
	::No.] (]) 00:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Deprecate'''. Unreliable source that peddles conspiracy theories. ] (]) 01:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Deprecate'''. As above - might as well formalize this, since there is no need to ever cite this. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
	===Discussion (''The Gateway Pundit'')===
	* Is it actually being cited anywhere? A finds only five uses in article space. Most of those should be replaced, but it's not exactly something pressing enough to require an RFC (with such a small number of cites, all of which look easy-to-replace, you can just replace them and open a discussion leading to an RFC if someone objects and you can't hash it out.) I'm not sure we need to bother with RFCs when it seems like virtually everyone agrees the source is unusable already (and are not using it.) --] (]) 01:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
	:*I'd say the important question is not how often is it used at this very moment, but the more difficult to answer, "How often do people try to use it inappropriately and how much time is wasted discussing it?" Deprecating a source can be a huge time saver, assuming there is consensus that the source is bad enough to be worth deprecating, ''and'' there is actually time to be saved. ] (]) 01:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
	::*Hrm. A search for rather than just article content does turn up 86 uses (mostly talk.) Even then, though, it seems to be mostly new / inexperienced users bringing it up, and it's pretty clear that every time it comes up people are just like "no, you can't use that as a source." Most of the time they didn't seem to know ] is a thing, so that conversation would still have to happen. --] (]) 15:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::*There were some attempts to use it in 2016/17 before and after the election. Not so much now. It's possible these attempts could renew as we get closer to 2020.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::*{{u|Aquillion}} is "Hrm" a reference to ]? ] (]) 00:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::*Deprecating a source because it might be abused in the future is political censorship. It seeks to usurp editors' judgment generally to apply the ] guidelines because a given source might be abused - but no significant amount of such abuse is evident. Using the RFC process to censor future edits to the encyclopedia by ] needs to be examined in the light of ]. --] (]) 06:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::*{{re|Vfrickey}} the only prediction we have is by using past evidence, so we go by a sources' "track record", and for this one it is not good. ] (]) 19:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
	== RfC: ''"]"'' (October) ==
	<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- ] 08:50, 18 October 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1887007837}}<!-- END PIN -->
	{{rfc|media|pol|rfcid=6A3A2C5}}
	<s>Should '']'' be listed as a generally reliable for news coverage? ] Or something else?</s>
	:I see the issue; Should '']'' be listed as a generally reliable in its areas of expertise? ] Or something else? ] (]) 19:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	See {{duses|propublica.org}} and ; and for earlier {{URL|https://www.propublica.org|ProPublica.org}} discussion mentions see wp:RSN Archives: ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. ] (]) 19:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
	Updated lede sentence per feedback. ] (]) 19:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
	===Survey (''ProPublica'')===
	* '''Generally reliable in its areas of expertise''' <s>'''Generally reliable for news coverage'''</s>. ] (]) 22:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
	:*Updated my "vote" due to a couple of comments. ] (]) 00:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
	::* ] Please name specifically what the "areas of expertise" are. And please provide the RS you used to support that set of topics as being their areas of expertise, thanks. Note: No ] of inferring from awards please, only state language and the source you had per ], please *not* one of its . And you can ignore the table. Cheers ] (]) 00:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::*{{u|Markbassett}}, the "partners" are a long list of reliable RSs ...? ] (]) 00:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::* ] The topic is please name specifically the “areas of expertise”, with preference to articles on ProPublica from independent sources — so preferably not a partner. If you didn’t have an independent source mentioning such or were just using a phrase without RS then just say so. Cheers ] (]) 02:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
	{{hat| My input to first version of question Cheers ] (]) 00:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC) }}
	* '''Not news coverage''' - umm, they can't be a RS for news because they don't DO news of the day. They don't cover what is happening with Kurds or Brexit this week, Canadian election results, the woes of Man Utd, or natural disasters and such. They do investigative pieces from a progressive POV, with a data analysis approach. ProPublica is respectably known and usually has a factual data-driven content, but they do have a bias that they're open about, and do not present a balanced picture which they also are open about. It's going to be about telling you a way to see something Wrong from a progressive view point and nothing much else. Very well done, but limited in scope and POV. Cheers ] (]) 23:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	:* umm, {{u|Markbassett}}, are you attempting a joke? If so, this is not the time or place. ] (]) 19:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
	::* ] ??? No, it's no joke, don't see why you would think it was -- they really are not news coverage. Which I thought your later !vote-change edit indicated accepting. The being limited in scope and POV - well, again don't see how you could read that as a joke, it's basically said on their website and mission declarations. Cheers ] (]) 04:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::*{{re|Markbassett}} so you believe ProPublica {{tq|can't be a RS}} for anything? ] (]) 19:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::* ] the question asked was if “generally reliable for news coverage”, and my answer was no, because they don’t do that. Still don’t see how you felt that was a joke. I see there’s now a revised question “generally reliable in its areas of expertise”, which I haven’t responded to. As to whether they’re a RS for anything, that isn’t the topic and I’d prefer to just deal with the revised topic if anything. Cheers ] (]) 20:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::* {{u|Markbassett}}, Cheers ] (]) 20:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	*'''Determine case-by-case - self-declared not balanced coverage, and expertise subject to author''' Mostly that editorial control and qualifications only extends to in-house writers. The external submitters and co- or re-published external pieces may differ. Generally seems excellent quality in writing and methods, but selection of facts and direction to analysis is self-admitted and noted by critics. In other words, this isn't the whole story or necessarily a fair one, so conclusions are likely POV but reported data is likely reliable. Positive points for background of reporters usually being well qualified in the field, positive points for being explicit online in how they check and self-admitting their limitations. Minor negatives that with the analysis pieces I saw there seems no open access to raw data, and minor negative that I see no example of a retraction. Cheers ] (]) 00:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
	:*{{u|Markbassett}} provide RSs for {{tq|selection of facts}}, {{tq|not balanced coverage}}, {{tq|isn't the whole story or necessarily a fair one}}, {{tq|likely POV}}, and previous request for RSs of {{tq|progressive POV}}, {{tq|have a bias}}, and {{tq|do not present a balanced picture}}. Note: No ], only provide RS, such as ] with ]. ] (]) 22:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
	::* ] ? I don't see any "previous request for RSs" so I'll start from here, and take your asking as giving me permission to ask the same in return. I presume you are asking about their internal reporters instead of noting that they have external submissions and collaborations of co- or republished material not done under the same editorial control. As I recall, I looked their self-declaration and then what others said about them, and did a couple Googles of them with some negative words.
	:::*{{u|Markbassett}}, see . ] (]) 00:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::* ah, I see it now, a few screens *down* from here VS above here. I’ll go put in a reply. ] (]) 02:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
	::* "To expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing"
	::* Follow that with - "First, it’s important to point out that ProPublica focuses mainly on investigative journalism, which is a particular genre that makes its reporting different than, say, political coverage. In most cases, investigative stories make an argument rather than just capture both sides of an issue. ... The stories often have a particular structure: Some person, government agency or other entity allegedly did something wrong and harmed others. Almost always, the wrongdoing is set against a standard — a law, ethical practice or norm. ... So on a certain level, some point of view is baked into investigative stories because, in many cases, reporters begin with a tip or data that suggests wrongdoing and then set out to determine if it occurred."
	::* Externally, rates them "Left-Center biased based on story selection that favors the left and factually High due to proper sourcing and evidence based reporting." It notes their collaborations are with including reputable left leaning news organizations. Also it mentions "In general, their investigations look at corruptions and abuses of power. While ProPublica purports to be non-partisan, a review of their recent reports are aimed at right leaning politicians and their issues." This criticism was also mentioned (more colorfully) by The Washington Examiner .
	:::*{{u|Markbassett}}, ] site looks interesting, I'll check it out. ] (]) 00:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
	::* Example of criticism included their Surgeons Scorecard, as an example of Bad Data vs No Data. It was noted as , eviscerated in by Lisa Rosenbaum, and critiqued by .
	::* I think that'll do for a start - next I'll put a question back at you. Cheers ] (]) 00:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::* {{u|X1\}}, MBFC is not reliable in the slightest (as several discussions on this noticeboard have conclusively shown). The site is basically one random dude's opinions. It's not surprising in the slightest but still incredibly disappointing that a highly active editor in American politics, Markbassett, cites it as a reliable source while he attacks one of the greatest journalistic outfits as unreliable. Just further proof of why editing in American politics is so dysfunctional. ] (]) 01:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Generally reliable in its areas of expertise''' When ProPublica does analysis, their number-crunching is reliable. But before they get to crunching numbers, ProPublica designs their studies to test what is generally a partisan hypothesis. They've done good work with the ''New Yorker'' in exposing ethical abuses surrounding commercial "storefront" stem cell therapy and their work's been deemed reliable by third party commenters such as medicinal chemist Derek Lowe in his "In The Pipeline" blog. They are useful and reliable on some stories, especially on the technical arguments surrounding contentious issues such as net neutrality (where they would be a good part of a balanced survey of informed opinion on such subjects). As with any openly partisan secondary source, editors ought to review the guidance in ] before and while citing ProPublica. --] (]) 22:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
	:*{{re|Vfrickey}} could you provide RSs for the {{tq|openly partisan}} claim? ] (]) 19:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Generally reliable for all purposes''' - Five Pulitzer Prizes in 12 years of operation. Widespread recognition and republication in other sources. Zero evidence of any problems with their reporting. ] (]) 04:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Generally reliable for all purposes''' - The arguments presented by MarkBassett are mind-blowingly bad. Just one reason of many why editing in American politics is dysfunctional. ProPublica is top-tier journalism. ] (]) 13:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Not reliable''' I took a glance at their site and saw this article about "the climate apocalypse to come", which gives me considerable pause. There is no concrete information about this "apocalypse" other than a statement that planned power blackouts are apparently a taste of it. I find the lack of a concrete definition concerning. They don't say what is going to happen or when. The fact that there are predictions of global warming and its consequences does not help them. If an "apocalypse" is coming, they should say what they mean by that. I am therefore going to have to say they are not reliable. Furthermore, their site is obviously ]. ] (]) 23:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	:*{{re|Adoring nanny}} please provide RSs for the claim of {{tq|obviously WP:PARTISAN}}. Your {{tq|glance}} appears rather unfounded, as I see nothing not RS in the ] article on ] you apparently gave as evidence. Using a hyperbolic term in a title has been all-too-common in recent years; not evidence of non-RS. Provide evidence of your {{tq|Not reliable}} claim. ] (]) 22:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	:*{{re|Adoring nanny}} see within the link you provided high quality RSs such as ], ]; the article was co-published with '']''. ] (]) 22:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	:*{{re|Adoring nanny}} presumably, you understand ] is not the same as {{tq|Not reliable}}. ] (]) 22:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	:*{{u|Adoring nanny}}, since you are not providing any backing for your comments, but providing a source to refute, am I to assume your first reaction was just ]? If so, ] your "Not reliable" comment. There are eight "Generally reliable", one equivocation, and your (currently) unbacked "Not reliable". ] (]) 23:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
	::: At Misplaced Pages, where we strive to provide reliable information, we have an article about ], and the ] states that in 1.3 billion years, ] life will probably die out on Earth due to increased Solar luminosity. But we don't have an article on ] because it's a hyperbolic claim that lacks clear meaning.] (]) 01:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Generally reliable for all purposes''' - In 2019 alone, so far, this decade-old organization of more than 75 journalists has won , including a . Anyone who calls an organization for investigative journalism, much honored for its factual accuracy, as "obviously partisan" is betraying their own political bias — like those who dismiss such factual science as evolution as somehow "liberal." I don't even know how this isn't a ] discussion.--] (]) 00:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	:: Please strike per ]. ] (]) 01:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::It's not a personal attack, it's ''ad hominem'', yes but still nothing that needs be struck out. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">] (] <span style="color:#fac">桜</span> ])</span> 13:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::Direct quote from ] -- "'''Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream'''" ] (]) 02:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::I don't think the unsigned comment directly above uses "affiliation" correctly. What the commenter quotes refers to: "Well, he's a member of the ACLU / NRA / New York Yankees, so he's wrong." --] (]) 21:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::Found and added signage missing from above. ] (]) 23:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::You are arguing that "betraying their own political bias" does not refer to a perceived affiliation. I believe it does, specifically perceived political affiliation. ] (]) 01:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Generally reliable''' per their Pulitzer Prize and otherwise incredible work. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 00:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Generally reliable''' ProPublica is used extensively by news sources, it makes no sense to think PP itself to be ''just'' reliable in areas of expertise. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">] (] <span style="color:#fac">桜</span> ])</span> 13:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Generally reliable'''. I’ll respond to Mark in that while ProPublica typically practices investigative reporting, they’re similar to the AP in that they break the news, and outlets pick it up after, as you’ve noted. Also: when picking up an article outide their bureau, it’s subject to the same editorial control and vetting. This is fairly standard, and as far as I know, they’ve never had to issue a major retraction. As the evaluations of the journalistic community’s generally say about ProPublica: “this is a journal for journalists”. It has one of the highest calibers of reputation in journalism internationally. Republication is part of their standard business model. Lastly, it has no professed bias, as you claim. The founders were once asked whether their political leanings would affect the content, and you can clearly see their response in the article. Bolstering that, their reputation is generally regarded as just supplying good journalism. It shouldn’t matter matter whether they’re a 24 hour news television channel, or a newspaper that simply repeats the investigative journalism of others. They’re about as reliable as you get. ''It’s not a source that regurgitates the news, but breaks it. None of your objections are rooted in any policy I’ve ever read.'' As far as WP:DUE, I had no real opinion before, burn simply commented on the sourcing and your mid characterization of it. But given the multiple secondary sources that have started pouring out since, it’s clearly worth a few lines. ] (]) 03:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Generally reliable'''. Highly reputable, Pulitzer Prize-winning publication. This is not a close call. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
	===Discussion (''ProPublica'')===
	*] is rather impressive. --] (]) 21:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
	*Context? Has this been challenged somewhere? What was it being used for? I've not seen treating PP as a source be controversial in the past. If it's been unclear, it would be helpful to link past discussions (plaintext mentions of archives doesn't do much more than a search bar would). If past threads have been clear, we can just add it to RSP. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 00:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
	:*Specifically, the RfC was spawned by , but I have seen other surprising comments during semi-random general browsing. I have generally thought of ProPublica as well-respected ] RS, and with impressive detail at that. But I don't generally follow them, and only recently for the first time looked at their homepage. Maybe I have only seen the best quality works, may be it is on an author by author basis? So I wanted other comments. If some consensus-ish discussion is reached here, then I can point other editors it for reference. ] (]) 19:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
	::*Yeah, that's ridiculous. The nature of ProPublica's work is the journalism itself, not the publishing. Its reporting is highly visible not because people visit its website but because publications like pick up the stories. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 22:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
	::*It looks like their concern is ], not ] (although they're somewhat related.) There are publications whose reputation is so weighty that when they give significant attention to a subject it is almost automatically ]; then there are ones that lack that automatic weight but which still clearly pass ]. Without regard to the question of which one ProPublica falls into (it's usually a much harder and more context-sensitive question to answer than whether a publication passes ]), I don't think they're suggesting it's ''unreliable'', so there's not much for ] to say. That sort of question usually goes to ] (and generally doesn't get an easy answer, because, again, it's tricky.) --] (]) 23:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::* Yes, the concern was DUE -- whether ProPublica alone was enough WEIGHT to get an article into ]. It was posted to the TALK within hours of going online. (I generally suggest NOT just doing a copy-paste of whatever was in the mornings feed, and a 48 hour waiting period for WEIGHT and more information to show up.) Since then a couple major venues seconded it, but of circa 25 major venues that's all so far. It also has some issues of being an esoteric statistic and being phrased as a comparison to Obama rather than an absolute metric or across longer time period, but mostly it just hasn't hit DUE for consideration yet. Cheers ] (]) 23:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	:*{{re|Rhododendrites}} for the Archives;
	:132 = {{tq|a ] investigation, coupled with ProPublica, a journal for journalists, published by people who came from the ] and the ].}} = i.e. among high-quality RSs.
	:178 = ProPublica used as an RS.
	:213 = {{tq|News organizations using a third-party fact checking service}} = ProPublica listed with other high-quality RSs.
	:246 = {{tq|], which is a (high-quality) non-profit, investigative journalism outfit that prouces such investivative pieces but instead/in-addition to publishing on its own niche website, offers them to its affiliated partners that have a broader reach. See ProPublica, which follows the same model at a national scale.}} = ProPublica listed with other high-quality RSs.
	:251 = {{tq|from other reliable sources such as Propublica or ]}} = ProPublica listed with other high-quality RSs.
	:263 = {{tq|ProPublica has an expressed interest in fighting corruption "through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing."}} = strong journalism quality, strong RS.
	:268 = ProPublica used as an RS.
	:] (]) 19:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
	::* ] - again, nobody is saying they do not do some quality work, we're just saying by their own statements (such as this 'interest in fighting corruption "through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing."') they're whole goal and methods are crusading for Progressive topics by showing wrongdoing, so ... only going to show the numbers that advantage Progressive topics, and actually only show numbers in a way that makes things appear Wrong doing. They don't do balanced views or get responses or seek alternative explanations or show something going right even on the Progressive side, they just seek for the expose. For any external writer guest piece, I couldn't say it's the same quality of editorial control but would say it's still going to fit to the model of limited scope and POV. Cheers ] (]) 04:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::*Interesting criteria, but none of it is relevant to the source's reliability, while seeming POV-violating as well.--] (]) 16:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::*So, {{u|Markbassett}} you believe {{tq|spotlighting of wrongdoing}} is only ]? I strongly disagree. Can you provide RSs to back the claims you are making? ] (]) 19:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::* ] no I said that was spotlighting of wrong-doing {{tq|for Progressive topics}}. (I.e. About Immigration, Health care, Education... Civil rights, Criminal justice, Environment, Gender issues... they typically don’t spotlight wrongdoing for other concerns.) Investigative pieces seeking wrongdoing on Progressive topics are a description of how they’re focused. I have seen at least one piece other than ‘spotlighting of wrong-doing’, but just ONE seems rare. Feel free to try offering contrary evidence that most pieces are not exposes, or that most topics are not Progressive (or say Liberal), but I think you’re speaking contrary to obvious facts and their own self-declarations there. Cheers ] (]) 02:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::* ], you beat me to it! {{;)}} It's a sad day when even defenders of the GOP and Trump recognize that an 'interest in fighting corruption "through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing"' is a "Progressive topic", rather than a conservative topic. It didn't used to be this way. It used to be (back in Eisenhower's day) that the GOP prided itself on exposing corruption, rather than covering it up. -- ] (]) 00:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::*Yes, exactly! I love how "fighting corruption" is somehow "Progressive." ''All'' investigative journalism fights corruption and criminality by shining a spotlight on it. Unless one is suggesting that allowing corruption is "Conservative," then one can't suggest that fighting corruption is "Progressive." --] (]) 00:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	== Litmus test for source reliability in the AmPol2 area ==
	]s are a handy method for settling controversial issues. They have been used in ], ], and Misplaced Pages needs to use a good litmus test to help us determine the reliability of sources for certain topics.
	* '''Proposition''':
	: That we adopt a litmus test for judging source reliability in the ] area and will let the best ] make the judgments, not partisan editors. RS must be our ]. Partisan editors do not trump RS and fact checkers.
	This litmus test may be modified for use beyond politics, but for now, let us focus on those political topics because extremely partisan reporting tends to affect politics more than other mundane factual matters (and we can use generally RS for such matters). We know that ] exists and that it is now more extreme than ever. The fringes of both left- and right-wing sources distort the facts, and those sources are thus unreliable for use here.
	Source bias alone is not sufficient for answering these questions, because ] and ] bias, when closer to the center, doesn't have to distort or ignore the facts, but when one gets further from the center, that bias begins to distort the facts, often to the point of pushing deceptive ]s, labeling lies as truth, advancing ], and even ] ("]"). Such ] feed their audiences ] so they end up in an isolating ] of deception, leaving them ignorant of the facts. Such people edit here and come across as ] to edit in the AmPol2 area when they propose that both CNN and Fox News should be deprecated. There is a vast difference, and fact checkers document it.
	* '''Litmus test''':
	: If a source regularly pawns off proven lies as truth to its audience, that makes it an unreliable source.
	* '''Application''':
	: Because fact checkers and RS correctly and consistently label a myriad of ] as lies or unfactual, and most partisan right-wing sources consistently push those lies and unfactual statements as if they were true, then we must not use those sources for AmPol2 subjects.
	: This pushing of Trump's falsehoods is , for these sources. It's not an accident. They are not fact-checking their content, and thus fail our most basic requirement for all reliable sources. They are unreliable sources and should be deprecated for use on AmPol2 subjects. Sources on the extreme left-wing which consistently push falsehoods should suffer the same fate.
	: The litmus test should be used as part of our RS-determination process.
	* '''Specific application to ] and Trump's dubious relationship to truth and facts.''' ''(added later)''
	: Some questions to ask:
	: Does Fox News (talk shows) ever publish a Trump statement and point out it's a lie? Do they do this consistently, so that readers get the impression that most of what he says can't be trusted (because that's the case)? Or do Trump supporters find support for their delusional beliefs by reading content at Fox News? -- ] (]) 16:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	=== Meet the fact checkers ===
	Fact checkers should factor heavily into how we rate sources for factual accuracy. They are the ], so use them often.
	* led by ]
	* ]
	:*
	* ] -
	:* {{cite web | last=Holan | first=Angie Drobnic | title=The Principles of the Truth-O-Meter: How we fact-check | publisher=] | date=February 12, 2018 | url=https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/feb/12/principles-truth-o-meter-politifacts-methodology-i/ | access-date=October 20, 2018}}
	* ] -
	* ] -
	=== Sources which should be deprecated for AmPol2 subjects ===
	All the sources listed here are unreliable for the AmPol2 area. Some are just too biased, and most fail the litmus test and should be deprecated for that reason. Deprecations should be done on a case-by-case basis. The proposal is for the wording and use of the litmus test, not for deprecations here and now.
	{{hat|No deprecations right now}}
	{{Columns-start|num=4}}
	; Hyper-Partisan Left - Most Extreme Left
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* '']''
			== RFC Science-Based Medicine ==
	{{Column}}
			<!-- ] 02:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1736474472}}
	; Hyper-Partisan Right - Most Extreme Right
			Is the blog ] in whole or in part, a ]? ] (]) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (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)
	{{Column}}
	; Hyper-Partisan Right - Most Extreme Right (cont.)
			:{{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)
	* ]
			::Never mind, Raladic added it. ] (]) 20:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	* ]
	* '']'' (WND)<br>(] central)
	* ]
	* '']''
	* '']''
	* ] (Trump TV)
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
			===Responses (Science-Based Medicine)===
	{{Column}}
			*'''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)
	; Russian disinformation
			*'''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)
	* ]
			*: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)
	{{Columns-end}}
	{{Clear}}
	{{hab}}
	] (]) 19:11, 20 October 2019 (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)
	=== Litmus test discussion ===
			*:It's a day that ends in -Y.... ] (]) 01:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
	* I think this might be worthy of an essay, but I think we should be addressing these sources on a case-by-case basis. Some of the sources listed here are already deprecated, others (like Fox News) are reliable for some purposes and not for others. More importantly: news sources in general aren't necessarily all that great for writing encyclopedia entries. ]<sup> ]</sup> 19:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
	:* I totally agree that deprecations should be done on a case-by-case basis. The proposal is for the wording and of the litmus test. Any improvements would be welcome. -- ] (]) 19:39, 20 October 2019 (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 agree with Nblund, and will add that few, if any, news sources would pass a litmus test because of RECENTISM, propagandizing by pundits, and errors and omissions. We already have PAGs that address how we should be using RS - see RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, and NEWSORG for starters. Then we have BLP, NPOV, OR and V. RS become a concern when editors don't strictly adhere to our basic core content policies and guidelines for news sources. We are not obligated to include everything the news publishes within days or even weeks of it being published. There's an obvious reason for the rush - the 2020 election - and I, like many others, oppose WP being used in that manner. Why not wait until a "hot-off-the-press" article is proven/disproven? WP content should have lasting encyclopedic significance, and not serve as an archive for news/pundit articles. Just sayin'....] <sub>]</sub> ] 20:11, 20 October 2019 (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)
	*I like the idea, even if compromises need to be made to get wide consensus. It would be useful to identify which sources would be impacted. --] (]) 21:26, 20 October 2019 (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)
	*I would oppose a litmus test. Sources always need to be evaluated in context, and litmus tests don’t take context into account. ] (]) 21:41, 20 October 2019 (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)
	:* ], yes, no disagreement about context, but many sources do "regularly pawn off proven lies as truth" in the context of AmPol2 subjects. We shouldn't have to constantly deal with newbies, drive-by editors, and editors who lack competence (I gave a very recent CNN/Fox incompetence example from a very experienced editor) who try to use these unreliable sources within the AmPol2 subject area. We should be able to point to the deprecation and quickly end the discussion. We already do that with many deprecated sources, but there are some sources that consistently "pawn off proven lies as truth" which are not deprecated for this topic area. Fox News "regularly pawns off proven lies as truth", and yet we don't deprecate it, even though . Defending such lies is their normal practice. On the rare occasions when it isn't pushing and defending Trump's lies, it's Shep Smith (no longer at Fox), Chris Wallace, or Neil Cavuto who dare to challenge all the other pundits at Fox and tell the truth. (Napolitano occasionally does that.) All the rest push and defend these lies, rendering Fox generally unreliable. Either we deprecate it, or we state clearly that it should be used with caution in this topic area, IOW generally only use it when it is those reporters who are telling the truth. Can we do that? The litmus test is pretty obviously useful. -- ] (]) 22:25, 20 October 2019 (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)
	* This is an interesting proposal. I agree that ] ] like the ones you listed should play a role in how editors evaluate source reliability, since they are a type of reliable source and should be taken into account under the ]. However, since there are not that many fact-checkers, I don't think fact-checkers alone will provide the coverage we need to comprehensively determine whether a source is (un)reliable. Specifically, I don't think articles examined in fact checks form a representative ] of all articles published by a source – fact-checked articles tend to be more controversial. (Likewise, the number of times a source is discussed on this noticeboard is an ] of how controversial it is, but not a strong indicator of how accurate it is. General reliability is determined by evaluating a source in its entirety, and is subject to a long list of ] exceptions.) —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 22:56, 20 October 2019 (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.
	:* The issue isn't so much about fact checkers, but about proven lies which are then pushed as truth on a consistent and daily basis by certain sources. In our current AmPol2 environment, these sources are known to be pro-Trump, and the only way to be pro-Trump when dealing with his falsehoods is to deny he said them, ignore them, or push them as truth. Fox News and other right-wing sources do this as a rule, not an exception. Here's where the litmus test comes into play. If we keep catching a source pushing lies, then they should be deprecated. They are not fact-checking their own reporting. -- ] (]) 00:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
			*::My favoured definition of SPS is: if it isn't traditionally published (book, newspaper, journal) or something directly comparable structurally, it is an SPS. That is in line with USESPS since it considers virtually all websites to be self-published. It is narrow, yes, but it is also consistent across media. It is also not a reflection on reliability in other ways, as SPS vs GREL are two different concerns.
	:** We ] for publishing false or fabricated information, but whether a source meets the threshold for deprecation is a community decision. Based on past discussions and RfCs, ] {{rspe|Fox News}} doesn't have anything close to the required amount of community support for deprecation, resulting in multiple aborted RfCs. In fact, no RfC on Fox News has survived the 30-day period on this noticeboard since {{rsnl|73|Request for Comment on Fox News Channel|the 2010 one}}, which concluded that Fox News is ] under ]. If you don't think this is the correct designation for Fox News, perhaps you could work with {{u|François Robere}} to craft a new RfC at ] that is phrased agreeably enough to last 30 days on this noticeboard. Ultimately, a re-evaluation of Fox News requires consensus from the community. Fact-checkers can inform the community's opinion, but they don't replace it. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 00:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
			*::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).
	:::*{{u|Newslinger}}, I am more concerned about the misinformation, conspiracy theories, anonymous sources, false reports by foreign agents and so on that a variety of MSM sources have been publishing over the past 2 years, not just FOXNews. The Trump-Russia collusion (conspiracy theory) was debunked by Mueller's 2 year investigation, and to say otherwise is wishful thinking or speculation at best. If we are going to evaluate FOXNews, then the same should apply to the NYTimes, WaPo, and others who perpetuated the collusion theory. Granted, several prime time pundits on FOX rejected the collusion theory, but they aren't news anchors or journalists. This proposal is a side door to noncompliance with OR. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 01:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
			*::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.
