| Revision as of 19:09, 19 June 2020 editPetrarchan47 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,771 edits →Fox News: reliability in context: re.s← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:32, 9 January 2025 edit undoM.Bitton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users54,606 edits →Poll | ||
| 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 = |
|counter = 462 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchivSee = 1 | |minthreadstoarchivSee = 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 | ||
| --- |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ||
| --> | --> | ||
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | |||
| == (Infomercial voice) But Wait! There's still more!! (News about ''The Daily Mail'') == | |||
| == RFC Science-Based Medicine == | |||
| * --] (]) | |||
| <!-- ] 02:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1736474472}} | |||
| Is the blog ] in whole or in part, a ]? ] (]) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Quote from ]: "The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically" | |||
| *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) | |||
| We need to modify our handling of old pages from ''The Daily Mail'' to say that care must be taken to cite the original historical material and watch out for modern, edited versions. --] (]) 15:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Christ on a stick, what is wrong with them? This is exactly why some of us do not think the "discouragement" goes far enough.] (]) 15:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{strikethrough|], is there a reason that you chose not to list this RfC on the Maths, science, and technology list? If not, would you mind adding that topic area to the RfC template? Thanks,}} ] (]) 19:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Strongly suggest removing the text "Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context" from ], or cautioning also that they literally fake their own historical articles. Never trust the DM - ] (]) 16:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Never mind, Raladic added it. ] (]) 20:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Responses (Science-Based Medicine)=== | |||
| :That's bizarre. Instead of using their own historical material, they took the trouble to invent fakes that look "old-timey" (and they buried a vaguely-worded disclaimer four pages down). Do they think that slightly yellowed images won't bring in the clicks? Is fabrication simply their instinctive course of action? In any case, I support {{u|David Gerard}}'s suggestion. ] (]) 19:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not SPS''' - Per the previous RfC, there seems to be no reason to rehash this. The editorial practices of SBM show that they do not act like an SPS and that has not changed since the prior RfC. So there appears to be no reason to deviate it from it now. What is the rationale for this repeat RfC other than to try to discredit it? SBM is one of the watchdog media that help keep ] science out of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 02:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' {{summoned by bot}}, @] has there been in discussion of this on this noticeboard since the last RFC? '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I could formulate a rewording ... but idiots try to drive trucks through anything that looks like an exception. So I'd suggest this behaviour is egregious enough to remove the sentence. If people want to argue it case by case they can show they went to a microfilm archive or something, 'cos we literally can't trust the online version or reprints not to make stuff up - ] (]) 22:27, 5 May 2020 (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) | |||
| :::That would be my take, There are archive versions not held by the Daily Myth. Thus any use if the DM must be independent of the DM.] (]) 22:36, 5 May 2020 (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) | |||
| ::{{yo|XOR'easter}}, in this case BoingBoing seems to be insinuating that the ''Mail'' may have been trying to make themselves look less pro-Nazi, so there is a motive beyond a contempt for journalistic integrity. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 23:00, 5 May 2020 (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) | |||
| :::To be fair it looks more like a case of "our readers are so shallow they cannot understand anything not couched in modern terms and style". What I do not understand is why bother to make so much effort to create a "Fakesimalie". They could have done a "Yay for us 70 years ago" without "faking" a front page so totally (such as "for King and Empire").] (]) 09:44, 6 May 2020 (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) | |||
| :'''Remove''' wording. This is yet another reason why we cannot trust this source. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 01:10, 6 May 2020 (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) | |||
| :: '''Done'''. --] (]) 12:42, 6 May 2020 (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) | |||
| :::I would rather this had been given more time for wider feedback, not that I disagree.] (]) 12:53, 6 May 2020 (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) | |||
| ::*I am tempted to revert that for 2 main reasons: 1. The inclusion there is the result of two RFC's. The wording is a summary of those RFC outcomes. By changing the wording fundementally in that manner, it no longer reflects the RFC. What that change does is prohibit (at least that is what it will be taken to do) all uses of Daily Mail historical material. It certainly needs a bigger discussion than the brief one here. 2. Its using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The Daily Mail despite its more recent faults has plenty of decent reporting over the decades previous. We cite the original publication, not The Daily Mail's reworked version of it. A more appropriate response would be adding wording to ensure the material cited has been verified from copies of the orignal. We take it on good faith anyway that written sources we dont have access to say what the editor says they do, and any editor using this as an excuse to misrepresent sources would be rumbled pretty quickly. ] (]) 23:07, 6 May 2020 (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) | |||
| :::Personally I would we rather used a nuclear bomb over such blatant crappyness, but I get your point, and said as much myself early on. Yes I would rather you reverted and this was made a formal RFC to overturn the last two.] (]) 09:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::This just seems like sealioning but here you go... ] (]) 14:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::See . | |||
| :::: |
*::::::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) | |||
| :::::See below - ] (]) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (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) | |||
| :So we are using a situation source ('']'') to determine the RSP entry of the Daily Mail, that seems rather odd. Regards ] ] 11:58, 9 May 2020 (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) | |||
| ::That is an accurate summary of the above and additionally there's no proof. According to The Times (apparently the May 2 1945 New York Times is meant) said "London newspapers received the announcement of Hitler's death just as the early editions were going to press but the second editions went 'all-out' on the news, with long obituaries of Hitler and biographical sketches of Doenitz ...". Thus the copy with the label "4A.M. Edition" might well greatly differ from what ends up in archives, and layout might greatly differ too if the early-morning audience was more inclined to visuals. The boingboing.net accusation is far more plausible but in the absence of a reliable source, or a copy of a "4A.M. edition" that differs from the picture, it's not established fact. ] (]) 13:53, 16 May 2020 (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) | |||
| :The term for it is ] which has an illustrious history of practitioners. It is ] given it is an attempt to rewrite their own history as Nazi sympathizers. -- ]] 13:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ===RFC: Remove "reliable historically" sentence from ] summary=== | |||
| {{archive top|This request for comment ("RfC") concerns how to summarize Misplaced Pages's consensus about the Daily Mail newspaper, a British tabloid publication with a well-deserved reputation for populism, bias, fact-distortion, rabble-rousing and, on more than one occasion, publishing stories whose relationship with the truth is so tenuous that they appear to be made up. For some reason, someone has added that the Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically, and the issue at this RfC is whether this wording truly reflects what the community believes.{{pb}}The triggering incident for this RfC was when the Daily Mail published a faked version of its own historical front page. This does raise concerns about whether historical versions of the Daily Mail are accurate{{pb}}On a technical level, I should note that the RfC concerns an edit to ], which is an essay-class page. Essay-class pages are ones that the community has not vetted, so we cannot necessarily say that the current wording enjoys community consensus, except in its weakest form (see ]). In practice, I understand this to mean that a relatively weak rough consensus at this page would suffice to make the edit: my view is that the "threshold of consensus", to coin a phrase, is relatively low here.{{pb}}I find that there is such widespread dissatisfaction with the current wording that it cannot be allowed to stand. Very few editors make comments that I can construe as opposition to change. However, there is no consensus about what the change should be.{{pb}}I conclude that because an edit must be made, but there is no consensus about which edit, it's right for me to make the most conservative one: to add the qualifier "Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in the Daily Mail." I shall make this change with my next edit.{{pb}}This discussion has attracted a lot of interest and I'm conscious that my close may be controversial. Normally, when someone wants to challenge an RfC close, they are asked to visit the closer's talk page and discuss it with them first. But this is an RfC about sources, so I have reflected carefully on it, and taken a lot of time over it to ensure that I am confident that my close is the best reflection of community consensus that I could possibly apply. It is very unlikely that I will change my mind. If you have ''questions'' about the close then I'll be delighted to answer them, but if you want to ''challenge'' the close then I waive any requirement to come to my talk page and invite you to proceed directly to the ] where RfC closes are reviewed.{{pb}}I hope this helps.—] <small>]/]</small> 11:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)}} | |||
| The ] summary on the Daily Mail includes the sentence "Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context". However, the Daily Mail also presents altered versions of its historical content, ]. (At the bottom of the altered content was a noting it had been "specially edited and adapted" - which was not noticed by many members of the general public.) This leaves readily available historical versions of Daily Mail content questionable - as well as its untrustworthiness per the 2017 ] RFC and its 2019 ratification, the site dailymail.co.uk appears not to be trustworthy about the Daily Mail's own past content. | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| Suggested options: | |||
| *:It's a day that ends in -Y.... ] (]) 01:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Remove''' the "reliable historically" sentence from the summary on ] | |||
| *: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) | |||
| #'''Add a qualifier''': "Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in the Daily Mail." | |||
| *: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) | |||
| #'''Do nothing''' | |||
| *::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) | |||
| #'''Something else''' | |||
| *:::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) | |||
| 10:08, 7 May 2020 (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) | |||
| ====Suggested action on ]==== | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''Remove''' the sentence - ] (]) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (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) | |||
| *'''Remove''' as the material they did publish might be reliable, they are just not reliable for having published it. But if it is reliable someone else would have written about it. Thus (and given the possibly of accidental or deliberate abuse) I have to change to remove, if they cannot be trusted over what they themselves have published they cannot be trusted over anything.] (]) 10:14, 7 May 2020 (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) | |||
| *'''Remove''' per David Gerard's reasoning below. As a secondary consideration, we should be discoraging use of historical newspaper sources anyway. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 10:39, 7 May 2020 (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. | |||
| * '''Remove''', with the caveat that the ''print'' edition may pass, so a print archive might be acceptable? ''']''' <small>(])</small> 11:44, 7 May 2020 (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. | |||
| ::So (in essence) remove and add qualifier?] (]) 11:59, 7 May 2020 (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). | |||
| :::I wouldn't even add suggested ways to use the DM, they'll be taken as blanket permissions - ] (]) 12:54, 7 May 2020 (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. | |||
| :::It doesn't look likely to pass, but an official WP consensus opinion that dailymail.co.uk is not a reliable source for the content of the Daily Mail would certainly be interesting - ] (]) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (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) | |||
| * '''Remove''' the qualifier, per Slatersteven, and also the notion that these sort of qualifiers confuse the situation. --]] 14:29, 7 May 2020 (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) | |||
| *'''Add a qualifier''' (though perhaps not needed as obvious). If the dailymail is unreliable, that may extend to their own historical content. But if you pull a dailymail piece off a microfilm archive or online archives not run by the mail (, ) then there shouldn't be any problem in that regard.--] (]) 14:32, 7 May 2020 (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 best answer is just remove all mention of historical from the Daily mail entry of RSPDM, and have the closing summary of the RfC you are reading now specifically mention that a microfilm archive or online archives not run by The Daily Mail is as good or as bad as the source where you read it. Having this subtlety ''in the RSPDM'' will indeed lead to misuse. Having it in the RfC closing summary will allow any editor to use the historical page (assuming that her local library's microfilm collection or www.historic-newspapers.co.uk are reliable sources for what was printed all of those years ago; if some other source starts faking historical newspaper pages we will deal with that specific source in the usual way). So I !vote '''Remove.''' --] (]) 15:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I said "'''USESPS''' is an essay, not a policy" (emphasis added). It seems that you're confusing ] (which as I noted is an essay) with ] (which is a policy). People clearly have different opinions about whether SBM is wholly SPS or only partially SPS, and if the consensus of this RfC is that it is only partially SPS, then the part that isn't SPS can be used for statements about living persons despite identifying itself as a blog. Also, the BLP policy is for statements about living persons, wherever they occur, but AFAIK, RS expert blogs can be used for DUE statements about non-persons, even if that statement appears in a biographical article. BLPSELFPUB is also an exception. ] (]) 21:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Bad RfC''' I will not say "support" or "oppose" because that might suggest respect for the WP:RSP essay-class page, which I do not have. It is in fact quite easy to see document images for back copies of the Daily Mail via Gale. (I did so for the May 2 1945 front page via my local library site for free, I assume that others have good library sites too.) ] makes it clear that editors have a right to use such material in some circumstances, regardless what people say in this thread. ] (]) 17:44, 7 May 2020 (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) | |||
| *'''Remove''' the sentence, and add a statement that historical content on dailymail.co.uk may have been significantly modified from its original version. ] (]) 00:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::@] makes a great point. Literally any propaganda shop could just have TWO people and then instantly always not be SPS according to this B.S. argument being pushed for why this source is allegedly "not SPS".............. ] (]) 14:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Add a qualifier''' It is possible to trust archives that were archived by trusted sources such as a national library, at the time of publication. Trustworthy archives exist as evidenced by the original BoingBoing post that found the original. -- ]] 13:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::So basically most local news is self-published as well then. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Something else''' - Clarify, do not make false statements. PRESERVE the indication of where there is good content of Daily Mail. I do not see support given re their current print about history, but if you need precision that the good is historical items not current items about history, it should per ] clarify the good is older published work. These might not be readily available elsewhere, as there simply isn’t much historical sources, and if the guide indicates the previously acknowledged good data is bad, then it’s just a case of the guide is giving false information. Cheers ] (]) 19:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Yes, most local and hyper local news outlets are in fact self-published. ] (]) 17:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*There is certainly good content from the Daily Mail... but ''there is no indication'' of which content that is. The OP didn't point out the old content is good, but that it cannot be trusted. They aren't going to put warnings on their stories saying, "This content is okay, the rest is a bit dodgy." It's just not going to happen. This is how these papers compete with each other. They wind up people who otherwise like to believe they ''don't'' want to be ''informed'' about reality, but ''warned'' about reality. They aren't worried about Misplaced Pages. They are worried about Facebook and Twitter. It feels like they are being thrown out. ''They aren't even here.'' They've little to no interest in what this site represents. They just want to make a splash in the pond, not write an encyclopaedia. <span style="color: #8a87a6; font-size: 11px; font-family: Impact">~ ].].]</span> 10:08, 17 May 2020 (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) | |||
| *'''Add the reality''', or what is the point? Anything less is just covering it up more. <span style="color: #8a87a6; font-size: 11px; font-family: Impact">~ ].].]</span> 10:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * |
*:I would agree with you that your two examples are not SPS, however I have seen people argue the contrary in both cases. ] (]) 00:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::Everything in ] is effectively an opinion piece and as such is actually treated like a SPS per ]. I also don't believe that '''any''' of the content in SBM is "clearly reviewed." ] (]) 00:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Remove''' per nom, or add a qualifier as the second-best option: since they're faking their own historical content, they're not a reliable source even for that. As for the idea of saying that historical content can be cited if one finds and cites the original in a library (and not the current Daily Mail's provably unreliable claims of what the original was)... under what circumstances is a (say) 1951 edition of the ''Daily Mail'' going to be both ''a'' <i>and also</i> ''the only'' reliable source we can find for something, anyway, and under what circumstance is information only reported in one so old edition of them going to be ] (or, in the case of an article as a whole, ])? I think, if anyone is trying to leave open ''some'' use of the Daily Mail as acceptable, I'd like there to be a concrete example of that being necessary and not just a contrived hypothetical. <small>(Off-topic, discussing using very old documents as sources makes me think of ], which has three sources, from 1870, 1909, and 2008 respectively, discussing how "the most beautiful" among them is a "type seems more Arabian than Berberic".)</small> ] (]) 15:56, 28 May 2020 (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) | |||
| *'''Add a qualifier'''. The fact that the Dailymail online cannot be trusted for archives for its past copies does not make their past copies inherently less reliable. You can still find physical copies that can be used for archives. If someone can provide actual evidence of the Daily Mail publishing false stories historically that can be justify the removal of this section. However, that is not the case this situation just makes finding archives of the Daily Mail harder which does not affect reliablity. Regards ] ] 09:25, 2 June 2020 (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) | |||
| *'''Remove'''. The Daily Mail has never been a trustworthy publication. There is zero reason to ever source anything to it. Anything notable to include will be sourced elsewhere, and anything that only ever appeared on the Daily Mail is likely fake. No qualifiers; there's absolutely nothing usable about it. ] (]) 17:10, 2 June 2020 (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) | |||
| *:Do you have any evidence that suggests this? How do you know say a 1905 archive copy of the Daily Mail is "likely fake"? Regards ] ] 23:36, 3 June 2020 (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) | |||
| * '''Remove'''. In addition to the above, the clause as currently written also invites debate about what counts as "old", which isn't great in terms of guidance. The Perennial Sources page already has "Context matters" in the lead, and "generally prohibited" within the Daily Mail section, both of which already invite wiggle room for instances in which an old edition may be the best source. ] (]) 15:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::How does "fail to apply in two different ways"? ] (]) 01:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Why are we discussing this''' - To be honest, this looks like Guy Macon returning, yet again, to this topic on which he has been so vocal for so long ("burn it, burn it with fire!"). We get it, you hate the DM, but what is the actual article-content issue being discussed here? None is presented. ] (]) 10:40, 12 June 2020 (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) | |||
| ::Clearly you failed to notice the fact that my explanation as to why we are discussing this has been in this thread fo over a month, so let me repeat it for you. | |||
| * '''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) | |||
| ::Let's talk about the basic error in thinking that led us here. Again and again I see people claiming that they "just know" that: | |||
| *:When we're looking at obviously non-self-published sources, they usually fit into one of these three models: | |||
| ::* The Daily Mail wouldn't lie about a direct quote, | |||
| *:# 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. | |||
| ::* wouldn't fabricate an interview, | |||
| *:# 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. | |||
| ::* wouldn't lie about whether the person who's name is on the top of an editorial is the author who actually wrote those words, | |||
| *:# 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. | |||
| ::* wouldn't lie if that "author" has a sufficiently famous name, | |||
| *:I wonder if any of these models feel similar to how you imagine SBM to work. ] (]) 04:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::* wouldn't lie if doing so would result in a lawsuit or fine, | |||
| *::I have in a sandbox. I wonder whether people would find that comparison useful in, say, ]. ] (]) 04:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::* wouldn't lie about material being original and not plagiarized with a few errors thrown in to make better clickbait, | |||
| *::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) | |||
| ::* etc., etc. | |||
| *::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) | |||
| ::Those who "just know" that there are times when the Daily Mail isn't lying expect the rest of us to find, not just multiple examples of The Daily Mail lying. but examples of them lying in every conceivable situation. | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| ::Last month I had no idea that The Daily Mail might lie about the contents of their own historical pages but I knew from experience that they lie in ''all'' situations. Now I have an example of them lying in this new specific situation. | |||
| *:@], 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) | |||
| ::'''I am getting sick and tired of playing ].''' At what point do we simply conclude that those who "just know" that The Daily Mail doesn't lie in some situations "know" no such thing and that The Daily Mail will lie about ANYTHING? --] (]) 09:50, 13 June 2020 (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 agree, every argument made about how the Daily Mail is sometimes reliable has been shown to be flawed. It is ridiculous we have this every time the Daily Mail is source or removed "but its reliable for this one thing". It just cannot be trusted for anything ever, at any time.] (]) 10:40, 13 June 2020 (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) | |||