	::::* Atsme, "conspiracy" was not proven, but the Mueller Report contains numerous examples of collusion/cooperation with an enemy power, all lied about by the Trump campaign. Over a hundred secret meetings between Trump people and Russian assets. It is not a conspiracy theory. Fox News pushes that "conspiracy theory" angle, which is an example of them pushing falsehoods. -- ] (]) 01:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
			*::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)
	::::*{{bcc|Atsme}}For the record, I think it's highly unlikely that there is consensus for any of the sources you mentioned – ], '']'' {{rspe|The New York Times}}, and '']'' {{rspe|The Washington Post}} – to be reclassified as anything other than ]. But, I don't speak for the community at large. For any editor who seeks to challenge existing consensus, my message has been consistent: the community needs to show consensus for the proposed changes, and consensus is gauged through discussion. The past noticeboard discussions on these sources speak for themselves, and in the absence of new revelations that significantly impair the sources' reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, these sources will almost certainly still be considered ] under ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 02:03, 21 October 2019 (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)
	:::* {{u|Newslinger}}, that's a pretty sad situation, of which have been acutely aware. One would think that this new angle (pushing of lies on a daily basis and failure to fact check) would be enough to change consensus, but I fear that we have far too many editors here who believe those lies (no need to look far for examples) to be able to get the desired result. The opinions of partisan editors still trump RS and fact checkers here. Is there any hope for Misplaced Pages? -- ] (]) 01:27, 21 October 2019 (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)
	:::**In my opinion, the editor base of the English Misplaced Pages is diverse enough for any partisanship among individual editors to be cancelled out as editing disputes are resolved through consensus. Depending on how popular an article is, some articles will take longer than others to become neutral, but with enough attention, all articles will eventually meet all of our ].<p>] is not the only standard for inclusion – if a source that is considered reliable publishes incorrect information, its claims can be countered by other reliable sources (including fact-checkers) and presented in a way that assigns ] to each position. If the source publishes a specious superminority position that is not corroborated by other reliable sources, it can be completely excluded from the article under editorial discretion (and in many cases, under ]).</p><p>If a source is unreliable enough, the community will reach a breaking point (e.g. {{rsnl|220|Daily Mail RfC|the 2017 ''Daily Mail'' RfC}}) and reclassify the source to save time on repetitive discussions. I hope that ] never becomes unreliable enough to reach that point, since it is beneficial for editors to have as many usable sources available as possible. But if it does get to that point, go ahead and submit an RfC – and that applies to any source. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 02:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)</p>
			*:::::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)
	* We have just been through a case where Glenn Kessler wrote a falsehood about The Daily Caller, then made (which snopes.com has still . The falsehood was in Misplaced Pages's Daily Caller page for a short while without the correction. I think that shows not just how the proposed fact checkers can be unreliable, but also that they get more trust than they deserve. ] (]) 23:54, 20 October 2019 (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)
	*: Is there something in ]'s that should be corrected? The statements
			*:::::@] 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)
	{{bi|em=3.2|{{tq2|The edited video resurfaced on July 24, 2019, when a writer for the right-leaning ] posted a clip of the interview from the ] (CBN), to her Twitter page. That tweet was then picked up and given legs by U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, who retweeted with the comment, “I am sure the media will now hound every Democrat to denounce this statement as racist. Right?”}} appear to be a correct description of and ]'s . The Snopes fact check does not attribute the clip to '']'' or the Daily Caller News Foundation. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 00:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)}}
			*::::::So basically most local news is self-published as well then. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	::* The story is correct. It was just mistakenly attributed to a Daily Caller contributor, so it was a cse of misattribution. Yes, that was an error, but a rare one. -- ] (]) 00:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
			*:::::::Yes, most local and hyper local news outlets are in fact self-published. ] (]) 17:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	::** '']'' did make an error here, which they corrected, but I don't see any errors from Snopes in their fact check. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 00:19, 21 October 2019 (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)
	::::* Agreed. It's not about never making errors, but about making them rarely and correcting them, all versus making errors as a deliberate method of operation and not correcting them. Then falsehoods are a feature, and not a bug. -- ] (]) 00:21, 21 October 2019 (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)
	:::: was identified as by Molly Prince "reporter@realDailyWire". As far as I can tell the last Daily Caller article by Molly Prince was 2019-07-12. More recent articles are by . As for assertions about rarity, even if there was a way to evaluate that, it wouldn't matter because ] says we have to look, not believe assertions about generalities. ] (]) 01:57, 21 October 2019 (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)
	:::::On July 26, 2019, the day that was published, was {{tq|"Too close for missiles, I'm switching to guns"}}, with no mention of ''The Daily Caller'' or ''The Daily Wire''. Combined with the fact that her still describes her as {{tq|"a politics reporter at the Daily Caller News Foundation"}}, Snopes's description of her as {{tq|"a writer for the right-leaning Daily Caller News Foundation"}} was reasonably accurate at the time of publication. Without an announcement from Prince, ''The Daily Caller'', or ''The Daily Wire'', we don't know the exact date Prince left the Daily Caller News Foundation, or if she is still with them. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 02:31, 21 October 2019 (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)
	::::::Agree, calling that a "falsehood" is quite the stretch. She indisputably was a writer for the Daily Caller (having written an article for them only two weeks before the Snopes fact check was published), and the Daily Caller still says that she "'''is''' a politics reporter at the Daily Caller". Just because she more recently wrote for someone else doesn't make Snopes' statement a "falsehood". If she had never been associated with the Daily Caller, and especially if she had instead been a left-wing writer, things would be different. But to say this is a falsehood, and further that it is one so severe as to impact their reliability, is, in my opinion, beyond the pale. At worst it is an incredibly minor error, but even that is quite debatable. ] (]) 02:53, 21 October 2019 (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)
	::::::We have that Molly Prince identifies herself exclusively as a reporter for Daily Wire, and has been writing for Daily Wire since as early as , after her last known writing for Daily Caller and before the Twitter post in question. And Kessler she was not a Daily Caller reporter at the time of the Twitter post. Newslinger's new thing is something that links to a Russian translation of a Twitter page that says nothing about what she worked for, so it is worth nothing. Thus Newslinger's only evidence is: a Daily Caller page. So acepting Newslinger means accepting The Daily Caller regardless what Prince and Kessler and Daily Wire say. But a simpler explanation exists: The Daily Caller didn't update the page recently. ] (]) 15:36, 21 October 2019 (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)
	::::::: is the ]'s July 26 ] of Molly Prince's tweet. For archival, the Wayback Machine rotates between servers in different geographic areas. Frequently, an archival is performed by a server in an area for which Twitter defaults to non-English pages; for these archivals, Twitter's interface is in the non-English language, but the content of the page (including the user's bio and tweets) are in the language they were originally posted, completely unchanged.<p>However, the that I linked to is in English. On a desktop or laptop computer, you can see Prince's bio, {{tq|"Too close for missiles, I'm switching to guns"}}, on the left side of the page under the transparent gray overlay; the bio does not mention ''The Daily Caller'' or ''The Daily Wire''. According to the archives, Prince changed her Twitter bio to {{tq|"Reporter at @realDailyWire"}} some time between and , well after Snopes published their July 26 fact check.</p><p>It is ''The Daily Caller''{{'}}s responsibility to identify their own staff and Molly Prince's responsibility to identify herself. If they can't do that properly, it's a stretch to shift the blame to Snopes. I agree with {{np|AmbivalentUnequivocality}}: {{tq|"At worst it is an incredibly minor error, but even that is quite debatable."}} —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 19:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)</p>
	::::::::Blame whom you like, snopes was wrong and so were you. I regret having to spend so much time establishing something that was so clear from the start, and will spend no more time on this thread. ] (]) 20:01, 21 October 2019 (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)
	:::::::::But they weren't wrong. Her writing for someone else later does not change the past, or negate her previous work. Without some sort of official statement of separation, there is no reason she cannot be considered a contributor to both publications other than your opinion and assumptions. They are not mutually exclusive. No reasonable person would say "She is only a writer for them in the moment she is published, immediately following that she is no longer a writer for them until the moment her next piece is published. Since she wrote in that publication two weeks ago, she definitely isn't a writer for them now." ] (]) 22:26, 21 October 2019 (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)
	* It's a good start, although I feel that the absolute ''best'' sources for determining reliability are not fact-checker results on individual facts, but in-depth high-quality reporting on the source as a whole and its history. That sort of coverage can put individual controversies into a larger context that establishes the source's entire reputation, as well as establishing if these issues are the result of systemic problems (eg. management that prioritizes advancing a policy goal over fact-checking or accuracy.) --] (]) 07:15, 21 October 2019 (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)
	* Mmmmm, a newspaper as a fact checker? Sorry but we have to be 100% sure any fact checker has no bias.] (]) 08:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
	:* Fact checkers are usually employed as a distinct team within a newspaper, with the sole purpose (until today, anyway) of verifying reportage prior to publication. They do not write pieces, let alone opinion ones. ] (]) 18:45, 21 October 2019 (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. ] (]) 02:19, 8 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)
			== RfC: Bild ==
	*I agree with Newslinger and others who support our current PAGs and how we treat RS, which appears to be the prevailing view here. If wider community input is required, close this discussion and open an RfC at VP. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 10:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1736895671}}
	*I don't like this idea. Who is watching the watchers? They aren't perfect either and it can be problematic when they get into the gray area of fact checking less black and white claims. There is also a concern regarding bias based on outside articles ], ], ],]. The fact check sites are useful but like so many things, especially in politics we are rarely dealing with black and white issues and which shade of gray you wish to view often depends personal views/interpretations. So beyond that, where does this lead? Would we have just a list of "acceptable" sources? What happens if a new source comes on line? Would it be off limits until blessed? What if a story by a source that isn't blessed gets a lot of traction and is seen as both influential and reliable? Really, I'm not sure what this proposal would solve. Yes, many of the political articles are poorly written but I think that has more to do with issues with failing to summarize and writing as if we are trying to persuade in the present vs telling people in the future what happened in the past. ] (]) 15:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
			{{rfc|media|rfcid=FF7A9FD}}
	:* Who's watching ''us''? If you dismiss fact checkers' as un-authoritative, then you're just passing up the responsibility to us. Who says we're better equipped to judge statements then expert investigators? ] (]) 18:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
			What is the reliability of the German tabloid ], including its website Bild.de?
			# Generally reliable
			# Additional considerations apply
			# Generally unreliable
			# Deprecated
			] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Responses (Bild) ===
			*'''Option 3/4''' Bild is a sensational tabloid, that according to Foreign Policy magazine, , routinely violates basic journalistic ethics and is regularly sanctioned for it by German Press Council, being sanctioned by them 26 times in 2021 alone. As evidenced by this piece in Deutsche Welle their process of verification and fact checking is below the standard expected for a reliable source. For those looking for a more comprehensive account of the newspaper and its ethics, I've found this freely accessible short book (less than 100 pages, including references) in German from 2023 on the topic (which can translated using google translate's PDF translate feature) Some quotes from the book (in translation) {{tq|Driven by a special editorial culture ("We are tabloids after all") and driven by editorial decisions in which sales interests take precedence over media ethics, articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers.}} ... {{tq|The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary}}... EDIT: another quote {{tq|BILD's journalism does not focus on the task of providing information, but rather on examining a suitable fact for its emotionality and framing it with commentary.}}} ] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:As an addendum: here are some other examples, including a fake story about migrants committing sexual assault in 2017 , as well as taking scientists quotes out of context to further an agenda regarding COVID during the pandemic ] (]) 14:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' - per Hemiauchenia. I'll add an argument that's weaker but nevertheless entertaining and somewhat indicative, which is that Bild's infamy is so well-established that ] is a common inclusion of university German language, German literature and media studies courses. There hasn't been any argument made, however, that our current usage of Bild is so pervasive a problem that deprecation is necessary. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3/4'''. I don't think we should cite Bild anywhere on Misplaced Pages. It's a sensationalist tabloid like the Daily Mail or National Enquirer.--] (]) 23:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''3''' at least, and I wouldn't say no to '''4'''. This is one of the weakest sources in the region, though I could see it being cited for special purposes, like examples of "headlinese" that aren't in English, etc. But at this point I don't think it's even usable for ] material; if they claimed something as simple as {{var|X}} number of employees, I would strongly suspect it of being an exaggeration. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 23:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''3''' I honestly have no idea how one could even come to approach the idea that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but if previous discussions haven't been enough, I suppose it's worth piling on. Sources should not be considered reliable until they prove themselves to be. ] (] • ]) 05:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''3/4''' Bild is a tabloid and well known for its lack of fact checking and heavy bias. The closest english speaking equivalent would be things like the Daily Mail. In my opinion broadly unusable. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''bad 2 for miscellaneous or political content, unusable for the private lives of BLP and particularly recently deceased people''' it's rather rare that they publish straightforward misinformation, particularly when considering the volume of content published. Having said that, they have a nasty habit of violating both journalistic and actual ethics (and ''allegedly'' breaking the law), so using them is probably broadly unwise. There are some rare cases where they can be useful, but as far as usable sources go, they are on the very lowest end IMO, being a tabloid in an area with an otherwise strong media environment. In addition, there doesn't seem to be a significant issue to justify depreciation. <small> Note: this applies to Bild only, other sources owned by that publisher are usually a lot more reliable, even if I personally consider much of what they believe to be rather questionable </small> ] (]) 10:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Option 2, provisionally''', since no examples of publishing falsehoods and misinformation have been provided so far in this thread and I couldn't find them in the article. See my comments in the discussion section. ]<sub>]</sub> 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3''', I don't see the need for deprecation. Bild is tabloid journalism, and falls far short of the high quality sources that BLP calls for. It shouldn't be anywhere near anything contentious to do with a living, or recently deceased, person. When it comes to it reliability in other areas how other reliable sources view Bild is important, I suggest reading the work by Prof Lilienthal posted by Hemiauchenia. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Option 4''' Tabloid journalism is generally incompatible with the Misplaced Pages project. ] (]) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3''', there even exist a German blog whose aim is mainly to publicize errors of Bild – . But see my comment in the discussion section below. --] (]) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' per ActivelyDisinterested. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 05:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' so no change. Most of our current usage of it seem to be interviews which per ] would be fine. I see no evidence they’re fabricating interviews. Probably usable for mundane things like sports (they seem to cover that a lot). For any contentious anything should not be cited - but they seem to get a lot of interviews with notable people, so we can keep using that. ] (]) 20:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3/4''' per Hemiauchenia... tabloids in general post sensational info that is poorly fact-checked and rife with errors. ] (]) 20:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:it's ''snowing 3'' ] (]) 21:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3/4'''. Academic coverage frequently treats it as an archetypal example of a publisher of misinformation. See eg. --] (]) 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3/4''': Tabloids usually fail reliability. It seems this one is no different. ] (]) 17:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Discussion (Bild) ===
	* The problem isn't with lack of data or with the ability to deprecate sources, it's with Wikipedians' willingness to admit some sources are worse then others. For example, we already have a plethora of sources on the unreliability of Fox News, including peer-reviewed studies (see ]), yet some Wikipedians still insist FN is "as reliable as any other outlet". If Misplaced Pages can't transcend its own politics to follow RS, then by all means - outsource the decision to other RS. ] (]) 18:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
			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)
	::My opinion... playing “gotcha” with the media is pointless. They ALL have twisted the news to fit narratives when it suits... and ALL have been criticized for it at one point or another. Not ONE is exempt. If we are going to call one out, we should call them ALL out. Declare ALL news outlets flawed. ] (]) 20:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. All news outlets may be flawed, but they are not equally flawed. That is like saying "Who cares if one person stole a candy bar and one person murdered a thousand people, they are both criminals and we should treat them equally". A source that makes occasional errors and quickly corrects them is substantively different than a source that constantly, and knowingly, publishes falsehoods with no corrections. ] (]) 22:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::I agree with {{u|Blueboar}}, and will add that the days of automatically considering news sources reliable based on their past reputations for fact checking and correcting mistakes may still hold true for print but what we’re dealing with today is the internet. Not all are automatically corrected as evidenced and again. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some of the mistakes were made purposely. As editors, we must exercise caution, follow our PAGs and use good editorial judgment. We’re dealing with fast news, clickbait headlines, and intense online competition unlike what we had back in the day of prepping articles with editorial oversight before the story hit the daily presses. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 04:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	:: We know both you (Blueboar) and Atsme are of that opinion that all of outlets are equal, but can you actually back it with sources? I've a ] of sources on Fox (including peer-reviewed studies, and quotes from over two dozen RS) that show that FN is unusually, and consistently biased. ] (]) 22:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::As a former independent CNN field producer many years ago, I don't take a position that I cannot back-up with facts, so I'll start by providing a bit of educational reading material that speaks to your question: , , and . ] <sub>]</sub> ] 01:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::: Now you need to read ''Network Propaganda''' by Robert Faris and Yochai Benkler. This documents in great detail the change in Fox News, specifically, but also other right-wing news sources, over the last few years. Fox News has effectively joined the right wing media bubble, it has stopped citing sources outside the bubble, and that has led to a rapid increase in bias. The right wing media bubble does not engage in normal journalistic self-correction, it responds to falsification by doubling down or airbrushing out. If Fox News was ever a reputable news source, that time has ended. The only way you can use Fox is if it's corroborated by a reliable source, in which case there's no need to cite Fox. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::: {{ping|Atsme|Blueboar}} I'm not asking for intros, I'm asking for something ''concrete'', like ''Network Propaganda'' - the book Guy cites. Do you have something like that that makes a reasoned evaluation of how and why American media is "all equal", or not? ] (]) 19:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::The Columbia Journalism Review speaks to some of the information in the source you cited, Guy, and the some European countries have made in good faith in the name of democracy but end-up imposing on free speech. There is a big difference between European democracies and our US Republic, so I expect and welcome different POVs. I'm ok with letting consensus make the decisions here - and they already have, over and over again, regarding FoxNews as being generally reliable along with any other generally reliable news source per RECENTISM, NEWSORG and NOTNEWS. We cannot rely solely on the single source you cited to rule out Fox News - we need specifics, and not from a single POV. I cited more than one source because they are educational/professional and reach into what is at the core of journalism. I look forward to seeing an updated Harvard review on this topic. I oppose state-run media because I am well aware of where it leads. The internet has certainly changed the way we receive our news, and it is not always for the better. There is clearly a trend toward a more slanted liberal bias in msm, perhaps it is more evident because of Trump's antics and the negativity surrounding his candidacy and the fact that so many people don't quite understand the workings of our electoral college and that it is actually part of the checks and balances that guard our elections against a mobocracy. I want to hear all sides of an issue including views from the far left, left, liberal, center, right, far right and independents. I want to know the views of Europeans and their take on US politics. There have been instances when a particular issue seemed out of sorts from a European perspective but was legal and perfectly acceptable in the US under our Bill of Rights. It's a balancing act and requires strict adherence to NPOV. It also exemplifies the need to stick to the facts and avoid speculation. Of course there will be partisan opposition to Fox but there's a reason for high ratings vs the ratings of other cable news networks. We don't have to like it, and I'm sure the opposition to Fox can come up with plenty of reasons to discredit their ratings, but we should at least take it into consideration - the same way we do polling. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 16:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::: The question of how society should fix is it independent of the question of whether (and why) sources in the right wing media bubble are unreliable. The evidence is very clear: Fox was a heavily-right-leaning source, and in recent years has effectively joined the bubble sources that weight "truth" by ideology not factual accuracy. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::If you don't mind me weighing in here, here is what I am seeing, which of course is weighted by ''my'' biases. ], you know how strongly I agree with you on most things, but there is one area where our views differ. I have a pretty much equally low opinion of Team Blue and Team Red, while in my opinion to you every lie and every stupidity of Team Red -- great or small -- is glaringly obvious to you while -- again in my opinion -- to you the the lies and stupidity of Team Blue really hard for you to see. I have also seen many editors who have the exact same problem except with the teams reversed. None of you are stupid or obviously wrong, but you are biased (as am I). I personally see some good and a lot of bad on both teams. We are all biased in different ways and when I say that in my opinion my equal bias against both teams is correct, the obvious reply is "well he would say that, wouldn't he?", but I can say this with a fair dgree of confidence; it is the considered opinion of the Misplaced Pages community as a whole that we should not deprecate Fox News.
	:::::::Look at this NYT story.
	::::::::" 'The faster metabolism puts people who fact-check at a disadvantage,' said Ryan Grim, the Washington bureau chief for The Huffington Post, which reposted the fictional airplane tweets, the letter to Santa and the poverty essay. 'If you throw something up without fact-checking it, and you’re the first one to put it up, and you get millions and millions of views, and later it’s proved false, you still got those views. That’s a problem. The incentives are all wrong.' But Mr. Cook says he thinks that readers can tell which content is serious and which is taken from the web without vetting. 'We assume a certain level of sophistication and skepticism of our readers,' he said."
	:::::::While the paragraph I just quoted is about the left-leaning Huffington Post, I think it is fair to say that the same can be said about many right-leaning sources. We should use them, but with care. --] (]) 16:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::{{u|Guy Macon}}, We do indeed agree on most things, and I would like you to understand why I consider the difference between left-partisan and right-partisan sources to be significant to their reliability. I presume we both agree that mainstream sources such as WSJ, WaPo, NYT and so on are generally reliable for claims of fact made in their factual, rather than editorial, pages.
	::::::::
	::::::::I made a comment below about the asymmetric polarisation of partisan media. Do you accept that Maddow is more likely to be criticised by her audience for a factually incorrect but ideologically pleasing statement, than is Tucker Carlson? Because that's what the facts show. Fox was losing revenue when it pursued more mainstream narratives in relation to Trump, and gained that revenue back when they became more partisan, butt he same was not true of the left. Left-partisan sources and audiences were as likely to share stories about perceived scandals with Clinton as were right-partisans, but right-partisans shared virtually nothing critical of Trump. You could arrive in the polling booth in 2016 having consumed a diet of right-partisan media (especially Fox and Sinclair) and be unaware that Trump was a serial fraudster with a history of sexual assault. I think most Fox viewers even now don't accept that he violated campaign finance law with payments to women, or that he actively welcomed Russian overtures, as Mueller shows, or that he obstructed justice, as Mueller shows.
	::::::::
	::::::::Do feel free to prove me wrong. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 18:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::::Interesting questions! I don't think any "prove me wrong" proof is available. Neither you, I, or the thoughtful right wingers who are biased for team Red are provably/obviously wrong or stupid.
	:::::::::Is Maddow is more likely to be criticized by her audience for a factually incorrect but ideologically pleasing statement than Tucker Carlson? I think yes, but the key phrase is "by her audience". <s>Right</s> Left wing audiences tend to be far more critical and less accepting of total bullshit. There are batshit insane liberal websites, but none of them have anywhere near the audience that Infowars has.
	:::::::::On the other hand, the mainstream media is pretty much the opposite; they criticize factually incorrect claims from the right far more than they do when the left does it. Or they selectively separate the claims from Team Blue but not from Team Red. Every mainstream report about global warming conspiracy theories emphasizes that they are largely a right-wing phenomena, but mainstream reports on antivax and GMO conspiracy theories consistently fail to mention that they are largely a left-wing phenomena. --] (]) 21:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::::: {{u|Guy Macon}}, you've got a typo above. You inadvertently wrote "Right wing audiences..." when you meant to write "Left wing...", at least that's what research and statistics show. Left-wing sources tend to self-correct, unlike right-wing sources. That's because left-wingers are generally higher educated, tend to use fact-checkers, consume a much wider variety of sources (right-wingers use Fox News and little else), and then their better critical thinking skills and knowledge of contrary evidence leads them to reject outright bullshit much quicker than right-wingers.
	::::::::::::Yes. that was a typo. I just fixed it. Thanks! As I said, batshit insane left wing sources do exist, but have nowhere near the audience of something like (spit!) Infowars. --] (]) 06:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::::: Both sides might initially believe something that confirms their biases, but left-wingers aren't in an isolating information bubble, so they self-correct fairly quickly. That's about the viewers and readers. The sources are very different too. Left-wing sources criticize each others mistakes brutally, whereas right-wing sources don't fact check well, and they pass on and amplify nonsense from each other. They rarely cricize other right-wing sources.
	::::::::::: Trump has told his base to not trust fact checkers or believe the "fake news", thus isolating them in a right-wing bubble. They don't even realize they need to self-correct. Also, the left-wing doesn't have the equivalent of Conservapedia. I suspect they use Misplaced Pages, which requires RS and that both sides of the story is told.
	::::::::::: Much of the research on this is found at the non-partisan ]. Start at . -- ] (]) 06:10, 27 October 2019 (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:
	::::::::::{{u|Guy Macon}}, There are indeed thoughtful right-wingers. George Will, for example. But if you look at them case by case, what you find is that they are mainly , or at least deserting the hyper-partisan right wing media.
			* {{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)
	::::::::::But that is an aside to the core question, which is as I outlined above: there is an asymmetric polarisation of partisan media, because left-partisan media suffers reputational and thus financial damage if it perpetuates falsehoods, whereas right-partisan media suffers damage if it publishes accurate stories that run counter to ideology. Do you see any parallels to in reporting by Maddow during the Obama presidency?
	::::::::::
	::::::::::Want to bet five bucks that Chris Wallace follows Shep Smith soon? ''']''' <small>(])</small> 22:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Someone who is rooting for Team Red might respond that at Fox news there was disagreement about how to handle criticism of Trump but that at MSNBC criticism of Obama or Hillary never makes it on air. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about internal political battles at various media outlets, and have no intention of researching them, so I just go along with whatever the consensus is at RSN about what sources are reliable for a specific claim. --] (]) 02:49, 27 October 2019 (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.}}
	:::::: {{re|Atsme}} Again, I'm not looking for intros, I'm looking for something '''concrete'''. Do you have concrete comparatives, investigative pieces or peer-reviewed studies on this question, or not? ] (]) 12:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
			::If that's not enough, the paper includes an 8-page bibliography of other extensive studies of der Bild. It's silly to act like what should decide this source's reliability is some "gotcha" wiki-sleuthing based on recent scandal--we have the verdict of mountains of peer-reviewed research. Make a case based on that, as others have. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 14:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::Hi, FR - I have said all I'm going to say about this subject. If you require more than the high quality diffs I've already provided, may I recommend searching the archives for former discussions about the topic? I believe you will find the concrete evidence you're looking for in the consensus that was obtained time and time again by the community. Another friendly tip - it truly does help to conduct research from the perspective of the opposition. Happy editing! ] <sub>]</sub> ] 13:54, 27 October 2019 (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)
	::::::::: Four days ago you said that {{tq|as a former independent CNN field producer many years ago, I don't take a position that I cannot back-up with facts}}, and suggested {{tq|a bit of educational reading material that speaks to your question}}: two general critiques of "mainstream media", an introductory piece on bias, a piece on European media, and later an item on Fox's financial success. Neither of these is a "concrete comparatives, investigative piece or peer-reviewed study" on the relative veracity, reliability and ideological or political slant of American media outlets. Cheers. ] (]) 16:05, 27 October 2019 (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 tried to be helpful by responding to your questions, but I am working on another topic now, and find myself pressed for time. A simple Google search may help you find the results you seek. Regarding 3 of the sources I cited above: was published by ], a national 501(c)3 nonprofit educational organization, affiliated with ]. . CJR - Columbia Journalism Review - and - ] has been published by ] since 1961. All are high quality RS, and they do address the issues you've brought up. Critical thinking required - you will find answers to your questions in each of the articles published by the sources. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 22:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
			:::::@], I've managed to translate it using Google Translate, thanks!
	::::::::::: I've got ], Atsme, I'm not looking to "Google" some more. I'm looking for you to show me some sources that support what you're claiming, and you're not delivering. Until you do, I can't take your claims seriously.
			:::::These are the key points from the foreword
	::::::::::: As for CJR - here's some more bits. The first and the third are particularly strong, based on scholars and on a good piece of investigative journalism, respectively; the second is based on research by an NGO, and the fourth gives you the general gist of how Fox is seen in media circles:
			:::::# articles are published that hurt those affected and (can) irritate readers
	:::::::::::# {{Cite journal |last=Nelson |first=Jacob L. |date=2019-01-23 |title=What is Fox News? Researchers want to know |url=https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/fox-news-partisan-progaganda-research.php |journal=Columbia Journalism Review |language=en |quote=Then there’s the question of what scholars should do if and when an outlet ceases to be partisan and crosses the line into propaganda. Though scholars like Searles assert that the categorization of Fox as a partisan news outlet akin to MSNBC continues to be accurate, others think that kind of comparison no longer applies. As Feldman explains, “While MSNBC is certainly partisan and traffics in outrage and opinion, its reporting—even on its prime-time talk shows—has a much clearer relationship with facts than does coverage on Fox.” Princeton University Assistant Professor Andy Guess echoes this point: “There’s no doubt that primetime hosts on Fox News are increasingly comfortable trafficking in conspiracy theories and open appeals to nativism, which is a major difference from its liberal counterparts.”}}
			:::::# BILD is running campaigns against political opponents – against Angela Merkel, Karl Lauterbach, Annalena Baerbock, to name just three examples
	:::::::::::# {{Cite journal |last=Altman |first=Anna |date=2019-02-14 |title=Matt Gertz tracks how Fox News manipulates Trump |url=https://www.cjr.org/politics/matt-gertz-trump-tweets.php |journal=Columbia Journalism Review |language=en |quote=Fox knows that Trump is watching, and the network steers coverage to speak to him directly. By December, Fox’s “infotainers,” as Gertz likes to call them, won out, and urged the president to “stay strong,” feeding him cherry-picked poll stats that showed he was “winning” the shutdown. Today, Gertz feels confident that Trump will declare a national emergency to build his border wall, because that’s what Fox has been repeatedly telling him to do.}}
			:::::# 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
	:::::::::::# {{Cite journal |last=Allsop |first=Jon |date=2019-03-11 |title=Fox News draws renewed scrutiny—and outrage |url=https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/fox-shine-pirro-carlson.php |journal=Columbia Journalism Review |language=en}}
			:::::# 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
	:::::::::::# {{Cite journal |last=Allsop |first=Jon |date=2019-10-14 |title=What Shep Smith’s exit says about Fox News |url=https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/shep_smith_quits_fox_news.php |journal=Columbia Journalism Review |language=en |quote=The news-opinion divide... may often have been more smoke and mirrors than an actual firewall, but the appearance of one was of critical importance... The disappearance of Smith—who had been with Fox ever since Ailes founded the network, in 1996—further erodes that perception, perhaps more so than any individual event of the post-Ailes era.}}
			:::::# 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.
	::::::::::: Cheers. ] (]) 13:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
			:::::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 ==
	=== Reboot to specifically address Fox News (talk shows) ===
			] 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 , , , , ...
	It would have saved a lot of confusion above if I had been more specific and referred to Fox News (talk shows) as discussed at ]. Sorry about that.
			We had similar issues with e.g. ], ], and probably many others which I can't find as easily.
	The specific news department does occasionally disagree with the talk show hosts and tell the truth. Unfortunately, some editors believe the talk show hosts and disbelieve the news department when the news department corrects them, and then those editors defend Fox News as a whole, as evidenced by their repetition and defense of the lies told by Trump which Fox News defends and pushes.
			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)
	We need to completely deprecate the talk shows. THAT is what I want to see happen. Can anyone here seriously disagree that Hannity, Ingraham, Tucker, Beck, Levin, Dobbs, ''et al'', never debunk Trump's lies, but push them as a rule, not as an exception? (If a specific talk show consistently tells the truth, we can make an exception for them.) -- ] (]) 16:41, 22 October 2019 (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)
	:I've been thinking about a different but related suggestion. Too often we are dealing with sources that blend news and commentary. Some sources kindly say "this is an OpEd" while others, are far less clear where they are simply reporting the facts vs where they are offering interpretations. Many of the sources that are considered to be moderate to far left or right are there not because they disagree with the basic facts but based on what they say the facts mean. The talk shows are largely opinion based commentary but are given a handy "OpEd" label. The same is true of many parts of stories from sources like The Huffington Post, Mother Jones and etc. Perhaps if we just acknowledge that the lines aren't clearly black and white we could start to treat the sources (from left to right) as commentary rather than fact more often and we could avoid some of the debates. ] (]) 17:48, 22 October 2019 (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)
	:: We deal with opinions by attributing them, but when they are counterfactual, we give them less weight, often to the point of ignoring them. If those lies and conspiracy theories become notable, then we cover them. Sources that have a habit of repeating lies or treating them as facts should be deprecated because they are obviously not "reliable" in even the most basic sense. We do not use unreliable sources. Even lies must be sourced to RS.
			: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)
	:: Most of Fox News talking heads are engaging in disinformation, as Trump generally does. He has repeated some falsehoods so many times that he has effectively engaged in ].<ref name="Kessler_12/10/2018">{{cite news |last=Kessler |first=Glenn |authorlink=Glenn Kessler (journalist) |title=Meet the Bottomless Pinocchio, a new rating for a false claim repeated over and over again |website=] |date=December 10, 2018 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/10/meet-bottomless-pinocchio-new-rating-false-claim-repeated-over-over-again/ |access-date=January 16, 2019}}</ref> Sources which do the same should be treated like we treat him. We do not cite Trump for facts for the following reason: "The president is possibly the single most unreliable source for any claim of fact ever to grace the pages of WP." -- MPants 04:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC) I couldn't have said it better, and editors who believe RS agree with those immortal words by MPants. -- ] (]) 21:41, 22 October 2019 (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.
	Which all takes me back to the idea of why dont we just treat all news media as fundamentally not reliable for any breaking news story.] (]) 17:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
			:"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.
	: The lesser reliability of breaking news stories is addressed at ]. I think it's unlikely for there to be consensus on a measurable definition of "breaking news" (e.g. number of days since the event). The {{tl|Current}} template informs readers that {{tq|"Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable"}}, and should be added to affected articles. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 18:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
			:"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)
	:: Agreed. We tend to wait a few days for things to settle down. -- ] (]) 21:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	: Agreed. ] (]) 22:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	::Waiting a few days really isn't enough time for validation or verification of accuracy in subjective, politically motivated news reports. Investigations continue in the Russia conspiracy theory in an effort to determine exactly what led to the Mueller investigation and what role the Trump-Russia dossier played in the grand scheme. The only conclusion to date is that the Mueller investigation did not what the Democrat's theorized about Trump-Russia collusion. Oh, and I linked to Rasmussen's "political commentary" because of what was suggested above. Non-broadcast sites appear to be more upfront about marking their op-eds, political commentary, etc. although a few still falsely present political commentary as news. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 02:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	::: ''"Investigations continue in the Russia conspiracy theory in an effort to determine exactly what led to the Mueller investigation and what role the Trump-Russia dossier played in the grand scheme."'' ???
	::: Those investigations are part of a cover-up and distraction of the proven role of Russia in the election. It was Russia, not Ukraine, which interfered in the election. The Dossier's role is also well-known. We also know very clearly "what led to the Mueller investigation". The Dossier came after the Crossfire Hurricane investigation had started. Already in 2015, the CIA was receiving evidence of wrongdoing by Trump campaign people and other associates, but it wasn't until Papadopoulos role was told by the Australians that they could start the investigation. THAT is what led to the Russian investigation, which was subsumed into the Mueller investigation. Failure to believe this narrative is a failure to believe what RS tell us (read our articles and believe them!!) and, instead, believing what unreliable sources say. That is a serious deficiency, to put it mildly. There is a term for that here, but my sanction forbids me from saying it. Others may say it.
	::: Current investigations are just part of the Trump/Russian attempts to smear the Dossier, and those who still consider this all a "Russia conspiracy theory" are refusing to accept what RS have told us in their crystal ball hope that future cover-up attempts will succeed in rewriting history and will whitewash Trump and his administration of their collusion with Russia. They won't accept the fact that the Russian election interference happened with Trump's full cooperation and desire, and that is not a "conspiracy theory".
	::: Fortunately, we have honest public servants (some Trump appointees) who dare to tell the truth, and now Trump's false ] is being exposed by the honest people who were in the middle of it. The testimony today was damning. -- ] (]) 05:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::{{u|BullRangifer}}, I don't think there is anything we know "clearly" at this point in time. It is still under investigation. I think laid out the Mueller report clearly - they refer to the Trump-Russia collusion allegations as a "conspiracy theory" - we simply say what RS say: {{xt|"As a result, Mueller’s report provides the opposite of what Russiagate promoters led their audiences to expect: Rather than detailing a sinister collusion plot with Russia, it presents what amounts to an extended indictment of the conspiracy theory itself."}} As for the behind-closed-doors impeachment <s>inquisition</s> inquiry, it lacks transparency and credibility because of the partisanship behind it. The reporting by the same RS that pushed the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory proved nothing, much the same way nothing has been proven about the <s>inquisition</s> inquiry. You even criticized the for sloppy reporting in the recent past. I'm of the mind that we should continue exercising caution and more closely adhere to ] in an effort to avoid POV speculation. It will all come out in the wash. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 15:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::: {{u|Atsme}}, you've conflated The Nation as a news outlet, with The Nation's opinion columnists: columnists for any media are not considered RS. You are quoting "opinion" as if it were "reliable journalism". From W:Reliable sources: "There is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable. Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline." ] (]) 21:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::Hi, ToolmakerSteve. I think perhaps you misunderstood my comment. I simply shared an opinion about the article and quoted a statement they published while informally demonstrating the attribution process. This is a discussion forum, not an article so I don’t understand your criticism and if it’s not the latter, then I’m confused about the point you’re trying to make. ] is described on WP as “covering progressive political and cultural news, opinion, and analysis.” If you disagree with that description, may I suggest raising the issue on the TP of that article? ] <sub>]</sub> ] 23:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::: {{u|Atsme}}, I find your comment profoundly concerning. We absolutely ''do'' know some things. The Mueller report found evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia (i.e. offers the campaign "welcomed" and in some cases reciprocated, including providing internal polling data to Russians) and documented several instances of obstruction of justice, including all three elements of obstruction. Mueller confirmed this to the House during his own testimony. The "oranges" investigation is blatantly pretextual and is founded on the "deep state" conspiracy theory, its bastard child "spygate", and latterly the false claim that Joseph Mifsud was a deep state asset rather than a Russian one. If you genuinely believe the Fox News view of the "oranges" of the Mueller investigation then I have to question your competence to opine on sourcing in the area of politics. The claims have been investigated by the Senate and the Inspector-General and found to be bullshit: the FBI investigation started because Australia reported Papadopoulos' drunken ramblings to their Ambassador. We can be reasonably confident from current reporting that MI6 also reported suspicious links between Russia and Trump. It is not a surprise that this wasn't well handled, there has never been a situation before where a neck-and-neck candidate in a presidential race has suddenly shown evidence of being an asset of a hostile foreign power. Trump's campaign manager was an unregistered foreign agent. His National Security adviser was an unregistered foreign agent. Rick Gates was also acting on behalf of a foreign power. As was Sam Patten. Have you not read the articles on Papadopoulos, Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Cohen, Kilimnik, the IRA? And of course Butina and Giuliani and Parnas and Fruman and Pecker and Stone and the rest? Even if Trump were innocent, the profound shadiness of his inner circle would be ample grounds for suspicion.
	::::: The Nation calls the Trump/Russia thing a "conspiracy theory". No reality-based source does. Mueller documented approaches to the Trump campaign from the GRU that were welcomed. It documents some responses. It shows that at no point did the campaign do what it ''should'' have done (and was required to do by law), which is to contact the FBI. The fact that Russia interfered with the US election is reliably established. With the exception of a fatuous "report" by Devin Nunes, every single investigation has backed that up. Mueller, the Senate, the intelligence community, the Pentagon, the House once not under Tea Party control, the DoJ, Jim Mattis, Mike Pompeo at State, and of course multiple foreign intelligence services including MI6. ''Nobody'' disputes this other than Team Trump.
	::::: The objective facts about the Steele dossier are: Christopher Steele was a long-time British intelligence operative, he ran the MI6 Russia desk from 2006-2009, and is respected by both British and US intelligence. His report was originally commissioned as opposition research by Republicans, then taken up by Democrats after Republicans dropped the contract. It's likely Steele sold it to the Dems because he saw that it contained some bad facts for Trump. The FBI used it in a cautious and appropriate way: their FISA warrant applications contained extensive footnotes informing the court of the nature of the report ''and its funding sources''. The FISA warrants were not based solely on Steele. The FBI investigation into the Trump campaign was not started by the Steele dossier, it was prompted by reports from Australian and likely also British intelligence of unusual contacts between Papdopoulos and the Russians (and possibly other contacts). The fixation on Steele has worked well for the right, and they are repeating it again now with the "whistleblower", but in the real world this is exactly the same as a gang of bank robbers complaining that the person who reported overhearing them plotting worked for the bank or the police. Almost all FISA warrants are approved, and the FBI can investigate any report they deem credible. Pointing at the "oranges" to draw attention away form the extremely damning facts elucidated by the resulting investigation is a political gambit, and any competent Wikipedian should recognise it as such because the facts are by now so well known. Unless you only read right-wing media. But right-wing media are disconnected form the reality-based media these days (cf. ''Network Propaganda''), and it is a massive problem if an editor lives in that bubble.
	::::: Trump (rightly) believes that the fact Russia interfered in the 2016 election and the fact Mueller discovered evidence of collusion and multiple counts of obstruction of justice, undermines the legitimacy of his presidency. Trump probably realises that he did indeed lose the popular vote by the largest margin of any elected president since the modern two-party system began, and that his electoral college victory depended on a total of 77,000 votes in three states that were heavily targeted by Russian social media influence campaigns using data stolen by Cambridge Analytica and internal polling provided to him by Manafort. Moscow Mitch certainly knows, and that's presumably why he is determined not to pass legislation to protect the 2020 election.
	::::: The Barr investigation is a terrifying abuse of executive power which would, on its own, have led to impeachment of any Democratic president who tried to pull a stunt like that. Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch talked for a couple of minutes on the tarmac at an airport and the conservative media completely lost its shit, Trump has sent his attorney general to travel the world to pressure foreign allies into supporting a revisionist history to support his own reputation, and to pursue his political enemies. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	Edit conflict with JzG.
			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)
	], so you continue to refuse to believe the RS we use in our articles, and instead are pushing Trump's counter-narrative/conspiracy theories?
			:{{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)
	Atsme, we DO know "what led to the Mueller investigation".
			===Arbitrary break (Nigerian newspapers)===
			I've gone ahead and created a new section covering Nigerian news organisations at RSP ]. It's a bit stubby at the moment but it's at least a start. ] (]) 00:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:See ]. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 20:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	# It started when the intelligence agencies from eight European allies began to record very troubling conversations between Trump assets and Russian assets as they planned how to disrupt the election. They were just performing their routine surveillance of known Russian spies, and suddenly lots of Trump people were recorded talking to them and scheming. Those secret meetings were myriad, held all over Europe, and kept very secret. The Trump campaign has denied and lied about all of them. That's classic conspiratorial behavior.
			::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)
	# Those eight agencies started to report their findings to the CIA and FBI in 2015. (Even further back, in 2013 Trump was already discussing his plans with Russians, not Americans, to run for president in 2016, and we have evidence that already then the Russians told him very publicly (Facebook and Twitter) that they would support his candidacy. The illegal and unpatriotic plans to disrupt our democratic elections were in the works for a long time before 2016.)
			:::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)
	# As this information from the secret meetings accumulated, the CIA and FBI were slow to respond. The CIA is not allowed to surveil Americans, and the FBI needed more proof. They were waiting for conclusive proof that these people were not acting on their own, but were informing the Trump campaign.
			::::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)
	# That proof finally came when the Australian government reported about the Papadopoulos meetings which proved that he was reporting back to the campaign, acting on their behalf, and that the campaign had insider prior knowledge about the Russian hacking of the DNC and about how the Russians got the stolen mails to WikiLeaks and planned to release them at the most destructive time during the election. 5-6 days later the FBI opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the ongoing and widespread Russian interference.
			: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)
	# Much later the Dossier added some information, but the FBI only believed it because they had other sources which could independently confirm what the Dossier's sources reported.
			::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)
	# Later that Crossfire Hurricane investigation was subsumed into the Mueller investigation.
	# Even Repuplican leaders and the Nunes Report confirm this narrative.
	# THIS is the narrative which RS tell us.
	# THIS is what we write in our articles.
			: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)
	'''Atsme, what part of this narrative do you not believe?''' (Feel free to use the numbers.) How can you edit here while holding such counter-RS views? Why do you keep pushing such views here? I thought you were sanctioned and warned about this path you're on. Pushing this narrative seems to violate your sanction. -- ] (]) 16:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
			::If these media houses(e.g The Daily Times) are churning out AI generated puff pieces then we should indeed add a cautionary clause in the guideline that care must be taken when using these sources to establish notability, especially at venues such as AfD. - ] (]) 12:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			: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.
	:BR, what you know is what the media published, and that's all we're supposed to know, but keep in mind, we must adhere to NPOV when making our selections in whatever RS we cite. As for my concern about RECENTISM, is currently investigating the regarding the Trump-Russia investigation, and it's not just Fox News reporting it. When Durham's report is finalized, that is when we will know what really happened, but RSN is not the forum for us to discuss politics. I'll repeat once more that I will honor whatever consensus says about the reliability of Fox News, so call your RfC. Happy editing! ] <sub>]</sub> ] 17:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	:: NPOV is not the average between reality-based sources and bullshit. You say "what the media published", but that's not where we get these facts from, or at least not entirely. There are court transcripts and findings of fact, reports by US and other intelligence agencies, by the Senate and House committees, inspectors-general, and the Mueller report itself. The ''only'' holdouts are Team Trump, including Fox News. And Fox are pushing the manufactured counter-narrative (bluntly, propaganda) on most of this. That's a big reason why Fox is not reliable for anything other than ABOUTSELF at this point. I refer you again to ''Network Propaganda'', an excellent book recommended to me by ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	:: {{tq|what you know is what the media published}} And what we know about the universe is what scientists publish. That's how it works. We summarize what was published, not ] and not ] at some point in the future. Guy and BR's comments follow that principle; yours very much doesn't. And no, the '']'' is ''not'' an RS. ] (]) 19:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	:: ], the ''Washington Examiner'' is not a RS, but a purveyor and backer of the counterfactual narrative pushed by Trump, his allies, and Russia, the enemy of YOUR country, a narrative which you believe and push here. They are lying to you. It's not right that you read them or cite them. We should only use and support what RS say.
	:: I have described the sequence of events which "led to the Mueller investigation" (your words). What part of that narrative don't you believe and why? You are evading. I suspect it's because you don't believe what RS say because you base your beliefs on what unreliable sources say, and you aren't allowed to use them in articles here. You shouldn't use them on talk pages either. If I have , then please explain. I can only go by what you write and the sources you do use, and they are invariably unreliable sources.
	:: The ideas you voice are only found in fringe and unreliable sources, and '''now you're defending them right here, on the "Reliable notices noticeboard", of all places, so this conversation is extremely relevant to discuss HERE'''. I fear you are being misled. We love you as a person, but we are concerned for your well-being and your influence as an editor. This is sad. Please clarify. Your defense of unreliable sources at the "Reliable sources Noticeboard" is sad and alarming.
	:: Above, ] pointed out the problematic nature of your "opine on sourcing in the area of politics", and that problem needs to be dealt with. It's a violation of your sanction. This must stop. -- ] (]) 19:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::I mean Washington Examiner is a RS for certain things. Also the three of you really need to chill out. ] (]) 00:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::{{u|PackMecEng}}, "There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed." It's a tabloid owned by a cult, handle with extreme caution, and the statements referenced fall solidly with the area of unreliability. As to chill out, well, maybe. Someone we think is nice, is seriously advocating that Fox News is a RS based on references to right-wing propaganda. That's a concern, especially given her history of advocating John Birch Society fringe nonsense at G. Edward Griffin. ''Network Propaganda'' is a very detailed analysis of the influences on Fox content, that shows why our historical acceptance of Fox should not persist. As a data point, Shep Smith has left. He was the only reliably mainstream voice on Fox. Mainstream is not the opposite of conservative, mainstream is the group of sources that collectively share a commitment to empirical reality. Many of us who love America are terrified of the current situation, where the President freely mixes fact and fiction and a substantial proportion of the US population, according to the media they are tracked as watching and sharing, have minimal exposure to factual coverage of important issues of the day, and extensive exposure to distorted or outright false versions. Easily a third of the US is being told that literal conspiracy theories are the true explanation, when every form of evidence usually considered reliable (intelligence agencies, IG reports, court findings of fact etc) says the opposite. That cannot be allowed to creep into Misplaced Pages content. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:37, 24 October 2019 (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.
	:::: In these post-truth Trumpian<ref name="Trumpian_2/1/2018">{{cite web | title=Trumpian | website=] | date=February 1, 2018 | url=https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/trumpian | access-date=August 25, 2018}}</ref> political times, "fringe editors"<ref name="Fringe_editors">'''Fringe editors''': I define them as editors who lack the competence to vet sources, ''and'' who are misinformed by, and use unreliable sources.<br> Here's why I call them "fringe": (1) More people voted for Clinton, with Trump receiving 46.7 percent of the vote in the 2016 election. Trump voters were a clear minority, but "minority" doesn't necessarily equal "fringe". Things have changed since then. (2) That minority has grown even smaller, as many Trump voters have regretted their vote and are no longer supporters. (3) What's left is current Trump supporters, a much smaller group who are indeed fringe, largely because of their blind allegiance to a man divorced from truth and reliable sources. If it weren't for the fact that Trump is actually sitting in the WH, they would be ignored as a radical group of people divorced from reality, just like Trump. (4) Like Trump, they get their "news" from fringe, very unreliable, sources. Keep in mind that before Trump was elected, , yet Trump gets his "news" from them, InfoWars, and Fox & Friends, and he brought Bannon into the WH. Trump is a very fringe president. (5) Here we have a tiny subset of editors who try to include views from unreliable sources, and even try to use those sources as references. They lack the competence to vet sources, which seriously impacts their editing and discussions here. That is all very fringe by Misplaced Pages's standards.</ref> often have a strong Trump bias and point of view because they adopt Trump's open animosity toward RS,<ref name="Pak_Seyler_7/19/2018">{{cite web | last=Pak | first=Nataly | last2=Seyler | first2=Matt | title=Trump derides news media as 'enemy of the people' over Putin summit coverage | website=] | date=July 19, 2018 | url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-calls-fake-news-media-real-enemy-people/story?id=56687436 | access-date=July 23, 2018}}</ref><ref name="Atkins_2/27/2017">{{cite web | last=Atkins | first=Larry | title=Facts still matter in the age of Trump and fake news | website=] | date=February 27, 2017 | url=http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/321406-facts-still-matter-in-the-age-of-trump-and-fake-news | accessdate=March 9, 2017}}</ref><ref name="Felsenthal_3/2/2017">{{cite web | last=Felsenthal | first=Julia | title=How the Women of the White House Press Corps Are Navigating "Fake News" and "Alternative Facts" | website=] | date=March 3, 2017 | url=http://www.vogue.com/projects/13528783/american-women-female-white-house-reporters-political-journalism/ | accessdate=March 3, 2017}}</ref><ref name="Massie_2/7/2017">{{cite web | last=Massie | first=Chris | title=WH official: We'll say 'fake news' until media realizes attitude of attacking the President is wrong | website=] | date=February 7, 2017 | url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/kfile-gorka-on-fake-news/index.html | accessdate=March 27, 2017}}</ref><ref name="Page_2/7/2017">{{cite web | last=Page | first=Clarence | date=February 7, 2017 | title=Trump's obsession with (his own) 'fake news' | website=] | url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/page/ct-trump-lies-fake-news-kellyanne-conway-perspec-20170207-column.html | accessdate=February 9, 2017}}</ref> and believe his untruths and the ] circulated in his support and attacking those he does not like, especially ] and ].
			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.
	:::: These editors consider the RS we use to be fake news. Their bias and point of view are directly opposed to our RS guideline. Because these editors are so at odds with RS, which are the basis of all editing here, they should be monitored carefully. They cannot be trusted. They often create problems and disruption because they imbibe these unreliable sources. Note that not all Trump voters are like this, but the hardcore supporters are, and a few of them edit here. -- ] (]) 14:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::Yes that is what RSP says no consensus, which is not the same as not a RS. This is not something that is being used in an article either so again no idea why you think reliability in general is an issue here. Finally for both of you, this is not a forum for your personal views. ] (]) 15:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::: I will agree that there are a lot of new editors or IPs that come in with "left-leaning sources are bad" and challenge established RSes, which we're never going to do; they are RSes for the reasons defined in ] and having some bias is not a reason to dismiss these. But that said: I personally have zero love of Trump, and absolutely do not agree on the "fake news" claims made. ''But'' I will stand behind the fact that with Trump in office, many of the quality sources have slipped in a lot more bias towards the left which, when coupled with continued growth of opinionated journalism, makes distinguishing good news articles from op-eds disguised as news articles in some of these RSes tricky, and we should at least be aware of this matter. CNN is one of the worst offenders, but the WaPost is not too far behind in that they have blatant dislike of Trump across the board, at least when scanning through their headline articles. It doesn't make these RSes any worse in RSes but we should consider how a piece is framed on a case-by-case basis to determine if it is actually trying to just report impartially or throwing its media weight around. And ''this'' is something difficult to convince editors to consider: there's a lot of editors that go "If it is an RS and not labeled Op-Ed, everything said should be treated at face value." This is where things like RECENTISM needs to be kept in mind. ''Today'' is not the right time to try to be making encyclopedic articles that are based on judgement calls made by the media and instead should more closely stick to facts, and only well after Trump is out of office should we start really considering how media opinion of him comes about. These issues, which have been validly brought up in discussions, should not be swept into the same cries from the new/IP editors that want to make out left-leaning sources as "fake news".
	::::: At the same time, the Trump situation has made the bias in right-leaning RSes far more apparent (as in the case of Fox News here) who are often lock-step in with Trump's claims, so that's even more important to distinguish Fox's actual journalism (which is normally fine, they are an RS by definition) from anything with their talking-heads programs. --] (]) 15:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::Indeed, and the just published a bit of breaking news that aligns with some of the FoxNews predictions. IG will be publishing his report soon re: the FISA investigation, and it will be interesting to see how the media <s>spins</s> presents all this news as time progresses. I’m certainly in no hurry to rush to judgment, especially when all we have to go on is breaking news and/or news sources to build this encyclopedia. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 01:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::{{u|Atsme}}, No, the NYT does not "align with Fox News predictions". Fox is promoting the fiction that the Russia inquiry was an inside job by Democrats. NYT is reporting that Trump has deployed the DoJ to pursue the people he accuses of being responsible for the investigation, using criminal charges.
	:::::::
	:::::::This is in line with his widely-reported attempts to identify the Ukraine whistleblower, who he would undoubtedly target as he has done McCabe, Ohr and the rest.
	:::::::
	:::::::But do feel free to show me examples where Fox has pointed out that using the DoJ to pursue perceived political enemies is wildly inappropriate, as identified by sources quoted by the NYT and others. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 17:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::::Guy, when you quote something i said, please quote it accurately (my bold) “... and the NYTimes just published a bit of breaking news that '''aligns with some of the FoxNews predictions'''.” ] <sub>]</sub> ] 19:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::::{{u|Atsme}}, But it doesn't. And even if it did, it would be a coincidence: Fox News' conspiracist bullshit predicting something that the reality of terrifying abuse of executive power also predicts. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 23:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::: {{re|Masem}} Having a lot of headlines that look "anti-X" doesn't necessarily imply bias - it can just as well stem from "X" being a "bad" subject. That's why these things are measured ''comparatively'' and ''not by us''. American media is well-studied, and '']'' Fox is aberrant in the media landscape. ] (]) 12:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::: Understanding shifting biases is important but as I said, bias alone does not enter into whether something is an RS or not. Nor do I disagree with the stance that any Fox News talking head problem should be avoided like the plague as a source here, and that if we can get coverage from beyond Fox News' news desk coverage (which still meets the requirements of a RS), that would be better. But on the talking head issue, the same problems in talking head works at other RSes (op-eds, analysis pieces, etc.) are also apparent with their bias, and we absolutely should not be using such pieces, at least when discussing a very recent thing, because of the bias they exhibit. The reason to avoid Fox News talking heads has several more problems atop the bias and RECENTISM (eg promotion of false or questionable info), but ''any'' talking head opinion show or piece is trouble within WP for an ongoing topic particularly in the current media landscape. --] (]) 14:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::{{u|Masem}}, You are correct, but you have missed an important point. I refer again to ''Network Propaganda''. This details negative effects Fox was experiencing by pursuing mainstream narratives around Trump (e.g. reporting on his profoundly shady business career), the effect this had on shares, its loss of social media share - and hence click-based ad revenue - to Breitbart, and its switch during 2016 to uncritical Trump support, which then saw its social shares returning.
	::::::::Compare the following:
	::::::::Maddow is biased. She admits it. If she makes a factually incorrect statement and fails to correct is, she suffers reputational damage with her audience. Liberals consume a wider range of media than conservatives, and tend to value factual accuracy even wen it conflicts with preferred narratives.
	::::::::Carlson is biased. He doesn't admit it. If he makes a factually correct but ideologically inconvenient statement, he suffers criticism from Fox's one-man Nielsen ratings. If he makes a factually incorrect but ideologically acceptable statement he suffers no penalty at all. He might be fact-checked by the mainstream media, but his audience, for the most part, never see that.
	:::::::: The evidence very clearly shows systematic and ''asymmetric'' polairisation and bias in the media. The Wall Street Journal is a right-leaning mainstream RS. Fos is not mainstream any more, it is part of the right wing media bubble and cannot be trusted unless corroborated by a mainstream source (in which case why use Fox?). ''']''' <small>(])</small> 17:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::::I just carefully read the two comments above, each by someone who I respect and almost always agree with. Then I read them again, and really considered them. I have to go with Masem on this one, and I do not think he/she missed any important points. This may, of course simply be because of ''my'' unconscious bias. --] (]) 02:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::: {{re|Masem}} {{tq|bias alone does not enter into whether something is an RS or not}} Of course it does. What is "bias"? It's the tendency of an outlet to sway from objective or meaningful coverage of real events. "Bias" taken to the extreme becomes "propaganda", at which point it's no longer useful for us. Fox has been dubbed "propaganda" by ]. We cannot go counter to RS. ] (]) 12:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::::Bias is not a reason to reject a source, that is explicitly stated in policy.] (]) 13:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::::: Bias ALONE is not a reason, but extreme bias certainly is a factor. When it becomes propaganda, consistent failure to fact check, repetition and pushing of Trump's proven lies, and even providing him with false narratives which he immediately tweets, then we're dealing with a very unreliable source which fails our requirements for being considered a RS.
	::::::::::: We are talking about Fox News talk show hosts, not the News division. Keep that in mind. We often think that Trump invents these lies, but there are numerous times where it is evident he is watching Fox and Friends or Hannity and they create a new lie and/or false narrative, and he then tweets it and starts using it, '''often before the show has even ended'''. Fox News is writing our foreign policy. These Fox News talk show hosts literally manufacture false narratives as a feature, not a bug. They should be deprecated. They do not fact check or self-correct. -- ] (]) 14:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Maybe, but the point made was that bias alone could be a reason, not it has to go beyond bias to inaccuracy. Whilst is may be that Fox news talk shows may well fit that I do not think it is clear cut enough (are all of them this bad, most?) to have a blanket ban.] (]) 14:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::::::: ], they are that bad. (See my response to Masem immediately below.) If there is an exceptional talk show host or show which doesn't fit this pattern, we can make a specific exception for them, as they are an ].