| *'''Add qualifier'''; perhaps a note that the dead tree version can be relied on as a historical document of the time. Although that might be hard to "police". (In which case, just '''Remove''', as I doubt we would be losing much in the long-term.)]]] 10:51, 12 June 2020 (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".  <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) | |||
| ====Discussion on ]==== | |||
| I think we should just remove the sentence. It's ill-defined and not well supported in the RFCs themselves - when, precisely, was the DM not terrible? By what measure? - and IMO, encrusting a qualifier with further qualifiers is not clear. And qualifiers have historically been used by editors who want to use bad content as an excuse to add otherwise-unusable content - ] (]) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I was thinking that there are things they are notable for (such as the photo of St Pauls), but then if its notable others would have noted it, we don't need to use the (well this) Daily Myth).] (]) 10:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| If the result here is "Remove", it would probably also make sense to include an explanation that prevents this from being interpreted as contradicting the original conclusions. Maybe something like, "The original ] RfC left open the possibility that it {{tq|may have been more reliable historically}}, but a subsequent RfC determined..." ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 12:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :certainly - it'll be linked as a third listed RFC, link it from ] which is the 2017 RFC ... there will be various sensible ways to handle it. The present text has been modified in uncontroversial ways before, e.g. I noted other "dailymail" domains which aren't the DM, and dailymail.com used to be a proper newspaper, the ], which is in fact used as a source in Misplaced Pages, before the DM bought it from them - ] (]) 14:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :certainly not - that would modify the closed and archived WP:DAILYMAIL RfC even though the subject here (read the topic, read the questions) is not about that, and even if it were it would not be legitimate here. If you want to overturn what the closers concluded in WP:DAILYMAIL your recourse is ]. ] (]) 14:12, 9 May 2020 (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) | |||
| *:Editorial oversight means reviewing content prior to publishing to ensure the content being published is factual, etc. It's not about who the author is, it's about the substance of the content. ] (]) 02:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Are you suggesting that if I write a letter to the editor of some local newspaper, and it is published, then the newspaper is a SPS? ] (]) 03:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::@] If it was published without review? Yes. A website that published unreviewed content is not a publisher, it's a self-publishing platform. ] (]) 03:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Are you suggesting that the editors of the local newspaper basically do nothing? ] (]) 03:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I think you are using the wrong analogy. If you can publish directly, based on your own decision to publish, without anyone else reading or vetting your writing before it appears, you are self publishing. If an editor checks the material and approves it before publication, it is not self publishing. SBM allow some editors to publish without checking or vetting the material before it is published, as you akcnowledged, so in those cases it is an SPS. - ] (]) 05:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::At the very least anything written by Gorski and Novella there seems to be strong consensus that at minimum those articles are very clearly SPS. In other cases, I think it is dubious at best, since Gorski and Novella run the show and whether or not any real "editorial review" is happening on this blog appears to be very, very much in doubt. The analogy of a "local newspaper" and a ] is not actually analogous, and it is weird that an exception was ever carved out for this blog for it to somehow not be considered SPS. Thankfully it appears as if a new consensus has emerged as a result of this RfC in favor of SBM now being considered SPS, or at minimum, anything published by Gorski or Novella absolutely is without a shadow of a doubt SPS. ] (]) 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:We are all making assumptions about "what it means" because SBM is not transparent enough about its editorial policies. It pales in comparison to journals that tackle many of the same topics. This is precisely why it's SPS. ] (]) 16:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Thats right. This "Not SPS" argument is without merit. SBM is not a journal, it is a blog and is 100% SPS. ] (]) 17:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind. ] (]) 03:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks. ] (]) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: Bild == | |||
| :I think ] in general is not as well written as it could be, and undermines itself in significant ways. In particular, it does not cite its sources or attempt to justify its objections. In order to find those sources we are presumably expected to trawl through a total of 45 separate discussions. | |||
| <!-- ] 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1736895671}} | |||
| :The Daily Mail is a well-established newspaper with relatively wide circulation. It is well known that it is biased, and it is also well-known to be disliked by precisely the sort of demographic that (one would assume) would edit Misplaced Pages. Given the zeal with which the DM is removed, it is quite easy for someone not intimately involved in the debate to conclude that the issue is not so much that the DM is unreliable, but that editors who denounce it do so for POV reasons. Particularly when the text being removed is something inherently subjective (e.g. a movie review) or where it is used as an example with explicit attribution (e.g. in a section on press coverage of an event). | |||
| {{rfc|media|rfcid=FF7A9FD}} | |||
| 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) === | |||
| :It might therefore be useful to augment ] and ] with a new essay, putting the reasons for our attitude to the DM and giving appropriate examples so that editors less familiar with the history can catch up and understand why it is being removed. ''''']''''' <small>'']''</small> 15:10, 9 May 2020 (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) | |||
| 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: | |||
| ::No, that's nonsense. The DM has similar politics to the Times and the Telegraph, but - and this is the key point - those behave rather more like papers of record that aren't given to fabrication. | |||
| * {{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 | |||
| ::The primary objection that Misplaced Pages-type people have to the DM is that they are ''repeated, habitual liars who make stuff up, and are extensively documented as doing so''. Do you really not understand that that's the problem? - ] (]) 22:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * In 2018 Bild fell for a hoax. Someone leaked emails supposedly between a major political party in Germany and a made-up Russian online figure. Bild published an article based on it. This is definitely a failure of their editorial process but they definitely did not do it on purpose and when this became known clarified that the whole thing was a hoax. I don't think that one such issue that happened 6 years ago should automatically lead to GUNREL status. Many other RS fell for hoaxes . ]<sub>]</sub> 13:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a massive understatement of what Lilienthal 2023 cited by Hemiauchenia actually says. The better part of the text's 92 pages is a critique of Bild's practices in a systematic fashion, summarized in its introduction (translated): {{tq|From the perspective of critical readers, BILD is constantly chipping away at its own credibility.}} | |||
| :::I suppose it's probably too much to expect you to actually read what I wrote before writing an abusive response. ''''']''''' <small>'']''</small> 10:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::If that's not enough, the paper includes an 8-page bibliography of other extensive studies of der Bild. It's silly to act like what should decide this source's reliability is some "gotcha" wiki-sleuthing based on recent scandal--we have the verdict of mountains of peer-reviewed research. Make a case based on that, as others have. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 14:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm just surprised that given the reputation of the source and all these analyses no one has come up with a examples of inaccuracies other than the 6-year old hoax. Unfortunately I don't speak German and so can't read Lilienthal's report. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. ] (]) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@], I've managed to translate it using Google Translate, thanks! | |||
| :::::These are the key points from the foreword | |||
| :::::# articles are published that hurt those affected and (can) irritate readers | |||
| :::::# BILD is running campaigns against political opponents – against Angela Merkel, Karl Lauterbach, Annalena Baerbock, to name just three examples | |||
| :::::# is said to have felt personally affected . Because he is co-owner of such a property in Berlin. He then prompted BILD editor-in-chief Reichelt to write extremely critical reports about Adidas and the rent freeze | |||
| :::::# A woman who says she suffered under former editor-in-chief Reichelt is suing the German media group in the USA because she felt let down by her former employer | |||
| :::::# A particularly drastic case occurred in early 2017, when the Frankfurt edition reported on sexual assaults by men with a migrant background on visitors to a prominent nightlife district - completely fabricated by people the editorial team trusted without checking. The embarrassment was great, and the retraction in the paper itself was inevitable. | |||
| :::::I think I understand the issues with it better now. Would you say that this is a reasonably complete summary or is there something else I missed? | |||
| :::::In my view #5 is most relevant for the assessment of reliability. They certainly didn't a good job as journalists but it doesn't seem like they fabricated stuff and in the end they published a retraction which is what we expect from sources. #2 and #3 show that it's clearly a very ] source. I'm still not sure it satisfies the WP:GUNREL criteria. ]<sub>]</sub> 23:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Actually the example you gave after your !vote about Bild's campaign against Christian Drosten is pretty convincing. ]<sub>]</sub> 23:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not really sure what is meant by {{tq|classif sources based on vibes}}, but if it means assessing the reputation of a source based on other reliable sources, that's kinda what we're required to do by policy. ] says {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}, as does ] multiple times. No reputation, no evidence of reliability. ] (] • ]) 00:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Because of Bild's outstanding importance and high circulation, politicians, celebrities and sportspeople often give Bild interviews. I consider these texts as generally reliable, in contrast to Bild's other articles. I've checked some of the {{duses|bild.de}}, most of them belong to the first category. --] (]) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Nigerian newspapers == | |||
| * Seems just silly, RSP is lazy and obviously a blanket statement will be sometimes flawed by giving false conclusions. Instead of examining specifics of an item in context per RS, or dealing with Mail had some bits accepted as RS, this just further pursues the false dichotomy of everything published by X is bad in every way or everything published by X is perfect in every way. Silly. The real question should be at what point are we to just ignore the ] supplement entry in favor of using the senior guidance ] and/or get actual specific judgement of ] instead ? Cheers ] (]) 19:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{small|As this RfC has elapsed, I've submitted a request for ] at {{slink|WP:RFCL#Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Remove "reliable historically" sentence from WP:RSPDM summary}}. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 06:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] has nothing about Nigerian newspapers, but references a project-list of them which seems rather too optimistic. It seems to me that these newspapers are filled with completely unreliable promopieces. You can see ], where a completely unknown Nigerian/French person supposedly got a US-only award from President Biden. Not a single source outside Nigeria confirms this, there seems to be no reason at all why she would have received this, but it got reported by , , , , ... | |||
| *'''Topsy-turvy logic''' - If I get the logic here, it's that the RFCs "proved" that the DM is a bad source that should be banned, but the proposers disagree with what the RFCs say now because they didn't "prove" that it was ever good. No, if you want to re-open this issue then you reopen the whole issue of the DM ban, you challenge the whole of the analysis of the RFCs, not just the parts you agree with. You want to over-turn an old RFC that basically banned a source (lets not kid ourselves that this isn't what happened or how it's being used - see the eradication campaign details below) because it didn't go far enough, when there was quite a lot of opinion voiced at both RFCs (dozens of editors in both RFCs - many more than have thus far spoken in favour of further extending the ban) that actually it was going too far, you cannot pretend that this ban is uncontroversial except for the parts you think didn't go far enough and that opposition to it never existed. The oppose votes in the previous RFCs must be taken into account here. ] (]) 10:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| We had similar issues with e.g. ], ], and probably many others which I can't find as easily. | |||
| ===Additional RfC Question: Under what conditions can we trust ''The Daily Mail''? === | |||
| (Background discussion moved from section above. See below for the actual additional RfC question) | |||
| 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) | |||
| Let's talk about the basic error in thinking that led us here. Again and again I see people claiming that they "just know" that: | |||
| : 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) | |||
| * The Daily Mail wouldn't lie about a direct quote, | |||
| :: 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) | |||
| * wouldn't fabricate an interview, | |||
| ::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) | |||
| * wouldn't lie about whether the person who's name is on the top of an editorial is the author who actually wrote those words, | |||
| :::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) | |||
| * wouldn't lie if that "author" has a sufficiently famous name, | |||
| :::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.--] (] | ]) 14:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * wouldn't lie if doing so would result in a lawsuit or fine, | |||
| :::Much of the editor population vastly underestimates how much of our reader base comes from these regions of the globe. | |||
| * wouldn't lie about material being original and not plagiarized with a few errors thrown in to make better clickbait, | |||
| :::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. | |||
| * etc., etc. | |||
| :::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. | |||
| Those who "just know" that there are times when the Daily Mail isn't lying expect the rest of us to find, not just multiple examples of The Daily Mail lying. but examples of them lying in every conceivable situation. Last week I had no idea that The Daily Mail might lie about the contents of their own historical pages but I knew from experience that they lie in ''all'' situations. Now I have an example of them lying in this new specific situation. I am getting sick and tired of playing ]. At what point do we simply conclude that those who "just know" that The Daily Mail doesn't lie in some situations "know" no such thing and that The Daily Mail will lie about ANYTHING? --] (]) 15:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::] (]) 00:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You will of course believe that this is precisely a problem I keep hitting in DM removals. "Surely it's reliable for his words!" No, why would you think that, it's the DM - ] (]) 17:17, 7 May 2020 (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) | |||
| Based upon the above, I propose the following: | |||
| :There's evidence that their promotional articles aren't reliable. But I've yet to see anyone present evidence here that other kinds of news from these sources are unreliable. Does anyone here have evidence of that? If not, I don't see why we'd deprecate these Nigerian news sources in their entirety, and instead I support Hemiauchenia's having added "Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability" to RS/P, perhaps adding something like "especially for promotional news articles." ] (]) 15:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Since the PROMO issues seem to be localized particularly to biographies, perhaps we could have guidance similar to what we use at NCORP that calls for heightened Nigerian source scrutiny re: independence when it comes to BLPs. Deprecating them just for BLPs might also be an option. ] (]) 18:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I refuse to comment on the instances that led to this proposal because they can happen on a platform with the format adopted by Misplaced Pages. However, I oppose the proposal to deprecate all Nigerian newspapers on English Misplaced Pages. Applying a blanket judgment based on issues with a few outlets among many is unjust and undermines Misplaced Pages's inclusivity. Nigeria's media landscape, shaped by its diverse population of over 500 languages and 300 ethnic groups, plays a critical role in democracy and accountability. | |||
| :"While no media is flawless, treating all Nigerian newspapers as unreliable disregards their contributions and efforts to uphold global standards. Media reliability concerns exist worldwide, yet discussion of this nature is sensitive and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than through blanket exclusions. Adopting this precedent ensures fairness and avoids marginalizing voices from the Global South. | |||
| :"I recommend individual evaluations of Nigerian newspapers, involving local expertise and ongoing monitoring, to maintain Misplaced Pages's mission of inclusivity and accuracy. A nuanced approach will preserve diversity and strengthen the platform's credibility."] (]) 02:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Yes banning falsehoods is a sacrifice I am willing to make, be they from White people black people, or yellow people. As I said about Fiox and the Daily Myth, if you do not want to be accused of telling lies, there is a simpler solution, do not tell them. This is my last response here with a firm '''not reliable'''. Prove me wrong and I will change my mind, but it has to be proof and not emotive appeals to (so-called) fairness. ] (]) 11:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ''' There are no situations where <s>the post-1960</s> ''Daily Mail'' is reliable for anything. See below for claims about itself.''' | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| * If TDM publishes an interview, that does not establish that the interview happened or even that the person interviewed or the person doing the interviewing actually exists. | |||
| ===Arbitrary break (Nigerian newspapers)=== | |||
| * If TDM publishes material under a byline, that does not establish that the person named wrote it, even if the person s famous or a paid TDM contributor. TDM can and will fabricate ''any'' material and publish it under ''any '' byline. | |||
| 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) | |||
| * If TDM publishes material, that does not establish that TDM has the right to publish it or that it was not plagiarized from another publication. All material published by TDM should be treated as a possible copyright violation. | |||
| * If TDM plagiarizes material from another publication, that does not establish that TDM did not edit it, introducing false information. | |||
| * Regarding using TDM as a source about itself, we can write "On The Daily Mail wrote X", but we cannot use any internet page controlled by TDM as a source for that claim. TDM cannot be trusted to not silently edit pages it publishes without changing the date or indicating that the page was edited. We should instead cite the Internet Archive Wayback Machine snapshot for that page. For printed pages, we need to cite a source that TDM cannot modify, such as an independent online archive or a library's microfilm collection. | |||
| * (added on 19:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)) In particular, the dailymail.co.uk website must never be used as a citation for anything, including claims about the contents of the dailymail.co.uk website or the print version of The Daily Mail. We are not to assume that what we read on any dailymail.co.uk page is the same as what was there yesterday, nor are we to assume that the content will be the same tomorrow, nor are we to assume that there will be any indication that a page was edited. We also are not to assume that users in different locations or using different browsers will see the same content. | |||
| * ''Even in situations where we have yet to catch TDM publishing false information, TDM is not to be trusted''. | |||
| <s>Note: I picked post-1960 because 1960 was when ] started his career at TDM. If anyone has evidence of TDM fabricating material before then, we can change the cutoff date.</s> --] (]) 16:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :See ]. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 20:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Additional RfC Question Discussion === | |||
| ::Sure, but this is by Nigerian editors who ranking Nigerian sources relative to each other. This is different from the standards that non-Nigerian Misplaced Pages editors have for sources. There are serious issues with quality of Nigerian media across the board, as elaborated on in this article: . It's definitely useful to tell the relative quality of Nigerian sources though. ] (]) 20:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::From direct experience, I have not observed Nigerian editors to be somehow inferior to non-Nigerian editors. They’ve been especially insightful in the several Nigeria-related AfDs I’ve participated in. I invite you to go through the more experienced Nigerian editors’ edit histories and see for yourself. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not saying that their judgment is poor or that Nigerian editors are inferior in any way, but that there are issues with Nigerian press across the board, such as low press freedom that is very different from say, news sources in Western Europe and North America, which should be kept in mind with evaluating their content. ] (]) 21:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I encourage you to engage with folks at ] as you develop guidance on Nigerian media. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 21:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I second this. I conversion about Nigeria WP should not be done without Nigerians editors involvement. Just because you found something wrong in some sources that doesn’t give you the right to assume all is bad. I can literally give you examples of where , in 2024! So let’s listen to these editors as they are more familiar with these sources. ] (]) 07:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Reliable sources can churn out a lot of rubbish once in a while. No matter what anyone says, the likes of Vanguard, Guardian, Daily Times, Punch, Daily Independent, The Sun, etc, would always be notable relating to general issues about Nigeria. Some weeks back, a state in Nigeria held their governorship election. These media houses in question were the source of verified information about the election. When a political appointment is made by the president, it is the same media houses that Misplaced Pages editors would use to establish the claim. If we make them unreliable, it means we are putting an end to Nigerian contents on English Misplaced Pages. These media houses will dish out promotional materials whenever they want and we can do nothing about it (it is business for them). All we can do as Wikipedians is to speedy norminate articles for deletion if they are not notable to be on the Wiki. The major issue we are having now is a result of a loophole in the notability criteria. GNG should not be used '''ALONE''' to establish notability. ] (]) 10:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' as proposer. --] (]) 16:53, 8 May 2020 (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) | |||
| * '''Support''' As it is becoming clear that they cannot even really be trusted for their own opinions.] (]) 16:56, 8 May 2020 (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.--] (] | ]) 11:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *The "1960" date - or any other date, or possible or impossible excuse - will absolutely be taken as a green light for open slather on filling Misplaced Pages with DM cites - I base this claim on the spectacular examples of DM fans trying to find loopholes in the words "generally prohibited", including ] who claimed that "generally prohibited" didn't mean ''completely'' prohibited, therefore his use was probably good. | |||
| :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. | |||
| :So I would ''not'' support listing a date without strong support for the DM ''ever'' having been good at any previous time - that is, clear positive evidence, rather than a lack of negative evidence. | |||
| :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. | |||