	::::::::::::: I think we can agree that EXTREME bias alone, because it ignores, hides, or totally distorts facts, makes a source so unreliable that we must deprecate it, especially when they do this on a consistent basis. We should not use misinformation sources. In the current political climate, we see this manifested as a consistent pushing of Trump's lies, without fact-checking or pushing back, but rather serving as a bullhorn to magnify the deception. I can't think of any Fox News talk shows where this isn't the pattern, but correct me if I'm wrong. We'll make an exception for such a show or host. -- ] (]) 16:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::Extreme bias should not be a reason to rule out a source, but it should be a consider to ask "are they fact-checking? are they in editorial control?" Those reasons are sufficient to say a source is not an RS, which comes as a result of extreme bias, but that bias is not the reason to block the source. --] (]) 16:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::: ]. I fully agree. There are some very biased sources which stick close to the truth, but they are rare. It is only when their bias causes them to consistently subvert the truth that we should take action and deprecate them. The same principle applies to editors. Editors are free to believe whatever they want, but when their beliefs cause them to violate policy, push POV found in unreliable sources, use unreliable sources, and/or ] found in RS, it is THEN that we should start using topic bans. It is not the belief, in and of itself, that we censure, it is the actions which "come as a result of extreme bias" that cause us to take action. We're on the same page. -- ] (]) 20:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::::: Actually, I would mention the news division as well - it's far from being the best source out there, and shouldn't be used where better sources are available. See for example - 60 pages full of 4 months worth of errors and possible lies ("mistruths", if you'd prefer a euphemism) from Fox News news anchors. ] (]) 17:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: I agree. It is still the exception when the news division pushes back against Trump's lies, and the last time that Shep Smith did it, Carlson criticized him and the leadership did not give Smith the backing he should have gotten, thus revealing the agenda of the Fox News network as a whole. That was the last straw for him and he left Fox News. -- ] (]) 20:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::::Others have pointed out, but there can be extremely biased sources that ''do'' do fact checking and ''do'' make announced error corrections, all fundamental parts of determining whether something is an RS, and thus would still be an RS. But at that point, now it does become an UNDUE factor. It is just that experience tells us that there actually very few works at these points as bias often tends towards extremism when it is that strong, so fact-checking goes out the door to support that bias. This is why it is important to stress that the Fox News journalism side, which is pro-Trump in general, does do all that, maybe not with the rigor of the Old Grey Mare, but its there. I'd opt to use another source if there's that option, but I would not reject a Fox News article (not op-ed) otherwise. --] (]) 14:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::::: ], what you say does apply to the strictly News dept, but not at all to the opinions and talk shows. They are consistently pushing misinformation which they do not correct. Instead they double down on it. Therefore they, not the News dept., should be deprecated. If there is an exceptional talk show host or show which doesn't fit this pattern, we can make a specific exception for them, as they are an ]. -- ] (]) 16:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I am in full agreement on all of Fox's talking head shows on the general principle that they are known to push falsehoods. Never been a question. But I'm speaking in the general broad case to keep in mind beyond just Fox. --] (]) 16:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::::::{{u|Masem}}, It's more than that. See my comments above. Fox suffers damage if it publishes reality that contradicts Trump, whereas mainstream sources suffer damage if they don't. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 00:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::It is not like censorship ala China if that is what you are getting, nor a state-sponsored work subject to gov't review. Fox has decided to stick to its pro-Trump slate on its own volition, and would only be harming its image among its viewers if they went with a anti-Trump piece. That's the same with any biased source. What is harmed is public awareness when the media as individual entities "pick sides" and try to play as persuaders rather than reporters. This is 100% what the Fox talking heads do, but this is also what the op-ed pages of most mainstream sources do ''and'' what opinionated journalism does as well. They don't lose - we do as the consumers of news and in our cases, as people trying to write up articles of permanence for these topics. --] (]) 01:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	I think we can all agree that statements on opinion news shows, just as in newspaper op-ed pages, cannot be cited as facts. If nothing else, the commentators are presumably getting their facts from a journalistic, reportorial source, and that's what we should be citing instead. So the evening Fox News broadcast, like ''The CBS Evening News'' etc., would be ] for facts, but not something like a Sean Hannity or a Rachel Maddow opinion/commentary show. --] (]) 21:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
			Also, there is currently a section at ] tagged ] notifying reviewers and editors of caution in dealing with Nigeria sources. This alongside thorough analysis of Nigerian sources should drastically reduce the promotional articles and create a better future for Nigerian contents on the English Misplaced Pages.] (]) 14:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:
			: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)
	: "Fox News’ Chris Wallace was at it again on Friday, filling the void of truth-telling on a “news” network that defends President Donald Trump regardless of the facts....What Wallace is doing is important. Of course, he’s only stating obvious facts, but with Shep Smith gone from the “news” network viewers are mostly left with wall-to-wall Trump propaganda. So, although Wallace’s honesty should not stand out, unfortunately it does. He’s flying solo and because of that, he deserves credit."
			:{{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)
	Just sayin'... -- ] (]) 21:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
			*<strike>'''Oppose blanket ban'''.</strike> The proponents of the ban have failed to actually demonstrate that ''all'' Nigerian newspapers have ''always'' been unreliable. As far as I can see, the evidence presented does not, for example, give any indication that the Lagos Daily News or the Daily Times were unreliable in 1925. In fact, they do not even appear to have been mentioned. , actually cited above, claims that the quality of Nigerian newspapers was better before the internet. , also cited above, only applies to the South-West geo-political zone, and not the other five geo-political zones (something not mentioned above). We need to take one newspaper at a time, and we need to look beyond the last five minutes. ] (]) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			**There has been no proposal to blanket ban all Nigerian Newspapers, so you are bold opposing a strawman. ] (]) 10:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			***Expressions such as "isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers" do look like proposals for a blanket ban. Everyone else in this thread seems to think that this is a proposal for a blanket ban. If you are not proposing a blanket ban, perhaps you should rephrase your comments in grammatically and semantically correct plain language that other people can actually understand. Anyway, in view of the statement that there is no proposal for a blanket ban, I have struck my !vote. ] (]) 12:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*** FWIW, I too, interpreted it as a blanket ban, and it's clear from people's comments that many other people did as well. Glad to know that that's not what you meant. ] (]) 16:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I would support RSNG in that I would support projects creating source lists. How specific sources are listed on RSNG is first a matter of discussion at the project level (as the list is only at the project level), and RSN if there is no agreement there. This is the same for all project level lists. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{ping|Masem}} {{tq|This is 100% what the Fox talking heads do, but this is also what the op-ed pages of most mainstream sources do ''and'' what opinionated journalism does as well}} No, it's not. FN is unfortonutely unique in the American media landscape:
	* Lauren Feldman, Associate Professor of Journalism and Media Studies at ]: “While MSNBC is certainly partisan and traffics in outrage and opinion, its reporting—even on its prime-time talk shows—has a much clearer relationship with facts than does coverage on Fox.”<ref name=cjr>{{Cite journal |last=Nelson |first=Jacob L. |date=2019-01-23 |title=What is Fox News? Researchers want to know |url=https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/fox-news-partisan-progaganda-research.php |journal=Columbia Journalism Review |language=en}}</ref>
	* Andy Guess, Assistant Professor of Politics and Public affairs at ]: “There’s no doubt that primetime hosts on Fox News are increasingly comfortable trafficking in conspiracy theories and open appeals to nativism, which is a major difference from its liberal counterparts.”<ref name=cjr />
	* A.J. Bauer, Visiting Assistant Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at ], contrasts “esteemed outlets like the New York Times” with “an outlet (Fox) with dubious ethical standards and loose commitments to empirical reality.”<ref name=cjr />
	* Daniel Kreiss, Associate Professor at the ]'s School of Media and Journalism: “Fox’s appeal lies in the network’s willingness to ''explicitly entwine'' reporting and opinion in the service of Republican, and white identity.” (emphasis mine)<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1022982253 |title=Trump and the media |chapter=The Media Are about Identity, Not Information |last=Kreiss |first=Daniel |editor-last=Boczkowski |editor-first=Pablo J. |editor-last2=Papacharissi |editor-first2=Zizi |publisher=MIT Press |date=2018-03-16 |isbn=9780262037969 |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |oclc=1022982253}}</ref>
	* ], Professor Emeritus of History at the ], refers to Fox as "privatized propaganda".<ref name=browning>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/10/25/suffocation-of-democracy/ |title=The Suffocation of Democracy |last=Browning |first=Christopher R. |date=2018-10-25 |work=New York Review of Books |access-date=2019-03-08 |language=en |issn=0028-7504 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20301231235959/https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/10/25/suffocation-of-democracy/ |archivedate=January 1, 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref>
	* Nicole Hemmer, Assistant Professor of Presidential Studies at the ], refers to FN as “the closest we’ve come to having state TV.”<ref name=newyorker>{{Cite magazine |last=Mayer |first=Jane |date=2019-03-04 |title=The Making of the Fox News White House |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/11/the-making-of-the-fox-news-white-house |magazine=New Yorker |language=en |issn=0028-792X}}</ref>
	That's not comparable to any other outlet. See here<ref name=wapopanel>{{Cite video |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/video/editorial/opinion--sean-hannity-is-pretending-to-be-an-opinion-journalist-we-should-know/2018/04/19/36dc37ca-4412-11e8-b2dc-b0a403e4720a_video.html |title=Sean Hannity is pretending to be an opinion journalist. We should know. |date=2018-04-19 |language=en |access-date=2019-03-08 |work=Washington Post}}</ref> for a brief discussion of how other outlets treat "opinion journalism". ] (]) 14:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	:But again, focusing strictly on Fox News' journalism deck, not their talk shows or op-eds, there hasn't been any evidence of them not doing the job that we expect of an RS: FN's journalism has not made up facts (like Breitbart or Sun), they have editorial controls, and they have published corrections when wrong. Not to the rigor of the NYTimes, but for purposes of WP:RS, '''nothing else matters'''. I understand the appeal that FN's journalism desk sitting next to the hotbed of disinformation from their op-eds is a scary combination, and there are certainly signs that the news desk is locked into a pro-Trump appropriate to reporting, but as long as we are sticking to their journalism, there has been no sign of any inappropriate steps taken by them. Selective coverage and bias does not affect evaluation of RS directly. If FN journalism ever crosses that line, ''then'' we can rule them out as an RS. What is being made difficult here is trying to emphasis that we need to look and seperate the content generated by FN between its journalism and its op-ed/talk show areas. The broadcast network is near impossible to distinguish and I would never ever consider trying to use a video segment of FN for that (which to many of the articles you list out above, I would completely agree with how those sentiments apply. I've had to watch FN while at gyms and the like and I feel like it is outright propagada at times). But their website coverage is clearly split between news and op-en/etc, and when they are doing their journalism job, it's reasonably good journalism. --] (]) 14:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	:: ], yes, there is a difference between the News desk and the talk shows, but this section is a "Reboot to specifically address Fox News (talk shows). It would have saved a lot of confusion above if I had been more specific and referred to Fox News (talk shows) as discussed at ]. Sorry about that. The specific news department does occasionally disagree with the talk show hosts and tell the truth." Now that Shep Smith is gone, there is even less justification to give any positive rating.
	:: What we need to do is to deprecate the talk shows. We already have separate ratings at ]:
	::* '''"Fox News (news and website)"''' is rated "Generally_reliable", with this caveat: "Editors are advised to exercise caution when using Fox News as a source for political topics, and to attribute statements of opinion." The website should not be included. It is unreliable.
	::* '''"Fox News (talk shows)"''' is rated "No consensus". That should be changed to "Deprecated", never use, even with atttribution". -- ] (]) 01:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
	:: ] (]) 01:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
	{{sources-talk}}
			===Brainstorming RfCs===
	===Reliability vs UNDUE weight===
			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)
	We have been focused on the reliability of various news outlets, but perhaps we need to examine them from a different angle... that of undue weight. Specifically, does the way that Misplaced Pages uses news media give UNDUE weight to rumor and unsubstantiated opinion? ] (]) 14:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
	:Excellent point, Blueboar. Such decisions are based primarily on one’s perspective and how closely an editor adheres to NPOV when choosing the RS to cite. I tend to favor pragmatic journalism in RS that publish all views without opinion/speculation. Of course, responsible editing can make that happen in their summary of the event, (facts only please), and if they do see fit to include a particular POV, do it according to our PAGs with in-text attribution, but also include any rebuttal (if there is one) so our readers can make their own determinations. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 18:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
	:To that, I would add the following. In my opinion, majority of POV disputes could be easily avoided if all sources used in some article are of the same level of reliability. Thus, if one viewpoint is supported by scholarly peer-reviewed publications, that means an article published in some local newspaper and authored by a person with zero credentials should not be accepted to support an alternative POV. That will easily deprive POV pushers of any tools to advance their POV: if one viewpoint is supported by the '']'' article authored by a renown professor, it would be unacceptable to use the article from some local newspaper to support the opposite view.
	:In addition, I've just checked our policy, and it says that ] are considered reliable sources. It says nothing about newspapers in general, and that leads to some problems, because some users believe that, for example, ''any'' publication in ''any'' newspaper can be used, for example, in history related articles. Taking into account that many local newspapers have a tendency to publish questionable articles, we have a situation when Misplaced Pages ''de facto'' becomes a collection of various rumors. I suggest to move this discussion to the WP:V page, because it seems our policy needs some clarification.--] (]) 18:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
	::This is a real problem. I've been working on ], and a claimed, based on an article in the ''Scranton Times Tribune'' (]) by a no-name, no-credential author, that Davitt had an influence on Gandhi's philosophy of nonviolence. As far as I can tell, this is an apocryphal story that spread on the Internet, as it isn't mentioned in multiple Gandhi biographies. However, there are some editors who would argue that as long as the information isn't explicitly contradicted it ought to be in the article, because the ''Tribune'' is a RS, and you can't cite a negative. <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 19:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
	:{{u|Blueboar}}, a good source will distinguish between fact and speculation. We should include fact, we should not include speculation - about living individuals especially - unless it is so overwhelmingly prominent that we can't ignore it. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 17:46, 26 October 2019 (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)
	I feel it should be pointed out that undue is about significant viewpoints, not accurate or qualified ones. Thus is 100 media RS say "X" we says X, unless better qualified sources say "X is not true".] (]) 13:38, 26 October 2019 (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)
	:Sure, if 100 RS news outlets are all discussing X, then X is probably important enough for us to mention. The question is... when only one or two are discussing X, is it UNDUE for us to mention X? ] (]) 13:58, 26 October 2019 (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)
	::Has to be case by case, hell we have whole articles based on 2 RS. Also what happens when you have 1 academic source and then 1 or 2 media sources reporting or discussing it? I think it is not black and white enough for some blanket rule.] (]) 14:24, 26 October 2019 (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 agree it is best judged “case by case”... but I think we could use more guidance to help us make those case by case decisions.
			: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.
	:::At the moment, we seem to be operating on a purely WP:V/WP:RS basis (that if something is reported in an RS news outlet, we are allowed to mention it based on WP:V)... but, WP:V isn’t the only policy in play. we also need to examine content on a WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE basis. Content can be verifiable (supported by RS Media) and yet still not worth mentioning based on UNDUE. It is a grey zone, so we need more guidance to help us navigate that grey zone. ] (]) 14:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
			: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)
	::::I agree, and have made that point myself on a few articles. But this is a sub thread that has nothing really to do with that, but rather to use of wiki fact checkers to determine RS quality, undue is unrelated to RS and has its own forum.] (]) 14:51, 26 October 2019 (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)
	:A lot of this goes back to RECENTISM. Our coverage of a breaking event should be on primarily facts and very little on opinion, even if that's a "significant" view, when the event is just happening. UNDUE is best applied well after the event to just what the more perennial coverage gives to a topic. And ''that'' is where it may be fine that only a few sources are supporting the UNDUE facets, as long as they high quality RSes looking back at the topic. A NYtimes long-form describing views of, say, the proceedings around Nixon's impeachment would be fine, but not sufficient today for those around Trump's. But that's unfortunately where editors love to dump tons of high-quality RS opinions and the like, and that's yet another problem. UNDUE really needs to consider the time factor. --] (]) 15:00, 27 October 2019 (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 opinion we avoid reporting is our own. The opinion of major commentators at the NYT or Fox are not only RSs for what they say, but can be just as important in the evaluation and significance of events as the events themselves--and sometimes, it seems of even more importance. The problem is including them in proportion, and the question that keeps being raised above is how to make the decision on proportion. We every one of us have the tendency to believe what we want to believe. We each would very much like to believe that the overwhelming majority of people in our country feel the same way as we do on major political questions, and that here is consequently no real need to consider the other position. Anyone realistic must admit that, whichever side we are on, at best a fairly slim majority do will agree with us, though people in the country are divided between which side the majority is. (The people here at WP who discuss US political articles do seem to have a great majority on one particular side, but if NPOV means anything, that should be irrelevant to how we write our articles). As for the country, a year from now we will have an actual vote on this, and can anyone really think that the vote for the side they favor will be 90% or even 70%? The most recent President to get even 60% was Nixon in 1972. We should consider ourselves very fotunate if our favored side gets a majority at all. Or shall we be like a certain political figure who keeps insisting that his side always is in a great majority despite the numbers? ''']''' (]) 05:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
			:# Generally reliable
	::More specifically. Let us say that I am convinced that one side are true patriots devoted to the truth, and the other side selfish scoundrels, trying to propagate lies. That does not entitle me on WP to label them accordingly,no matter how much I think it matters that people see it as I do. The most I will do on-wikito express my actual views is to give a hint of them on as talk page. ''']''' (]) 05:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
			:# Additional considerations apply
	:::We should never be including our opinion, but my point is that we should not be racing to include the seemingly DUE opinion of major sources related to some event/action while that event is still going on or just happened, ''unless'' that opinion is part of the event itself. RECENTISM is about waiting for the dust to settle , and ''then'' apply UNDUE and weight and determine what's the best way to present how opinions were for the permanency of a WP article. Maybe it ends up that while the media disliked how someone behaved during an event, academics come to believe it was for the better good. How'd we write such would be best done after enough time has passed to get that sense, which may take years depending. Unless the opinion is part of the event, it is impossible to judge UNDUE appropriately in the midst and immediate wake of an event - its a kind of ] for current events. We also need to consider worldwide views, not just, say, the US for US events. Phrases like "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" are kind of valuable here to understand that as an impartial encyclopedia we should be looking to write from judging the world view where ever that is appropriate, and that again takes time to figure out, and not in the midst of an event. --] (]) 14:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
			:# 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)
			== ] / ] ==
	== Is research by Amnesty International a valid source for Misplaced Pages? ==
			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.
	Source:
			I really do not see why his claims is so widely allowed and accepted as fact, even though he is undoubtedly more reliable than random blogs or posts on Twitter he's still a journalist making claims without evidence. I would like to establish here definitively if we continue to site theinsneider.com as a source, as we currently do in many articles. ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 21:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	Article: ]
			: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)
	Text in question: {{tq|"Thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process."|}}
			::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)
	What's the verdict on this? Thanks :-) ] (]) 22:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
	* Aside from the grammatical problems with the first sentence, Amnesty is a good source for such topics. -- ] (]) 22:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
	* They're a respected advocacy group, and I would say they're a reasonable source for some basic information. However: there's inherent uncertainty in estimates of extrajudicial executions and other human rights violations, so in-text attribution is probably warranted here unless multiple sources say the same thing. ]<sup> ]</sup> 22:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
	* Ahhh... I mean the title of the piece is "Blood-Soaked Secrets: Why Iran's Prison Massacres are Crimes Against Humanity". That indicates a pretty strong bias on the subject. Most sources like that, I wouldn't go anywhere near, no. If (say) it was ""Blood-Soaked Secrets: Why Hillary's Child Sex Rackets were Crimes Against Humanity", that'd be kind of a red flag too.
			: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)
	:For instance, your quote says
			: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.
	:{{talkquote|Thousands of political dissidents were... extrajudicially executed}}
			: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.
	:but
			: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)
	:1) What is "extrajudicially"? It doesn't sound like the executions were ''illegal'', since apparently the Supreme Leader of Iran said to do it, and with a title like Supreme Leader I suppose he can do whatever he wants. If it was all done according to Iranian law, then throwing in worlds like "extrajudicially" is pretty polemical I'd think, since it leads the reader toward making a conclusion that these events were illegal under Iranian law.
			: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>
	:2) How confident can we be that its "thousands" and not just "hundreds"? Amnesty International is not ''Time'' magazine. At the end of the day, they are here to stop stuff like this from happening, not shuffle papers. If (for instance) saying "thousands" when it's really only "hundreds" makes for a punchier argument, then they'll say that. At least, I sure hope they would (if one's attitude is "Well, saying this will help our cause, but it would, technically, be inaccurate, so let's not", one should probably be working for the ''Los Angeles Times'' and not Amnesty International). They ''might'' be super vigilant about not making possible misstatements of fact for the business purpose of maintaining the integrity of their reputation for veracity. ''Might'' be. I don't know. Since I don't know, I'm suspicious. ] (]) 23:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
			Jeff Sneider's reports, found in his ''TheInSneider'' blog and also ''Above the Line'', have been covered in several other reliable sources.
	::Just to clarify, there's already a Misplaced Pages article about this massacre that the Amnesty International article describes (the ]), so this is about a well-established event. The question is whether the source can be used to add more details about the incident or not. ] (]) 23:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
			His career besides his self-published blog: He has had two notable tenures at '']'', and in between those two tenures, he had a stint at '']'' covering the film industry. This is confirmed , with information on his tenure at ''Variety''. '']'' also as Senior Film Reporter, and says he did work at '']'' before his venture into trade publications, and at one point he contributed reports for '']''.
	:::Amnesty is usually considered reliable but partisan, so it should be attributed. As an aside, "extrajudicial" means "outside the judicial system". For example, the Holocaust was ordered by Hitler and other Nazi leaders but is still extrajudicial because victims were not tried and convicted before being executed. I doubt that Amnesty is deliberately pushing false information because that would damage its credibility beyond the very short term. <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 23:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
	::In context there is a point at which the appearance of "a pretty strong bias" is actually nothing of the sort. Perhaps "a pretty strong emotional reaction", but those can be appropriate at times, like when all reliable sources agree that a mass murder took place. And to answer the question about "extrajudicial", in this case it means that though the killings were ordered by the government and ''de facto'' legal, these were not death penalties resulting from trial. ] (]) 23:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
	:It is a reliable source routinely cited by news media. I don't see that their bias against mass murder is a major problem since no reliable sources take a contrary position. In cases where editors question their information, it can be compared with other reliable sources. But the same is true for any source. ] (]) 23:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
	:Reliable, but attribute to avoid any bias.] (]) 08:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
			These following perennial sources have cited his self-published blog, exemplifying ''']''':
	:They aren't a new source. They are a respected advocacy organization and should be handled as such (in text attribution). With such organizations I've seen a mix of how people establish weight. It's clear when news sources cite something AI says. I've seen similar cases where such organizations are cited when they have a view on a subject but they haven't been cited by others. ] (]) 14:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
			:*'']'', including and
	* At the end of the day, Amnesty International is still an advocacy organization. They are not trying to be neutral and unbiased, they are trying to advocate. That the thing they advocate for enjoys pretty universal support in much of the world, still doesn't make then ''not'' an advocacy organization. If possible, we should prefer to use independent sources that reference or quote AI, and not AI themselves. Even if it is a given that the bare facts are accurate, there is liable to be substantial differences in presentation between an advocacy group vs a journalistic or scholarly source. If we must use AI directly as a source, the information should be attributed. ]] 15:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''', this is an excellent source on such subject. Even if someone considers it "biased" (I do not think it is really biased), such sources are perfectly fine per WP:RS, and especially with explicit attribution. ] (]) 19:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
	* I tend to believe that claims sourced to an advocacy organization should be attributed to that organization. Amnesty International is a respected international organization that is commonly referred to by other sources, but they still exist for the sole purpose of pushing a particular point of view. Because of their prominence, that viewpoint is probably significant in most issues they opine on. But it'd be best to include something like, "According to Amnesty International" whenever using their resource as a source, instead of just treating their claims as fact. ] (]) 22:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
	* I usually see it used with ] and I think that is the right thing to do. --] (]) 22:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Yes, but''' they are ultimately an advocacy group and may not always distinguish clearly between advocacy and research. I'd place them near (perhaps slightly above) SPLC {{rsp entry|Southern Poverty Law Center}} regarding reliability. ] (]) 13:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Yes''' in this case. It's a weighty document that contains much material to allow cross-checking of its claims. The numbers might be open to dispute if it weren't for the fact that they actually list the names: the regime could have skewered the document just by producing the people, if this were a sloppy list. They are an advocacy organisation, sure, but this is a report not a pamphlet or exhortation, and it contains many indicia of reliability and enough hostages to fortune that if it were sloppy it could have been used to completely discredit Amnesty. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' A number of editors have questioned the reliability of Amnesty International on the basis that it is an advocacy group. However there is no policy based reason for that view. ] says, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." In fact very few sources with the exception of tertiary sources such as review studies and encyclopedias are unbiased. Tertiary sources are unbiased in the sense that they seek to explain the biased views in secondary sources according their relative weight of acceptance. But health journals have a bias toward health, biology journals have a bias toward evolution, earth sciences have a bias toward the existence of climate change, etc. ] (]) 01:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
	:* I wrote an essay on the kinds of bias you describe. It is at ''']'''. --] (]) 06:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
			:''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''.
	== The Guardian ==
			:* '']'' covers his reporting
	This newspaper has an inherent left wing bias in all it's articles, It's op-ed pieces are often anti-semetic. Why is it considered as a reliable source for anything?] (]) 00:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
			:* '']'' covers his reporting
	:''The Guardian'' is covered at ]. - <span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span><sup>]</sup> 00:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
	* Here's a ] and ]. Do you have any specific examples that would support your claims against ''The Guardian''{{'}}s reliability? —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 00:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
	* ''The Guardian'' is an eminently RS. Apparently offense has been taken that it accurately describes ] as "Far Right". -- ] (]) 01:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
	* ] is about having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not about being unbiased. A source simply having a perspective you find objectionable isn't sufficient to make it unreliable; see ]. The question when dealing with such sources (and I'm not sure the Guardian would even qualify as such relative to news media as a whole) is whether its perspective or bias influences its reporting. There's a huge difference between a source like ] that simply has a particular perspective and one that (for instance) was ''created'' to advance a perspective or which systematically has that perspective disseminated from above by a set of daily talking points as at ]; and even then, there's a difference between sources that work to advance a particular agenda (but do so 'fairly', ie. by reporting the news as it happens, if with a slant or with selective focus), and sources like the ] that just outright make stuff up, report stories with gross distortions, and otherwise don't exhibit the fact-checking and accuracy that ] requires. --] (]) 06:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
	:So? as has been said multiple times. BIas is not a reason for exclusion, if it was Fox would be banned, its not.] (]) 08:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
	All bias media sources, Fox included should not be used as a RS for any project such as this. If a source is not centre and independent, then you cannot trust what they are reporting is true, or what facts are being ommitted to suit the bias of their articles. But if this is how wikipedia works then so be it. It will continue to be a joke in scholarly circles. Kind Regards J ] (]) 22:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
	: ] {{rspe|Misplaced Pages}} ], and I would certainly hope that ], except for the purpose of studying or quoting Misplaced Pages itself. All readers are advised to ].<p>On media bias, our ] requires us to balance ] with sources representing other perspectives in ] to their ]. {{tq|"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by ], in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."}} (]) The result is a neutral article not obtained by limiting ourselves to extremely neutral sources like the ] {{rspe|Associated Press}} and ] {{rspe|Reuters}}, which would unnecessarily restrict our coverage, but by forming an accurate reflection of the world around us. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 22:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)</p>
	* The ''Grauniad'' has a solid reputation for fact-checking and draws clear distinctions between news and editorial content. It has won many awards for high quality journalism. It is a reliable source. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	* While I generally dislike the use of news media as a source, so long as we do allow that any news media source should be used as a reliable source, the Guardian should. And I say this as someone who has been quite critical of Guardian reportage on a couple of topics; for instance, the Guardian was quite credulous both in its publication of Wikileaks data and also its reiteration of poorly sourced information in China stories. However, with that said, the Guardian has much stronger fact checking, editoral standards and corrections policies than most other news outlets. No news outlet is perfect, and Misplaced Pages is definitely too dependent on them in general. But the Guardian should be one of the last outlets we walk away from, not the first. ] (]) 14:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	* The ''only'' thing I would simply be careful with on the Guardian is that they've taken a firm stance that climate change is real and they will fight disinformation related to it, so when it comes to how they write about climate change deniers/skeptics in terms of opinionated thoughts. eg if they started saying "This idiot John Q Smith thinks that a 1.5degC rise is normal.", we'd be very careful in repeating that on WP (best I know, they haven't done anything like that). Otherwise an RS. --] (]) 14:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	:* Ah... climate change ''is'' real. ] (]) 21:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	:* Wow! Any source that doesn't take a "firm stance that climate change is real" is not a RS, and any editor who doesn't take such a stance should be topic banned from that topic area <u>IF they push denialist opinions</u> (forbidden ]) on those topic pages. The evidence is right up there with the theories of gravity and evolution. -- ] (]) 01:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
	::* It's not the question of whether CC is real or not, its how they would treat those that deny it with derogatory language because of the Guardian's firm stance to support that climate change exists. They can call people climate change deniers/etc. just fine, just that if they stoop to more derogatory terms, that's part of this "bias" and we should avoid including. --] (]) 02:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
	:: {{re|Masem}}, I don't believe you that the news side of the Guardian said, "This idiot John Q Smith thinks that a 1.5degC rise is normal," or anything remotely similar. Link, or it never happened. ] (]) 03:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
	::: That was a hypothetical. I have never seen, nor would expect the Guardian to go there with a statement like that. But '''if''' they ever should, we should be careful of how to use that.--] (]) 04:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
	*''The Guardian'' doesn't outright fabricate stories, unlike The Daily Fail, but there are certain areas where caution should be exercised. It has put out anti-semitic stories in the past (see https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/06/averting-accusations-of-antisemitism-guardian) and probably should be topic-banned in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area. It is probably fine for most other topic areas though. ] (]) 02:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
	*: Since ''The Guardian'' made the necessary corrections ({{tq|"The words were replaced and the articles footnoted to reflect the fact"}}), I don't think this is enough to exclude ''The Guardian''{{'}}s reporting on the ]. ''The Guardian'' apologized for using politically incorrect language, and retracted the language when they received objections. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 02:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
			: and here's him reporting that ] was chosen to play ] in ] of '']'', which ended up being '''spot-on correct''', via '']'':
	== Unspeakable Love ==
			:* per a ] publication, '']''{{'}}s own '']'', covers one of his reports
	It would be OK to use this material {{tq|Soon after the 1979 revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini established the death penalty for homosexuality. In February and March of 1979, there were 16 executions for crimes related to sexual violations}} attributed to the following source in ] article?
	source:{{cite book |first=Brian |last=Whitaker |title=Unspeakable Love: Gay and Lesbian Life in the Middle East |publisher=Saqi Books|year=2011|isbn= 0863564836|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=e0YhBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT44&lpg=PT44&dq=Soon+after+coming+to+power+in+1979,+Ayatollah+Khomeini+established+the+death+penalty+for+homosexuality.+In+February+and+March+1979+there+were+16+executions+for+crimes+related+to+sexual+violatio&source=bl&ots=wOz_xmymX_&sig=ACfU3U1vLYbk-x2ZZzUXxzElDaS0R22I8w&hl=es&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwigvJ6FyKvlAhXDBGMBHRftBJMQ6AEwDXoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=Soon%20after%20coming%20to%20power%20in%201979%2C%20Ayatollah%20Khomeini%20established%20the%20death%20penalty%20for%20homosexuality.%20In%20February%20and%20March%201979%20there%20were%2016%20executions%20for%20crimes%20related%20to%20sexual%20violatio&f=false}}
			:* '']'', (] 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>
	I have to say that I cannot find any other sources to support "Ayatollah Khomeini established the death penalty for homosexuality".] (]) 14:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
			: 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 ].
	:Books are usually poor sources for statements of fact, the reason being that books are usually not fact-checked by independent fact checkers. You are therefore thrown back largely on your confidence in the author. Well let's see... ] has an article. He's a legit journalist, writes for ''The Guardian''... Which means he's not an academic. However, is clearly very expert in the general subject. He speaks Arabic and has written several books. The passage is very specific: "In February and March of 1979, there were 16 executions." Not the sort of thing that a person like him would just make up. He seems unlikely, with his level of expertise, to have confused "executions" with "imprisonments" or something. Is this something he would do on purpose? Well, he's got a website, , so you can check him out more thoroughly there... is his Twitter feed. And is a library of his Guardian articles. He could be vetted more thoroughly thru these, but my overall sense is that no, he probably wouldn't do that, as it doesn't seem to fit what looks to be his business and career model. To the the extent that he might have a strong enough polemical bias to twist facts on purpose, he doesn't show it right off.
	:TL;DR: Has the expertise to not get this wrong. Does not appear likely in my view to have got it wrong on purpose. So, source is OK. Just OK, but OK enough in my book. ] (]) 14:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
			:* And '']'' - reporting on the ''InSneider'' report mentioned above concerning ''Bikeriders'', right . Can hardly get better than trade publications.
	::Source is RS. There are billions of other sources that confirm homosexuals were outlawed under Khomeini "because it went against the Quran". Sky is blue. --] (]) 15:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
			:* '']'' - that Sneider was the first to get the news that ] were coming back for '']'' and ''].
	:::{{ping|HistoryofIran}}, Well in that case, we should use one of those sources instead, one that's been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal or publication known to have a good fact-checking operation. ] (]) 10:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
			:* 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!'''
	I have no idea where the idea books are usually bad sources comes from. The publisher seem reputable, the author is a respected journalist who actual,y has a qualification related to the topic this book is about. Now there may be an argument for attribution, but its RS.] (]) 16:45, 21 October 2019 (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.
	:{{ping|Slatersteven}}, It comes from the idea that books are not fact checked. Articles in ''Time'' magazine are actually gone over by a fact-checker, independent of the write. She consults reference works, makes phone calls, and so forth to double-check that the writer indeed got his facts right.
			: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)
	:Books are not fact-checked in this way. Books are gone over by a copy editor, but she is looking for spelling and grammar mistakes and awkward wording; she might check some facts on an ad hoc basis, but not rigoursly. There's no time; she's got X days to copy edit the entire book, and fact-checking is labor intensive. Sometimes an author will pay out of his own pocket and hire a fact-checker. Not usually.
			: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)
	:And indeed I have some instances of distinguished authors getting fact wrong in books.
			::There are situations where DUEWEIGHT allows a mention even if there is no wider coverage, which is the case here where useful context is being provided. Regardless, I still think the vague wording at BLPSPS is being used to inappropriately prevent additions that should not be covered by it. A subject-matter expert on the entertainment industry is providing noteworthy context on the development process for high-profile film and television articles, we are not talking about unreliable sources making exceptional or contentious claims about individuals and their personal lives. - ] (]) 22:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The ] policy, {{xt|"'''Never''' use self-published sources as ] about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer"}}, is as explicit as can be. That longstanding requirement has been part of the ] since ], and part of the ] when it ]. (It was added to the latter page as a guideline requirement ].) If you would like to contest these policies, you are free to do so on their respective talk pages. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 23:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I was going to mention the wording in ], as it's more explicit, but Newslinger beat me to it. I've found this annoying in the past, where the project of a living person is detailed in a otherwise reliable third party self-published source. However that exact situation is meant to be covered (and excluded) by it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::As I and others have said, the policies against self-published sources used for anything about living people is a bright line rule. And as for ] and ignoring the self-published/BLP issue, if the only source that mentions an aspect of an article subject is a self-published newsletter, then it would more likely to be undue to include based on the proportion of RS coverage. Misplaced Pages is not the great place to ] about what reliable sources should be covering. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 06:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I am not denying what BLPSPS says or how long it has said it, I am taking issue with the way it is being applied. I do not agree that we are violating BLPSPS by sourcing film production and development information to a self-published SME. I also do not agree that it is UNDUE to include information that only a single self-published SME has provided, particularly when it aligns with other details from other reliable sources. I'm not advocating for building an entire article based on such a source or for prioritising it over contradictory reliable sources. - ] (]) 11:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::When I went through and removed most of the mainspace uses of InSneider, the overwhelming majority were reports of people being cast, people being considered for a acting/directing role, when an already cast role was going to make a secret appearance in a film, or creative decisions that can only be made by a very small number of people at a studio (i.e. director, producer, executives) that the guidance at ] leans towards applying the policy.
			:::::If something aligns with what other reliable sources have said, then it would be best to use what those sources have said instead of a SPS. But in any case, UNDUE is not an avenue to bring in content that doesn't meet our verifiability/sourcing policies. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Again, we are not writing a biography about James Gunn or Peter Safran and using Sneider to source claims about their person. Sneider is used to write about the particulars of film production.
			::::::One side of this discussion is looking at the forest, while the other side is focused on the trees. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::BLPGROUP doesn't seem to be relevant to this discussion, it is talking about "corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons" and specifically refers to harmful claims, neither of which apply here. - ] (]) 11:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::The subsection is about when BLP applies to "legal persons" AND "groups". It does not displace ] and in no way limits the applicability of BLP to groups to instances of potentially harmful material.
			:::::::The first part of the paragraph is a clarification about how ] existing as a term of art in law doesn't mean that they are always covered by BLP, which is meant to protect natural persons. The second half of the paragraph applies to all groups and tells us to look at each group on a case by case basis to see where it fits on the spectrum between groups that are small enough that BLP should apply and ones where they are too large. The part about harm is simply noting it is part of the analysis. For creative decisions on films, the people actually making that decision would be very small, so it should attract BLP protections, which means BLPSPS applies. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 03:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::The fact that people make creative decisions on films does not mean we cannot use self-published sources to support those creative decisions, that is such a ridiculous stretch of what the policies say and mean. - ] (]) 09:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Besides the stories involving named people where BLP would obviously apply, the level of creative decisions that InSneider reports on and that Misplaced Pages uses him for are those that would clearly be attributable to a very small number of people (5-10 max). They're typically stuff such as what projects a studio is considering, what characters will be cast, and what the plot of film will be about.
			:::::::::We're not using InSneider for lower-level stuff like what belt buckle was used on a particular costume, what brand of communication devices the PAs use, or what shade of a color was used in a particular CGI shot. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 15:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::I'm going to leave this discussion with two absolutes. #1: Sneider is a dude who knows the industry of which he speaks about, and so long as we consider in-text attribution and consideration of ], we are fine. #2: ]. if BLPSPS or otherwise are keeping us from something helpful and insightful to the subjects of articles, it's within our power to ignore it. These policies don't exist to keep us from expanding the encyclopedia with expertise, especially from sources who don't have to worry about holding back information from seeing publication because of ulterior motives. That is where self-published sources are at an advantage ahead of traditional media. If you wish to hear tales of another subject-matter expert journalist putting a major media organisation on blast for withholding information for ulterior motives, see ] on this very page. '']'' censored CEO killer ]'s face for shady purposes. Not saying all legacy media is compromised, but I'm saying I enjoy seeing self-published journalists actually giving uncompromised coverage of their subjects that is made possible by self-published status. Just like Sneider. If ''general association'', not even ''direct'', with living people makes these sources unusable despite clear merits, then ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::The one policy that ] does not bypass is ]. From this discussion, there is no consensus on ignoring the ] and the ] policies to use Sneider's self-published claims about living persons. That type of content would be permissible on a wiki hosting site like ] {{ndash}} which typically uses minimal reliability requirements for the sake of completionism, but Misplaced Pages's sourcing standards are higher than that of most Fandom wikis. Per ], {{xt|"Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful"}}, particularly if it does not meet Misplaced Pages's reliability requirements. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 17:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::A few editors here are trying to stretch the BLPSPS and SPS policies to prevent Sneider from being used at all, which shouldn't override the existing community consensus and clear evidence that he is a reliable source for film-related reporting. HadesTTW suggested wording that is a good start towards a common-sense solution where Sneider is used, with attribution, for reports on film-related coverage where better sources do not exist. This should lead to a compromise, with Sneider being used in situations where his reports are improving articles while editors become more aware of whether he should be used (and not using him in situations where his reports genuinely fall into BLPSPS territory, could be replaced by a better source, or some other issue such as DUEWEIGHT). All that is preventing us from moving on to that conclusion and ending this discussion is the idea that BLPSPS and SPS apply to every little mention of a living person in a source, which I maintain is ridiculous and inappropriate. - ] (]) 18:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::If you do not agree with excluding self-published sources from being used for claims about living persons, you may propose a change to the relevant policies at ] and ]. What you believe is {{!xt|"ridiculous and inappropriate"}} is actually how these policies have been applied on Misplaced Pages for 18 years, per community consensus. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 18:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::I never said I was against the central ideas of BLPSPS, I completely understand why we want to have a higher standard of verifiability when it comes to exceptional/controversial claims about real people who may take issue with said claims. That makes sense from multiple angles. What I take issue with is using the same standard for non-exceptional claims that happen to involve people. In my opinion, there is a very big difference between (which I accept) and . - ] (]) 19:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::exactly! If I actually paid any attention to X-Men 97, I would have rm'd that in a hot second. Sneider making claims that ] was doing heinous stuff to his staffers is some outrageous content that I would insist we wait on reports by '']'' or '']'' or '']'', any particular source of merit to include those claims in the article. Outrageous claims require usage of especially reliable sources like ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::In the 18 years since that BLPSPS policy was enacted, the industry of journalism has changed drastically with a variety of seasoned journalists and subject-matter experts publishing their reports on their own accord, and I believe it is about time that the policies are updated to compliment such changes to update with the times. I do not think Sneider's status as a self-published source should discount his reliability with his actual reporting in his newsletter, and am more than happy to raise concerns for the policy to be updated elsewhere, but that is not the central issue to determine reliability in {{em|this}} discussion. ] (]) 02:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::Most people on this board are aware of the poor state of traditional journalism and the rise of indie outlets. I myself noted in a ] that ], who has a track record of good journalist work and whose stories I think are accurate, should nonetheless not be used without corroboration and/or discussion by non-SPS RSs because he's a BLPSPS. If any of you think there's appetite in moving from the current bright-line rule to another system for BLPSPSs (e.g. limited carve out where RSN endorses use with attribution), that might be a worthwhile discussion to have. As its stands though, BLPSPS is quite clear and the overwhelming majority of the uses of InSneider are in such cases.
			:::::::::::::::If we do want to go back to discussing the reliability of InSneider for non-BLP claims, I would start with something I asked earlier, are you as a subscriber to InSneider, able to provide examples of if he retracted, corrected, and/or explained why he missed on the Sweeney/Day Drinker, Holland/Spider-verse, Lindeloff/Star Wars stories? Getting a story wrong isn't fatal to use as a reliable source since even the best sources aren't 100%. However, for assessing new sources, correcting mistakes is an indicator of reliability (as long as the miss rate is not too high), but not addressing them is a sign of unreliability. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::The language in ] and ] does not provide an exemption for self-published content about other living persons that is deemed to be uncontroversial. The "central idea" of this requirement is to ensure that any claim (not just controversial claims) about a living person passes adequate editorial oversight before it can be included in Misplaced Pages. There is nothing special about Sneider or his self-published newsletter that would warrant an exception to this requirement, which applies to every other individual who meets the ] criterion. If anyone wants to amend this requirement, which has been applied on Misplaced Pages for more than 18 years, a discussion at ], ], or ] would be the first step to enact the change you are looking for. Such a change, if it gains community consensus, would apply to all sources of this kind and not just Sneider's content. Until then, the use of Sneider's self-published claims about other living persons remains a violation of core content policies. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 06:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::Once again, that is your ''interpretation'' of the policies which is clearly not shared by all editors. I fear a discussion at one of those other places will have similar luck due to a few editors that like things the way they are, but I am happy to give it a go. As for wrapping up this discussion, I still think we should return to the wording that I suggested above in response to HadesTTW. I am not concerned about these apparent "misses" that Patar knight keeps harping on about. Some of these may have been genuinely wrong, but not many of them (which is the case with almost all reliable trade sources as well). Most would have been accurate at the time but then things changed due to the developing nature of films (i.e. Lindelof leaving his SW film, Driver being considered for FF but not getting the part). The Sweeney instance seems to be a blatant case of him getting it wrong and being called out immediately, but that one time isn't enough to make him an unreliable source especially when nearly everything else he has reported aligns with other sources. - ] (]) 10:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::I've started a policy talk page discussion at {{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Self-published claims about other living persons}}. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 20:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	:Nor does the publisher care. HarperCollins etc. know that people buy books by subject and author. No one says "Oh, a new HarperCollins books, I'll buy it". So it's not their business model to care. They won't publish books by InfoWars type authors who make up facts wholesale from whole cloth, because that'd eventually tend to degrade their reputation; that's different from caring whether a proper author is loose with occasional facts. "Reputable publisher" sounds comforting, but it's just a magic word. It doesn't mean much really.
			{{Hatnote|Once Telegram gets mentioned on ], its shortcuts would be ] and ].}}
	:So, a book is little better than a blog. The fact that it has physical mass, hard covers, cost some money to create, fancy dust cover... it feels comforting, but it doesn't mean anything really. Tha's not terrible; a lot of blogs are fine. It's just a matter of how reliable you think the author is, and you have to recognize that without a fact-checker even the best author's book or blog is going to be "Acceptable, but not great". Brian Whitaker looks reliable enough for me. Whether he had published his statement in a book or on his blog makes no real difference. We've decided to trust Brian Whitaker that what he says is true. ] (]) 10:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
			Telegram is unreliable because:
			*Telegram is an ] platform, which means that it is highly unreliable as a source because it is used by the alt-right to evade censorship and publish far-right opinions and pseudoscientific conspiracy theories.
			*Telegram is a ] because it is a social networking service.
			*Most far-right things (such as ], ], and ]) have escaped to Telegram after getting suspended on several mainstream social networking services.
			*Telegram has been described as a "safe haven for spammers and crypto scams" because of how most Telegram groups are flooded with cryptocurrency scammers and other types of spammers. However, t.me links are barely seen on Misplaced Pages (or i just don't see them often).
			*].
			Telegram would either be ] (like all other self-published sources) or ] (because it is alt-tech). However, if t.me links are commonly used to violate ], it would be ].
			] (]) 16:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	::{{ping|Herostratus}} your evaluation of the author was good but I think you may have a more accurate "sense" if you note that the author of has used another book () as the reference for the claims. It is more interesting that in the footnote 31 of the , the author has used email exchanges as a source of information! Can we rely on this?] (]) 06:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::Why wouldn't we? Email correspondence with experts in a given field is a valid way for journalists and academics to obtain information. It also cites a piece by Eliz Sanasarian, and other academic writings, and is published by University of Chicago Press. I don't see anything that would contradict this being a reliable source, in fact quite the opposite. ] (]) 08:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::No less then face to face interviews.] (]) 08:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::Pleas take look at the provided link then make the commment, Not only the source is the email exchanges, but also are this two unriliable website, and . it is what was written in footnote:
	:::::Some of this information is based on an e-mail exchange with Goudarz Eghtedari (Iran). For a discussion of this issue, see Sanasarian 2000 and various issues of the journal Homan (1999–2001). For more information on the Iranian GLB movement, see the website for Homan: The Group to Defend the Rights of Iranian Gays and Lesbians, www.homan.cwc.net. For literature on Iranian lesbians, see www.geocities.com/khanaeyedoost.According to Duran, “homosexual assault is frequently used by the police of repressive regimes, such as the SAVAK during the reign of the Shah of Iran or its successor,SAVAMA, the dreaded security organ of the Khomeini government” (1993, 187). ] (]) 11:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	{{Ping|AmbivalentUnequivocality}} According to which policy of ] is the email exchanges reliable?] (]) 11:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::Are we citing to it?] (]) 11:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::Yes, the main source for that claim is email which as ] demanded, Unpublished materials are not considered reliable.] (]) 12:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::::Hold on I am confused now, is the claim being sourced to the book, or an e-mail?] (]) 12:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::::::A book, which cites another book, which cited email. Staff V seems to be arguing that since the chain starts with email, subsequent books based on the email are not RS. ] (]) 12:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::::::I will reserve judgement on the merits of such an argument (though I think my above responses should give a clue) based upon what his response it.] (]) 12:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	::I suggest then you read ] which does not support your contention. Books are RS, as long as they meet certain criteria, this one does. If you are not happy with this I suggest you take it to village pump and try to get policy changed.] (]) 12:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''', the book very clearly qualify as a good secondary RS on the subject. And what is the argument against using it, exactly? "A book, which cites another book, which cited email"... so the book is not an RS? This is the same "argument" as in the thread just below about Soviet gas vans. Wrong. An author of a secondary RS/a book can cite whatever (or nothing at all), but it is still his/her conclusion, and it is clearly a secondary RS. ] (]) 13:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	::This secondary book is not reliable for this claim, because these claims refers to email! I did not talk about being reliable book or not generally.] (]) 14:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::Not only you are making an original research here, but you are trying to disprove claims made by a reliable source (a book by an expert) while not being an expert on this subject yourself. This is POV-pushing. ] (]) 15:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::Books written by practicing journalists who specialize in reporting on the field the book is about (in this case, the internal politics of Middle Eastern countries) ought to be treated as reliable subject to the precautions stated in ]. Some of the best reporting on the contentious and highly technical field of nuclear weapons proliferation has been in books authored by journalists who work for large newspapers and news magazines. The guidance in ] has never been more appropriate wnen citing news sources in general, not just books or famously agenda-driven news outlets. --] (]) 13:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::It is reasonable to say "''Statements'' written by practicing journalists who specialize in reporting on the field... ought to be treated as reliable subject to the precautions stated in WP:BIASED". It's not necessarily true, but it's reasonable, as long as its understood that there are exceptions, and it depends on what the statement is.
			:I wasn't aware there was anyone suggesting that it might be reliable. ] (] • ]) 10:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Because whether its a book, a blog, an interview, or any other public statement doesn't necessarily or even usually make much difference. Just understand that, book or blog, if the person made a mistake -- for instance, slipped up reading a column of figures and wrote that the 2017 nominal GDP of Czechia is 245,000 (when actually that is the 2018 number) -- nobody is going to check that, probably. So it is not just expertise and lack of bias, you also need an author who wants to be and is able to be pretty careful about each statement of fact she puts under her name. Lots of writers are expert and unbiased, but not super careful. (As I said above, ''this particular'' writer for ''this particular'' statement of fact from ''this particular'' book is probably OK.) ] (]) 18:14, 23 October 2019 (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)
	:::::::And any argument here must be based upon policy, not logic. Policy does not say that blogs and books are the same. Can we close this now, its just going round in circles.] (]) 08:19, 24 October 2019 (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)
	{{od}} I find it dubious to suggest that ] and ] would oppose inclusion of a source just because at some point the contents of that source were communicated via email. I would ask instead whether this source has any reviews that speak to its reliability; is it contradicted by other reliable sources; is it written by an author with a reputation for making shit up? This question seems more one of ] than ] to be honest. And for us to determine how due this particular source is for inclusion we must start by examining whether there's a countervailing view at all. ] (]) 14:38, 28 October 2019 (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 ==
	== ]s in the USSR and Nazi Germany, pt. 2 ==
			] 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)
	After substantial input from editors here including {{ping|Assayer|Slatersteven|Aquillion|My very best wishes|The Four Deuces|Someguy1221|Paul Siebert|Nug|K.e.coffman|ZScarpia}} discussion was quickly . Not being aware of discussion here, I tried to consolidate accounts of NKVD gas vans . Quickly thereafter {{u|My very best wishes}} has expanded our article's emphasis on Soviet use of gas vans, and changed the article's language to be more definitive .
			:. Mr. Klippenstein is being used to cite:
	My main concern is that the Nazi systematic use of gas vans for extermination is being subordinated to their sporadic and uncertain use in the purges in a manner that violates ]. This is especially alarming to me because {{u|The Four Deuces}} suggests that this has been a ] for ] including ].
			:# {{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 ==
	Until this discussion and investigation is included, hopefully in a manner involving a greater number of editors, I think we should be conservative with the article ]. -] (]) 14:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
	:This is not really an RS issue, its a NPOV issue.] (]) 16:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
	:This has been already discussed on WP:NPOV noticeboard , with consensus to expand the section about Nazi Germany. User Assayer promised to expand it, and he is welcome to do just that. Who said "this has been a cause célèbre for holocaust deniers"? If that can be reliably sourced to something other than Holocaust deniers themselves, perhaps this should be included to the page? ] (]) 17:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
	*As others have said, this is a ] / ] issue that is better taken to ] - at this point it's hard to see what reliable-sourcing question is being asked at all, since the real dispute is over focus and framing rather than what sources to use. Although I should also point out (since I see people in the discussion on that page bringing up the previous ] discussions as though they settled this definitively) that those discussions were over whether the sources ''can'' be used under ], not whether they ''should'' be used under ] or, if so, how much weight to give them and what tone to take under ]. Those, unfortunately, tend to be more difficult questions. --] (]) 18:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
			''Slayage: The International Journal of Buffy+'' {{ISSN|1546-9212}} https://www.whedonstudies.tv/slayage-the-international-journal-of-buffy.html
	====Comments by involved users ({{ping|Assayer|Slatersteven|Aquillion|My very best wishes|The Four Deuces|Someguy1221|Paul Siebert|Nug|K.e.coffman|ZScarpia|Darouet}}====
			{{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.''}}
	Actually, there is also an issue that makes this discussion relevant to this noticeboard. On the article's talk page, {{ping|Darouet}} proposed to list all sources that tell about Soviet gas vans, and to summarise which secondary sources are based on which primary sources. I think it would be good to move this discussion here. Moreover, per comments on the NPOV talk page, I propose to organize this discussion in such a way that involved and uninvolved users are separated from each other. In my opinion, noticeboards like this one are created to give more opportunity for non-involved users to voice their opinion, so that style seems to serve to this purpose better.
			* https://www.whedonstudies.tv/editorial-team.html
	Here is my summary of all sources:
			* https://doaj.org/toc/1546-9212
	*A published in ]. The author is a writer specialized in cinematography. He just collected all available testimonies about ]. He provided no own analysis of testimonies, so, in my opinion, this book, despite the fact that it is a useful source of information, is just a collection of primary sources.
			** Links to the www.whedonstudies.tv site
	*The ] article published in 1990 by Zhirnov. This article is not available online (to the best of my knowledge). It is very likely that the Zhirnov's article used the Berg's dossier, the same document cited by the Kontinent (''vide supra'').
			* https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/1546-9212
	:The Zhirnov's article was cited by several secondary sources, each of which used it as the ''sole source'' about Soviet gas vans. These sources are:
			* 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.
	:# Timothy J. Colton. Moscow: Governing the Socialist Metropolis. Belknap Press, 1998. ISBN 0-674-58749-9 p. 286
			* {{-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.
	:# Е. Жирнов. «По пути следования к месту исполнения приговоров отравлялись газом». Коммерсантъ Власть, № 44, 2007 (the article by the same author who just re-tells the story he published in KP).
	:# Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Two Hundred Years Together (Двести лет вместе), volume=2, Москва, Русский путь, 2002, ISBN 5-85887-151-8, p. 297
	:# Yevgenia Albats and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick, KGB: The State Within a State. 1995, page 101
	:# Robert Gellately, Lenin, Stalin and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe, Knopf, 2007, ISBN 140003213X, p.460.
	:In addition, the source Marek Hałaburda, “The Polish Operation”. The genocide of the Polish people in the USSR in the years 1937–1938, Orientalia Christiana Cracoviensia, 2013, v.5, p. 71. just cites the Polish book Wielki Terror: 1937–1938 by Tomasz Kizny, who, according to Joanna Madloch (''The Slavic and East European Journal'', Vol. 57, No. 4 (WINTER 2013), pp. 699-70) is just an independent photographer. Therefore, it is highly unlikely Kizny performed any independent archival research, and, most likely, he is telling the same story that the KP article.
	*The article Н. Петров. «Человек в кожаном фартуке». Nikita Petrov, Novaya Gazeta (ru:Новая газета, спецвыпуск «Правда ГУЛАГа» от 02.08.2010 № 10 (31)) tells essentially the same story as the Zhirnov's article, but it provides no sources, so it is highly likely it is based on the information provided by Zhirnov (an author of the KP article).
	*We also have the Grigorenko's book where he cites (from memory) testimonies of one person who happened to see what he described as usage of a gas van in ] in 1930s. In my opinion, the author provided no analysis of this primary source, so this source should be considered as a highly questionable primary source.
	*Next source is memoirs by ex-policeman М. П. Шрейдеp. According to him, during transportation, the victims were intoxicated by car exhaust that made them semi-conscious. He is not telling that the primary reason was to kill them during transportation. Therefore, usage of this source is a direct violation of the rules that regulate usage of primary sources.
	*The article by Sokolov (Газовые душегубки: сделано в СССР (Gas vans: made in the USSR) by Dmitry Sokolov, Echo of Crimea, 09.10.2012) was published in a local Ukrainian newspaper. It essentially summarizes the information from the above mentioned sources.
	*In addition, we have the article published is a personal by Nicholas Terry, a scholar who is professionally studying and Holocaust denial. This article says the Soviet gas van story is used by Holocaust deniers to blame Jews in invention of gas vans.
			Context: ] and ]
	In my opinion, there is a big problem with usage of sources, which are organized in such a way that multiple sources that used a tabloid article as the sole source of information are presented as many independent sources. In addition, several primary sources are used as secondary ones, whereas the opinion of the scholar who professionally studies the Holocaust is ignored. As a result, we have a three pronged violation: WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR are violated simultaneously.