| :Examples of all the things they do would probably be good too. | |||
| :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) | |||
| :I would also explicitly note that the dailymail.co.uk website (by name) literally cannot be trusted as a source for the contents of the Daily Mail, amazing as that sounds - ] (]) 17:10, 8 May 2020 (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) | |||
| ::Point well taken. I just removed the "post-1960" wording. --] (]) 19:41, 8 May 2020 (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) | |||
| :::I also added a paragraph covering the possibility of TDM serving up different content to different users. There are documented cases of e-commerce sites giving you a high price if you are using an iPhone and a low price if you are using Windows XP, higher for Beverly Hills and lower for Barstow, etc. It would be technically possible for TDM to serve up different content regarding, say, Brexit to UK, US, and EU readers, and really hard for us to detect them doing so. --] (]) 20:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::See below for what DM advocates are like in practice. I could do with backup here from those who can actually read policy - ] (]) 23:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' without the post-1960 wording - ] (]) 19:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' without the post-1960 wording, per above. Let's not waste any more time on this garbage source. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 20:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **BTW, if people really want to get rid of DM references - talk on ] doesn't have any effect against dedicated DM warriors (and there really are dedicated DM warriors). The refs need to be got rid of, one edit at a time, and their removal defended (using literally our actual policies). is a good start - just start at the top and work down, judging usage and removing or replacing per the RFCs. If a few people even did ten a day, that would help improve Misplaced Pages greatly - ] (]) 20:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - please respect the seniority in guidance of RS and RSN, and a comment section within a RFC is not a valid RFC. What is in RSP is just some editors opinionating and phrasing, not necessarily a summary or strong consensus of views. If it was wrong in this case is just another example of such is imperfect and limited. I have always found the RSP idea simply too dogmatic and plainly a lazy and silly premise that there can be a perfect dichotomy of all-perfect or all-wrong that applies to all content of a publisher for all time. Cheers ] (]) 19:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' It's important that we highlight the level of fabrication we're dealing with here, to help good-faith editors understand why the usual exceptions for attributed quotes aren't applicable to DM. –] ] 02:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' without 1960 wording. There are zero places where the Daily Mail can be trusted. They're as bad as the National Enquirer. ] (]) 17:16, 2 June 2020 (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. | |||
| ===Is this unique to the DM?=== | |||
| Do other news sources do this? If so, we probably need to address it at the policy (WP:RS or WP:V) level. ] (]) 13:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Ish, I seem to recall that mock newspapers are common enough, but something tells me they are rather more obvious about not being genuine. But yes I can see this may need to be more general.] (]) 14:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::We would have to find a source that Is willing to lie about/fake anything at any time, and has been around for over 100 years. ''Infowars'' will lie about anything but nobody is going to believe a claim that something was published by Infowars in 1917. ''The New York Times'' might say "we published X in 1917" but they haven't shown themselves to be willing to lie about anything and everything. As far as I can tell, there is only one source that fits both and . --] (]) 16:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Mmm, the NYT flaws are something RSP supposedly should note, (e.g. they have a thing on for Trump,) and RSP supposedly was/is to capture RSN discussions, not go off and try to evaluate 100 years of publishing where there is no article usage in question. Cheers ] (]) 19:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Typically you'll see a scan or image and then the actual original text as text - you won't see , which was to say in the headline: | |||
| :{{tq|Read history as it happened: Extraordinary Daily Mail pages from the day Adolf Hitler died 70 years ago this week}} | |||
| :and then - as a tiny text box in the bottom right corner of the fourth cover image: | |||
| :{{tq|SPECIALLY adapted and edited from the original Daily Mail editions of May 2, 1945 and April 30, 1945}} | |||
| :without even the original images. And with the text of the articles changed from the 1945 text. | |||
| :If you wanted to claim this is something that other newspapers do, requiring a general solution, I think you'd need to first provide evidence of other papers doing this - ] (]) 17:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''No this is totally not unique'''. If you are from the USA, hear this, people ''know'' in the UK and Ireland that the tabloids are sensationalist. Sensationalism '''''is not''''' a dirty word in the newspaper media over here. All national sized newspapers are openly biased in one way or another. The least sensational is the London Times (''not'' the Irish Times, the Irish-only national papers are almost as bad as the British ones). This '''''does not''''' mean they are like the National Enquirer or the Weekly World News. That is not what a tabloid is over here. The newspapers ''are all'' walking the ''sensationalist'' line over here. Like your TV news. Ours is the other way around. Our ''TV'' news is almost impeccable. Newspaper news used to ] every day. Get it. Understand. It's not a secret. Our '''''TV''''' news over here is like your National Geographic. They are impeccable, documentary style, highly esteemed. Our ''newspapers'' are like, boobs out, '''SPLASH SHOCK EVERY SINGLE DAY HEADLINES''', every single day. You can rely on them for daily ''gambling'' news. Newspapers here are the actual authority on that. One of the less popular daily tabloids, the ], is ''nothing but'' gambling and boobs. There have been sitcoms about British tabloids since maybe forty years ago. ''They are not ashamed of what they are''. It is simply what they are. ZOMG LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN CAN I HEAR THIS RIGHT???? Yes. Just like that. It has muted over the years, but it is still obvious. They run conflicting stories, they sensationalise, *they are often an important informative part of culture*... not simply nonsense like the Weekly World News, ''always based'' in fact... but that is as far as they can be ''surely'' trusted. If they say a bomb went off, you can be sure one went off... If they say the sky has fallen down, yes, get your umbrella out. Do they receive letters from Elvis on Pluto... '''''no that is not what people are saying about them'''''. Can you trust them to word and check facts as an impeccable source of information? ''No!!'' They are sensationalist. They ''actually try'' to walk the line between being honourable and being in court. They are not ashamed of that. They exhibit personality, bias, seriously... people do not respect them at all... people ''love'' them... You've watched or seen Japanese gameshows, and thought, maybe a lot of the Japanese are actually crazy, right? ''But RTG''... how is newspaper culture supposed to compare to crazy Japanese gameshows??? Well... we can't do Jerry Springer and Oprah like you can... can we. It's like having a different accent. We stress different words. We have different attitudes about different individual things. Overall, it's pretty much the same insofar as it can be. It's like getting to know a different city. It might be north-south. It might be east-west, or it might be none of the above. <span style="color: #8a87a6; font-size: 11px; font-family: Impact">~ ].].]</span> 17:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Re "Our TV news over here is like your National Geographic. They are impeccable, documentary style, highly esteemed", see and . I'm just saying. --] (]) 03:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay, well you can't win them all, but the non-regional newspaper press defaults to popular sensationalism, not impeccable documentarianism. We rely on these sensationalist journals because they are popular and free on the internet, but they are off the cuff, and that is not what Misplaced Pages is trying to be. Good grief, did I delete the part where I pointed out that we have "newsagents" instead of "drugstores"? Newspapers are very useful to culture over here to inform people of incidents and events in the world around them, but they exist to sensationalise. <span style="color: #8a87a6; font-size: 11px; font-family: Impact">~ ].].]</span> 14:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I just saw this discussion while trying to figure out what provoked the sudden onslaught against conservative RS and whole publications that led to the creation of ]. It has been consuming a great deal of our time and energy, and I'm not quite convinced that it's all for the good of the project. I don't know anything about the DM or which way it leans but I found the information provided by {{u|RTG}} rather enlightening. I was a bit taken back by the Skeptical Inquirer link that {{u|Guy Macon}} provided to counter RTG's opinion of NatGeo, so I did some research which quickly led me to article. I will also add the following: {{xt|“Scientific results are always provisional, susceptible to being overturned by some future experiment or observation. Scientists rarely proclaim an absolute truth or absolute certainty. Uncertainty is inevitable at the frontiers of knowledge.” ~ }} I'm of the mind that as editors of an encyclopedia, we should not let our biases be the determining factor in the sources we choose to cite. No source is perfect - in fact, I don't know of anything manmade that is perfect which is why we are always striving for perfection, and I see that as a good thing. It is when we stop striving and focus only on dismantling and destroying that concerns me. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 13:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You are now at the stage of positing a conspiracy theory against "conservative" sources (actually against sources extensively documented as engaging in fabrication), and seem to be getting to the stage of ] and trying to out-post your perceived opponents. I urge you to reconsider whether this is the page for that sort of editing behaviour - ] (]) 15:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::] Agree, at least for recent history. Newspapers in the U.K. were more restrained and respectful before the 1970s. In the United States, for many years mentions have noted that television news switched to being entertainment and sensationalizing, and newspapers reliability and neutrality were in decline in the 1990s as another ‘death of truth’. Newspapers seem to largely be BIASED, going past individual specialties (e.g. Wall Street Journal covers business) into catering to their local market or playing to a subscriber audience. (e.g. NYT runs anti-Trump, Washington Examiner runs pro-Trump). In some ways that makes it easier for WP to find the POVs, but in general it is a WP issue as editors proclaim EVERYthing from NYT is not just RS but also TRUTH and WEIGHT because NYT said so — or proclaim EVERYthing from Mail is FALSE so not RS and large WEIGHT POVs get obliterated. Seems like 80% or so of what U.K. population sees is deemed non-existent right now. Unless it’s BBC or London Times, it just isn’t acknowledged to exist. Cheers ] (]) 20:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not sure what there is to be done about that. It seems maybe even dangerous, not to have any biases in media at all, and that is because the people themselves cannot be strictly trusted. The people themselves are no more worried about their information services building an encyclopaedia than the Daily Mail is. I struggle with it. What is the popular meme? Even if you tell the people the best thing to do they won't do it. Jimbo Wales has been trying to start a people-driven news service for years. The current iteration is https://wt.social/ <span style="color: #8a87a6; font-size: 11px; font-family: Impact">~ ].].]</span> 11:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *It is not unique to the DM, but the reason we have these sorts of discussion (as I said way back in the original RFC) is that they have a specific combination of prominence and unreliability that is comparatively rare. We can't individually depreciate or ban every single unreliable source; the purpose of these centralized RFCs is to address a situation where a source that is patiently unreliable in any context where we would want to use it is, nonetheless, being extensively used by some editors who try to insist it is reliable. I don't think we can address that in a sweeping sense at a policy level because whatever category we create or define, a source's defenders will insist it doesn't fall into it. When there's a significant disagreement over the facts as they relate to a specific source, and it's leading to constant issues over whether / where it can be used on Misplaced Pages, a centralized discussion like this is really the only option. --] (]) 15:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::*The issue is we're dealing with this is an emotive way ("Burn it! Burn it with fire!" to quote the leading advocate of these bans) stripped of any context. Let me give an example of a situation in which it is perfectly OK (in my view) to quote the Daily Mail in article: the film '']'', which taught WW2 US GIs about the UK was shown to a number of British newspaper critics who gave commentary on it. This included a reviewer from the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail reviewer's commentary (as a writer for a widely-selling newspaper) is obviously relevant to quote, alongside other commentary, in the article, as to how it was received. ] (]) 09:01, 15 June 2020 (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. | |||
| ===dailymail.co.uk reversion: eyes wanted=== | |||
| 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. | |||
| {{archive top}} | |||
| Problem at ] - see reversion with dismissive edit summaries, ignoring obvious policy issues, and personal attacks on ]. More eyes needed. | |||
| 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) | |||
| I'll flag more of these in this section as they come up - I assure you, this is an absolutely typical example of the genre: ignore all policy and guidelines, dive straight into the personal attacks - ] (]) 22:56, 8 May 2020 (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) | |||
| :Stop being a disruptive little edit warrior and stop with the outright lies. If you’d bothered to read the bloody message on the talk page, you’ll see that I said I would replace the source. Stop being such a dramah monger. - ] (]) 23:16, 8 May 2020 (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) | |||
| ::Please desist in your personal attacks - these are a violation of the policy ]. I believe my claims are fully supported by the material in the history and on the talk page - you reverted against policy and strong consensus, and made personal attacks. You also responded to citation of policy with citation of essays. Have you considered following Misplaced Pages hard policy, such as ]? - ] (]) 23:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::No personal attacks, and stop being so disruptive. I have said I will find a replacement in the morning (I first said it about 5 or 6 posts ago, but you've ignored it and kept disruptively pressing your point). Take your little crusade elsewhere until I've had the chance to look properly. It's 12:40am and I'm off to bed, but (for the nth time), I will look again in the morning. In the meantime, reflect that there are ways and means of doing things, and you are not doing things terribly well. - ] (]) 23:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::: www.dailymail.co.uk is not an acceptable source. You say you have a better source? Then use that source. Do not re-insert any citation to The Daily Mail. Also, please don't make obviously false claims like "No personal attacks" when 23 minutes earlier you posted a personal attack ("Stop being a disruptive little edit warrior... Stop being such a dramah monger.") --] (]) 01:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::FFS... You really don't bother reading what people say, do you? "{{tq|You say you have a better source?}}" I've not said that at all. On several occasions I have said that I will look for one,after a night's sleep. If you are looking for the best way to piss people off with your little crusade, you've found it: an inflexible approach of edit warring to instantly remove information that has been in place for several years, without allowing a few hours for that information to,be replaced? Get a fucking sense of perspective. As to the supposed PAs: I have given a fair description of your approach to this situation. Now back the fuck off for a few hours to allow for a search for a new source. - ] (]) 04:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Or you know, you get a sense of perspective and re-read ]/]. Leave the unreliably sourced information out until you have reliable source to back it up. Like everywhere else on Misplaced Pages. The world will not end if those passages are missing from the article for a few hours.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 05:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Seconded. SchroCat, I don't even need to leave this thread to see you ignoring policy and being combative and disruptive. Guy Macon clearly read what you wrote, he fucking quoted your personal attacks! If "dramah monger" really does fall under ], then it would be perfectly reasonable for the rest of us to suggest that you're the one ''starting'' the drama as if out of ], and ]. ] (]) 05:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * He obviously didn't read it, given what I've said, but if you want to back up a disruptive process by using personal attacks to call me a hypocrite with a "sense of blind entitlement". then I guess the blindness is thick on the ground here and the PAs are fine to throw around. As I said on the talk page, the information has been in the article for several years, and to a '''source that is not banned''' (and yes, Headbomb, the world will also not end if those passages ''remain'' in the article for a few hours while an alternative is sought - particularly as some was removed and some left with a cn tag - no logic there at all. And I'll let you strike your sentence saying the information was "unreliably sourced": it wasn't). I had acknowledged that I was going to look for an alternative source, and yet that still gives someone the right to edit war, rather than a few hours grace to find an alternative? Common sense has been replaced with the crusading zeal way too much. You lot have an apexcellent way of pissing people off by not bothering with common sense and choosing the most inflexible and disruptive path that inconveniences readers. - ] (]) 05:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :BTW, I've struck the lie in the title: I am not an advocate for the Mail and never have been. I voted in favour of the ban of the source and I'm glad to see it being removed, but it's the manner and method of that removal that is disruptive. Find a different way to deal with it, rather than edit warring and then calling me a "DM advocate". (That also falls under NPA, but I don't expect anyone will bother with leaving stupidity messages to warn Gerard about civility with name calling). - ] (]) 05:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Looking at the ] and ], I don't see you on either. Did you change usernames? - ] (]) 19:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' removed a reference to the ]. Has the ''Daily Mail'' ban been extended to the ''Mail on Sunday''? While they have the same owner they are editorially distinct as far as I am aware. From what I recall of the discussion all the evidence of falsified stories/quotes related exclusively to ''The Daily Mail'' title and its online presence. ] (]) 06:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Neither ] or ] covered the Mail on Sunday and there has been no RfC since then that would mean the source is unsuitable. Nice to know the disapprobation of the above (not to say the edit warring and grief) has been over the illicit removal of information cited to a source that is not deprecated. - ] (]) 07:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC) p.s. I've tweaked the title again to reflect the reality. - ] (]) 07:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::], | |||
| :::* Did you make this edit? | |||
| :::* Did that edit add the source ''www.dailymail.co.uk''? | |||
| :::* Did you also add "work=Daily Mail" in that same edit? | |||
| :::* Is www.dailymail.co.uk the URL for ''The Daily Mail''? | |||
| :::* Did I revert you with this edit? | |||
| :::* Was my edit summary in any way unclear? | |||
| :::* Did you then edit war to re-insert the source ''www.dailymail.co.uk''? '''again'''? | |||
| :::These are simple questions. You should be able to provide yes or no answers to each of them, but please do feel free to explain, in detail, why your edits actually added (and were reverted for adding) ]] but you are now claimingthat they only added ]? --] (]) 08:56, 9 May 2020 (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) | |||
| *Was or removing a banned source? Yes or no? Did this whole annoying mess start with the boundaries of ] and ] being pushed to delete information removed from a legitimate source? Why, when you removed the www.dailymail.co.uk source (rightly), do you feel it suitable to edit war to delete information cited to a legitimate source? These are simple questions. You should be able to provide answers to each of them. | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| :And again, it comes down not just to the removal of information (some of which was removed illegitimately, some legitimately), but in the crass and inflexible way it was done. As the information has been there for over a decade, was it urgent that it was removed immediately, even after I had said I would look for an alternative after a night's sleep? Again, this is a simple question. You should be able to provide an answer for it. - ] (]) 09:04, 9 May 2020 (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) | |||
| :A less easy to answer question is how many illicit removals have been made of information sourced to the Mail on Sunday? I do hope that a concerted effort is made to replace the information that should not have been removed. - ] (]) 09:27, 9 May 2020 (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) | |||
| ::{{ec}} Evasion noted. I will take your refusal to give a straight answer as an admission that in this edit you did indeed insert a citation to The Daily Mail. Again, please stop claiming that you only added a citation to The Mail on Sunday. | |||
| :], 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 on paid advertising. {{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”.}} {{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”.}} "Awards" issued by media are also considered corrupt. {{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) | |||
| ::Re ''"Why, when you removed the www.dailymail.co.uk source (rightly), do you feel it suitable to edit war to delete information cited to a legitimate source?"'' First '''ONE REVERT IS NOT EDIT WARRING.''' Please retract your false accusation and apologize. Second, I am not required to carefully examine your edits and remove only those portions that violate Misplaced Pages policy. It is '''your''' responsibility to make edits that follow policy. If someone reverts an edit of yours that contains a policy violation along with other material, It is ''your'' job to create a new edit that only contains non-violating material. Instead you purposely re-inserted the citation to www.dailymail.co.uk -- a citation that you yourself admit is not allowed. --] (]) 11:15, 9 May 2020 (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) | |||
| :::"One revert is not edit warring": yes it is, despite the shouty caps and bolding, if there has been a back-and-forth a couple of times and you join in, then you were as guilty of edit warring and me and Gerard. So no, no retraction, and certainly no apology. As you seem to be trying to avoid any responsibility for removing information cited to a legitimate source, there is little I can (or wish) to say or do. But you keep telling yourself you are perfect and I am the bad guy, if that's the way you want to go. You were in the wrong for some of these actions. Your evasion on the question of how much legitimate information has been removed is noted. No surprises. I'm off; I'll leave you to have ] - I'm sure you'll enjoy that. - ] (]) 11:22, 9 May 2020 (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) | |||
| ::::And again you misrepresent Misplaced Pages policy. ] says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page '''repeatedly''' override each other's contributions... ''What edit warring is:'' Misplaced Pages encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. '''An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts.'''" (emphasis added). Making false accusations against other editors is a form of personal attack. I think it is becoming clear that your behavior is something that needs to be dealt with at ]. Given the previous blocks in your block log for edit warring and personal attacks, an indefinite block is likely. --] (]) 12:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I misrepresent nothing. I was actually blocked for undertaking one revert in an edit war between two others, so feel free to take that case up on my behalf. And if you honestly think that going to ANI is a beneficial step, crack on and do just that. Or is it an empty threat and a way to raise my block log? Don't ping me to this page again, I really have no desire to discuss anyone so willfully obtuse who refuses to acknowledge that they have erred even in the slightest (I have admitted it, by the way: it's just you who are trying to evade any sense of doing anything wrong.) - ] (]) 12:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ===Brainstorming RfCs=== | |||
| *'''Follow-up comment''' I think there are two issues that emerge from this discussion: | |||
| 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) | |||
| # It appears that ''Mail on Sunday'' is not proscribed by either RFC, and as such citations to it should not be removed without further discussion. | |||
| # There is then the manner in which the sources to ''The Daily Mail'' are being culled. While a consensus exists to remove it as source I cannot honestly say exemplifies good practice. The problem with ''The Daily Mail'' is that it is untrustworthy, but much of what they report is still accurate. This was acknowledged in the RFC, and one of the arguments advanced by editors in favour of a ban was that an alternative source could be located for credible claims in most cases. Unfortunately this solution is being thwarted by an aggressive culling campaign. This edit removed legitimate encyclopedic information, which is probably to the detriment of the article. In the case of non-controversial claims that are not about living people would it not be better practice to simply remove the source and replace it with a {{tl|citation needed}} tag? While SchroCat technically shouldn't have restored the source I get the sense from him that what he was really doing was restoring the information, and he eventually located alternative sources. Is this not the most desirable outcome? | |||
| : ] (]) 19:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Betty Logan}}, the Mail is deprecated. That means it's untrustworthy. If something is ''only'' in the mail, we can't use it; if it is in another source as well, use that instead. Don't use the Daily Mail as a source. Or any tabloid, for that matter. The '''print edition''' of the MoS ''may'' be considered reliable case by case. But is still a tabloid so a better source is always preferred. | |||
| :: I have two particular problems with the Mail as a source for Misplaced Pages. The first is how it's used, which is often for trivia, especially salacious trivia (that's their speciality, google ""). The second, and related, is the notorious "sidebar of shame". I have a serious problem with linking to any site carrying that kind of bullshit from any Misplaced Pages article. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 10:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: So a "quality broadsheet", e.g. '']'', '']'', etc., which quotes the ''Daily Mail'' as '''it's sole source''' would be acceptable? Thanks. ] (]) 10:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Martinevans123}}, yes. They can be expected to have fact-checked it. But calling the Telegraph a "quality broadsheet" is a bit of a stretch these days. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 11:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::How would you describe it? Next on the list to be a banned? ] (]) 12:37, 10 May 2020 (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) | |||
| :::{{u|JzG|Guy}}, no-one is claiming that the Mail should be retained as a source. Two RfCs (in which I voted to ban its use both times) have confirmed that. What we are talking about is two different things here: 1. Much of this grief started because Gerard edit warred to remove a citation from the hard copy Mail on Sunday. That should not have been removed, and he has still to account for that. 2. The ''process'' when information from the Damily Mail or dailymail.co.uk is flawed. In this case the information has been in the article for over a decade, and yet it was suddenly necessary to delete it immediately without providing an adequate window to find a replacement? No. That's just dumb. It doesn't help our readers and it annoys the crap out of people. I said on the article talk page right at the start that I would find a replacement, but this was ignored, and the edit warring continued. How does that help anyone? As it was, the information was finally left in the article overnight (UK time) until I was able to find a replacement in the morning. I cannot see any benefit in the inflexible, unthinking '''immeditate''' removal-without-the-option approach. The information is still in the article, and all now connected to a reliable source (two sources at one point). The best outcome has been achieved despite the fervour for the inflexible and immediate approach. - ] (]) 10:47, 10 May 2020 (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) | |||
| ::::I had always assumed that anyone removing a DM source was supposed to search for an alternative source, or add a <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki>, or both. Not just remove both DM and the info itself wholesale in one edit. ] (]) 11:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: |
:::It was ]ly added without discussion, though, so I've removed it for now as a first step. --] (]) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I would suggest that editing the section be done this way. RSP is no different from any other page, edit, discuss on talk page, then third opinion or noticeboard. Exact wording in the section doesn't immediately necessitate an RFC unless there is unresolvable differences of opinion. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::As opposed to "make more work" by having to search for the info and a fresh source all over again? Isn't one expected to search for a better source for information sourced to any unreliable source? Isn't that normal procedure? Thanks. ] (]) 11:13, 10 May 2020 (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. | |||
| :::::Tagging with <nowiki>{{Deprecated source}}</nowiki> would also have had the desired effect of highlighting the problem. If such a tag had been left on there for a day or so, that would also have avoided all the kerfuffle; as it is there has been a ''lot'' more work invoved because someone edit warred to remove a source that is entirely legitimate`. - ] (]) 11:07, 10 May 2020 (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) | |||
| :::::::True, but it is a users choice if they wish to remove badly sourced information or tag it. There is no policy that even implies you should add back badly sourced information. We gain nothing with tags all over the pace saying "bad source" "dodgy information" "BorisJophnsonsaidit", we do however (I would argue) lose. Misplaced Pages has a reputation for unreliability. If our articles are littered with crap even we think is unreliable that image is hardly going to improve.] (]) 11:14, 10 May 2020 (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) | |||
| ::::::::I certainly wasn't suggesting we "add back badly sourced information". Quite the reverse. ] (]) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Absolutely. ] (]) 08:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|Martinevans123}}, no, the onus is on the person including content to find reliable sources. It's an instance of BRD. There have been attempts to claim this by people who fundamentally oppose the entire idea of deprecation, but it's not policy. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 11:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I have been reading old RfCs about unreliable medias to reference. Many of these discussions start with a blanket question. For example: "Is ] | |||
| ::::::Some of this information was added when the DM was still considered to be ]? ] (]) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :# Generally reliable | |||
| :::::::So? If it is now a dodgy source its a dodgy source.] (]) 11:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :# Additional considerations apply | |||
| ::::::::So Guy said {{tq|"the onus is on the person including content to find reliable sources".}} I'm just saying that when it was originally added the person may well have been justified in using the DM as a reliable source. A person just removing the source now isn't adding anything. ] (]) 12:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :# Generally unreliable | |||
| :::::::::No they are removing something we now know cannot be trusted for information. What Guy said applies just as much to wanting to add information back (or indeed retaining information). This is why the DM was deprecated, because of its massive over use. We now have to clean up that mess.] (]) 12:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :# Deprecated" | |||
| ::::::::::But there is absolutely no need to do it in such an inflexible and disruptive way. When Gerard removed a legitimate source and edit warred on it, there was no mess to clean up. When two editors decided to delete information supported by the Press Association and a Scottish newspaper, we're crossing a line between responsible housekeeping and disruptive editing. The orginal title of this section was "DM advocate". I'd rather be called a cunt that a DM advocate, but such is the mindset of a small group of zealots that anyone who asks for an 8-hour moritorium on removal is the subject of abuse and lies. Your call on whether you think this is an ideal pathway for the inhabitants of the RS board to behave, but I suggest the approach needs a rethink. - ] (]) 12:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::::::::::We seem to be talking at cross purposes. It looks to me to be a rather odd case of ]. I'm just suggesting that removing material and a DM source wholesale, without any attempt to find an alternative source, might do more harm than good. ] (]) 12:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::If the TechCabal article is correct, then Nigerian newspapers were better before the internet. This might not apply to ], which began publication in 2001. One of the earliest accounts of "brown envelopes" dates to the ] (1979 to 1983): . On a search of Google Books, I found no references to "brown envelopes" in Nigeria in any book published before 1983. I found no more than 8 such references in books published before 1990, and 5 of those were from 1989: . In the absence of further evidence, I think we could take 1979 as a complete cut off point. Even after that, the evidence is not unequivocal. The study from 1984 says that ] journalists may not be as corrupt as journalists are depicted: . And the claims of bribery during the Republic seem to relate more to government journalists, than to independent newspapers. The sources also suggest that ] was more reliable. ] (]) 19:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::True, but ] is clear that once material, has been removed it is down to those who wish to include it to make a case at talk, not just add it back with a change of source (you are right, by the way, the new sources should have been enough as far as I can see). Thus (whilst) the DM part of this debate is about RS, the rest is not.] (]) 12:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Ah. So all those instances where I've followed David Gerard round and re-added stuff with a good source (and which he's consistently thanked me for), I should have instead taken to the Talk page? ] (]) 12:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC) <small> And it's not like I've really "followed him round" at all. I've seen his standard edit summary about DM pop up in my watchlist and when I've gone to look at the deletion I've thought "oh that looks like a very reasonable claim, there must be at least one other RS source that supports that...."</small> | |||
| :::::::::::::That's taking a misreading of BRD too far for any common sense approach. If the source is being challenged, then replacing the source is sufficient, even if that is just replacing exactly the same information, including qquotes. - ] (]) 12:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::We also have ], I have no idea abvout this case but I have had trouble finding sources others have found. You are assuming no effort was made.] (]) 12:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::A more useful edit summary might say "I've looked for a better source and I can't find one, so am removing"? ] (]) 13:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Three things: firstly, I was talking in general about providing a different source when material is challenged. (Don't forget that ] says that @{{tq|Material that fails verification may be tagged with <nowiki>{{failed verification}}</nowiki> or removed}}". There is, written into policy, a way that information does not have to be unthkingly removed as a matter of course. It can be tagged for a short period to allow for a replacement to be made. Secondly, If it is removed, there really is no reason to have to discuss replacing it with an alternative source on the talk page. Replacing the information with a new source is entirely appropriate. Thirdly, it seems that a few people have said they can't find the information (although raising AGF is a bit of a straw man here). I found it in two sources and Sarah SV found two sources using variants of the quote made to different journalists; I also found another variant on the official Bond site. Just because the person desparately removing as many DM sources as quickly as possoble didn't find an alternative (and yes, that does pre-suppose they bothered looking), it doesn't mean the infomation isn't there to those who know how to look for things properly. - ] (]) 13:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|SchroCat}}, Oh, so David's actions resulted in better sourcing. So we're good then. Shall I close this? ''']''' <small>(])</small> 11:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, may as well gloss over the removing of a legitimate source and the sub-standard way people are demanding the immediate removal without thought to the loss of legitimate information. The lack of flexibility is always a given when a crusade is in progress. - ] (]) 11:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == ] / ] == | |||
| Can we please only discuss the DM, anything else just confuses the issue.] (]) 12:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :As long as we are clear that the Mail on Sunday (paper version, not online) should not have been removed. At. All. Neither should the other sources. Part of the problem is that I have seen no comment from Gerard to acknowledge that they were wrong to remove it in the first place and doubly wrong to edit war to remove it a second time. I hope this disruptive approach is not something that is going to be repeated. In terms of the DM info, allowing a short moritorium on finding a new source seems to be a common sense way of approaching this, rather than such an inflexible approach that is currently in favour. - ] (]) 12:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::This RFC is about the daily mail, only the DM and just the DM. If you have other RS issues start a new thread. If you have issue about user conduct this is not then place.] (]) | |||
| :::Actually this sub-thread is (currently) titled "dailymail.co.uk reversion: eyes wanted". Since its opening post it has been nothing to do with the RfC (as such it should never have been a sub-thread of the RfC in the first place; the topic of discussion has not essentially changed since the first post, given we are still discussing matters relating to the opening post). We can change it from a sub-thread to a full thread if you prefer? - ] (]) 13:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As this is not (and does not appear to be) an RS issue, but rather an issue over user conduct this is not the right venue anyway.] (]) 13:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Very true. Once has to question way it was opened in the first place, and why a personal attack was used as the original title. Never mind - but I really don't have high hopes that this has made any difference, and will not be surprised when it inevitably happens again. - ] (]) 13:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| 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. | |||
| ===Another unreliable source? (www.dailymail.co.uk and www.mi6-hq.com) === | |||
| {{archive top}} | |||
| In this edit, {{userlinks|SchroCat}} replaced a citation to with a citation to | |||
| 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. ] (he/him • ]) 21:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| says "We are a not-for-profit fan website, maintained by men and women passionate about the subject." | |||
| :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) | |||
| says "Want to join a community of Bond experts that has been growing since 1998? MI6 is made more diverse, engaging and current thanks to it's regular contributions by guest authors. We are constantly on the look out for authors, photographers, artists, videographer, podcaster or reviewers, all with a passion for James Bond in print or on the screen. If you have an original idea for a feature, or some tidbit to share, please get in touch with our team." | |||
| ::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. ] (he/him • ]) 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) | |||
| So, generally reliable or self-published fan site? | |||
| :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) | |||
| The quote "it relates to the fact that if you don't have that Quantum of Solace in a relationship" comes from (25 January 2008). mi6-hq.com published it at on 30 January 2008. This highlights one of the problems with replacing citations to The Daily Mail; if you search for other sources that say what DM said, you find a bunch of low-quality sources that pretty much parrot what was on the DM page a few days earlier. --] (]) 12:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :For a lot of these pages, the relevant policy isn't ], but ], since the InSneider is self publishing reporting about living people (e.g. A didn't role B, C got fired because of D, E might be in F). BLPSPS is a bright-line rule and while ] exists, superhero movie rumours isn't going to justify that. This is especially true when non-selfpublished exist to cover the same claims or when ] applies. | |||
| :For example, your revert at ] restored The InSneider when the material in the sentence is already fully supported by the already cited ] piece and your revert at ] restored material alleging very specific allegations of sexual misconduct with young men that is corroborated by independent sources . I've reverted the latter given the serious BLP issues there. | |||
| :It's less of an issue when the BLP-connection is less direct such as when it's talking about a film production in general (e.g. G starts filming in H, I was delayed to J, K is in development at L), but even SELFPUB recommends replacing with better sources when possible and I highlighted some reliability issues with Sneider above. | |||
| :I have also notified ] since this touches on BLPSPS. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I think you are forgetting that there is a very big distinction between Sneider's pieces written for Collider and other RS and those he written on his own blog. He speculates much more and gives unverified, evidence-free information on his blog than he does when working with publications, and he isn't impeded by an editor or journalistic oversight in his own website. | |||
| :If you want to see ''proof'' that Sneider has made false and provably false claims on his own website before, then there's of all the time he has made false claims thanks to the people at the subreddit for Marvel spoilers. Among the falsehoods he has promoted on his site include that the Fantastic Four movie would start filming in March, that Adam Driver was cast as Doom, that Jack Quaid was cast as Johnny Storm, and that Tom Holland was going to appear as a full role in Across the Spider-Verse. Sneider should be used in articles ''only'' when he is writing for reliable sources, otherwise we are inviting unsourced and oftentimes completely imagined speculation on our pages. ] (he/him • ]) 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? @] @] @] ] (he/him • ]) 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> | |||
| :Pretty obviously not an RS, no - ] (]) 22:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Jeff Sneider's reports, found in his ''TheInSneider'' blog and also ''Above the Line'', have been covered in several other reliable sources. | |||
| His career besides his self-published blog: He has had two notable tenures at '']'', and in between those two tenures, he had a stint at '']'' covering the film industry. This is confirmed , with information on his tenure at ''Variety''. '']'' also as Senior Film Reporter, and says he did work at '']'' before his venture into trade publications, and at one point he contributed reports for '']''. | |||
| These following perennial sources have cited his self-published blog, exemplifying ''']''': | |||
| ::I am getting the usual insults and refusal to follow Misplaced Pages policies at ]. Normally I would report this at ANI, but I am still recovering from my recent ] and I don't think the stress would be good for me. Would someone else here be willing to file it? --] (]) 23:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :*'']'', including and | |||
| :::It gets worse and worse. He now claims that in the last few days you went to a library, found not just one but two sources that by an amazing coincidence just happen to contain the exact same quote from The Daily Mail that he edit warred to keep in, and yet for some inexplicable reason he cannot remember who Daniel Craig said it to or when he said it. Meanwhile, the person he says authored the source (Noah Sherna) doesn't seem to exist, but in yet another amazing coincidence, Sherna Noah writes for ''The Daily Mail''. --] (]) 01:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Don't lie. I have claimed nothing of the sort. I have also made no comment on who Craig said it to, so I am unsure where these falsehoods come from. I have advised exactly how you can verify the source, so try reading what I have said properly and use the link provided. - ] (]) 01:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Guy Macon}}, Sherna Noah works for the Press Association. ''The Guardian'' also has a version of the same quote; I've left it on the talk page. It appears to be the same point made during an interview with a different reporter. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Guy Macon}}, someone needs to read ]. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 10:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|JzG|Guy}}, no they don't. Macon needs to ensure he posts all the facts and 1. doesn't miss out key points (like two other reliable sources were added shortly afterwards), and 2. he doesn't lie, like he has above (I did not claim I went to the library and I did not say anything about who Craig was talking to; feel free to look at the article talk page to find out where I have said either of those things. They are entirely false). BTW, FANSITE shortcuts to ], which isn't the guideline you are after - you mean ], which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites. - ] (]) 10:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|SchroCat}}, mi6-hq.com isn't a fansite, then? Someone should tell the person who maintains it. Misplaced Pages isn't a fansite either. These articles would mostly be improved by being about half as long. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 11:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{u|JzG|Guy}}, that's not what I said. I was pointing out the link you provided, to FANSITES, actually discusses the addition of fansites in external links, not within articles. The pertinent link on this occasion ], which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites. - ] (]) 11:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::When you tell a person to verify a sources by going to a library, meanwhile refusing to say where you checked the source, a reasonable person would conclude that you checked it in a library. (later you decided to reveal that you checked in using an online source). When you repeatedly refuse to answer the simple question of where and when Daniel Craig said that, a reasonable person would conclude that you most likely ''can't'' answer the question. When you quote ], claiming that it allows use of fansites (the actual wording is "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable") a reasonable person would assume that you are either incapable or unwilling to follow Misplaced Pages's rules (something we have already seen with Misplaced Pages's rules againstr personal attacks). When you repeatedly claim that if you make an edit that violates Misplaced Pages's sourcing policies, the person reverting you is somehow required to carefully search your edit for any portions that don't violate Misplaced Pages's policies, and you ] when you are told again and again that there exists no such requirement, a reasonable person would assume that you are either incapable or unwilling to even discuss whether you are following Misplaced Pages's rules. | |||
| :::::::This all started with you edit warring to retain as a source and with ] asking you to follow our rules. and correctly identifying that your behavior is typical of someone who fights to keep ''The Daily mail'' as a source. Your subsequent behavior here has demonstrated that he was right. --] (]) 15:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::"When you tell a person to verify a sources by going to a library": I didn't. I - the one we have on WP. I even fucking linked it for you. If you're not able to click on the link despite it being handed to you a second time, I do begin to wonder just why you are being so obtuse. Other inaccuracies here include "you quote WP:UGC, claiming that it allows use of fansites": you'll have to read what I said a little more closely. I said "], which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites", and actually there is some deliberate leeway in the wording of the guideline (for example, if such a site was being written by one individual who was a published expert in the area, then it would be a point for discussion). "incapable or unwilling to follow Misplaced Pages's rules" another tedious PA you like to throw out, and hopelessly wrong too, ditto the link to IDHT - all tiresomly inaccurate. | |||