	Again, to let uninvolved user voice their opinion, all participants are strongly encouraged to comment in "involved" and "non-involved" sections, accordingly.--] (]) 03:04, 22 October 2019 (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)
	:{{re|AmbivalentUnequivocality}} I probably was not clear enough. When I listed the sources that are based on a single KP article, I meant that they cite only this article as a source of information. For example, Solzhenitsyn clearly writes that he obtained the information about gas vans from this KP article, and he does not cite any other source. There is no indication that Albatz, Merridale, Gellately, Solzhenitsyn use any other source besides the Zhirnov's article. Therefore, it is not my guess: they are talking about the same story that happened during the Great Purge, they cite ''only'' the KP article, they cite no arcival documents, they present no witness testimonies, and there is no indication any of them did any independent archival studies of this issue. Therefore, there can be no "probably" here: each of them is based on that KP article, and only on that article. Later articles authored by Zhirnov tell the same story, and they are based on the same single document the author happened to see in 1990, so it is not an independent publication either. The Polish work cites another Polish book authored by a photographer, who also did no archival research, and the only source of information available to him could be either that KP article or some of the sources listed by me above. That is not a guess, that is a logical conclusion.
			: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)
	:In addition, nobody claims these sources should be rejected, the problem is different: if several sources are telling the story that was taken from some single source, we cannot present them as several independent sources. Quite the opposite: we have to list them all, but we must clearly explain the connection between each of them and the original publication each of them is based upon.
			* 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)
	:--] (]) 03:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
			*:That's special pleading. We don't dismiss topics from journals dedicated to other authors, do we?
	::I am referring to things you have said such as "It is very likely that the Zhirnov's article used the Berg's dossier", "The article...tells essentially the same story as the Zhirnov's article, but it provides no sources, so it is highly likely it is based on the information provided by Zhirnov" and "it is highly unlikely Kizny performed any independent archival research, and, most likely, he is telling the same story that the KP article". These seem to be to be your assumptions about these sources, and not verifiable facts. Just because something is, in your opinion, "very/highly/most likely", does not mean that we can consider it as such. That is, as far as I can tell, your original research. ] (]) 05:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
			*:Grok gives the following as peer-reviewed, indexed journals of 20th century authors:
	:::{{re|AmbivalentUnequivocality}} Of course, it is verifiable. Thus, it is quite possible to find Kizny's book and check what source he was using. Taking into account that he himself is not a historian, and his book is not devoted to the gas van topic, it is ''highly unlikely'' that he did any independent research. Therefore, we have a very serious reason to assume it is not an independent source, but just a repetition of what other sources say. That can and should be checked, and, until it is checked, we should not use it.--] (]) 14:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
			** '''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.
	::::I will reiterate; it is only your opinion that this is "highly unlikely", and making such assessments of sources is original research. I give very little weight to assumptions, no matter how serious one thinks the causes for such assumptions may be. ] (]) 04:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
			** '''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.
	:::], it seems this issue does belong to this page, at least, partially. First, should we treat the source that just reproduces a single secondary source as secondary or tertiary? Second, should we treat it as an independent source, or we should clarify the hierarchy of sources (which source is based on which)?--] (]) 14:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
			** '''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.
	*Unfortunately, I think the comments by Paul are misleading and indeed original research. No, the publication in ] is not just a collection of testimonies. There is no such thing as "]". Paul could not even find the article in Komsomolskaya Pravda he tells was used by other sources. All authors of secondary sources clearly express their own views on the subject, they do not even cite directly the alleged source "...", including even later publications by the same author (Zhirnov). We simply do not know what other sources the historians (Albatz, Merridale, Gellately, Solzhenitsyn, etc.) could use, all of them are established experts. If even I could find four additional sources (such as the articles in Kontinent and by Sokolov and memoirs by Grigorenko and Shreider, ''none of which ever mention the article in Komsomolskaya Pravda''), so could others. ] (]) 15:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
			** '''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.
	:# It doesn't matter, if the comments of an editor on sources are "original research" or not. In fact, research is indispensable to assess the reliability of sources.
			** '''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.
	:# The publication in ''Kontinent'' is merely a transcript of interviews for a documentary. The previous discussion at best proposed to use this source with caution and attribution. Actually I am surprised that My very best wishes is so in favour of that source, because it directly contradicts their other sources, in that the Soviet gas vans according to these "eyewitnesses" were not used for execution, but for rendering the victims unconscious before they were shot.
			** '''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.
	:# Albatz, Colton, and Solzhenitsyn cite ''Komsomolskaya Pravda''. Merridale cites Colton. To use Merridale and Colton as seperate sources is misleading. As of now the translator of Yevgenia Albatz' work has even been promoted to co-author status. Does anybody think that this increases reliability?
			** '''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.
	:# It does not matter what ''other'' sources historians might have used use. That's mere speculation. It is clear from the footnotes that many used only one source and others kept copying. Those are not independent sources.
			** '''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.
	:# The current use of sources in the article is so focused upon using everything available, that errors and contradictions are reproduced over and over again. I already introduced a work on Stalin's secret police by Alexander Vatlin. Based upon Berg's personal file it is clear that Berg became chief of the administrative economic department in Moscow’s NKVD in the summer of 1937 and was arrested on 3 August 1938. Instead, based upon a newspaper article by Zhirnov, Misplaced Pages claims that Berg was arrested in 1937. That's an example of ] and demonstrates how (un)reliable Zhirnov is. What could be found on Berg with Vatlin has quickly been removed from the article. Seems that this source didn't fit into the narrative, because Vatlin does not mention "Soviet gas vans".
			** '''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.
	:# To a large degree this is indeed an issue of ]. However, I would like to know when exactly ] and ] were thrown over board. As of now interviews, newspaper articles, novelists and studies from the 90ies are preferred over more recent scholarship.--] (]) 18:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
			** '''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.
	::Verifiable means if I read it and you read it we see the same thing, not that it is accurate. Scholarship is one part of RS, so it ], what it does not say is we can only use scholarly sources. So none of the above throws either out. I really suggest this is closed now, its not an RS issue and is becoming tiresome. Do not ping me again, I have said all I wish to say.] (]) 18:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
			** '''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.
	:::] And, yes, ] There is no grounds for an "anything goes"-approach. If there was any ping, it was unintentional and maybe due to the edit summary. --] (]) 19:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
			*: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?
	====Comments by non-involved users====
	*I do not really want to wade too deeply into this here (Seems like not really the correct place), but I will say that the above argument relies far too much on the assumptions, guesses, and opinions of one editor(unsigned, but page history shows it is Paul Siebert) to the point that it verges pretty deeply into Original Research territory. I am not comfortable with their assessment that all these sources "probably" rely upon the same source, especially when that source is unavailable. I see a whole lot of "in my opinion", "It is very likely", "highly likely", etc. This is really nothing more than guesswork, and you cannot dismiss sources based on an editor's assumptions or guesses, which seems to be the backbone of the above argument. ] (]) 01:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
			* https://www.whedonstudies.tv/volume-110.html Daniel A. Clark and P. Andrew Miller (Northern Kentucky University)
	I am not an involved edd, and have no idea how I am supposed to be involved. We do not second guess sources, we do not use assumption or OR to dismiss them. This is not an RS issue (the sources have been found to be RS) its a weight issue. This is getting tedious now.] (]) 09:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
			** 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).
			** (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)
	====Comments====
	*This is very strange posting by ]. He tells that all multiple RS above "''used a tabloid article as the sole source of information''". Why? No, they did not. Actually, most of the sources above perfectly qualify as independent secondary RS per ] (only two of them are reliably published memoirs by famous people and therefore probably primary RS, which does not preclude their usage per policy). An exception is , which was posted by an anonymous user with Russian name . No, this is not posting by Nicholas Terry. Fortunately, no one suggested to use this blog on the page so far. ] (]) 23:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
	* This is not a RS question, the sourcing is generally fine and can be addressed case by case on Talk anyway. The issue is of ], and as far as I can see we can fix that simply by putting the Nazi section first (since that's far and away the most prominent). I have done that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	* How is this even an argument?! Everyone has heard about Nazi gan vans, lots of sources. "Soviet gas trucks" are covered by Russian tabloids who recount an eyewitness of a truck which nauseated but didn't kill transportees, some sources who repeat the tabloids, and Holocaust deniers who try to downplay Nazi gas vans. Nazi gas vans existed and killed many. The existence of a few "Soviet gas trucks" isn't even certain. ] (]) 11:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	::This page does not include a single reference to tabloids or to Holocaust deniers. I did not see a single RS saying anything about Holocaust deniers in relation to the Soviet gas vans. None of the cited sources downplays Nazi gas vans. ] (]) 11:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	::: I don't know much about this, but I did search. What I found in English: or is on www.vho.org whose title is "The Holocaust Controversy A Case for open Debate". German-Misplaced Pages calls a "Holocaust denier". The is skeptical on Berg - "no evidence". ] (]) 15:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::OK. Russian Misplaced Pages is not an RS, but it provides a link to yet another source , newspaper ] (currently not used on our page Gas van). There, a Russian state security official tells about Soviet gas vans as matter of ''fact''. Furthermore, your both sources (linked pdfs) also claim that Soviet gas vans did exist and refer to an additional source, a "four-part television series ... broadcast in the United States" (also currently not used on our page). However, one of the linked sources is a book by a Holocaust denier as you say, and another one is from the "". Are you saying they should be used for sourcing on the page? ] look OK to me. ] (]) 16:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::: I am not suggesting www.vho.org. Color me skeptical when everything I find in English is linked to Holocaust denial.] (]) 16:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::Yes, that's because some people denied the use of gas vans by ''Nazi''. ] (]) 16:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	* My understanding was that Terry (the central academic RS in this case) was ambivalent if the Soviet gas vans existed but asserted if they did exist they were a small "innovation" with a local scope, not something codified into policy. ] (]) 14:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	::What "central academic RS" do you mean? by this anonymous user ? ] (]) 14:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
	===Source to check===
	These have come up as possible sources, can someone check them?
			==RfC: NewsNation==
	The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45 Stephen Wheatcroft Europe-Asia Studies Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353 "construction of gas-vans ('dushegubki') in 1937".
			What is the reliability of ]?
			* '''Option 1: ]'''
	Cheers.] (]) 15:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
			* '''Option 2: ]'''
	: Sole mention I see is in footnote 75 (page 1353): <blockquote>"Valentin Kovalev quotes a statement from Isaiah Davidovich Berg, the former head of the administrative economic department of the Moscow oblast' NKVD , that he had participated in the construction of gas-vans ('dushegubki') in 1937 in order to gas to death those sentenced to be shot. Further confirmation is needed concerning this sensational claim. See Valentin Kovalev, Dva Stalinskikh Narkoma (Moscow, Univers, 1995), p . 241"</blockquote> So a '''sensational claim''' needing further confirmation. ] (]) 15:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3: ]'''
			* '''Option 4: ]'''
			] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Survey (NewsNation)===
	How about ]?] (]) 15:40, 23 October 2019 (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).
	: One sentence on "ginned up" lorry by Isai D. Berg at Butovo. No discussion, the rest of the page discusses shootings there. ] (]) 15:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
			**NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
	::Is it an RS? If it is then we have an RS that talk s about this. Anything else is another matter.] (]) 15:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
			***In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the ], Coulthart said {{xt|"... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"!}} . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including ] and ], all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects.
	:::The reference number 75 in the Wheatcroft's article is used in the sentence
			***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’."}}
	::::"'' Auschwitz as a centre for mass killing should be compared with the mass shootings of the NKVD throughout the 1930s, and not with the Gulag or the famine.''"
			***He wrote a UFO book titled ''Plain Sight'' which ] described as a {{xT|"conspiracy narrative"}} and a {{xt|"slipshod summary"}}.
	:::The ref 75 says:
			***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.”}}
	::::"'' Valentin Kovalev quotes a statement from Isaiah Davidovich Berg, the former head of the administrative economic department of the Moscow oblast' NKVD, that he had participated in the construction of gas-vans ('dushegubki') in 1937 in order to gas to death those sentenced to be shot. Further confirmation is needed concerning this sensational claim.''"
			***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.
	:::That means that (i) Kovalev refers to the same document that was used by Zhirnov in his KP article, and, most likely, Kovalev's claim is based on the same KP article, and (ii) Wheatcroft, who is a really serious historian specializing in Stalinist repressions, thinks that that claim is "sensational" and needs further confirmation.--] (]) 05:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
			***The '']'' has described him as a {{Xt|"UFO truther"}} with {{xt|"little appetite for scrutiny"}}.
	:::Regarding the book, this page is not available to me, and I couldn't read it. However, if it tells about Berg, then it is definitely based on the same KP article, because the Berg's dossier seems to have been classified again (the only person who happened to see it was Zhirnov). Again, we are speaking about the same story reproduced by several secondary sources. --] (]) 05:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
			***Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked ] investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians.
	::::Which is irrelevant, that is not how RS works. We are not allowed to second guess or analyse RS. They may well be reap;ting the same story (assuming they are, and that is an assumption), they are still RS.] (]) 08:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
			**Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs:
	:::::Not exactly. We ''are'' allowed, and we ''must'' analyse RS before we use them. Thus, my analysis shows that the RS found by you supports the claim that the statement about Soviet gas van found in Valentin Kovalev's book is ''sensational'', and it requires further confirmations. Do you have any objection to that?--] (]) 23:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
			***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"}}.
	::::::Which Misplaced Pages policy tells us ''"we must analyse RS before we use them"''? What you are proposing is research and ] strictly forbids it. --] (]) 12:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
			***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 .
	:::::::] says: "''Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.''"
			:] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::That means, we have to
			*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage ] (]) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::#Analyze the context to determine appropriateness of the source;
			*'''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)
	:::::::#Analyze the structure of the source to determine if it is professional;
			*'''Option 3''' their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. ] (]) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::#Analyze the degree of scrutiny to determine the degree of reliability.
			*'''Option 2''' per Chetsford. – ] (]&nbsp;<b>·</b> ]) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::In contrast, if you just pick a phrase from the source, that is called cherry-picking, and it is not a sign of a good editor.
			*'''Option 1''' since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative.] (]) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::Moreover, as a recent discussion at the demonstrated, OR is applied to the article space only. What you are saying is ] --] (]) 20:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::You misunderstand ], nowhere does it state we need to analyse sources used by a source, that is OR. --] (]) 21:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)		*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. Compare ]. ] (]) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::::An ability to read and understand English texts is an obvious skill that is not supposed to be stipulated by our policy. And, again, this your statement is playing OR against V, which is directly prohibited in areas that are under DS.--] (]) 21:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::::@Paul, I do have one question. You said in your post , "<u>whereas the opinion of the scholar who professionally studies the Holocaust is ignored</u>". What scholar and which source are you talking about? Based on your post (the diff), it is . And you are telling about the alleged "WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR" "violations" by others? ] (]) 23:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
			===Discussion (NewsNation)===
	== should addictivetips dot com and privacyaustralia dot net be considered reliable sources? ==
			*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)
			== Pop Crave ==
	The websites seem to be ] and ], and are cited in ] as citations 19 and 22. ] 03:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	:NO.] (]) 13:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	* Rather obviously not. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	* About these two sites:
	** AddictiveTips (addictivetips.com) is a ] with a . Most of their non-VPN content is of low quality, and AddictiveTips is at best ] for uncontroversial technology-related topics. AddictiveTips should not be used to establish ]. All of the content in AddictiveTips' is ] with ], and should not be cited on Misplaced Pages. Everything under <code><nowiki>https://www.addictivetips.com/vpn/</nowiki></code> should be ].
	** Privacy Australia (privacyaustralia.net) is operated by a , only one of whom appears to be responsible for the site content. This alone makes Privacy Australia a ], but the fact that the site is almost entirely composed of ] with ] means that it should be ].
	{{bi|em=1.6|—&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 03:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)}}
	*** Nice, though I've already removed the citations due to earlier consensus ] 07:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
			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.
	== A personal blog of a professional historian as a source for history articles ==
			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)
	According to The Guardian, Nicolas Terry is a . He collaborated with the ; currently he is a , and he has a personal blog where history related materials are published. Is a reliable source for WP articles devoted to various aspects of the Holocaust and its denial?
			: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.
	This question is a continuation of the previous discussion, but, since the previous discussion is becoming too convoluted, I decided to ask this question separately. Users {{ping|Assayer|Aquillion|My very best wishes|The Four Deuces|Someguy1221|Paul Siebert|Nug|K.e.coffman|ZScarpia|Darouet}} are participants of this dispute, so I would be grateful to see the opinion of non-involved users.--] (]) 03:36, 23 October 2019 (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)
	:Can you provide links to his blog (which you want to cite) and the previous discussion? ] (]) 03:38, 23 October 2019 (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)
	::Sure, forgot to add it. .--] (]) 04:01, 23 October 2019 (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)
	::Where is the previous discussion? ] (]) 13:22, 23 October 2019 (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)
	*'''No''', the blog is not an RS, only Nicolas Terry can be. For example, by this anonymous user is not an RS. But even if that were a post by Nicolas Terry, using the self-published source should be strongly discouraged. Anything significant by Nicolas Terry should be published in a better place, and especially on a controversial subject. ] (]) 03:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	*In general personal blogs are not reliable sources, irrespective of who the author is. -] (]) 03:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::But, in specific, we do allow blogs written by experts (when writing about things in their field of expertise) ] (]) 13:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	::{{re|Ad Orientem}} I am aware of that general rule, however, I am asking because ] In my opinion, there is a possibility that Terry fits those criteria.--] (]) 04:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''', a personal blog can be reliable for certain topics if it meets ], although published sources are preferred. ] does not override SPS. <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 04:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::So it has been mentioned that this blog is not solely authored by Terry. There are several other contributors who seem to be pseudonymous. Is there a way to filter or search posts only by Terry? Can we have a reasonable level of confidence that Terry is the one using his named account? And does Terry share his byline or account with anyone else who might blog? I guess those criteria are ] 101. Yes, Terry's work might meet RS standards, but other contributors would need to be evaluated on their own merits, and since Blogger doesn't have blue check marks, we'll need to establish some way of knowing accounts actually belong to who they say they are. ] (]) 09:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::Good questions. Let's try to answer. As Paul tells, it is a continuation of . Hence, this is an account in question who made . This is not Terry. What this blogger does? He cites Holocaust deniers from the "". He "forgets" about numerous reliable sources existing on this subject. He whitewashes crimes by the Stalinist regime. He has a Russian nickname. The bottom line: this is not Terry. ] (]) 12:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::We can assume that any unsigned articles are either written by Terry or or are as good as written by him. ] (]) 19:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::: We can? On what basis? Not trying to be argumentative I just don't see why anyone would make that assumption here. ] (]) 03:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''' As per SPS his blog is an RS for his view, as long as they are attributed. But only his posts are RS, not anything else anyone posts there.] (]) 13:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	::We also need to factor ] into the mix... he may be reliable, but still not worth citing. (Not giving an opinion on this case... just reminding people that reliability is not the only issue to discuss). ] (]) 13:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::True, buts its also a different issue.] (]) 13:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''', per ], "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." If we accept that Nicolas Terry is "an established expert on the subject matter" then his writing is considered reliable, however that only extends to writing he, himself authors, not writing by non-experts which happen to be published near his writing. It is only writing where he is the clear author this applies to. --]] 14:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Limited''': Only when "posted by" is Nicholas Terry, and where the contents is uncontroversial. Any controversial claim would require a peer- or editor-reviewed source. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Depends'''. The author seems to mix factual reporting and his own opinion quite liberally on his blog, so editors should be cautioned not to present his opinion as fact. He seems to have strong views on the topic (regardless of whether they are appropriate or not). I agree with JzG. ] (]) 17:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''' of course, as long as the author is an established expert as described above. As other editors have mentioned, posts written by other authors are not reliable, though I would add the caveat that if any other authors are themselves established experts, then their posts would also be acceptable. This isn't necessarily a ''strong'' source, but I also note that ] is in effect with regards to Holocaust denial. As a result, without compelling reasons to the contrary (e.g. direct contradiction in the peer-reviewed literature), it can most likely be depended on to give the academic position on any claims related to Holocaust denial. ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 18:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''' is a link to a previous discussion. In this case the blog is being used to discredit one sentence in an otherwise reliable source about a Jewish Communist alleged to have created gas vans in the USSR. The story is popular in anti=Semitic literature but, other than this one source, is not cited in any other academic book at all. The author used as his source a tabloid, '']'' originally for Young Communists that now publishes anti-Semitic articles. (The narrative is that Nazi Germany did not gas any Jews, but the Jews gassed Ukrainians.) I think that this is a good case for ] ] (]) 19:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''No'''. I can't imagine what it would be used for in a topic so thoroughly covered by scholarly sources. For anything contentious, we need a peer-reviewed source. For any uncontentious, there will surely already be a peer-reviewed source. Can someone post an example of how the blog would be used and a link to the previous discussion? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	**], it is not thoroughly covered, see my comments above. ] (]) 21:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	::], I perfectly understand limitations of this source. The problem is that the topic ("Soviet gas vans") . The only sources that cover this topic are Holocaust deniers writings, and that is analyzed in Terry's blog. I failed to find better sources.--] (]) 22:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::{{u|Paul Siebert|Paul}}, I'm having difficulty following this discussion. Can you link to the precise blog post you want to use as a source, and the edit it will support? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::] I mean source. I myself do not think it is really good, but other sources writing about that subject are even worse: they are based either on non-verifiable testimonies, or on some Russian tabloid article published in 1990. --] (]) 04:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::{{u|Paul Siebert|Paul}}, thanks. You've linked to a blog post by Sergey Romanov. I don't know who that is. That's definitely not an RS unless you can show that he's an expert. It means this discussion is misleading, because you seemed to be asking whether Nicholas Terry was an RS if self-published, but in fact you're asking whether Sergey Romanov is. Which edit did you want to use that source to support? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::], I know that the author of the post is not Terry, however, as far as understand, Terry is supposed to moderate his blog, so it seems the content of his blog is somewhat vetted by him.
	::::::I am going to use this blog to support the statement that the sensational claim about alleged invention and usage of has vans is cited by Holocaust deniers who question the fact of existence of Nazi gas vans (such as Alvarez). The fact that Alvarez questions the existence of German gas vans and cites the Soviet gas van story follows from his book, so this claim is not controversial, so it does not need an outstanding evidences. I do not think we should cite the Alvarez's book directly, because it is published by a publisher house that was established by a convicted Holocaust denier.--] (]) 18:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''', it can be used for some things. If I understand the issue properly, this all relates to allegations that the Soviet Union used gas vans and some of the controversy surrounding that...? That entire aspect seems slightly ]y, in the sense that while sources exist, they're sharply lower-quality and lower-prominence than the ones discussing the usage by Nazis. For more obscure subjects like this (where few high-profile mainstream scholars have weighed in), I feel it is appropriate to rely on what we can get - the opinion of an established scholar like Terry, even posted via ], seems important to include if we're going to discuss such an obscure aspect at all. --] (]) 21:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Depends''' This blog not only deals with Holocaust denial, it even engages with deniers’ arguments. Not many historians do that, for obvious reasons: Holocaust denial is not to be taken seriously. Arguments with Holocaust deniers simply are not the kind of material which would be published as a book. ] is a rare exception. The blog (and a different post by Romanov) have been cited by RS (historical scholarship). I take notice that the one user who preaches that {{xt|we simply do not know what other sources the historians could use}} is certain that Romanov {{xt|"forgets" about numerous reliable sources existing on this subject. He whitewashes crimes by the Stalinist regime.}} That’s simply unfounded.--] (]) 23:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Comment'''. Per ], ''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.'' OK, but who is author of the post in question ? Someone called "Sergey Romanov" . Is it even real name of the person? And even if it is real, what kind of expert he is? ] (]) 23:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	:*Based on their last comment , Paul started this entire thread just to discredit a ''reliable'' primary source (the book by ], it was cited in a lot of other books and scholarly literature), along with claims by a number of other secondary RS, using another source, a blog by an unknown person that ''he knew was not an RS''. And his logic is misleading. Whatever Holocaust deniers could cite is simply irrelevant. ] (]) 22:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Welllll... I guess not.''' First of all, Nicholas Terry. As to ''notability'', in the sense that we want to say "According to Nicholas Terry...", let's see... Nicholas Terry is not bluelinked and probably isn't eligible yet, having written only one book () which isn't published yet, and he's a lecturer rather than a professor. We don't give just anybody standing to be quoted that way... We don't quote just any random university lecturer. "Is a professional historian" (in the sense that he makes his living as a history teacher) also applies to the your 11th grade history teacher, and we have to have a line somewhere. Terry has a PhD and has written a book and has other markers of notability, so he might be sufficiently notable to quote, but he's on the bubble anyway.
			: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)
	:As far his reliability for statements of fact, no, probably not. He doesn't appear to have a sufficient corpus that we can say "well, here is a guy with a sterling reputation for sufficient expertise, attention to detail, and lack of bias that we can take most anything he writes to the bank". For all I know his book will be reviewed in the manner of "Sparks gets many of his facts wrong...".
			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.
	:As far as what ''he himself'' writes in his blog, its pretty much as good as what he might write in his book: neither is independently fact checked (probably; when the book comes out we can see if he credits a fact checker (unlikely)). That's not a deal-killer necessarily, if Terry himself is sufficiently reliable. But he's not, IMO.
			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)
	:As to stuff written at that blog by anyone ''other'' than Terry, heck no. The third entry on the front page is titled "Yet another Holocaust-denying terrorist" and opens with "Meet a typical low-intelligence chan loser scum, Stephan Balliet...". We can't go near stuff like that of course, and really it colors the entire publication (blog or whatever you want to call it) and kind of implies that its editors are either biased or insufficiently in control. Terry's association with a publication like that is not a good marker that he can be securely trusted to not cherry-pick or even twist facts. (He ''probably'' doesn't, but "probably" is kind of a low bar for introducing statements of fact to the Misplaced Pages.)
			: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)
	:Taken all together, '''no''', I don't think we can consider Terry, by himself and publishing in a non-fact-checked venue, as a reliable source ''at this time''. As and if his academic career advances, that may change. ] (]) 12:47, 24 October 2019 (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. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Only with attribution'''; there is no scholarly editorial control that would be present in the journal process or from an academic press. It cannot be used as source for material in WP voice. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]]</span> 22:33, 24 October 2019 (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)
	::You mean with attribution to "Sergey Romanov" who authored this blog post (and possibly has a different name in real life) or to "Nicholas Terry" who possibly has no idea about this blog post? ] (]) 22:40, 24 October 2019 (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.
	:::Paul asked this question about the blog in general, not a specific post. I replied on the same basis. Attribution means "ascribing a work or remark to a particular author" and I meant exactly what I wrote. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]]</span> 22:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
			::::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)
	:::Looking at some of the additional questions which have arisen, the question of notability of an individual to whom a text is attributed arises. Terry may be notable in whatever very specific specialism he has published in, and therefore his posts relating to that area worth inclusion. Whoever Sergey Romanov is, and if that is the real subject of this discussion, unless it can be shown otherwise he appears to be totally inconsequential, and therefore not sufficiently notable to include his views on any subject. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]]</span> 22:59, 24 October 2019 (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)
	::::Thank you! OK, but simply looking at the blog, I do not see a single post by Terry. ] (]) 00:13, 25 October 2019 (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)
	*'''Generally no'''; {{ping|Paul Siebert}} unfortunately I think you've incorrectly assessed the nature of the blog. According to the blog's introductory post back in 2006 by Nicolas Terry, he was only one of the founding collaborators ("I hope to dedicate some of my postings to this collective blog to discussing", "The contributors here met online at the RODOH forum"). . Its also unclear to me how much involvement Terry still has with the blog; the most recent post he made seems to be from 2016 and he doesn't seem to have been contributing regularly even then (unfortunately I cant find a way to search by author). Posts that he personally made may be RSs, but I don't see any indication he exercises control over the other contributors' work. -] (]) 00:17, 25 October 2019 (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)
	*'''Comment''' Is this the same noticeboard which just vetted ] related through an interview by a third person published as a transcript ("novel of evidence") of a documentary in a literary quarterly? {{xt|We don't quote just any random university lecturer.}} Why? Is his work too scholarly, maybe? Ok, he co-edited a volume on genocide denial for Routledge, which seems too make him less reliable than memoirs by former NKVD officers. He has published with Yad Vashem Studies, which is certainly less reliable than some Crimean local newspaper. The few times I consulted RSN before, amateur historians, i.e. authors with no professional expertise in history, who never studied history, let alone held a degree in history, and who published with the most specialist and small publishing houses, even indulged in self-publishing, were routinely considered to be perfect RS. You know, these authors provided information so special that it could not be found in mainstream historical scholarship, so it must have been reliable. In other words, there is anything but a standard by which RS are evaluated at RSN and that's a problem. If the reliability of the blog posts is to be assessed, these posts have to be compared to the findings of established historical scholarship. It can't be done by a simple thumbs up or down after superficially looking at the credentials of the author. And if the blog has been approvingly cited by historical scholarship, as it has been, that's a strong sign for reliability.--] (]) 01:00, 25 October 2019 (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)
	::Oh yes, the publication by well known author Lipkov (although he wrote books in a different subject area) who cited other experts (like Golovkova) in ] is ''a lot'' better source than a post by an anonymous account on a blog. It does not mean that Lipkov is telling The Truth. It only means the source can be used per WP:RS. ] (]) 01:15, 25 October 2019 (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.