| ::::::::More nonsense follows; "This all started with you edit warring to retain as a source". Again, that's a straight lie. This started when Gerard . A legitimate source. I'll keep repeating that a legitimate source was removed until it finally sinks in and you stop telling porkies. "your behavior is typical of someone who fights to keep ''The Daily mail'' as a source" Another straight out falsehood. I don't know how many times I have had to say that I support the ban on the Mail (that I voted for twice) and the idea it should be removed: it's the crass and inflexible way it is being done that it disruptive. Now, if you're done with trolling and telling lies, I'll leave you to it. There is nothing contructive to be had in listening to more falsehoods from you - you appear to be in competition with the Mail to see how many inaccuracies you can cram into each line. - ] (]) 15:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| --] (]) 16:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{u|Guy Macon}}, this is thoroughly out of order. {{u|SchroCat}}, it would be better not even to respond. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I have already asked you once not to ping me to this page. Stop. You are behaving like the worst sort of disruptive troll. Stop. - ] (]) 16:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * mi6-hq.com? Is that Mike Corley? ''']''' <small>(])</small> 10:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: Mike Corely appears to be focused on conspiracy theories involving MI5 persecution. I don't think he has much interest in James Bond, but of course mi6-hq.com is a fansite where anonymous users can post content, so you never know. --] (]) 15:31, 10 May 2020 (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''. | |||
| Can we please not discus 15 different sources in one thread?] (]) 15:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| :* '']'' covers his reporting | |||
| === Daily Mail: The halving=== | |||
| :* '']'' covers his reporting | |||
| In Q3 2018, there were ] on Misplaced Pages. At this moment, there are . | |||
| : and here's him reporting that ] was chosen to play ] in ] of '']'', which ended up being '''spot-on correct''', via '']'': | |||
| The cleanup of the backlog of bad sources continues. Please use a search something like , and help improve Misplaced Pages. If a few people can each do even ten a day, that'll make Misplaced Pages a noticeably better place - ] (]) 21:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :* per a ] publication, '']''{{'}}s own '']'', covers one of his reports | |||
| === Daily Mail: It's below 10,000 === | |||
| :* '']'', (] 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> | |||
| This deprecated source's backlog has less than 10,000 entries remaining! Your assistance is most welcomed - start at the top of (or wherever you like really), and see if ''you'' can knock off five - ] (]) 19:20, 31 May 2020 (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 ]. | |||
| :* And '']'' - reporting on the ''InSneider'' report mentioned above concerning ''Bikeriders'', right . Can hardly get better than trade publications. | |||
| :Wouldn't it be sensible to remove the cited information when you remove the citation, if you doubt its validity? It doesn't make Misplaced Pages a better place if you replace thousands of inline citations with "citation needed" templates. It's my understanding that MailOnline citations can continue to be used, for non controversial info. ] (]) 23:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :* '']'' - that Sneider was the first to get the news that ] were coming back for '']'' and '']. | |||
| :* via '']'' - Sneider that ] was playing ]'s son in '']''. | |||
| <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I also find the ''Mary Sue'' story about Johnny Depp and Sydney Sweeney to be drama mongering. Their punchline about Sneider's story amounted to "and <u>internet users</u> were pissed about the actress potentially working with the subject of the ]" - like who cares about internet people being ticked? Was there doxxing? was ] or a world government involved? '''No!''' | |||
| ::I can assure you that editors have insisted on every possible response as the one and only sensible thing to do about deprecated sites: do nothing, add a tag, replace with a tag, do nothing unless you can replace the cite, remove the info, etc., etc., etc. But it completely varies case by case. It literally always depends and requires editorial judgement - ] (]) 00:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :If Sneider gets something wrong, nobody gets mangled or tangibly harmed. The ] policy is for claims concerning living people themselves, not films and casting processes or anything of the like. and for randoms who are not, something that is not what Sneider is doing. | |||
| :Let's ] the concept of this policy and apply it to ]. Even though the chunk of rock is the subject of the article, there are parts of the article for the Moon which concern living people, like ] and how he walked on it. '''Holy hell!''' the very association of living people to a subject of an article clearly not about people means we '''must NEVER''' use any ] about the Moon in the article because it is ]. | |||
| :I don't think that Sneider should be used to state facts about casting. I certainly don't believe we need to add a person to a cast list because he says something on his podcast: while I question his nature of jumping the gun on reports, I don't believe the rationale should be that the info he reports is concerning a living person. I figured that saying ] was gonna be in ''Fantastic Four'' was bold, but it's concerning that a character is going to be in a film, not some claim about a person's life and times. Besides his casting scoops, I think he gives worthy insight into the film industry and its processes. I think that his branding is corny and I'm concerned that but hey, ] was cruel yet he was still held in high regard for his work. Same thing for Sneider. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 21:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed, I started this discussion because I was bothered by the Fantastic Four page where he's used for the cast list. I hope we are able to at least agree that he shouldn't be cited without attribution, lest he gets something wrong (not maliciously, but because his sources may have been wrong, or events changed in the production process that he was not aware of). Advocating him to be deprecated for BLP violations is a massive stretch that I do not agree with- he's generally reliable, and I trust that his self-published site can be used for article content. He just shouldn't be taken as absolute fact. ] (he/him • ]) 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. ] (he/him • ]) 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. — ''''']''' <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"}}. — ''''']''' <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) | |||
| :most pleased to see others joining in with this, even if I can't work out who it is :-) Number as of this moment: 8,145 - ] (]) 15:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::7,646. Holy crap, we're knocking down this awful backlog - ] (]) 07:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :In your example, if that expert's tweet contained anything of substance, a reliable source would mention it, and you would be free to cite that reliable source. Alternatively, you could wait until the ] policy no longer applies to Trump, although I highly doubt that the tweet would constitute ] in any Misplaced Pages article if no reliable source mentions the tweet by that time. In all other cases, yes, ] would prohibit that tweet from being cited on Misplaced Pages to support a claim about Trump, despite the tweet being written by an expert, because the tweet is self-published. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 22:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: Facebook == | |||
| ::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) | |||
| {{RSN RfC status|1591806660}}<!-- ] 16:31, 5 June 2020 (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. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 23:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{rfc|prop|media|rfcid=6C10974}} | |||
| :::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) | |||
| Should ] be subject to a warn edit filter, and/or added to ], which reverts the use of a source in {{tag|ref}} tags (Note: Does not include external links) for unregistered and new users under 7 days old (]) to discourage misuse? Facebook is currently cited over 60,000 times on Misplaced Pages per {{duses|facebook.com}}. Facebook is currently described at RS/P as "Facebook is considered generally unreliable because it is a self-published source with no editorial oversight." 15 specific Facebook pages are currently on the ]. Facebook is also specifically cited at ] as an example of "unacceptable user-generated sites" ] (]) 16:31, 3 June 2020 (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) | |||
| ===Responses (Facebook)=== | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| '''Please state clearly if you support or oppose the use of an edit filter, XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, or both''' | |||
| :::::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. — ''''']''' <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. — ''''']''' <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. — ''''']''' <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}}. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 20:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I don't have a particular problem with using Sneider as a source, as long as we attribute his speculations properly. He has a generally good track record and is used by reliable sources. But I have come across situations where we report his speculations as fact. When he has an expectation that is not attributed to an official or at least genuinely connected source, if we choose to report that expectation at all, it needs to be attributed as "Sneider's expectation that such and such will occur", not as a Wikivoice statement that "such and such will occur." ] (]) 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as it is acceptable for self source of minor details such as date of birth, imv ] (]) 17:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's odd. My facebook page has my date oif birth wrong. Thank goodness it isn't being used as a source for my date of birth. -] ] 17:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{Ping|Atlantic306}} is this an oppose for XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, which only reverts the use of sources in references for unregistered and new users with less than 7 day old accounts? ] (]) 17:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support warn edit filter and XlinkBot''' Facebook is almost entirely user generated content, and is extensively used in ] articles, which require high quality sourcing, which Facebook falls far below. While I agree that it may be useful in limited ] circumstances, Facebook links should be used only with caution by experienced editors and preventing new users from using Facebook would help curb problematic usage. ] (]) 18:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per Hemiauchenia - Admittedly I've used Facebook I believe twice here so extreme caution should be used with it and I agree with Hemiauchenia only experienced editors should be able to add it and even then if should only be added if necessary and in exceptional circumstance. –]<sup>]</sup> 20:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' since I oppose the use of edit filters in principle. ] (]) 21:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' both—the cases where Facebook should be cited are very rare, inexpienced users are most likely to misuse. I think the helpful effects outweigh the harms from this filter. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 22:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - I wouldn't spam-filter it (yet), it has its uses, but an edit filter is definitely appropriate. Do we have an edit filter as yet that completely blocks additions by IPs and non-autoconfirmed users? - ] (]) 22:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' setting such an edit filter to disallow. '''Support''' setting it to warn. '''Oppose''' the bot because it sounds needlessly bitey. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]</span> 23:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose bot'''. When I saw this, I immediately thought of a potential use — a notable person who has a Facebook account but doesn't have anything close to an official website. In general, I believe it would be 100% appropriate to link that person's Facebook site: either the person doesn't care about his privacy and makes lots of stuff visible, or he does care and restricts what's online. With this in mind, bots shouldn't go around removing newly-added Facebook links, since a likely good-use situation exists. Maybe do a filter that warns and tags, but new users can still be productive in this kind of setting, so at most we ought to warn them that it's a bad idea most of the time, and make it so someone can easily go around checking such edits. ] (]) 00:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support:''' It is a social media website in which people can claim anything without any verifiability and others would believe them. Even its owner has admitted the spread of fake news and hoaxes over it and has done little to curb it. A website with such content should not be allowed here. Also if it is listed on ] as unreliable, allowing to use it will give users and readers the impression that we don't follow our own policies. I disagree with {{u|Nyttend}} over a notable person having only a Facebook account. Even if they do, they can create a LinkedIn profile which would be more acceptable. Fully agree with {{u|David Gerald}} about an IP filter. IPs are mostly the cause of vandalism here and I've seen only a few IPs who contribute something worthwhile. They should be encouraged to create an account none-the-less. It is not like you have to pay to create an account. One can stay anonymous under an account as well. I also support the bot only if it warns the user after it removes the Facebook link from the article. If the User continues, they can be warned from an actual user and then reported at ] for disruptive editing.] ] 01:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support blacklisting''' - unless anyone can prove that Facebook is reliable enough. Not only is it unreliable due to the nature of content monitoring, but it is also being overrun by conspiracy theorists and fake-news-wielding communalists (people who discriminate by religion) in the USA and India respectively. ]] 02:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose both''', Facebook is still a useful, albeit unreliable, source, and including a warning filter for everybody would create the presumption that it should never be used, which is just plain wrong. Automatic reversion is also a bad idea, as that is Bite-y and would harm content more than help it, since there are quite common legitimate reasons to cite Facebook. <s>this is an absolutely awful idea. Specifically, it would decimate articles on politics, very often a person has an account on there which serves as a campaign website. Also, this is not even going into the fact that Facebook can function as a perfectly good primary source.</s> Blacklisting Facebook <s>or putting a filter on it </s> is an absurd overreaction that would have horrible consequences for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 02:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Devonian Wombat}}, eh? No it wouldn't. It would simply remind people before they add Facebook to check ]. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 08:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::That’s a good reminder for me to double-check what the person making the proposal is actually saying. ] (]) 10:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support warn+tag''' as ], '''oppose bot''' as only humans can verify whether a Facebook link is appropriate. -- ]]]] 03:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support filter''' for new users, '''oppose bot''' as it would be ] to automatically remove content that new editors think that they have added. ''–'' ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 06:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' this. A "warn" filter doesn't stop it being used, but it will remind people that citing Facebook groups and other such crap is a Bad Idea. Looking at filter logs for 869, the XLinkBot addition is also justified. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 08:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support both'''. There are legitimate use cases for Facebook links — for example, I've seen professional organizations make announcements on their Facebook pages before/instead of their own websites — so we should allow such links in principle, but guard against them being introduced willy-nilly. ] (]) 19:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' including blacklisting or any other restriction. There is nothing reliable about Facebook, as it applies to being a source. Any information can be fudged, verifying accounts is not easy (and in some cases, not possible). Nothing about it qualifies as a primary, secondary or tertiary source. From the perspective of sourcing, it is actually less reliable than a forum. ] - ] 00:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I think the reliability depends on who is posting on what on Facebook et al. For example ] posts news stories to their Facebook pages - example at {{cite news |title=RUGBY UNION |url=https://www.facebook.com/WINNewsSunshineCoast/videos/242632827179288/ |accessdate=26 May 2020 |work=Win News Sunshine Coast |publisher=Win Television |date=25 May 2020 |location=Maroochydore}} --] (]) 00:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :*I should've pointed out the stories are posted to those pages after they have been broadcast on TV. --] (]) 00:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose autorevert/blacklist, warning is ok''' I hate Facebook on many grounds but there is insufficient evidence given of these links being a bad enough problem to warrant interfering with editor judgment in such drastic ways. Per WP:PRIMARY, a self-published post ''usually'' isn't a good source; but per the same WP:PRIMARY, it ''sometimes'' is. Misplaced Pages should run on good judgment on these matters, rather than mechanized bots and filters. ] (]) 07:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' If the only good source for a claim is Facebook, then it is not notable enough. For discussing personal posts, it is not good enough per ].--] (]) 16:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose both''', but especially the bot, since auto-reversion is an extreme measure that should be reserved for specific, extreme cases. In general, I don't see any evidence of a problem requiring a solution here. An official Facebook page is not any more reliable than an organization or individual's website, but neither is it any less reliable. For the classic situation of notable person/organization using their Facebook page (alone) to post a noteworthy fact or statement, the best practice is what it always has been: to link to both the actual primary source and a reliable secondary source discussing it. But best practices aside, just as bad content is better than no content, bad sources are better than no sources. Quality is iterative, and any measure that discourages editors from providing the actual source where they found information is iterating us in the wrong direction. -- ] (]) 20:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Warning may be helpful, automated removal or preventing of edits is opposed''' It's ] that there are limited situations in which specific material in Facebook might be acceptable as a source or external link. If editors want to change that policy then that should be done explicitly and clearly and not through the imposition of an edit filter or other technical means. ] (]) 03:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support both''', and change the policy to get rid of this and other commercial "social media" apps completely, for multiple reasons. 1. Social media services are unreliable. 2. Social media services are not Web sites, they're apps: they won't load properly without running their non-free malware-spyware JavaScript, so anything sourced to them is unverifiable for everyone who cares about that; linking to them is incompatible with the Misplaced Pages idea of free culture. 3. Social media apps are inherently advertisements for their own services, making links to them spam. —{{u|]}} (they/them)｜]｜] 05:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support edit filter'''. A spot check indicates that most of the existing citations to Facebook do not qualify under the ] policy, and should not be used to support article content. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 11:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose both''' per Visvisa. Facebook is fine in certain cases, such as ] information, and statements by organizations. In my experience, municipal- and county-level officials and departments often release statements on Facebook first, and sometimes only on Facebook. I also want to add that we've already drifted way too far from being the encyclopedia anyone can edit. We don't have nearly as many active editors as we should. We don't want to be scaring newbies off - oftentimes excellent contributors start out with well-meaning but misguided edits. The last thing we need is even more hoops for newcomers to jump through. Lastly I want to object to Goldenshimmer's 2nd and 3rd reasons for supporting these proposals. Verifiability doesn't mean it has to be free on a noncommercial website with no tracking scripts. That would block off almost all of the Internet. In research for articles I've written I've used material from numerous local newspapers whose websites look like 2004 came to life on my screen, with obtrusive ads blocking almost all the content so that I have to use "inspect element" in order to actually read the text. Many widely used sources are behind paywalls - The Times of London, the Economist, etc (I don't count NYT/WaPo/etc because their paywalls are easily bypassed by pressing <kbd>ESC</kbd> at just the right time during pageload). Sources don't even have to be on the Internet - books are widely used, and often they are more reliable than Internet sources. Our primary goal isn't to promote free-software culture. Our goal is to build the world's largest collection of easily accessible knowledge ''using any tools available to us'', regardless of our personal feelings on their profit model or use of javascript. <span style="letter-spacing:-2px">−−−</span> ] ] 05:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|CactusJack}}: 1. I think you misunderstood me: a Web site using tracking scripts doesn't necessarily make it inappropriate to use, mainly because of their ubiquity (as you point out). Rather, ''requiring'' these scripts to run is the issue. Most Web sites will work with such scripts blocked. Social media apps generally will not, and therein is the issue. — 2. I'm not sure why you bring up offline sources; I generally would consider them preferable to online-only sources because they have a longer lifespan and generally reliable access through libraries. — 3. Misplaced Pages's goal, at least as it presents itself, is first and foremost to promote free culture; it is "the 💕" after all — promoting free-software culture is an important part of free culture. —{{u|]}} (they/them)｜]｜] 05:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support edit filter''': occasionally better than nothing for basic information about public figures per ]. An edit filter should not discourage these genuine uses, but instead discourage the much more numerous poor uses. — ] (<span style="background-color:#ffff00">]</span>) 12:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support both'''. Especially when dealing with biographical articles about living persons, at very least a warning about the general unreliability of such self-published sources, and very likely a revert, is appropriate. ] (]) 23:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support both'''. Not a reliable source, high probability information found there is factually inaccurate due to its reluctance to employ rigorous fact checking. ] (]) 19:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support edit filter, oppose bot'''. There are plenty of instances where Facebook is a reliable source for ] type statements and some basic facts by organisations that are the subject of an article who have an official facebook page. I'm not aware there is any method of algorithmically determining what type of Facebook page is being cited from the URI. ] (]) 13:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Hatnote|Once Telegram gets mentioned on ], its shortcuts would be ] and ].}} | |||
| == Constant attempts at scrubbing and obfuscation at Falun Gong articles: ], ], ], ], ], etc. == | |||
| 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) | |||
| Many of you here are no doubt familiar with '']'' at this point, but far fewer editors are familiar with the broader organization behind this media entity. Here's a brief overview from a recent article from '']'': | |||
| :I wasn't aware there was anyone suggesting that it might be reliable. ] (] • ]) 10:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Both Shen Yun and Epoch Times are funded and operated by members of Falun Gong, a controversial spiritual group that was banned by China’s government in 1999 … Falun Gong melds traditional Taoist principles with occasionally bizarre pronouncements from its Chinese-born founder and leader, Li Hongzhi. Among other pronouncements, Li has claimed that aliens started invading human minds in the beginning of the 20th century, leading to mass corruption and the invention of computers. He has also denounced feminism and homosexuality and claimed he can walk through walls and levitate. But the central tenet of the group’s wide-ranging belief system is its fierce opposition to communism. | |||
| :Telegram doesn't need to be on the RSP, it's obviously unreliable and I don't see anyone arguing that it is reliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed, it's just a user-generated source (]). Reliable for ] claims and posts by respectable experts/journalists/reliable sources, unreliable generally. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 16:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Aside from the fact that the ] i.e. '''''literal''' neo-Nazis'' use it (which is ]), Telegram, as a platform where ] with no clear editorial oversight, is a ] and unreliable, except in cases such as ]. I thought this was pretty obvious. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 00:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson == | |||
| :In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle to promote his teachings to mainstream Western audiences. Over the years Shen Yun and Epoch Times, while nominally separate organizations, have operated in tandem in Falun Gong’s ongoing PR campaign against the Chinese government, taking directions from Li. | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| :Despite its conservative agenda, Epoch Times took pains until recently to avoid wading into partisan U.S. politics. That all changed in June 2015 after Donald Trump descended on a golden escalator to announce his presidential candidacy, proclaiming that he “beat China all the time.” In Trump, Falun Gong saw more than just an ally—it saw a savior. As a former Epoch Times editor told NBC News, the group’s leaders “believe that Trump was sent by heaven to destroy the communist party. | |||
| ::''Source'': Braslow, Samuel. 2020. "Inside the Shadowy World of Shen Yun and Its Secret Pro-Trump Ties". ''].'' March 9, 2020. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200526081806/https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/shen-yun-trump/ |date=26 May 2020 }}. | |||
| :. Mr. Klippenstein is being used to cite: | |||
| And according to ]: | |||
| :# {{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 == | |||
| :The Epoch Media Group, along with Shen Yun, a dance troupe known for its ubiquitous advertising and unsettling performances, make up the outreach effort of Falun Gong, a relatively new spiritual practice that combines ancient Chinese meditative exercises, mysticism and often ultraconservative cultural worldviews. Falun Gong’s founder has referred to Epoch Media Group as “our media,” and the group’s practice heavily informs The Epoch Times’ coverage, according to former employees who spoke with NBC News. | |||
| ''Slayage: The International Journal of Buffy+'' {{ISSN|1546-9212}} https://www.whedonstudies.tv/slayage-the-international-journal-of-buffy.html | |||
| :The Epoch Times, digital production company ] and the heavily advertised dance troupe Shen Yun make up the nonprofit network that Li calls “our media.” Financial documents paint a complicated picture of more than a dozen technically separate organizations that appear to share missions, money and executives. Though the source of their revenue is unclear, the most recent financial records from each organization paint a picture of an overall business thriving in the Trump era. | |||
| ::''Source'': Collins, Zadrozny & Ben Collins. 2019. "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times". '']''. August 20, 2019. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190823004157/https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-qanon-impending-judgment-day-behind-facebook-fueled-rise-epoch-n1044121 |date=23 August 2019 }}. | |||
| {{tqb|''Slayage'' (ISSN 1546-9212) is an open-access, blind peer-reviewed, MLA-indexed publication and a member of the Directory of Open Access Journals. journal. All content is available at no cost, in downloadable, full-text PDFs. ''There is no submission or publication fee for authors.''}} | |||
| This is also happening here in Germany: | |||
| * https://www.whedonstudies.tv/editorial-team.html | |||
| :In the United States, the Times bills itself as the newspaper that President Donald Trump views as “the most credible” and the only one he trusts. The U.S. version of the newspaper is a far tamer version than its German cousin, but it has won over fans in the far-right with its exhaustive coverage of “Spygate,” a theory pushed by the president who claims the FBI “spied” on his campaign and a “criminal deep state” sought to undermine his presidency. Revenues for the newspaper have doubled since Trump took office, according to the group’s tax filings. | |||
| * https://doaj.org/toc/1546-9212 | |||
| ::''Source'': Hettena, Seth. 2019. "The Obscure Newspaper Fueling the Far-Right in Europe". '']''. September 17, 2019. . | |||
| ** Links to the www.whedonstudies.tv site | |||
| * https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/1546-9212 | |||
| * There is also a site at https://slayage.ejournals.una.edu/. https://una.edu/ is ]'s website. UNA hosted the 2018 ''Slayage'' Conference,<sup></sup> but I have not found more about their relationship. | |||
| * {{-r|Slayage}} and {{-r|Slayage: The Online Journal of Buffy Studies}} (a previous title) redirect to ]. It has a few sentences about ''Slayage'', but they are out of date. | |||
| Context: ] and ] | |||
| Anyway, currently quite a few Falun Gong articles—], ], ], ], ], ], and several more—are either in a state of either reading as essentially promotional pieces for the new religious movement or are the subject of daily attempts at scrubbing, . This often occurs from single-subject, new accounts, or accounts with very new edit histories. | |||
| Apologies, I am not familiar with what information is relevant and helpful. ] (]) 05:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| These articles could really use a lot of work with reliable sources outlining developments in these circles since 2016, particularly the topics mentioned in the quotes above. If nothing else, these articles all really need many more editors keeping an eye on them to ensure that they do not revert back to promotional pieces parroting the talking points of the organizations they outline. ] (]) 23:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :From the listed information, the fact, that the journal has fixed editors and a fixed , the mission statement of "" and "", and the fact, that most contributors are associated with universities, I believe that this is a serious academic source, even though it is focussed on a niche topic and may not be quite as organized as publications by long-standing publishers in the field. I think this is a reliable source which can provide commentary as expected by ] on its subject matter. ] (]) 12:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :My initial thoughts was "Obviously not", but searching Google books its cited in works published by credible publishers (McFarland, Routledge, etc). It could be reliable per ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I think the fact it's such a niche source (an academic journal dedicated to a specific TV show of all things) suggests that while it's probably not unreliable, it's questionable whether it should count towards the notability of fictional elements from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. ] (]) 18:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:That's special pleading. We don't dismiss topics from journals dedicated to other authors, do we? | |||
| *:Grok gives the following as peer-reviewed, indexed journals of 20th century authors: | |||
| ** '''James Joyce Quarterly''': This journal is dedicated to Joyce's works, offering scholarly articles, reviews, and bibliographies. It is indexed by several databases, including JSTOR and Project MUSE. | |||
| ** '''The Faulkner Journal''': Focused on the study of Faulkner's literature, this journal publishes scholarly articles, book reviews, and special issues on various aspects of his work. It is indexed in databases like MLA International Bibliography. | |||
| ** '''The Hemingway Review''': This journal delves into Hemingway's writings, life, and influence, providing critical essays, reviews, and notes. It is indexed by several academic databases, including Project MUSE and JSTOR. | |||
| ** '''Virginia Woolf Bulletin''' (also known as the "Virginia Woolf Miscellany"): This publication explores Woolf's literature, life, and cultural impact. Although not as widely indexed as some others, it is recognized by the MLA International Bibliography. | |||
| ** '''T.S. Eliot Studies Annual''': This newer publication focuses on in-depth studies of Eliot's poetry, criticism, and cultural contributions. It is peer-reviewed and indexed in academic sources. | |||
| ** '''D.H. Lawrence Review''': This journal features scholarly articles on Lawrence's work, with a strong focus on his novels, poetry, and letters. It is indexed by resources like JSTOR. | |||
| ** '''Kafka Studies''': Although not as universally known, this journal offers critical analysis of Kafka's literature and philosophical themes. It's indexed in humanities databases. | |||
| ** '''Samuel Beckett Today/Aujourd'hui''': Dedicated to Beckett scholarship, this journal publishes articles in both English and French, focusing on Beckett's plays, novels, and other works. It is peer-reviewed and indexed by databases like Scopus. | |||
| ** '''Marcel Proust Bulletin''': This focuses on Proust's extensive oeuvre, particularly "In Search of Lost Time," with articles that explore his influence and interpretations. It's indexed by various literary databases. | |||
| ** '''Thomas Mann Jahrbuch''': This German-language journal studies Mann's literature, life, and cultural impact, featuring peer-reviewed articles. It is well-indexed in European academic circles. | |||
| ** '''Sehnsucht: The C. S. Lewis Journal''': Established by the Arizona C. S. Lewis Society in 2007, this is the world's only peer-reviewed journal devoted exclusively to the study of C. S. Lewis and his writings. It promotes interest in Lewis's literary, theological, historical, biographical, philosophical, and cultural contributions. The journal is indexed in databases like JSTOR, making it accessible for academic research. | |||
| *:I'm sure there may be more. Grok tends to overlook things even when you tell it to be exhaustive; the last one I specifically queried but it wasn't included in the first set. ] (]) 19:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I'm not dismssing the journal as a reliable source, I'm just saying that its focus on a particular TV show means that it may not demonstrate notability for fictional elements of this particular TV Show. I would say that this goes for the others sources you conjured using an AI chatbot and their particular purviews. If the particular fictional element is found to be notable I see no reason against using it as a source. ] (]) 19:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::AI chatbot just more or less summarized ]. The above are all legit scholarly journals.  <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.  <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.  <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.  <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? | |||
| :I have a few comments below: | |||
| * . | |||
| :: Bloodofox made a huge change to the lede of the Falun Gong article on May 18.{{diff2|957482965}} Other users（not me）tried to cancel the edit. Their reasons have nothing to do whether those sources were RS or not, but were as one user explained on the article talk page on 5 June:<blockquote>"With respect to WP:BURDEN, a reminder that the lede section was very stable for years. It was substantially altered by Bloodofox beginning a few weeks ago. Legitimate concerns were raised regarding Bloodofox's edits with respect to WP:LEAD, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, including WP:WEIGHT. These concerns have been repeatedly raised, and never addressed. Instead, users have edit warred to enforce their preferred version, and repeatedly accused other editors of acting in bad faith. This is not a platform for activism, and it is not a battleground." </blockquote> | |||
| * User Bloodofox has misrepresented his own sources: | |||
| ::As I , NYT and NBC were misrepresented. Aside from that, the line "The Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad" and the line "The new religious movement also operates Shen Yun" Bloodofox added to the lead section of the article, also cannot be supported by any of the 6 sources provided , including these above 3 sources Bloodofox posted. But Bloodofox reverted any correction of his misrepresentations. | |||
| * Bloodofox is not supposed to copy the long paragraphs of his preferred sources on RSN. Plus the views from those sources are different views from other reliable sources. For example, , which was contrary to the LA Mag Think Blog source. Bloodofox removed many reliable sources {{diff2|960940676&oldid=960931781}} that say to the contrary to his views. Here are some of the deleted sources by Bloodofox. | |||
| :* http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=56301%7Carchive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140223153614/http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=56301 | |||
| :* https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-21/what-is-the-falun-gong-movement-and-does-china-harvest-organs/9679690 | |||
| :* https://freedomhouse.org/report/2017/battle-china-spirit-falun-gong-religious-freedom | |||
| :* https://web.archive.org/web/20140223153614/http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=56301 | |||
| :* https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2019/06/17/the-china-tribunal-pronounced-its-verdict-on-organ-harvesting-in-china/ | |||
| :* http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340868/ns/world_news/t/falun-gong-thrives-us/ | |||
| :Based on NPOV, different views from different RS should be proportionally presented. Bloodofox seems to have a strong viewpoint on FLG related topics. He promoted his favorite sources, misrepresented those sources and deleted other correctly represented reliable sources that express views contrary to his. He should stop advocating his own views in Misplaced Pages and blocking others’ legitimate edits. ] 21:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: There are some issues with the sources listed above: | |||
| ::# is the personal website of conservative analyst ], and the podcast episode is a non-] interview of Dana Cheng, the co-founder and vice president of '']'' {{rspe|The Epoch Times}}. | |||
| ::# {{rspe|Forbes.com contributors}} are considered ] and generally unreliable, unless the contributor's {{xt|"work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"}}. Can you link to where this is the case for ]? | |||
| ::# There is disagreement on whether the '']'' is a reliable source. See {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 38#Australian News Weekly.}} and {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288|newsweekly.com.au}} for details. | |||
| ::# ] is a ], which is not necessarily unreliable, but should be ] for any controversial claims. | |||
| :: Can you clarify how the other sources are {{xt|"contrary"}} to Bloodofox's proposed wording? — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 22:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for checking the details of these sources and letting me know some of them may not be reliable. Here is only one "contrary" example (there are a few other examples): | |||
| ::: 1. as Bloodofox posted in this RSN page above from <blockquote>"'''In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times''' to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. '''Six years later he launched Shen Yun''' as another vehicle to promote his teachings to mainstream Western audiences."</blockquote>. | |||
| ::: 2. But said <blockquote>“The publication had been founded nine years earlier in Georgia by John Tang, a Chinese American practitioner of Falun Gong and current president of New Tang Dynasty.The publication had been '''founded nine years earlier in Georgia''' by '''John Tang''', a Chinese American practitioner of Falun Gong and current president of New Tang Dynasty.”</blockquote> | |||
| ::: 3. <blockquote>''"'''Shen Yun was formed in 2006 by followers of Falun Gong''', which Li Hongzhi had founded in China in 1992 and drew on the tradition of qigong, in which breathing, meditation and movement foster good health or spiritual enlightenment."''</blockquote>. | |||
| :::(Please note in my post above, the Newsweekly source were typed twice, which was a typo I made on this RSN page - one time should be used for this SF Chronicle source - that was used in the article and was deleted by Bloodofox) | |||
| :::Bloodofox's info that Epochtimes and Shen Yun were founded or launched by Li is quite different with the NBC source and the SF Chronicle source, which said Epochtimes and Shen Yun were founded by John Tang in 2000 and by followers of Falun Gong in 2006 respectively. There are many other sources confirming such info. ] 03:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I don’t see the conflict between sources you describe, they seem to be in almost complete agreement on the important details. Are you trying to argue that Shen Yun and The Epoch Times aren’t part of the FG movement? ] (]) 18:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Above shows the LA Mag City Think Blog info is contradictory with other sources. Aside from that, I have said to you many times that the line "The Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad..." and the line "The new religious movement also operates Shen Yun" Bloodofox added to the lead section of the article, also cannot be supported by any of the 6 sources provided. you disagree with me. it is simple, please follow WP:V, and show every one here. <blockquote>All material in ], including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose venerability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an ] that directly supports the material</blockquote>.] 21:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}}Contention in this topic area has been going on for years. See ], where ] provides quite a few references that could still be useful. Such as: {{tq|Author Lao Cheng-Wu says that the ''Epoch Times'' newspaper was originally the ''Epoch Times Weekly'', a free-of-charge propaganda sheet which was published by the Falun Dafa Research Society, controlled by Falun Gong founder ] in Taiwan, before it was "restructured" to become the international newspaper that we know today.}} and {{tq|Professor Kevin J. O'Brien of the University of California at Berkeley writes that spokespersons of the ''Epoch Times'' have said the newspaper is not affiliated with the Falun Gong, but all the evidence demonstrates otherwise, that the newspaper's articles show a strong connection to the Falun Gong.}} ] (]) 19:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| : This intractible dispute needs to go before the Abitration Committee, I don't see how it's going to get resolved otherwise. ] (]) 21:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps, but meanwhile there is a new RfC at ]. ] ] 09:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * https://www.whedonstudies.tv/volume-110.html Daniel A. Clark and P. Andrew Miller (Northern Kentucky University) | |||
| == RfC: Fox News == | |||
| ** https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=11208910260268275851 – Cited by 17 | |||
| {{RSN RfC status|1594146000}}<!-- ] 18:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC) --> | |||
| *** 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). | |||
| {{rfc|prop|media|pol|rfcid=7CF8001}} | |||
| ** (no user profile) | |||
| Which of the following best describes the ] of the reporting of ]? (as separate from their cable pundits) {{duses|foxnews.com}} has been cited over 15,000 times on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| ** (no user profile) | |||
| *'''Option 1:''' Generally ] for factual reporting | |||
| *** – Cited by 5345, but seems to be a different person | |||
| *'''Option 2:''' Unclear or additional considerations apply | |||
| * https://www.whedonstudies.tv/volume-41.html Michele Paule (Oxford Brookes University) | |||
| *'''Option 3:''' Generally ] for factual reporting | |||
| ** https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=14669897941185192559 – Cited by 2 | |||
| *'''Option 4:''' Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be ] as in the ] of the '']'' | |||
| *** 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). | |||
| Additional questions: | |||
| ** – Cited by 87 | |||
| *Does FOXNews.com have a separate reliability from their cable news reporting? | |||
| *Do local affiliate stations have a separate reliability to the main Fox News operation? | |||
| *Is Fox News reliable for US Politics? | |||
| The last RfC on Fox News ], Fox News is currently described ]: {{quote|text=FOX News was determined by consensus to be generally reliable per ]. The network consists of 12 news bureaus worldwide, including their New York headquarters. Several shows in the channel's news lineup include America's Newsroom, The Daily Briefing, Bill Hemmer Reports (replaced Shepard Smith), Special Report with Bret Baier, The Story with Martha MacCallum, and Chris Wallace anchoring Fox News Sunday. Some editors perceive FOX News to be a biased source whereas others do not; neither affects reliability of the source. Editors should always exercise caution when choosing sources, and treat talk show content hosted by political pundits as opinion pieces, avoid stating opinions in Wikivoice and use intext attribution as applicable. The Fox News website maintains a form for requesting corrections.}} ] (]) 18:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ===Responses (Fox News)=== | |||
| *'''Option2''': In view of recent events, their reporting seems biased towards information discrediting the protests. However, their factual reporting of non politically charged subjects stays adequate. That being said, I noticed that they give a lot of weight to POTUS since it was revealed that he was a regular watcher. Being nearly the only network giving him interviews. ] (]) 18:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' Fox News is a standard ], yes it may contain a bias (most RSs do), but does not mean it is not reliable. Fox also issues corrections which further indicates fact-checking. At this point it is ] unless some substantive evidence can be presented on the contrary. Regards ] ] 18:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2 or 3 (lean towards 2)''', the quality of the core network’s reporting has declined over the last decade. Care must be taken though, most ] (such as ]) remain generally reliable sources and I want any downgrade to be clear about that. ] (]) 18:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Options 1/2.''' '''Option 1''' for straight news reporting. Fox News's straight news reporting is very different from their talk shows like Hannity, Ingraham, etc. Their news department's bias appears more in what things they choose to cover than in how they cover it. This bias doesn't make it unreliable - almost all news orgs have some form of bias. However, given the network's close ties with Donald Trump, I think '''option 2''' is warranted for coverage of Trump in particular. {{pb}} I don't think any outcome of this RfC should apply to content produced by local bureaus affiliated with Fox. In my experience those bureaus are no more or less reliable than other local news bureaus. <span style="letter-spacing:-2px">−−−</span> ] ] 19:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' Per User:Spy-cycle. Fox News does appropriate fact checking on their reports. This establishes reliability of their works in general and the fact that it is cited quite a lot means that most in wikipedia understand that it is a standard news organization. Furthermore, the others who say that it is not as reliable are going to argue based on subjective measures of not liking it with no empirical metrics. The fact that Fox News tends to have notable commentators like senators, representatives, etc that are notable right wing and left wing on shows like Tucker Carlson and Hannity's shows means they are not like Daily Mail. Also some heavy members of government like Mike Huckabee (ex governor and ex presidential candidate) and Jason Chaffetz (ex congress member) actually host some of the programs and this gives the network insider access to details on developing news. Furthermore, emotional reporting done by CNN and MSNBC does not demote them either. The point on reliability is not whether their stories end up to be true, it is do they have fact checking. Many news stories are developing so the details get confirmed and then rejected as time goes on and as more information emerges. '''CNN and MSNBC were wrong about Russian Collision, Muller Report, impeachment proceedings on Trump, and other stuff, but they would not be unreliable in Misplaced Pages's eyes either'''.] (]) 19:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1''', except for prime time "pundit" reporting about Trump. Speaking generally about, for example, articles posted to the website, . I agree with CactusJack. --] (]) 19:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{Ping|Bsherr}}You might want to double check that source... They put Fox News in the “Red Rectangle: Nonesense damaging to public discourse“ which is their lowest category, they rate it below Daily Mail and I see no indication that they endorse Fox New’s reliability (at most they say “Reliability scores for articles and shows are on a scale of 0-64. Scores above 24 are generally acceptable; scores above 32 are generally good.” while assigning Fox News a score of 26.75). Can you elaborate? ] (]) 21:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' - (less pundits) didn't we just have an RfC about Fox News a few months ago? Did the OP check to see before calling this RfC?? Fox News is as reliable a source as the other cable news networks that also host pundits. The news is reliable, the pundits are opinion. See the write-up at ]. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 20:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::'''Adding links''' to demonstrate that Fox political commentary (not it's newscasts) is very much like that of all other mainstream media except with a conservative bias; the latter of which is not a valid reason to demote a RS anymore than it is valid to demote CNN for it's liberal bias. The US has a two-party system so biased opposition is expected. demonstrates the stark partisan split of Fox News Channel viewers, noting that it is by far the most watched cable news channel. Pew states: {{xt|Liberal Democrats are far more likely than conservative or moderate Democrats to say they distrust Fox news (77% vs. 48%).}} , , , <sup>16:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)</sup> | |||
| *:'''Sidebar note to closer''' (for clarity) - I just want to distinguish between the political pundits that headline Fox News Channel's primetime line-up vs actual news reporting by Fox news anchors, such as ''Special Report'' w/], ''Fox News at Night'' w/], ], ''America's Newsroom'' w/] and ], ''Fox News Sunday'' w/], etc. This RfC is supposed to be focused only on the newscasting, not the political commentary by political pundits on ''The Five, Hannity, Carlson, Laura Ingraham, Fox & Friends'' in the mornings, etc. but several of the iVotes indicate that the two have been conflated. CNN refers to their political pundit ] as a news journalist despite the fact that his show is not a newscast, rather it is biased political commentary not unlike the political pundits on Fox News Channel, and the same or similar applies to ], ], ], ], etc. none of whom anchor a newscast; rather they host commentary/opinion. We would not downgrade CNN News because of their political pundits. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 22:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3'''. You can track how Fox's news output has moved over the last three to four years from a right-leaning mainstream source to part of the conservative media bubble. It's extensively documented in ]'s ''Network Propaganda'', and you can track it over successive iterations of the Ad Fontes chart. You can also see it in specific events such as the departure of Shep Smith. It used to be that Fox talk shows were junk, and Fox news broadcasts and websites were OK. Not so any more. Example: "the amount of coverage Fox News devotes to is preposterous. A search for “antifa” on Fox News’ website from November 2016 to the present returns 668 results, while “homelessness” returns 587, and “OxyContin,” 140. “Permafrost” returns 69. A decentralized, leaderless activist group with no record of lethal violence in this country, antifa has been skilfully transmogrified by the conservative media into one of the gravest threats facing Americans in 2019" . The wall of separation between reporting and opinion has long since been blown away, and Fox is now the media arm of the administration. On CO|VID-19 it has published outright misinformation "Tara Setmayer, a spring 2020 Resident Fellow at the Institute of Politics and former Republican Party communications director, said what’s coming from Fox News and other pro-Trump media goes well beyond misinformation. Whether downplaying the views of government experts on COVID-19’s lethality, blaming China or philanthropist Bill Gates for its spread, or cheering shutdown protests funded by Republican political groups, it’s all part of “an active disinformation campaign,” she said, aimed at deflecting the president’s responsibility as he wages a reelection campaign." I could go on. Fox has changed over the last three to four years, in a meaningful way, and we should recognise that. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 20:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:I do not know the reliablity of ]'s "Network Propaganda", not listed at RSP so I cannot determine its usefulness in this discussion. The opinion of a Buzzfeed News journalist on how much coverage Fox News should give to Antifa compared to homelessness is irrelavent. We need to know whether these articles produced by Fox are reliable and fact checked (which as I explained above I believe they are) not what topics they do and do not cover. I cannot speak for the latter half of your comment since it is an offhand quote from Tara Setmaye as opposed to a multitude of RSs. It is possible Setmayer is true but was referring to the talk shows like ] which is more likely to be true as opposed to the website. Regards ] ] 21:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:* Benkler et al.'s ''Network Propaganda'' is a peer-reviewed Oxford University Press book. ] (]) 03:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:It doesn't matter for our purposes whether Fox covers various news events proportionally. What matters is whether specific news articles produced by Fox News are reliably accurate. If we were using Fox News coverage as an integrated whole to tell what current events are important based on their coverage, yes, that would be a problem, because they often selectively choose what topics to cover most heavily. But Fox's lack of coverage of the opioid crisis, for example, has no bearing on whether an individual Fox News article on homelessness, for example, is accurate. <span style="letter-spacing:-2px">−−−</span> ] ] 21:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'll just add a bit of clarity per an interview with Benkler: {{xt|INSKEEP: Benkler was drawing a picture of something we can't really see, how millions of people find and pass on information. He's a Harvard professor. He also works with the Open Society Foundations. Those are the pro-democracy groups funded by George Soros, the financier who has commonly backed Democrats in the United States.}} Does anyone have a link to the "peer review" so we can see who was on that panel? ] <sub>]</sub> ] 16:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' I agree with other commenters that the reliability of their cable pundits are separate from their news operation (I would consider the pundits to be generally unreliable considering their recent role in downplaying the Pandemic and for many other misleading and false statements made throughout the years). However their publication of a false story about Seth Rich working with Wikileaks was an egrigious error of judgement, which they (thankfully) subsequently retracted, which makes them much better than some sources (cough, ], cough). However, their decision to publish the story in the first place makes me question their editorial judgement. ] (]) 21:48, 7 June 2020 UTC) | |||
| * Concerns have been raised about other articles in Fox News by Malia Zimmerman, the author of the Seth Rich report, see and | |||
| *:That was Hannity - a pundit. Maddow does the same stuff only different topics. We've also endured 2 or 3 years of a Russian collusion nothingburger by left leaning sources. Our job is to bypass the speculation, conspiracy theories and biased opinion journalism regardless of who is publishing it - they all do. Stick to WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEWSORG - the latter of which are now conglomerates. Wait for the historians and academics to give their retrospective accountings. There is no argument here that I've read that is not based in political opinion, and that is not a valid reason to declare the most watched cable news show unreliable. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 21:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:: {{Ping|Atsme}}, While Hannity also spread the conspiracy theory, it was also reported on at foxnews.com, see . ] (]) 22:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:::That archived report was simply a news report - the big 3 also reported the incident. and criticized Fox "commentators", not Fox newscasters. Please state the facts accurately. Fox has criticized the networks as well for their misreporting of events. It goes back and forth. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 22:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{u|Atsme}}, MSNBC is not reliable for factual reporting. Even though Maddow, unlike Hannity, does cite her sources. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 23:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{u|JzG|Guy}}, do you frequently watch Hannity or Maddow? If my memory serves, they're on at the same time? From what I understand, Hannity actually interviews the sources on his show (radio talk-show, too). I can quickly recall per Slate over Trump's tax returns, and there are several such spectacles, not unlike Hannity's but guess who leads in the ratings for whatever reason? And what exactly determines "mainstream" - one's POV, or the ratings? ] <sub>]</sub> ] 21:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''' I would not trust anything I read on Misplaced Pages that was cited to Fox News content alone. They purposefully manipulate their content for political attention and have an obvious bias that should disqualify them from any use as a reference for even the most basic facts, especially when it comes to America and/or the rest of the world. ] (]) 21:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''', Fox News is politically biased to the extent that it affects their supposedly factual reporting. Take this article, front page of their website right now, about the New York Times, which is titled: note that the actual article once you click on it is titled differently, meaning that they specifically had this title on their home page in order to drive up rage in place of actually reporting. This is just one example of many, Fox News is a right-wing propaganda outlet that is most certainly not reliable. <s>I would not go so far as to call them unreliable, since as far as I know they have not published downright false information systematically, but</s> I am changing my vote per comments below, any source which publishes climate change denial and Seth Rich conspiracy theories is not reliable. Having that green next to their name is a display in bothsidesism that is not reflected in reality. ] (]) 22:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **Which part of the headline was inaccurate? The NYT itself reported that its editorial page editor had resigned and that his resignation was connected to negative response to the publication of Tom Cotton's op-ed. --] ] 04:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3, or, failing that, 2'''. No one, I hope, disputes that Fox is extremely ] on anything to do with American politics (and I'll note that cites to it are often careless about the requirement for in-text attribution that that generally requires.) While such biased sources ''can'' be used provided their bias doesn't interfere with their fact-checking or accuracy, the issue with Fox is that the ideological mission it was founded for takes absolute priority over these things. () It has been covered as a case-study in propaganda () and as a leader in the shift towards market-driven sensationalism at the expense of accuracy. () More importantly for our purposes, these things have led to misleading or outright inaccurate coverage of many disparate topics, especially, though not limited to, climate change. () Most recently (and perhaps most dangerously), Fox News' COVID-19 coverage has been notably inaccurate in a way that may have contributed to the severity of the epidemic in the US (); this, I think, is the main reason to categorize it as a 3. It is true that the network is extremely popular and has high viewership, and it is true that a lot of what they cover is merely biased rather than misleading; additionally, it could be tempting to say that the network is only ''grossly'', constantly misleading and inaccurate in a few specific contexts (eg. climate change), and that it's therefore unusable for those topics but still usable elsewhere. But I feel the recent wave of COVID-19 misinformation from the network provides clear evidence that Fox will freely publish inaccurate or misleading stories without warning, on any topic, the moment the people in charge decide that doing so is important to their core ideological mission and hand it down as part of the daily memo, even in situations where doing so is ''extremely dangerous''. Trying to carve out only a few "unsafe" uses for it as a source is a bad idea because the underlying problem is systematic - while they are not ''incapable'' of fact-checking and accuracy, their ability to meet that standard is fatally compromised by a structure that places it completely subordinate to their ideological goals, and by ownership and leadership that have shown themselves to be entirely willing to disregard fact-checking and accuracy, even for extremely important topics, when they find it ideologically convenient to do so. --] (]) 22:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Aquillion}}, please delete the sources that refer to the political commentary on Fox News Channel and not Fox News newcasts. This RfC is focused on the newscast, not the political commentary talk-shows. I went through several of your sources and they refer to the commentary, not the news. Thanks! ] <sub>]</sub> ] 15:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2''' for most purposes, '''option 3''' for political and racial issues, based largely on the fact that the reputation of the network for bias would taint the reliability of Misplaced Pages articles citing it for those purposes. Fox ''just'' drew controversy for an issue where it posted a graphic of stock market gains tied to prominent murders of African-Americans. Moreover—and this is an aspect I really haven't seen raised before—option 2, at least, because some of their content appears to be '''undisclosed paid advertising'''. For example, in one period I saw numerous articles on Fox , so much so that I even started a ]. However, I quickly ran into a roadblock in finding that all ''other'' news reporting of any substance on the company was in pay-for-play churnalism venues. Upon further examination, it became apparent to me that the Fox pieces were written more like paid advertisements than objective news pieces, and contained objectively false characterizations of the notoriety of the company. There was no disclosure of any payment, so Fox is ''either'' in the pay-for-play reporting business, ''or'' they are allowing articles to be published that readily appear to be pay-for-play reporting. Either option is problematic for any news coverage that could potentially benefit a party with a pecuniary interest in how an article is presented, from a perspective of either financial or political gain. ] ] 22:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|BD2412}}, do you have a link to that controversy? I'm on island time and pretty much out of the loop in real-time. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 00:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:: Sure, . Of course, Fox is hardly the first network to have to apologize for tone deaf coverage. ] ] 01:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Thank you. You're right about apologies - back in January, when Andrew McCabe apologized for lying to investigators. Most recently, by Brian Stelter with CNN who lied about ‘no sign of smoke or fire’. Do we downgrade CNN? I can provide numerous errors and ommissions for that network, as well as MSNBC, ABC, CBS & NBC. Did any other network besides these things? We've already seen how the left-leaning stations & networks handled Reade-Biden sexual assault allegation vs how they handled Kavanaugh. WP garnered negative media attention over the left-leaning handling of it - don't you find that concerning? Being a biased source is not a valid reason to downgrade the most-watched news source (with right & left viewers) - to do so is strictly POV rather than being based on an equivalent analysis with other networks. WP policy requires NPOV - it's one of our core content policies - downgrading RS because we disagree with their POV is noncompliant with NPOV when choosing sources. Is the plan to downgrade all political news because it's all biased? ] <sub>]</sub> ] 01:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:::: I am actually somewhat more concerned that they may be promoting paid advertising as news. In retrospect, the thing that first struck me as suspicious about the "Black Rifle Coffee" story is that it appeared on the Fox website, then disappeared for a time, and then reappeared at intervals, a pattern more characteristic of an advertising campaign than a news story. ] ] 02:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I don't see any paid advertising scheme there, but I do see insensitivity, and they apologized for taking it out of context, as well they should - somebody obviously wasn't thinking straight. There is no mention in that report about "Black Rifle Coffee" that I could find, so it seems to me that mentioning it with the S&P issue would be SYNTH with a splash of OR, wouldn't it? Newsrooms can be hectic, and you can rest assured it's a ripe environment for mistakes. The latter is why I have always stressed "exercise caution" when citing news sources today. The same FCC regulations that apply to broadcast news don't apply in the same manner to cable/internet news - they enjoy much more freedom because they're not using public airwaves, although none of them are totally immune from political pressure. If you haven't read my op-ed in The Signpost this month, please do.<— shameless advertising, not paid advertising. 😉 ] <sub>]</sub> ] 18:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::: SYNTH and OR are not really applicable, as we are not discussing whether to include such assertions in an article. Whether we are dealing with shameless advertising or paid advertising, the ultimate effect is that they published claims about the subject that led me to believe that it was a notable subject, and those claims turned out to be inaccurate. ] ] 18:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' they call Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingraham news. Shows that they don't separate factual reporting from opinions. They promote conspiracy theories with no basis and call it news. ] (]) 00:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Smith0124}}, there's a difference between opinion & talk shows and straight news reporting. Fox's talk shows are as much of a crapshoot, w.r.t. political affairs, as all other mainstream media. ] (]) 00:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per Atsme with a bit of the Option 2 caution suggested by Cactus Jack. I personally think this RfC should be closed since the intent seems to be to ask the same question over and over again until finally someone will close with the answer a group of editors has been hunting for. ] (]) 01:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' While Fox News Channel was founded to provide a forum for U.S. conservative opinion, it has always provided a professional news service. I don't see that the fact they provide right wing commentary detracts from that. Many of their talk show hosts came from other cable news networks: Glenn Beck, Geraldo Rivera, Lou Dobbs, while Megyn Kelly moved from Fox to NBC. All news by the way is biased since editorial discretion is required in choosing stories to present. For example, Fox News covered the sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden long before other legacy media did. But that has nothing to do with the accuracy of their reporting, merely that their emphasis is different. ] (]) 02:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3.''' The following text is in regards to the news reporting division at Fox News (not its prime talk shows and commentators). Academic sources widely consider Fox News as a propaganda outlet, including in its straight news reporting which is often misleading, hypes up non-stories and gets things egregiously wrong all the time. I'll keep the focus primarily on two issues rather than to just list every egregiously wrong thing that Fox News has done: (i) Fox News' climate change denial propaganda and (ii) the intentional promotion of Seth Rich conspiracy theories to divert attention from a negative news cycle for Trump. | |||
| *::'''(I) Climate change.''' Peer-reviewed research has widely described Fox News as a major platform for ].<ref>{{Cite book|last=Dryzek|first=John S.|url=https://global.oup.com/academic/product/climate-challenged-society-9780199660117|title=Climate-Challenged Society|last2=Norgaard|first2=Richard B.|last3=Schlosberg|first3=David|date=October 24, 2013|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19966-011-7|location=Oxford, New York|page=31}}</ref><ref name=":432">{{Cite web|date=November 21, 2018|title=False claims of a coming ice age spread through ecosystem of unreliable news sites, blogs, and social media accounts|url=https://climatefeedback.org/false-claims-coming-ice-age-ecosystem-unreliable-news-sites-blogs-social-media-accounts/|access-date=December 22, 2018|website=Climate Feedback|language=en-US}}</ref><ref name=":442">{{Cite book|last=Mann|first=Michael E.|url=https://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-madhouse-effect/9780231177863|title=The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy|last2=Toles|first2=Tom|date=2016|publisher=Columbia University Press|isbn=978-0-23154-181-7}}</ref><ref name=":452">{{Cite book|last=Powell|first=James Lawrence|url=https://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-inquisition-of-climate-science/9780231157193|title=The Inquisition of Climate Science|date=2011|publisher=Columbia University Press|isbn=978-0-23152-784-2|pages=177}}</ref> According to the fact-checking website ], Fox News is part of "a network of unreliable outlets for climate news."<ref name=":433">{{Cite web|date=November 21, 2018|title=False claims of a coming ice age spread through ecosystem of unreliable news sites, blogs, and social media accounts|url=https://climatefeedback.org/false-claims-coming-ice-age-ecosystem-unreliable-news-sites-blogs-social-media-accounts/|access-date=December 22, 2018|website=Climate Feedback|language=en-US}}</ref> | |||
| *::* '''], the Fox News Washington managing editor, instructed Fox News journalists to dispute the ]''': "A leaked email from the managing editor of Fox News Washington, Bill Sammon, during the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009 reveals Fox’s sceptical policy towards climate change. Sammon advised Fox journalists to “refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question”." <u>Page 174 of Marisol Sandoval. "From Corporate to Social Media: Critical Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility in Media and Communication Industries". Routledge.</u> | |||
| *::* '''], a straight-news anchor pushing climate denial propaganda''' -''“In February 2010, a paper on sea level rise that had previously been published in Nature Geosciences was formally withdrawn by the authors because of an error they had identified subsequently in their calculations. Fox News announced the development in this vein: “More Questions About Validity of Global Warming Theory.” In fact, the error in the calculations had led the authors to projections of future sea level rise that were too low!"'' <u>Page 223 of Michael E. Mann. “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines.”</u> | |||
| *::* '''], a straight-news anchor: Promotion of ] falsehoods''': "“This particular falsehood had been promoted recently by venues such as Fox News , e.g., Bill Hemmer on Fox’s America’s Newsroom, December 3, 2009: “Recently leaked emails reveal that scientists use, quote, ‘tricks’ to hide evidence of a decline in global temperatures over the past, say, few decades." <u>Page 353 of Michael E. Mann. “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines.”</u> | |||