	::For those of us who have only just tuned into this saga, could you link to the approving citation Assayer? --] (]) 01:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
			: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)
	:::Not sure what is meant by “approving citation”, but this was seen as clearance of the source. RSN discussions tend to focus on the credentials of the author of a source which should only be the starting point of the assessment process. That case was a case of ]. Oral history is not per se unreliable, but historiography has developed a refined methodology of collecting, assessing and interpreting oral testimony. Even if we have testimony by a highly reputed historian with much experience in oral history, due to its form the source might not be completely reliable. Interviews a generally less reliable than written statements. Turning back to the case of the blog, it is important to note that it is dedicated to the refutation of Holocaust denial, something which historians usually don’t do, because such a discussion is pointless. The contributors to the blog, both amateurs and trained historians according to Terry’s own admission, wrote up a refutation of claims by Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf and Thomas Kues, all well-known deniers, which has been cited by historical scholarship. ''The Guardian'' named Terry “the UK’s foremost academic on the subject”. That said, the posts on this blog should be dealt with for their own merits. The posts I have read can be verified and corroborated by other sources (undoubtedly RS). Thus, it’s not an outright unreliable source. In general, I would not use this blog, however, except when dealing with Holocaust denial itself. The English Misplaced Pages routinely uses references and links to editions of Holocaust denier’s works. I do not see why a blog devoted to debunking Holocaust denial should not be reliable for debunking.--] (]) 18:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
	*'''In general''' blog posts by an established expert can be reliable sources per ], yes. But the specific source under discussion here seems to be , and it is not written by an established expert, and is therefore emphatically '''not a RS.''' It's just a blog post written by... someone, who we don't seem to have ''any'' info on. Not sure why we're even talking about Nicholas Terry and SPS when there's no indication that he's the author of the piece in question. ] (]) 03:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
	{{re|RaiderAspect}} The story Assayer is talking about is described ], and its brief summary is as follows. Several secondary sources mention a story of a Soviet gas van that was used during the Great Purge. This story is based on one ] document that was published in ] in 1990. In addition to that, a couple of books exist where non-verifiable testimonies are reproduced, which tell about similar events in two Russian cities. In addition, we have an article in a local newspaper that was authored by a writer with unknown credentials. Of course, from the formal point of view, an newspaper article or a book are RS, according to our policy. However, as Assayer is correctly arguing, ''the article published in a local Ukrainian newspaper, which is authored by some unknown author'' seems much less trustworthy than the post in a personal blog of a professional historian who worked with Holocaust Memorial, and who is a history lecturer in a high rank British University. The same can be said about the book that uncritically reproduces some non-verifiable testimonies (actually, a memoir of a person who happened to hear a story told by a witness of alleged usage of Soviet gas van).
			== Is this article declaring the ] a 12th c. baptistry a reliable source for the tower?? ==
	Please, understand me correctly: I myself prefer not to use blogs of that type, the problem is that that blog, which seem to be maintained and moderated by a professional historian, looks much more trustworthy, in terms of fact checking and accuracy, than such "reliable sources" as non-verifiable testimonies or an obscure local newspaper. The fact that the first type source does not fit our RS criteria, whereas the second type sources do means that something is fundamentally wrong either with our policy or with the way it is being implemented.--] (]) 04:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
	*No, the story is not "based on one ] document that was published in ] in 1990". Not at all. This is WP:OR at best. "''The article published in a local Ukrainian newspaper, which is authored by some unknown author seems much less trustworthy than the post in a personal blog of a professional historian''". No, it is precisely another way around. An article published (not self-published) by well known Russian historian in newspaper is ''a lot'' more reliable source per WP:RS than a blog post by unknown person. I am really surprised that Paul continue arguing otherwise. ] (]) 15:24, 25 October 2019 (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)
	As with too many of these discussions on this board, this discussion is spinning. Please follow the form set out at the top of this page; 1) What is the content you want in what article? 2) What is the source? If it is a blog post, post the exact url of the blog post. Thanks. ] (]) 16:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
	:* The content is as follows:
	:::"''The Soviet gas van story, in particular, Grigirenko's memoirs and Berg's case, is used by Holocaust deniers''".
	:*The source is .
	:--] (]) 17:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
	::Ohhhh. The actual post is by one "Sergey Romanov". I can't find anything about "Sergey Romanov". So he could be a 12 year old kid for all I know. He could be an agent of the Mongolian government. He could be a squeegee guy in Naples, Florida. He could be my cat. How is this possibly a good source, and huge trout to the person who started the thread, and stop doing that, kthx.
	::Sure I suppose if you squint really hard, you could say that technically the ''publication'' is edited by a "professional history" (that is, a history lecturer, not a professor or published author), but ''come on''. Who the writer of the piece is very very important.
	::If you've got info on Sergey Romanov, present it, and explain why the internet doesn't have it. If it's a pseudonym, tell us who's behind it, provide proof, explain why they are using a pseudonym, and point to the credentials showing his expertise, carefullness, and lack of bias.
	::In future maybe make it a lot more clearer, e.g. "A blog post by an anyonymous person, or at any rate a person who has no credentials that I know of". Then we could dispose of the question more quickly. ] (]) 18:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::You are not completely right (I am not saying you are not right). It seems that the blog is moderated by the owner, who is a professional historian. If any teenager can post an article in this blog, then you also can do that, right? However, I couldn't find how to do that. That means this blog is kind of "by invitation only", which means Terry is screening potential contributors.
	:::In addition, Holocaust deniers Terry is writing about are beyond the scope of mainstream scholarly community, and Terry's blog is among few sources that write about them. Of course, had this topic been covered by better sources, I would never raised this question, but in a current situation I have no choice.
	:::By the way, Sergei Romanov cannot be "a 12 year old kid" because he seems to be posting at this blog since 2006, so he belonged to the group that gave a start to this blog.--] (]) 20:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::''The appropriateness of any source depends on the context.'' So the question is not simply, who is the author, but is this an appropriate source for a certain context. I am ambivalent if Holocaust denial should be discussed in the specific article in question, because the reality of the gas chambers is nothing to be discussed. If you search for "gas van" on the Internet, however, a Holocaust denying publication is to be found among the top ten search results by google. Except for this blog I do not know any other source which tackles the problem and it does not help at all to make funny comments ''ad hominem'' to discard reliabity.--] (]) 19:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::No, the context is completely irrelevant. is a blog post ''by unknown person''. This is just a garbage on the internet in terms of WP:RS, nothing more. ] (]) 22:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	* I don't think we should be using blogs at all, even in cases where they are written by a recognized expert. Policy doesn't necessarily agree with me on that. Obviously I think the policy should be changed. Blogs, even those written by experts, have zero editorial oversight and fact checking. Both these processes require multiple participants. If all you have, and what you are forced to use is merely a blog, then to my mind you've already conceded the DUEWEIGHT debate, even if the source is factually correct. ]] 20:55, 25 October 2019 (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)
	== Non peer-reviewed pre-print version of scientific paper ==
			::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 ==
	I have a question regarding this paper (linked below) by the geneticist Iosif Lazaridis. It seems to be a preprint, and I wondered whether this means it is not a reliable source (since that means it has not yet been peer-reviewed) https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1.full
	Thank you. ] (]) 17:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	:<small>I hope you don't mind; I changed the section title to a more descriptive one in hopes of attracting more participation. ~ '']''<sup>(]&#124;])</sup><small>]</small> 20:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)</small>
	:{{u|Skllagyook}}, If the paper is eventually published in some form, the preprint can almost certainly be cited. Obviously, it's preferable to cite the published paper but most academics would be considered experts for the purpose of ] anyway. <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 22:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	::{{u|Fiamh}}, Thank you. I do not think the paper is reviewed yet (I cannot find a non-preprint version), but I would assume it will be and will be published in that form eventually. And it is by (among others) a pretty prominent and well-regarded population geneticist - Iosif Lazaridis - (whose other papers are cited elsewhere here). So is it ok to cite it even if it has not yet been published in non-preprint form? (I have just added it as a ref on two pages, but if it is not acceptable, I will, of course, remove the new material.) Thank you again. ] (]) 22:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::{{u|Skllagyook}}, checking I'm not sure this is a good idea. This is a new scientific finding that hasn't been peer reviewed or confirmed. I would hold off until Lazaridis publishes it. What I would do is remove the content from the article and copy it to the talk page so that it can be re-added if/when it is confirmed. <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 23:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::{{u|Fiamh}}, May I ask why it is not a good idea (since you had said earlier that sources from academics were acceptable)? Would it help if my additions to the pages summarized it in a somewhat shorter form with a bit less detail? ] (]) 23:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::{{u|Skllagyook}}, as I understand ], it was more intended for general comments by experts on their subjects of expertise, rather than new findings. But it's possible that other editors have a different perspective on the guideline. <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 23:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::{{u|Fiamh}}, I see. Should I then wait for the opinions of other editors (to be added here) as well? ] (]) 23:57, 23 October 2019 (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)
	:As a non-reviewed paper, which is what it is in this form, I would treat it as the opinion of the author(s). Having been through this process, a submitted paper might be accepted without change (Yay!), accepted with revisions, rejected pending revisions or outright rejected. If rejected the final paper that results from teh work may be significantly different than the pre-review work. The correct thing to do is wait until the paper is released before using it. ] (]) 01:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
	:As its not been published or peer reviewed it is just his opinion, it may be RS if he is a recognized expert in the field (note, not just someone who works in it).] (]) 08:17, 24 October 2019 (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)
			:{{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)
	*Per ], if it has not yet been properly reviewed and published ''but will be'' at some point, then there's no rush to cite it or to add any text to Misplaced Pages ''yet'' which does cite it. Why the rush? Wait until it's been reviewed and published, and ''then'' cite it. --]] 14:50, 24 October 2019 (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? ==
	*We ought to consider just how extraordinary the claims made in a pre-print scientific or scholarly jounal are when evaluating its reliability. shows the danger of relying on pre-prints and other non-peer reviewed reports for our articles.
	:"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". It's worth waiting for at the very least peer-review of such reports. ''Science'', in fact, did publish Wolfe-Simon's paper, but then later carried reports by researchers who had been unable to duplicate the results she reported independently. The current consensus is that the work Wolfe-Simon reported was procedurally flawed, accounting for the lack of independent confirmation by other groups. We're an encyclopedia, and our readers aren't looking for breaking news, but verifiable information. --] (]) 23:58, 24 October 2019 (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 (].
	:{{u|Jayron32}}, I assumed that it would be published eventually, but it has been at least a year now. Are all preprints eventually published in some form? I suppose I cannot be certain. Not being certain, is it okay to cite him since he is an expert in the field, or should I wait for the study to be published anyway? Thanks. ] (]) 16:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Skllagyook (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2019 (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)
	:{{u|Slatersteven}}, Iosif Lazaridis is an expert in the field and has published several important papers on population genetics, especially of ancient peoples of the Near East and Europe. Would this mean his source can be cited before it is published/reviewed (as I had cited it before), or is the general consensus here in this thread against that? Some links on Lazaridis for reference:
	:https://connects.catalyst.harvard.edu/Profiles/display/Person/115264
	:https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=eQmvmqQAAAAJ&hl=en
	:https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Iosif_Lazaridis
	:https://www.ellines.com/en/achievements/37774-sheds-light-on-the-genetic-history-of-europeans/
	:https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/people/iosif-lazaridis
	:] (]) 16:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	::Irrelevant, at best we might be able to use this based upon ], but as its a science paper that has not be accepted for publication or been peer reviewed ] may also enter into it. A lot would depend on what it is being used as a source for.] (]) 16:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::{{u|Slatersteven}}, I'm not sure I understand regarding ]; the link to ] leads to information of self published sources and what they are not acceptable (Why might this be a reason it could be used? Would it be the reverse?). It was being used (by me) in the ] and ] pages regarding the ancestral makeup of the those two ancient peoples. Lazaridis, in the 2018 paper, suggests that the Iberomaurusians were made up of two kinds of ancestry; with one kind from paleolithic Western Eurasians derived from the Caucasus (a population also ancestral to other Western Eurasian peoples in Europe and the Middle East) and the other kind from an ancient now-extinct population indigenous to North Africa. The Iberomaurusuian population is considered, in that paper, to have contributed to the genetics of the Natufian peoples of the Levant (as Lazaridis says, rather than the reverse as the earlier paper by Loosdrecht had proposed). If ] applied, one would, of course, not want to give it's description too much length or detail. ] (]) 16:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::Because it is the closest I can think of policy wise "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter,". I was not clear about my other point. What I meant was what do you want to use it to say?] (]) 16:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::{{u|Slatersteven}}, I see. I understand now, thank you for explaining that re ] (I guess I missed it). The guideline, "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" does seem to (to me) apply to Lazaridis. What I wanted to use it to say was what I described above: something (on the Iberomaurusian page) along the lines of: that, the study suggests that the Iberomaurusians were made up of two kinds of ancestry; with one kind from paleolithic Western Eurasians derived from the Caucasus (a population also ancestral to other Western Eurasian peoples in Europe and the Middle East) and the other kind from an ancient now-extinct population indigenous to North Africa. And (on the Natufian page), something about the fact that the study suggests that, The Iberomaurusuian population (which may have had the above described origin) is suggested (by Lazaridis 2018) to have contributed to the genetics of the Natufian peoples of the Levant (both under the respective "genetics" sections of those pages). ] (]) 16:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::Problematic, as I understand it this is a copy of the paper that has not yet been submitted to peer review, but (I I read the what is pre-publication bit correctly) will be at some point. Thus it may be that once it has been peer reviewed its conclusions may change (or it may even be rejected). At the same time he is an expert and as such his self published opinions may be used in the way you wish ("according to..."). But (and here is the rub), he may well withdraw it after peer review, or significantly alter it. As such I would caution against using it, we are not a news paper and we can in fact wait until things become clear.] (]) 16:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::{{u|Slatersteven}}, I suppose the proposed section(s) discussing the paper (if it/they were added to the aforememtioned articles) could later be altered, or removed, depending on/to follow the results of peer-review (whenever that occurs). Or is it better to simply hold off on adding it at all until (when/if) it is published? ] (]) 19:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::::Hold off, nothing is lost by waiting, and a lot can be by not waiting.] (]) 11:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::::{{u|Slatersteven}}, Ok, I will wait/hold off then. Thank you. ] (]) 21:48, 27 October 2019 (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)
	== ], the ] and "Global muslim brotherhood daily watch" in articles about Islam ==
			::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 ==
	We describe the first as an anti-Muslim conspiracy blog.
	Our article on the Middle East Forum is a bit equivocal but doesn't fill me with confidence, and I'm surprised that we call its founder ] an historian (yes, he once taught history, but that's not what he's known for - he's mainly a major critic of Islam).
	Global MB Watch is a one man band run by Steven Merley who worked for ] whose senior consultant now is ] and was evidently, according to his description of himself the subject of praise by ], described by the Guardian as "not quite public enemy number one for many British Muslims -".
			The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (B and C):
	These sources are used in articles such as ], ] and numerous others. ] ] 14:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
			* '''A: Geni.com'''
	:MEF after 2009 become peer reviewed and have editorial control yes its partisan but we allow partisan sources per ] --] (]) 14:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
			* '''B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley'''
	::The objection is not to partisanship. MEF, and the organizations it funds, actively foment Islamophobia, there is a long record through all of the venues it establishes and supports, and via all of the funding groups behind it, of militant antipathy as a driving force in a publicitarian cause. I don't think we should make an exception here. If MEF figures on a respectable site listing hate groups (]) as , then it should not be used on Misplaced Pages. We have huge resources from Academic, government think tanks etc. on all of these Islamic movements. The latter are often problematical, qua partisan, but they have no stepped over into financing fear and fomenting anti-Islamism as the MEF does.] (]) 16:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
			* '''C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav'''
	:I would be concerned if we were using Jihad Watch as an authority on Muslim subjects, but from glancing at the internal search results, all of the citations that I saw were specifically citing it to support claims about the activities and opinions of anti-Muslim academics, which seems potentially acceptable. I haven't reviewed the other sources at this time. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 18:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
			:Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.
	::We don't use blogs, let alone conspiracy blogs, which is how Jihad Watch is described. This is every more so given its decidedly polemical anti-Muslim world view. Sensitive topics require optimal sourcing. ] (]) 20:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
			:They should be:
	:::We should not be using blogs at all, as Nishidani said. Furthermore some of these sources look pretty clearly like ] outlets and they should not generally be used as sources. ] (]) 12:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
			* '''Option 1: listed as ]''' (change nothing to A; add B and C at ] as such)
	::::Fair enough. I'd agree that these look like fringe outlets. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
			* '''Option 2: ]''' (list them as such at ])
	I'm not sure it makes sense to lump all three of these sources together. The ] has been edited by ], who has held academic posts at various respected universities. And I don't think the SPLC is the best authority on anti-islamic sentiment after its ] fiasco. Is there any evidence that MEQ is an unreliable source, making stuff up or stating incorrect facts? If it should be discredited it should be on those grounds and not because Misplaced Pages editors disagree with its POV. <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 15:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3: ]''' (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2)
	:According to its , MEQ is cited by other academic journals and ranks in the middle of similar journals by number of references to its articles. It gets cited by , for facts. (Although it is criticized for pro-American orientation, no evidence of unreliability is offered). I don't see any indication that MEQ is not a reliable source. <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 00:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
			] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu) ===
	== Not so sure this is reliable ==
			* A: See "Geni.com" at ].
	While I was gnoming today, I saw ]. I noticed his was using ] so I removed it and . It looks like he read the note and then added . I looked at the webpage, and it really looks like it too may be non reliable. I checked here and didn't see it mentioned, so I figured I see what you all thought. Is that website reliable ? ]]</span> 14:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
			* B: See ], in particular ], where this RfC for the 3 sources in question was prepared together with @]. The other sources discussed there fall outside the scope of this RfC.
	:Primary sources are perfectly acceptable so long as a person does not do any outside-of-the-source analysis. As near as I can tell, in your first diff, the source is only being used to verify a paraphrase and a quote, which is by definition is without analysis. A primary source is reliable for directly stating what is printed in itself. For example, if I said "The source XXXX states that "the Sky is blue", as long as those words are actually printed in that source, the statement is accurate and is correctly cited to the source that uses those words. That's a fine use of a primary source. It would not be a good source for stating in Misplaced Pages's voice, without direct attribution "The Sky is blue", and neither is it a source for stating "Because the Sky is blue, all of these other things must also be true". But for the simple matter of providing an attribution for a quote, it's fine to cite a primary source. --]] 15:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
			* C: See ] (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	::there is always the possibility of selective quotation. A group might publish a report, and not really liking the conclusions, then publish a summary or excerpt from it that is unfair or unrepresentative or presented in a biased context. We arre very carlessless in general in accepting quotations. ''']''' (]) 16:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::This is why I pretty much always support only using quotes to point out very specific things that article is already talking about. For example, if an article has a section on a controversial tweet, quoting the tweet. ] (]) 11:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	:Is the first source primary?] (]) 11:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	::Sort of? I think it is best considered that "the event" is the lawsuit, and this is a primary document from that event. It is true that it includes an analysis of other sources, and in that sense may be considered secondary. But citing court cases is generally questionable, for a number of reasons. To begin, this is the opinion of a lower court at the state level, and so does not create any binding precedent; next, while it includes a secondary analysis that was informed by expert witnesses, this is not considered an expert publication in ''medicine'', but in law; further, lawsuits happen simply because someone filed one, not because an expert thought it was something significant worth writing about - as with cherry-picking quotes, it would be trivial to cherry-pick ''lawsuits''. If this had been a major, precedent-setting case that received a hearing before a State Supreme Court, circuit court, or SCOTUS itself, maybe. Or if this was something special and unusual and subjected to scientific rigor, like the Autism Omnibus case. Or if a section of a Misplaced Pages article is about the lawsuit itself, citing sources secondary to the case, then quoting the ruling could provide useful context. Otherwise this seems like a bad idea. ] (]) 11:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::Except it is a legal judgement on the admissibility of evidence. Now I agree that we should not cherry pick law suits, but that is not an RS issue as such. I do not see how this is really a primary source, and seems to be a perfectly reputable legal journal. As such it passes RS, ] is a separate issue.] (]) 11:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::It's a perfectly reputable legal journal that seems to have as one of its missions to publish as many full-text opinions as they can from state and federal courts in Massachusetts. In this case they simply republished the opinion as is - there is zero added commentary. I don't see how the journal could be considered a publisher rather than a host. ] (]) 12:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	*The Problem here is one of context... A legal judgement is being used to balance a medical claim. A legal opinion can balance another legal opinion, and a medical opinion can be used to balance another medical opinion... but is it appropriate to mix law and medicine. Does doing so create a false balance? ] (]) 12:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	:*It is inherently unbalanced because ''only'' primary sources are used. A judicial ruling balancing an original research claim. Herbert's article cites only Herbert's own work to describe her research on the treatment of autism, and even though it is mentioned that there were three professional reviews of one of her books, the actual content of those reviews is not mentioned (in fact, two gave fawning praise, while the other was more circumspect). This is not an impossible task - Herbert's work is cited in literally dozens of medical review articles. ] (]) 23:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
			=== Preliminaries ===
	== Movie Chambers and One Guys Opinion ==
			:Probably need to add the website to the list of unreliable sources. It also uses Misplaced Pages articles which would be ]. --] 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	I came across this website while looking for film reviews for an article, and it seems that while the ''sole'' reviewer there, Paul Chambers, has been creating film reviews since '86 for different news orgamizations (CNN among them), it would appear to fail RS as there appears to be no editorial oversight.<br>
			::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)
	I also came across another film review site, "One Guy's Opinion" run by a professor History at the University of Dallas named Dr. Frank Sweitek. According to his bio on the site, "Under the initials FS, he’s been the film critic of the University News since 1988, has discussed movies on air at KRLD-AM (Dallas) and KOMO-AM (Seattle), and can now be heard talking about the week’s openings on KLIF-AM (Dallas) every Friday at 6:17am...He’s also the founding president of the Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association, a group of print, broadcast and web journalists covering film in the Metroplex, and a member of the Online Film Critics Society. His reviews are also included on the Rotten Tomatoes website." Again, an apparently well-read reviewer, but a website without editorial oversight.<br>
			:::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)
	Thoughts? - ] (]) 02:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
	:Who is allowed to write reviews for Rotten Tomatoes?] (]) 08:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)		::::PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. ] (]) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. ] (]) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I have no opinion one way or another except to note that, per ], self published sources are not entirely forbidden; in general self published sources by recognized experts in a particular field are generally thought carry the reputation of the expert and thus be reliable on their own without additional "editorial oversight". If a person were a recognized and well regarded expert in the field of film criticism, their own self-published works may be reliable. --]] 14:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
	::Also, of note here, is the purpose of the citation you are looking to make from these sites. A self-published source is a perfectly reliable source for quoting itself. Every source reliably quotes itself (self-evidently). If the text you are quoting is actually in the work you are citing, the work is perfectly reliable ''for that purpose'' of providing the quote itself. However, if you are asking if the person who wrote the quote you are reproducing is, themselves, worth quoting, that's a different question. In the case of film reviews, it isn't reliability (after all, a person should be self-evidently reliable in correctly reporting their own personal feelings about a film), but rather things like ]; it isn't that we don't believe the person actually had the opinion of the film they themselves wrote on their own website, it is whether or not that opinion has widespread acceptance by mainstream sources to be considered due weight for us to quote it. So, if you're citing the source because you want to quote or paraphrase those reviewers opinions about a movie, it isn't reliability that's the issue (we trust the people to reliably report their own opinions on their own websites) it's a question of whether or not they are even worth listening to on the matter. ''However'', if you are trying to cite facts about the film in question which are not in other sources, that's a completely different thing. --]] 14:31, 25 October 2019 (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 understand that it isn't ''forbidden'' to use SPS, but I don't recall ever seeing a GA- or FA-quality article with a SPS in the references. The movie I am developing is a foreign one, which means a lot of sources in English are going to be hard to Google on up. Additionally, a few sources have vanished due to one reviewer website (''Film Journal Int'l'' getting gobbled up by ''BoxOfficePro''). Its not leaving me with a lot of standard sources to draw upon. I hate using sources that will get snipped during a GA/FA eval. - ] (]) 22:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
			::These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Read Background: B. ] (]) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::<strike>I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc.</strike> --] (]) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Survey A: Geni.com ===
	::::I think it's perfectly acceptable to use self-published sources for their reviews of films and books, provided, of course that the author has some reputation or expertise as a reviewer. I don't think editorial oversight is that important when you're using the source purely for the attributed opinion of a critic. The fact that this Paul Chambers has been published in multiple different reliable sources indicates that his opinion is noteworthy and might be worth including. Same thing with Frank Sweitek. They could even be okay for basic factual information about the film, especially if there's a lack of other English-language sources, though not for anything controversial or that has BLP implications. ] (]) 06:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. ] (]) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::Except we only have his word he has been published on multiple rs, nor do we know context ("and tonight on WBKRKRNSP we talk to three members of the public about the new film by Bert Terrible".] (]) 08:00, 26 October 2019 (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)
			=== Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley ===
	::::::A quick Google search confirms that he isn't an empty hat; Chambers has indeed worked for CNN () as well as everywhere else he claims. Sweitek also appears to be the real deal. - ] (]) 22:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate''', per background discussion. ] (]) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::It was just the reference to Rotten Tomatoes that made me wary, normally people who are respected experts do not have on their CV "and Misplaced Pages".] (]) 09:14, 28 October 2019 (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)
	::::::::I get it, and understand. I just went a little deeper than just checking RT. Carry on. - ] (]) 02:44, 29 October 2019 (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 ===
	== Database of 18,000 Retracted Scientific Papers Now Online ==
			:'''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)===
	"'''Retraction Watch Database''' is designed expressly for finding out whether any given study is still legit. The next time you read an article or hear someone say, "studies show that talking is bad for you," you can head over to the site and see what's what."
			{{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)
	* https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/science-questions/database-18000-retracted-scientific-papers-now-online.htm
	* http://retractiondatabase.org/
	--] (]) 07:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	:{{u|Guy Macon}}, Nice! See for one well known author. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 12:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
			:Although I disagree I can understand you position. It's to easy to get stuck in disagreement spirals are part of RFCs. Let's see if anyone else brings any new ideas. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I think this should go to page ]. Anything similar on plagiarism? I know there is ]. ] (]) 00:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
			:I previously commented that a seperate warning for generally unreliable sources would be helpful, for ones that are problematicly readded on a regular basis would be useful. That way a warning would appear but wouldn't come with the baggage of deprecation. At the moment deprecation is the only resource available, but it is a somewhat blunt hammer. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Franklin Open ==
	== Encounter Books and Adler & Adler Publication reliable? ==
			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)
	Article: ]
			: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)
	Text in question: {{talk quote|"Khomeini told the Muslim faithful that marrying a girl before she begins menstruation was a “divine blessing.” “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.”|}}
			::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 ==
	Sources:
	* {{tq|"Khomeini called marriage to a girl before her first menstrual period “a diving blessing,” and he advised the faithful: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” This practice continues to this day, despite the severe injuries girls often incur from early intercourse and childbirth.|}}
			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.
	* {{tq|""In many of his works Khomeini himself strongly recommends pre-menstruation marriage as "a divine blessing." "Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house," he write in Tawzih al-Masayel"|}}
	] (]) 17:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	*I would be wary of using Robert Spencer as a source about any thing Muslim. If its relevant or factual a better source would have mentioned it.] (]) 17:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	*{{u|Stefka Bulgaria}}, where are you seeing the quote? That being said:-{{pb}}] is definitely not a RS for anything related to Islam. And his views shall be always used with necessary attribution and that too, ''iff'' other sources have covered his views on the issue. That the work has been published by ] just lends to the case for not using it, at all.{{pb}}''Adler & Adler'' has published about ~50 books in the 80s. No repute as a press, going by the credibility of most of their authors and lack of publication-reviews. Now, ]. An emphatic '''no'''. ]] 18:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	::Encounter books (page 48), Adler and Adler (page 35). ] (]) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	::Being "conservative" or skeptical of Islam does not an unreliable source make. What's concerning here is that the authors do not have a high reputation for accuracy and the Encounter itself seems like, at best, quite polemical in tone; it publishes . Pro-Iran disinformation is also something to be on the lookout for. I'm not sure about these exact quotes, but there are other sources describing Khomeini's encouragement of pedophilia. See, eg. (pg. 2). <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 18:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::Wot? An outright polemic Islamophobe, <u>per a bunch of scholarly sources</u>, does not a reliable source make. ]] 05:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::True, but when they also have a reputation for falsehoods its does. It just saves time to point out their view of Islam is so negative it (basically) is a false view (and falsity a non RS does make).] (]) 11:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::I would go with UN report (link by Fiamh above): ''"According to the ... Ayatollah Khomeini, sexual experiences, with the exception of intercourse, are permitted with girls of all ages. He hasissued a fatwa (religious edict): “Anyone who has a wife less than nine years of age is not allowed to engage in sexual intercourse, whether she is his permanent or temporary wife. However, other forms of sexual pleasures are permitted, such as..."'' The text after changes reads pretty much pro-Iran regime. ] (]) 01:02, 30 October 2019 (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)
	== http://utahrails.net and http://rrpicturearchives.net ==
			: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.