| *:: '''(II) Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy (i.e. "Russia didn't hack the DNC").''' On May 16, 2017, a day when other news organizations were extensively covering ], Fox News ran a lead story about a private investigator's uncorroborated claims about the ], a ] staffer. The Fox News story reported that the private investigator had uncovered evidence that Rich was in contact with Wikileaks and that law enforcement were covering it up.<ref name=":32">{{Cite news|last=Seitz-Wald|first=Alex|date=May 16, 2017|title=DNC staffer's murder draws fresh conspiracy theories|language=en|work=NBC News|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/dnc-staffer-s-murder-draws-fresh-conspiracy-theories-n760186|access-date=May 16, 2017}}</ref> The story was in the context of right-wing conspiracy theories that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party had Seth Rich killed because he was the source of the ].<ref name=":32" /> U.S. intelligence agencies determined Russia was the source of the leaks.<ref>{{cite news|date=January 6, 2017|title=U.S. intel report identifies Russians who gave emails to WikiLeaks - officials|website=Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-cyber-celebrate-idUSKBN14P2NI|accessdate=July 3, 2017}}</ref> In reporting the investigator's claims, the Fox News report reignited right-wing conspiracy theories about the killing.<ref name=":32" /><ref name=":6">{{Cite web|last=Darcy|first=Oliver|date=May 16, 2017|title=Story on DNC staffer's murder dominated conservative media -- hours later it fell apart|url=http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/16/media/seth-rich-family-response-claims-of-wikileaks-contact/index.html|access-date=May 17, 2017|website=CNN Money}}</ref> The Fox News story fell apart within hours because other news organizations did the basic journalistic legwork to confirm aspects of the story that Fox News intentionally opted not to do.<ref name=":11">{{Cite news|last=Darcy|first=Oliver|date=March 14, 2018|title=Family of slain Democratic staffer Seth Rich sues Fox News|work=CNN Money|url=http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/14/media/seth-rich-lawsuit-fox-news/index.html|access-date=March 14, 2018}}</ref> Furthermore, other news organizations quickly revealed the investigator was a Donald Trump supporter and had according to ''NBC News'' "developed a reputation for making outlandish claims, such as one appearance on Fox News in 2007 in which he warned that underground networks of pink pistol-toting lesbian gangs were raping young women."<ref name=":32" /><ref name=":02">{{Cite news|last=Bromwich|first=Jonah Engel|date=May 17, 2017|title=How the Murder of a D.N.C. Staffer Fueled Conspiracy Theories|newspaper=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/seth-rich-dnc-wikileaks.html|access-date=May 17, 2017|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> Later that same day, the private investigator said he had no evidence that Rich had contacted Wikileaks.<ref name=":62">{{Cite web|last=Darcy|first=Oliver|date=May 16, 2017|title=Story on DNC staffer's murder dominated conservative media -- hours later it fell apart|url=http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/16/media/seth-rich-family-response-claims-of-wikileaks-contact/index.html|access-date=May 17, 2017|website=CNN Money}}</ref> The investigator claimed he only learned about the possible existence of the evidence from the Fox News reporter herself.<ref name=":62" /> Even though other news organizations had quickly found the story to be erroneous and the story had complete fallen apart within hours, Fox News chose merely to alter the contents of its story and its headline, but did not issue corrections.<ref name=":022">{{Cite news|last=Bromwich|first=Jonah Engel|date=May 17, 2017|title=How the Murder of a D.N.C. Staffer Fueled Conspiracy Theories|newspaper=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/seth-rich-dnc-wikileaks.html|access-date=May 17, 2017|issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Waldron|first=Travis|date=May 18, 2017|title=Fox Stands By DNC Murder Conspiracy Theory Even After Main Source Changes Story|language=en-US|work=Huffington Post|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fox-news-seth-rich_us_591cd078e4b034684b093717|access-date=May 18, 2017}}</ref> It took Fox News a week to retract the story. Unlike normal news organizations, Fox News did not bother to publicly explain what went wrong in its reporting.<ref name=":12">{{Cite news|title=No Apology, No Explanation: Fox News And The Seth Rich Story|language=en|work=NPR.org|url=https://www.npr.org/2017/09/15/551163406/fox-news-has-yet-to-explain-what-what-wrong-in-seth-rich-story|access-date=September 15, 2017}}</ref> The reporter behind the fabricated story, Malia Zimmermann, may still be working at Fox News (that's at least what her Twitter bio says) despite having egregiously fabricated a story – Fox News can't show the basic transparency of clarifying whether she is still working behind the scenes on Fox News stories.<ref>{{Cite news|last=|first=|date=2018|title=Fox News won’t say whether Seth Rich conspiracy reporter is working on stories|work=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/03/16/fox-news-wont-say-whether-seth-rich-conspiracy-reporter-is-working-on-stories/|url-status=live|access-date=}}</ref> | |||
| *::: Note that as soon as the Fox News story appeared, editors on the Murder of Seth Rich page fought hard to include it in the article. Editors on the talk page argued that Fox News was considered "generally reliable" (this includes one editor who is voting for Option 1 in this very RfC).<ref>{{Citation|title=Talk:Murder of Seth Rich/Archive 6|date=2017-06-11|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich/Archive_6&oldid=784998703|work=Misplaced Pages|language=en|access-date=2020-06-08}}</ref> This is precisely why Option 1 is unacceptable. ] (]) 03:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **And note that I argued against inclusion on the basis that the story had not been widely reported. Also note that you argued vociferously to include a misleading story about Rep. Tulsi Gabbard that had only been reported in one news source (NBC) and I argued against inclusion for the same reason. But that is the nature of investigative reporting. One news source presents something that a source told them and the rest of the media either pick up the story or they don't. Are we going to ban NBC News too on the basis that they are biased in favor of establishment Democrats? ] (]) 03:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *** As soon as one other RS reported "According to Fox News...", you said "Fantastic! Let's include this batshit insane conspiracy theory in the article." I have no idea what your Gabbard commentary is about. On the Murder of Seth Rich article, I had to spend hours re-writing and fixing the article, and preventing editors such as yourself from lending credibility to a deranged conspiracy theory on one of the most read websites in the world and preventing editors such as yourself from imposing more harm on a murder victim's family. ] (]) 03:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ** Your climate change points are not any proof against RS. Point 1 doesn't mean anything because that isn't reflected in any actual stories we can point to, nor is it a requirement for WP in reporting on CC stories that the news source has assert climate change is real in every story about climate change. Unless the source is spinning every climate change story in full outright denial mode, that doesn't make them unreliable (At worst, judging the latest CC stories they have run , , they play just a bit into "skeptic" but they do not let that taint how they report the basic facts of these climate change reports, only just throwing in a para "skeptics say these there may be no climate change" langauge" somewhere. That's not wrong nor touches anything about their RSness. Your point two is using the headline of a story which is never considered reliable so we ignore that. On 3, its clearly misunderstanding the language of the emails as applied to the data per (eg even that book gets the context wrong). So no, none of that proves Fox is not an RS. I wouldn't use them for CC news data only because I don't believe their bias would be helpful and other sources are tons better in terms of the basic science that is involved like NYTimes, but that doesn't rule it out. | |||
| ** On the whole thing with Rich, the "news" part of Fox that reported on the conspiracy was simply reporting it existed (that the Fox opinion desk side were going all crazy over it) and gave insight from the other side's denial nothing happened like that. Did they chase it down as well as the NYTimes or others? No. Is that a requirement for an RS? No (like the answer to the CC #1 above). All we are looking for is editorial control and fact-checking, which they did some. Not as extensive, and likely they were rushing to print (again, they have a bias) . And key to all that: They Redacted the story within the week . Editorial control. That's all that matters for the RS factor. Now, that editors rushed to want to add it, that's a problem that we are not enforcing BLP, NOTNEWS, and RECENTISM especially with controversial claims from biased RSes. --] (]) 03:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *** It was the news division that was behind the Seth Rich story! It was a Fox News scoop – not commentary by Sean Hannity. There would have been nothing for the opinion desk side of Fox News to get crazy over if not for the fabricated story by the straight news division. ] (]) 03:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' as long as we are clear we are not talking about their opinion or talk shows, but only their news programs or news portions of their websites which have been repeated shown to follow the expected editorial control we expect of RSes, biases notwithstanding. Bias does not discount a reliable source, though it is fair to raise the question (like this) if a bias has affected the reliability of a source. Their talk shows should be treated only as RSOPINION and used only when DUE is appropriate. I also point out as noted below this has been asked at least 3-4 times in a non-formal RFC (which is NOT required to include on RS/P) and the weight of those discussions be considered in this. --] (]) 03:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ** How can the news division of Fox News be considered reliable when its reporters are instructed to promote climate change denial and when said straight-news reporters act upon these instructions and tell brazen falsehoods about climate change? ] (]) 03:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***Their reporters don't lie about climate change, but they give too much time to climate change deniers. Similarly, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and the broadsheets gave way too much coverage to misleading pundits falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction, in fact manipulating public opinion in favor of what would be a devastating military adventure. ] (]) 03:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***Do you have any examples of this that aren't over a decade old? If so, please provide them. Ten years is a long time in the politics and media world. 10 years ago Mitt Romney was the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting; today he's one of the most vocal critics of the Republican president. 10 years ago Breitbart News was a generic conservative commentary site; nowadays it's a hard-right propaganda outlet. The layman's consensus in the US around climate change is much, much stronger than it was a decade ago. <span style="letter-spacing:-2px">−−−</span> ] ] 03:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **** Fox News, Nov 2018: "NASA warns long cold winter could hit space in months bringing record low temperatures" – A complete misrepresentation of the science in order to promote a global cooling narrative. | |||
| **** Fox News, Oct 2019: "Explosion in Antarctic sea ice levels may cause another ice age" – A complete misrepresentation of the science in order to promote a global cooling narrative.. | |||
| **** Fox News, Feb 2017: "Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation, whistle blower charges" – Giving credence to the dumb ravings of a climate change denier. ] (]) 04:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***** The Nov 2018 was a mistake several outlets made per Poynter and per Poyner "Like Metro, Fox and The Sun have also since corrected their stories." '''Editorial control'''. So not proof. | |||
| ***** Oct 2019 story: As per Climate Feedback: "The Fox News article has been corrected..." '''Editorial control'''. though the fact they don't check with scientists of the work behind a paper before publishing the results of a paper is not great journalism but that's not a requirement under RS. | |||
| ***** Feb 2017, this one is a bit different. If you read Fox's article, all claims of it are directly attributed to other sources and none to their own; the slowdown claim is from the whistleblower, and of course Daily Mail and Washington Times are used as other sources of information. Now, red flags go up in that I would not touch this story for use in any CC related article, but I stress that in terms of an RS, its not wrong. It doesn't go out of its way to say "this is bad understanding of a graph" but thats again, not a requirement of an RS, and in terms of discussion if someone said "We need to use this article", I would suspect that UNDUE factors from other less biased sources would be there. But again, nothing about that article says anything against being an RS. Just a biased source for CC claims. --] (]) 04:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ****** All the sources that also happened to make Fox News's "mistake" were sources which are considered generally unreliable or which have been deprecated (does the fact that The Sun sometimes runs corrections make it a reliable source with thorough editorial control? No, of course not). That's a clue as to what company Fox News belongs in. And it's entirely consistent with the existing academic literature on the broader network of right-wing disinformation that Fox News sits smack in the middle of. ] (]) 05:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' Just like CNN and MSNBC and all the other cable news channels, they have a news show and a talking head show. Their news is reliable, just as most of the other RS, even if they don't share the same bias as CNN or MSNBC. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **Baloney, this is the old false equivalence claim. Fox doesn't even '''''try''''' to be neutral, their biases are displayed on their sleeves for anyone to see. CNN and MSNBC keep their news operations separate from the opinion operations, but at Fox, it's all one bag -- that's precisely and entirely what Roger Ailes intended to create. You could see it in his programming on the pre-Fox "America's Talking" channel (that became MSNBC after they kicked Ailes out). His purpose has always been to create a conservative-leaning "news" channel which would counter the bias he perceived in CNN. He wasn't shy about declaring this, and the result is the biased, unreliable Fox News we have today. ] (]) 05:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Not really commenting in the poll, but it’s worth pointing out that there is a ''substantial'' difference between Fox News TV and foxnews.com. The former can have some decent reporting depending on the reporter and anchor (also some real crap as has already been pointed out.) Foxnews.com makes the ''Daily Mail'' look like the ''New York Times'', though. ] (]) 05:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' for the most part. Fox News is reliable enough for run-of-the-mill news, but not for news regarding politics or anything connected to politics. They do not maintain a Chinese wall between their news operation and their opinion operations, and are blatantly biased in favor of Trump and the Republican Party, and against anything perceived to be liberal or (God forbid!) socialist. I have no opinion about the local stations, but would suggest that the owned-and-operated stations are more likely to hew to the Murdoch/Ailes model, while the affiliates would be independent operations. ] (]) 05:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' for the core news reporting (though there can always be exceptions), and '''option 4''' for the pundits, talk shows, and opinion pieces. I fully agree with GPinkerton's and BD2412's assessments of Fox's lack of editorial diligence, and Aquillion has highlighted only a fraction of their misinformation campaign. Even setting my political bias aside, I do not trust their capability to report statements of fact. <span style="font-family:'Lucida Sans Unicode','Arial'; color:#395A9C;">—⁠] ''<sup>(])</sup> '''''│''''' 06:14, 08 June 2020 (UTC)''</span> | |||
| *'''Option 3''' per JzG. Having read ''Network Propaganda'', this is conclusively proven. Because you cannot rely on self-correction of mistakes, every piece from Fox News needs to be independently verified by the user and therefore citing Fox News ends up being an act of ]. There will be still things one can source to Fox News, for instance "Fox News thinks" or "Murdoch told on Fox News that". For right-wing perspectives one can always cite other prolific media like ] which, while clearly politically tinted, tends to be more matter-of-fact (for now). ] 08:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' Standard ] with oversight. Yes it may have political leanings, but so does ], ] and the majority of other media outlets. Yet I don't see them getting the same treatment as this. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 09:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' I'd normally try to stay away from US politics as toxic but feel obliged to respond to RfC's listed at ]. I nominated the two most recent stories listed as blurbs at ] and so am familiar with their details. Looking at the coverage of these on Fox News (, ), this seems shallow but accurate and generally unexceptional. ]🐉(]) 10:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' meets ] with oversight just like ] and ].] (]) 11:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' mostly, '''Option 2''' at best for core news reporting. Fox News has consistently peddled inaccurate/fake news, whether an hierarchical structure of a news organisation exists is irrelevant. Fox News also lacks the journalistic tradition of correcting their mistakes publicly in most cases - to state how widespread it is, I found an example in the last one day alone, . For pundits and opinion pieces (Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, et al.) it should strictly be '''Option 4''' due their nature of sensationalizing news reporting and often making biased and inaccurate reporting. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">] (] <span style="color:#000">愛</span> ])</span> 14:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' - It either meets RS standards or not. Their core news department does meet ] from what I can tell. Pundits and opinions should be handled by ]. I think it is important for people to realize the distinction here and I think that is what is being missed by some. ] (]) 15:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' One of the only major conservative news outlets, it is a source for reliable news. Just like CNN is considered reliable even though both news sites have a bias and tend to lead towards their political standing. It would be a shame to not count Fox news as reliable. ] (]) 15:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' It meets ]. Fox News being a ] does not severely affect it's reliability; it is not ] since it's not an "extremist". Now in the COVID-19 pandemic, eh a small difference in its reliability. Taking hydroxychloriquine is not recommended, warned ] to Fox News Viewers. Well then.<br> {{tq|.] is no longer the same. We miss the great Roger Ailes. You have more anti-Trump people, by far, than ever before. Looking for a new outlet!}} ] 4:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC).<br> That is enough to show that Fox News doesn't have bias that affects it's reliability. <span style="color:#666666">{{]|]}}</span>'s ] page! 16:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for the news programming, '''Option 2 or 3''' for the pundit programming. Nothing has really changed since the last RFC on this. Note- I would have the same opinion if we were discussing CNN or MSNBC. The problem is that too many of our editors have difficulty differentiating between news reporting, news analysis, and news commentary/opinion. Each needs to be handled differently. ] (]) 17:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' or '''Option 2'''. I think everyone here acknowledges Fox has a conservative bias. That alone is not enough to deem the network unreliable or to deprecate it, unless we also take a hard look at MSNBC. '''<span style="border: 1px #8C001A solid;background:#8C001A">]</span>''' 18:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' A lot of responses in this thread so far are simply "reliable per NEWSORG" without any justification. I would like to present another story, the false claim that Omar Mateen had been radicalised by Marcus Dwayne Robertson. From The New Republic<ref>{{Cite news|last=Shephard|first=Alex|date=2017-08-04|title=Meet the Reporter Driving Fox News’s Biggest, Craziest Stories|work=The New Republic|url=https://newrepublic.com/article/144200/meet-reporter-driving-fox-newss-biggest-craziest-stories|access-date=2020-06-10|issn=0028-6583}}</ref>: {{Quote|text=Since Zimmerman joined Fox News in 2015, Fox News has repeatedly picked up her reporting and used it to legitimize the larger counter-narratives that form Fox News’s fevered worldview. These stories touched on alleged issues like voter fraud, gun confiscation, the Benghazi terrorist attack, the unmasking of Trump transition officials in confidential documents, and the murder of Seth Rich. Fox News has repeatedly picked up Zimmerman’s reporting and used it to legitimize the larger counter-narratives that form Fox News’s fevered worldview. In June 2016, shortly after the attack on the gay nightclub Pulse in Orlando that killed 49 people, Zimmerman reported that the shooter, Omar Mateen, had been radicalized by an imam and ex-con named Marcus Dwayne Robertson.}} | |||
| :{{quote|text=Citing anonymous law enforcement sources, Zimmerman alleged that Robertson had been “rounded up” in the wake of the attack and that Mateen had been radicalized while attending an online seminary run by Robertson. But Robertson and Mateen had never met. Furthermore, Robertson had never been “rounded up” by anyone. That didn’t stop Fox News from running with the story—or other outlets, including The Daily Beast, from picking it up—until it was finally debunked. Robertson was forced to defend himself on Greta Van Susteren’s Fox News show On the Record. As reporter David Gauvey Herbert wrote in Quartz<ref>{{Cite web|last=Herbert|first=David Gauvey|title=The time I tangled with the Fox News reporter behind the Seth Rich murder conspiracy theory|url=https://qz.com/992476/the-time-i-tangled-with-the-fox-news-reporter-behind-sean-hannitys-seth-rich-murder-conspiracy-theory/|access-date=2020-06-10|website=Quartz|language=en}}</ref> his explanation satisfied Susteren. But the damage was done. Zimmerman’s shadowy unnamed sources—whom Herbert and others have been unable to identify—fingered a man who had nothing to do with the terror attack and upended his life. Robertson lost his job and faced a barrage of death threats, despite having no connection to Mateen.}} | |||
| :The story, which is still online<ref>{{Cite web|last=Zimmerman|first=Malia|date=2016-06-12|title=Orlando gunman tied to radical imam released from prison last year, say law enforcement sources|url=https://www.foxnews.com/us/orlando-gunman-tied-to-radical-imam-released-from-prison-last-year-say-law-enforcement-sources|access-date=2020-06-10|website=Fox News|language=en-US}}</ref> has not been corrected or retracted. ] (]) 18:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why should it be retracted? ] <sub>]</sub> ] 18:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Maybe retracted is the wrong word, but there's no update on the story to indicate that the claims are no longer considered true. The only update on the story was adding Omar Mateen to the death count. ] (]) | |||
| ::::What claims? Please provide a link to the source that supports what you're saying because I don't know what you're talking about. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 19:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::: ''"or other outlets, including The Daily Beast, from picking it up"'' Would you argue that the other sources should be downgraded as well as Fox? I note that ''The Daily Beast'' was this year upgraded to a green source on PERENNIAL, should we reverse that? ] (]) 19:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: The problem with bad news stories is that they are like anecdotes, they don't tell you the hit rate. I don't think having reported a news story that later turns out to be incorrect is necessarily an issue of reliability, I mean look at the whole Covington thing. As the Perennial sources entry indicates, "Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons" Which is inline with them covering this story, as it involves BLPs. I would consider the Daily Beast a significantly lower quality source than something like the NYT or WashPo, and if something is being covered in the Daily Beast but not those would have to make a judgement if its use was appropriate. I called this RfC simply to get a new concensus on how reliable Fox News is, not because I have a vendetta against Fox News or conservatives. I would be happy to see Fox News retain its generally reliable rating at the end of this. ] (]) 20:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' There is clear bias in how they report certain things, and which things they report and which they don't. For instance, I believe they're the only news organization anyone would consider legitimate at all that tried to discuss the ] "unmasking" issue as anything other than a right-wing conspiracy theory. They are okay on some factual matters, but we should use caution when citing Fox News. – ] (]) 18:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Limited option 2''' - Option 2 is very broad, so I'm going to say that Fox News is problematic on a significant amount of US political reporting. Outside of that, their flaw rate certainly is no worse that others that sources we consider generally reliable (which certainly doesn't require perfection by any means). That political reporting (reasonably construed) is not always flawed, but an appreciable amount is. As noted above, this is often on what is ''not''reported (or not covered in depth) - this can make their reporting lack context, but may, or may not, mitigate on accuracy concerns about what is present. ] (]) 18:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''', certainly for anything related to science, politics, or COVID per Snoogans and also concerned about ] per BD2412. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 19:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' on news reporting. I note that they use a considerable amount of AP content. Obviously does not apply to commentary.--] (]) 19:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Somewhere between '''Option 1''' and '''Option 2''' for their straight reporting with the usual sanity checks - newsorgs are only the first draft of history, but is the news side of Fox really so much worse than its peers? Certainly the Seth Rich article (three years ago) was a grotesque lapse of judgment, what of CNN letting Chris Cuomo lob softballs at his brother rather than press him on his atrocious response to the coronavirus? ] (]) 19:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|NPalgan2}}, please avoid the ] and keep an eye on your own POV. – ] (]) 19:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{u|Muboshgu}}, the whataboutism link you provided is to a WP article, not ]. On WP, the closest PAG I could find is the essay ], which is both useful and useless, depending on context. The essay states: {{xt|When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.}} I'm of the mind that this is one of those instances where consistency is important. Some of the comments in this discussion remind me of article. I'm of the mind that when either side of an argument is silenced or intimidated into silence, it leads to a homogenous community that is incompatible with NPOV. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 13:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:::A "whataboutism" is nevertheless an argument that should not be used and