	As used in ], but not limited to that article. These appear to be fan pages each curated by an individuals and they're extensively used in numerous train related Misplaced Pages articles. Are these good to remain as sources or external links? I am thinking that they might fall under ] or ]. ] (]) 20:33, 26 October 2019 (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)
	:External links do not have to be reliable. Open wikis are OK as long as they are reasonably established. They should not be used as sources because of ]. <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 02:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
			::@] one of their post is here , they recognized the awards for the Best Inspirational Secular Song at the 46th Catholic Mass Media Awards, and this is only the piece of sources i searched. ] ] 02:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I don't think fan sites belong as external sites either, per ] "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria for people.)" ] (]) 03:10, 27 October 2019 (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)
	:::Fan sites are not acceptable as reliable sources or external links in my opinion based on the policies referenced above. – ] (]) 09:51, 29 October 2019 (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? ==
	== The mystery of ''Street Fighter II: The World Warrior'''s release date ==
			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.
	So here's something I found on '']'' to be questionable. (For clarification, this is about the very first version of ''Street Fighter II'', not ''Champion Edition'' or later updated games.) For the longest time, this page has stated the arcade version was release on Feburary 1991 (some specifically claiming Feburary 6, 1991), and looking at every corner of the internet, this seems to be generally accepted as the correct date. Except, according to the official information from Capcom's side, this is not true; states the release date is actually March 1991. This date is also (4m 48s) in '']'' released in 2018, so I came to conclusion that it's reasonable to assume this is the right one.
			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)
	Based on this information, I updated the page in accordance to the one listed in Capcom's official record. The user named ] then changed it back to the original date, citing these sources:
			: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)
	* https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278746/ (iMDB)
			: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)
	* https://www.giantbomb.com/street-fighter-ii-the-world-warrior/3030-243/ (Giant Bomb)
			: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 ==
	These state Feburary 6, 1991 is indeed the correct one, but then again, they're both user-generated sites; I don't think they're enough proofs to disregard the date given by Capcom's products and websites. Currently I've reverted Steelermajor's edit because they didn't respond to my request on ] for a week, but I decided to came here for other editor's opinion about this. --] (]) 12:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	:IMDB is not an RS.] (]) 12:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	* ] {{rspe|IMDb}} is ] and should be avoided. The is an open wiki, which is user-generated and should also be avoided. is a reliable ] in this context. From the sources provided, March 1991 would be the date to use. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 12:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
			Would ] be considered a reliable source for music and the arts? ] (]) 23:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Attribution when facing square brackets in a quote ==
			: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)
	In a by UK Home office's border agency we read:
			: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)
	<blockquote>According to the USSD Background Note of March 2008: “The Iranian Government has faced armed opposition from a number of groups, including the MEK (which the U.S. Government added to its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations in 1999), the People’s Fedayeen, the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), and the Baluchi opposition group Jundallah.” (Political conditions)</blockquote>
			== Are the sources in these articles primary or secondary? ==
	Essentially, UK border agency is quoting a piece from US State Department Background Note in 2008, but is adding a sentence in square brackets. The question is whether the content in square brackets, i.e. "cult-like terrorist organisation Mujahedin-e Khalq" should be attributed to the UK border agency or to the US State Department? In other words, is the bracketed content an interjection?(p.s. The matter has been discussed , but we need more opinions)--] (]) 13:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	:The USSD, as the source is only being used as a source the the quote by the USSD, the UK boarder agency does not put it in their voice.] (]) 13:04, 27 October 2019 (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)
	==An article published in a local Ukrainian newspaper as a source for a history article==
			: 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)
	This source was already mentioned in the previous discussion devoted to the ] article, but it seems the idea to discuss several sources simultaneously was not good, so I am posting my question about this source specifically.
			**Newspapers are interesting to discuss because their classification evolves with time. Historians usually classify recent newspaper reports as being secondary, but ''old'' reports are classified as primary (this is because the sources used by the newspaper have been lost, and so the newspaper becomes the earliest available record of the events… with more modern sources based on that old newspaper). ] (]) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Reliability isn't the issue here. It is if the sources are primary or secondary. Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, and Berkeley considers contemporary newspaper articles as primary sources: ] (]) 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			== AdWeek ==
	The source is in a local Ukrainian newspaper. I failed to figure out credentials of this author. An interview in (which is a ]) says he is a historian, but I failed to find reviews on his publications, and his books. Our policy says that mainstream newspapers are considered reliable sources, but I would like to know a third opinion if this publication is a mainstream newspaper article.
			Would ] be considered a reliable source in terms of advertising campaigns? ] (]) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	The statement this source is supporting is {{tq|Gas vans were also reportedly used in other parts of the Soviet Union}}.
			* 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 ==
	This question may be simultaneously a WP:V and WP:NPOV issue, because outstanding claims need outstanding evidences, and it would be good to hear a third opinion on whether such a publication may serve as an adequate evidence for such a claim.--] (]) 03:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	:Do we really need 3 active posts on the same noticeboard, about the same article? It suggests that whatever is going on at ] is a bigger/thornier issue than a matter of a specific source's reliability. ] (]) 03:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	::], unfortunately, yes. I realized that discussion of this concrete source separately would be less confusing and time consuming, and resolving this issue would be a first step out of an impasse.
	::In particular, I would like to know if my understanding of ] is correct, and if such sources {{tq|are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.}}--] (]) 03:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
			I came across being used in the ] article to support this claim:
	*'''An RS and can be used, especially with attribution to author'''. I think the source is OK because the author (Sokolov) is a historian who published, for example, . A lot of info about him, including other numerous scholarly publications, can be found . This is an interview with him in one of major Russian newspapers. According to introduction by 3rd party, ''"Dmitry Sokolov is a historian from the city of ]. Since 2007, he has published many history articles in journals, and since 2013, he has been publishing monographs annually on various periods and aspects of the tragic events that began in 1917 on the land of Tauris."'' This is all in Russian. The article in question was published (not self-published) in a newspaper. The article is clearly a ''secondary'' source because it summarizes claims from books by ], ] and several others. Yes, as Paul tells, one of his summary statements was that gas vans were also reportedly used in other parts of the Soviet Union - because such cases have been reliably reported in books by Grigorenko, Shreider and yet another author cited in the review article by Sokolov. ] (]) 03:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
			{{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)
	*'''Comment''' Is there any evidence it has a poor reputation for fact checking?] (]) 09:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	::{{re|Slatersteven}} if I understand it correct, this works in an opposite way: an evidences of a good reputation and fact checking should be presented per ].--] (]) 14:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::Always been unsure, as its hard to prove that where as it is easy to show it does not have one. So I tend to err on the side off "it has a good reputation because it does not have a bad one".] (]) 17:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::{{re|Slatersteven}} it seems you still don't understand. Our policy says ]. That means want to see a proof that this newspaper is a mainstream newspaper, because otherwise it cannot be considered a reliable source.
	::::Moreover, the newspaper page where Sokolov's article is published has a disclaimer that explains Sokolov's opinion does not necessarily reflects the editorial board's opinion. Therefore, this publication is more like ], and, per ], it should be considered {{tq|'''reliable primary source''' for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact}}.
	::::Is my understanding correct?--] (]) 18:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::I cannot say if it is mainstream I am not Ukrainian (but I see nothing to indicate it is not), as to your second point, correct so we attribute.] (]) 19:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::That is an interesting approach: does it mean that every newspaper is considered mainstream unless the opposite has been demonstrated? If yes, that fully contradicts with my understanding of our policy.
	:::::Regarding your the second answer, "attribute" ... to whom? What are credentials of this author? Had he authored any book or article that was published by some reputable publisher or scholarly journal?--] (]) 19:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::Yes, sure, see the link to his book above; he has many other publications noted in another link. Also, this is not "news", but an educational publication about the past by historian. How this article can be a "primary" publication if it is entirely based on other sources, primary and secondary? ] (]) 19:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::There is a page about this newspaper on ruwiki, ], and it does not tell anything bad. ] (]) 18:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	::So, speaking of the three meanings of a source , (a) the article itself is OK (it claims nothing extraordinary, but simply summarizes what other sources on this subject say), (b) the author is fine, an established historian based on his publications, and (c) the newspaper is obviously not a scientific journal, but this is just an article on history for general public, enough to reliably document whatever author tells. Also, the newspaper is located in Crimea where author apparently lives. At the time of publication, it was a Russian language Ukrainian newspaper (as Paul tells), but it was expropriated by Russia in 2014, together with peninsula. ] (]) 15:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	*I am hesitant on this one, just because I have seen a considerable amount of historical misinformation in newspapers especially the more minor ones. It is reliable for the fact that the author wrote it, but I wouldn't take it much farther than that. I doubt that editors are in a good position to vet such claims—especially if they put a disclaimer on it! <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 19:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	::Unless I am mistaken, Paul misled us by saying: ''newspaper page where Sokolov's article is published has a disclaimer that explains Sokolov's opinion does not necessarily reflects the editorial board's opinion''. This is not a disclaimer for this specific publication. This is a disclaimer at the very bottom of the website which goes everywhere: Ответственность за точность изложенных фактов несет автор. За содержание рекламных материалов редакция ответственности не несет. ] (]) 19:13, 28 October 2019 (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)
	Since English Misplaced Pages users are not expected to know Russian, below I reproduce the disclaimer in full
	:"''При перепечатке и цитировании ссылка(гиперссылка) на "Крымское Эхо" обязательна. Точка зрения авторов может не совпадать с точкой зрения редакции. Ответственность за точность изложенных фактов несет автор. За содержание рекламных материалов редакция ответственности не несет. Материал, обозначенный (R), публикуется на правах рекламы.''"
			== Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] ==
	Google translates it as follows:
	:"''When reprinting and citing, a link (hyperlink) to the Crimean Echo is required. '''The authors' point of view may not coincide with the editorial point of view'''. Responsibility for the accuracy of the facts presented lies with the author. The editors are not responsible for the content of advertising materials. Material labeled (R) is advertised.''"
			This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] on the multiple issues regarding that article.
	In my opinion, the statement in bold is exactly what ] means.--] (]) 19:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	:*Yes, this is a disclaimer at at the very bottom of the website which goes on all pages, right? But you made it appear as a disapproval of the article by Sokolov : "newspaper page where Sokolov's article is published has a disclaimer that explains Sokolov's opinion does not necessarily reflects the editorial board's opinion". The disclaimer does not say anything about Sokolov or his article. ] (]) 19:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
			I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:<br>
	*'''Comment''' Reading this source, it looks ''totally'' unreliable. It's written in a sensationalist and politicized rather than academic or historical style. My Very Best Wishes has found two links showing that the author Dmitry Sokolov has a presence somewhere on the Russian-language internet, but his lack of connection to English-language academia makes it impossible to verify his credentials, importance, and suggest he's not a well known journalist or historian. The paper he's written in is not a major / flagship or internationally recognized publication and I can get no information about it in English.
			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.
	:In short, nearly every red flag one could conceive of is present here. I thought that in these topic areas, we were supposed to use the highest quality academic sources, with an emphasis on English-language sources. By contrast, this feels like scraping the bottom of the fringe barrel in one of the darker and more remote recesses of the internet. -] (]) 19:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	::No, it is simply written as an article for general public, not as an academic paper. This is a newspaper, not an academic journal. But the newspaper and especially the author still qualify just fine per WP:RS. That's the policy. ] (]) 19:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
			]: This is the version of the article that has the Arabic sources and is the version that I want to keep and then expand with other sources that both I and Jav has used. <br>
	*'''Irrelevant'''. The topic area is under strict sourcing restrictions; local newspapers need not apply. ] (]) 20:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
			]: This is the version that Jav wants to keep
	::I wish you were right, but, alas, The Great Purge is not under this restriction. Only Nazi gas van topic, and only in part related to Poland falls under that restriction.--] (]) 20:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
			Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand):
	*'''Comment''' It should be noted that this source is also used to argue that the primary sources quoted by this source (Sokolov), namely the memoirs by Shreder and Grigorenko, have to be quoted in the article as well. Whereas on this page My very best wishes writes that Sokolov {{xt|claims nothing extraordinary, but simply summarizes what other sources on this subject say}}, they have frequently maintained on the talk page that Sokolov “discusses” the claims by Grigorenko., and therefore these primary sources may freely be used. Upon Sokolov and the sources quoted by him they also base their conclusion that gas vans have been used “in at least three different cities” in the USSR. This conclusion is not supported by any other sources. Not using these sources they consider to be censorship.
			*
	:This is an article on the Holocaust both in Poland and the Soviet Union. Gas vans were used at ], e.g.. The whole epic discussion has emerged, because it has been maintained by some, that the "same" gas vans as were used by the Nazis were ''first'' used, probably even "invented" by the Soviets. A quote by journalist Yevgenia Albats, stating: "yes, the very same machinery made notorious by the Nazis - yes, these trucks were originally a Soviet invention, in use years before the ovens of the Auschwitz were built", has been vigorously defended, thereby effectively integrating the "Soviet gas vans" into the narrative of the Holocaust. I think that narrative is untenable and not supported by scholarly sources, only by fringe sources like Sokolov, but those who connected the "Soviet gas vans" to the Nazi gas vans should not deny that they intend to suggest that very connection. Applying the source restrictions would certainly clear things up a bit. --] (]) 20:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
			*
	:To that, I would add that one of the most renown historians writing about Stalinism, Wheatcroft, clearly writes that the claim that gas vans were used during the Great Purge is "sensational", and it needs further confirmation (Stephen Wheatcroft, The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45. ''Europe-Asia Studies'', Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353). Therefore, the statement that Sokolov's article contains nothing extraordinary directly contradicts to what a top quality reliable source says.--] (]) 21:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
			*
	::Regarding your "''applying the source restrictions would certainly clear things up a bit''", ] to do that, and I am still awaiting for a responce.--] (]) 21:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
			* (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome)
	:*This is probably off-topic, but ] is not only a journalist, but also a ] who received her PhD degree in ] and taught in a number of other Universities. More importantly, she is a top expert in Russia on the KGB subjects; she worked as consultant for the Russian Duma commission to examine KGB involvement in Soviet coup attempt of 1991. This is all described in her book used on the page. Also, "same gas vans" is the narrative by ''almost all sources that mention both Soviet and Nazi gas vans'', for example, by ], and yes, also by ] and Sokolov. Sources on the Holocaust usually do not mention Soviet gas vans simply because Soviet gas vans were not a part of the Holocaust, quite obviously. ] (]) 21:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
			*
	:::{{xt|Sources on the Holocaust usually do not mention Soviet gas vans}} and so forth - that's exactly the reason why the sources who "mention both Soviet and Nazi gas vans" are ]. And saying "almost all sources", one should note that the majority of scholarly sources on "Soviet gas vans" do not mention Nazi gas vans at all. The fringe character of the whole subject is the reason why you have to turn to an article by a virtually unknown local historian in a Crimean newspaper in the first place. To insist that an otherwise insignificant aspect of the history of gas vans should be exempted from the strict sourcing restrictions otherwise applied in the very same article is inconsistent, confusing and leading to distortion.--] (]) 09:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
			*
	:::::"Sources on the Holocaust usually do not mention...". Sure, that's why we do not mention Soviet gas vans on the page ], but only on page ]. ] (]) 10:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
			Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved:
	::::::] refers to the "main article" ]. So the latter article is very much within the scope of the topics under source restruction.--] (]) 17:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
			*
			''']]''' 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' Why even use newspaper article (or op-ed), when there are plenty of peer reviewed journals and books devoted to this part of the world/history? If you want author´s opinion, simply use higher quality source he wrote on the same topic. ] (]) 06:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)		:I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in ''The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast'' (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. also seems to be a relevant document. ] (]) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*Yes, sure, one can easily skip this source and simply use books by ], ], ] and others. However, Assayer and Paul want to remove claims by almost all RS about it (see ; actual edits on the page ), and replace them by a blog post by unknown person (see ). ] (]) 10:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
			:::{{tq|1=There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle}}<br>]?<br>{{tq|1=citing Portuguese records}}<br>That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above ''']]''' 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	::This is not the place to discuss content dispute.] (]) 10:08, 29 October 2019 (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)
			== Bossip ==
	:It's absurd to use this source for Russian Communism, which is one of the most studied and documented topics in the world. Imagine writing an article about the American Civil War or Amundsen's journey to the South Pole and using a village newspaper in Spain as a source. This is clearly cherry-picking, choosing an obscure source that presents information not accepted in mainstream scholarship. ] (]) 06:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
			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)
	I would remind users this is about reliability, not ].] (]) 09:55, 31 October 2019 (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)
			::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 ==
			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)
	From the article: "Her 2008 poem "Material" appears in England's current school sixth-form syllabus." . I know very little of England's educationsystem or Pearson, so my question is: does the ref support the claim? ] (]) 12:07, 28 October 2019 (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)
	: It's likely accurate, but it's a primary source so shouldn't be used anyway. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 12:09, 28 October 2019 (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)
	*Actually, I think this is a good use of a PRIMARY source. It's Due for inclusion because most poets are not on the syllabus and it's a simple verifiable fact not subject to interpretation. <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 14:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	::{{u|Fiamh}}, assuming this source supports "appears in England's ... school sixth-form syllabus", would you say it supports "current?" ] (]) 15:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::{{u|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}}, No, I'd say "was on the syllabus in 2017-18". <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 16:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	== californiabirthindex.org ? ==		== 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 in ] where their opinion is being used as fact ]. Issues below also make it difficult to establish reliability via ].
	Can anyone tell if this is a credible primary source for birth records, or if there is a better one?
			I'm not familiar enough with Beebom to know their overall reporting but I've come across issues.
	In particular is an ongoing dispute if ] was actually born Justin. Or any other name.
			* 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.
	Any help appreciated! ] (]) 21:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
			* Their are limited and don't disclose important information. For example, they don't state a separation of ads from editorial. They don't mention here the affiliate programs they're in or the sponsorship deals they do. They don't mention their Beebom Gadgets storefront where they sell phones and make videos on them. However, they disclose having an Amazon affiliate program in their . But they don't disclose the other "affiliate partners" they use. These issues brings into question conflicts of interest which they don't have a policy on. Alongside other basic guidelines like a corrections policy or how they handle accepting samples (if they do).
			**A 2016 interview explains that they make money from sponsored posts and partnerships. This isn't included in their editorial guidelines. I bring it up since they feature this interview on their About Us page, but Misplaced Pages blocks links to the interviewer's site, YourStory.
			**They as "#sponsored" 5 years ago but stopped. It seems they now use a byline named "Partner Content" for those articles. But they don't mention anything about a sponsorship or partnership in their latest article under this byline. Nor is there anything about this in their policies. So I can't confirm if they do this for all paid content or not.
			*I tried looking into their gaming coverage after seeing them on the ] page and found a where they deliberately lie. The headline is, "Black Myth: Wukong Is Now the Most Played Steam Game of All Time", which they almost immediately state isn't true. While also stating "Yes, Black Myth Wukong is now the most-played Steam game of all time!" This makes me question their overall fact checking and reliability when they lie in a news headline.
	: this is not a question of reliability. Primary sources cannot be used per ]. The policy is very clear. ] (]) 22:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)		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)
	::It’s foremost a question of reliability. If the information is from an unreliable source then I won’t consider using it as a reason to search for reliable secondary sourcing. If the source is accurate then it begs the question why the disconnect of what is true, verses what is being reported.
	::It’s been suggested Smollett, or someone, changed his name, although some states amend birth certificates maybe California does not. ] (]) 23:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::The policy language could not be clearer: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."
			: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)
	:::If reliable secondary sources do not discuss the material, then it ''must'' be excluded by policy. "It’s been suggested Smollett, or someone, changed his name" is precisely the type of innuendo and rumor that has absolutely no place in Misplaced Pages, and this is a matter of policy that every Misplaced Pages editor is obligated to follow.] ] 02:47, 29 October 2019 (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)
	::::I wasn’t looking to use it as a source per se, but to determine what is accurate in the many sources available.
	::::Right now we are unable to reliably source any birthname so we’ve removed that from the info box.
	::::At this point it seems he was born Justin, and Jussie is a nickname. None of which has been reliably sourced, but all of which have been ongoing edited into the article.
	::::I figured there was something to it and wanted to get some resolution on the matter. ] (]) 03:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::::"Justin" should be excluded from the article until reliable secondary sources report it. The fact that one very reliable source ''withdrew'' the claim is a strong indication that the so-called birth name was probably an error. ] ] 04:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
	::::::Excluding ‘Justin’ for now is exactly what we are doing; because of this inquiry we are also removing the ‘birth name’ from info box because there is *no* source he was born as ‘Jussie’. ‘Jus’ is one of many nicknames for people named Justin, personally I feel this is the most likely explanation.
	::::::I’m convinced there’s at least one very good PR person at work on the issue, as can be seen on the article talk page. ] (]) 05:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
			== Jacobin ==
	FWIW: ''Sports Illustrated'' refers to Smollett as "Justin." Foreign publications also refer to him as "Justin." Is SI a decent enough source? ] (]) 18:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Also ''Elle'' which is likely also to be RS. [https://www.programme-tv.net/news/series-tv/224892-jussie-smollett-agresse-la-star-dempire-sort-enfin-du-silence/
	], ''The Panther'', how many are needed? ] (]) 18:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
	:Thank you! I’ll post these to the article talk page. ] (]) 19:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
			Jacobin is currently listed as "generally reliable" under ]. ] (]) 08:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	== catholicism.org ==
			: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)
	*{{Domain uses|catholicism.org}}
			: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)
	This website is currently being used in 76 articles. It's published by the New Hampshire branch of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, a religious group with no official recognition from the Catholic Church. Here are some recent news articles about the group: . While the SPLC's coverage of traditionalist Catholicism is generally incomplete and of poor quality <small>(e.g., why do they label anti-ecumenism and ] "worse" than antisemitism? )</small>, I agree with their characterisation of the New Hampshire Slaves as antisemitic. Would it be appropriate to treat this website as an unreliable source for everything other than the views of the Slaves? Cheers, ]] 05:49, 30 October 2019 (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)
	:A non-canonical Catholic institution is only going to be reliable for its own views. Actually, the same is true of official Catholic Church publications. But the latter viewpoint is much more important and likely to be appropriate for inclusion in articles. <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 06:29, 30 October 2019 (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)
			== Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors ==
	== Source for some quote that has no proof in material historical documents ==
			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.}}
	In the article on Uskoks<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Uskoks#History</ref> the following is mentioned, I quote "Large numbers of '''Serb fugitives from Bosnia and Serbia fleeing the Ottomans''', joined the ranks of the Uskok bands <ref>Goffman, Daniel (2002). The Ottoman Empire and early modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-45280-5.</ref><ref>Davies, Norman (1996). Europe: a history. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198201717.</ref> " I read the book from Goffman Daniel<ref>https://archive.org/stream/The.Ottoman.Empire.and.Early.Modern.Europe/The.Ottoman.Empire.and.Early.Modern.Europe_djvu.txt</ref> and page where these Serbs are mentioned but there is no evidence for that claim(migration from Serbia or mention of Serbs) so i wonder what to do? These historians have stated it but it has not been proven by anything, otherwise it cannot be proven with nothing because there are no historical documents that mention Serbs in that part of Croatia except one document but these Serbs migrate to Slovenia. Two historians are factual evidence for Misplaced Pages however these historians tell fairy tales, what do I do? I started a topic on the talk page<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Uskoks#Irrelevant_evidence_and_proposal_for_delete_parts_of_the_article_which_have_no_evidence_in_the_original_historical_documents</ref> but i am wondering what else i can do, thanks.] (]) 18:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
	:{{u|Mikola22}}, please take another look at ], ], and ]. It is perfectly acceptable (in fact preferable) to use reliable secondary sources for a claim without personally examining the primary sources used. <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 19:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
			Clearly this situation is alarming in the extreme and the discussion at the arbitration case brought forward the very reasonable suggestion of a project-wide block of all Heritage Foundation domains. So why here? Well Aquillion suggested a reasonable first-step toward this would be to get the site deprecated and blacklisted via RS/N. So that's what I'm here to do. ] (]) 14:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	Maybe I didn't express myself well, there are no historical data of Serbs in the Senj area or that they are members of the Uskoks. How to use reliable secondary sources for a claim when they are not proven. It is as if they mentioned that Turks were Uskoks but there is no information about Turks been Uskoks. I suppose those historians quote some Serbian historians who are probably seeing Serbs there. Factual data says the following: "Determining the exact national or ethnic composition of the Uskoks from Senj is extremely difficult since is rarely recorded nationality of the Uskoks, (most commonly terms for Uskoks are "Croat", "Slavs", "Morlaks")<ref>{{University of Zadar
			:I am unsure about a retalitory deprecation (or whatever). ] (]) 14:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	History Department
			::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)
	Undergraduate university study of history }} https://repozitorij.unizd.hr/islandora/object/unizd%3A582/datastream/PDF/view#page=5</ref> It is difficult to actually determine the national and ethnic composition of the Uskoks, Venetians are described Uskoks as
			:::Is that not best done with range blocks, to prevent them from setting up accounts? ] (]) 14:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	Croats, Habsburg sources also identify Uskoks as
			:::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)
	Croats. <ref>{{UNIVERSITY OF RIJEKA
			::::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)
	FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY IN RIJEKA }} https://repository.ffri.uniri.hr/islandora/object/ffri%3A490/datastream/PDF/view#page=11</ref> About a migration from Serbia to Senj we should not waste words for that. Do you now understand what this is all about?] (]) 20:30, 30 October 2019 (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)
	:{{u|Mikola22}}, Yes, this is exactly what NOR is for. If you have a supposition based on evidence that published sources are mistaken, write a history paper on the subject and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. THEN cite it here. <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 22:05, 30 October 2019 (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)
	::But they do not prove it in their books because there is no evidence for that. We cannot based some fact on the statement of some historian which claim that the Uskoks are Serbs when there is no evidence for that. So i should write a scientific paper to refute it? But i cited scientific papers where Serbs are not mentioned as Uskoks. We have some new history that we didn't know about until now. So far we have not had a single historical record that talk about Serbs who are coming in masses to Croatia(Senj area) but on Misplaced Pages it says and everyone who reads that fact really thinks it's true. If someone starts write that the Chinese are coming to Croatia and that will be true because someone wrote it in their book. It's like quoting and put in wikipedia article clame of Serbian historian Jovan Cvijic who mentions White Serbia from where Serbs come to the Balkans, but there is no historical documents that mentions White Serbia. Do not tell me I need to write a scientific paper to refute that claim of Jovan Cvijić? Misplaced Pages is a great platform for Serbian propaganda because no one is looking for original evidence. If these claims start to be transmitted by foreign historians we will have some new history and we already have one. Croatian emigrants in America or Argentina when he reads about Uskoks in the wikipedia he will probably think that Senj Uskoks are and Serbs although there is no evidence for that, some citizens in Serbia will think the same. It's like reading a serbian wikipedia I quote "The Uskoks people were Serbs who fled from Ottoman territory to the border regions of Austria and the Venetian Republic." I have now stated that there is no historical information for that. Twilight Zone?] (]) 05:57, 31 October 2019 (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}}
	:::Do they say it in their books? Please read ].] (]) 09:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
			== Could someone who can read Bengali take a look at ]? ==
	::Quote from the book: "Just as it rounded Pola point, less than one day out from Venice, a swarm of some forty small boats suddenly darted in from the east and quickly infested the massive and clumsy galley. '''The courier knew that these were Uskoks, a community of destitute yet determined privateers — many of whom were fugitives from Ottoman Bosnia and Serbia — entrenched in the northern Dalmatian seaside town of Senj, sanctioned by the Habsburg state, and dedicated to struggle against Islam.''' Despite their sworn opposition to the Ottomans, it was Venetian shipping that most suffered from their attacks, which invariably occurred in the Adriatic "sea of Venice." Uskok zeal excused strikes. Bracewell, Uskoks of Senj, passim." This is what Goffman Daniel writes in his book, he does not explore history of Uskoks. Probably quotes Catherine Wendy Bracewell. The first we should see a page of her book where she quotes this and evidence for that claim. I have been following the reviews of her book in Croatia and she determined someone's origin based on names and surnames. A review, I quote "She notes, however, that to determine of Uskoks origin helps their names and surnames <ref>https://hrcak.srce.hr/15897#page=250</ref> It only proves that is true what i'm talking about i.e. that we do not have any historical information about Serbs in the Uskoks, but that should be clarify by names and surnames? How when half of Croatia are under Turks and a good part of the Croats convert to the Orthodoxy. This is as it claims by Serbian historians from the 19th century. For part of the article in which are mentioned migration of '''large numbers''' of Serbs from Serbia there is no evidence for that so we don't even need to discuss it. Otherwise someone could write book about the British population and identify someone's origins based on their first and last names, if someone wrote that in a book people would probably think he was crazy.] (]) 12:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::I am not sure this source supports either conclusion. It does not say they were Serbs (but were from Serbia), but nor does it say they were not Serbs.] (]) 12:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
	::Yes, right now i noticed that. Serb fugitives are not mentioned in the book of Goffman Daniel but this is stated in the article on Uskoks.] (]) 13:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
	{{talk ref}}
			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)
	== ''The Guardian'' on Hong Kong protests ==
			== The Heritage Foundation ==
	Is this ''Guardian'' article a reliable source for citing that at least nine suicides have been linked to the ]? ] (]) 14:19, 31 October 2019 (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 . 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 linked to or published by the Heritage Foundation.—] 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Might be best to attribute it, but yes.] (]) 14:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
			{{reflist-talk}}

---

Latest revision as of 19:15, 8 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)

  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)

RfC: Bild

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors

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.

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)

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. 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 linked to or published by the Heritage Foundation.—Alalch E. 19:14, 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.

Categories:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment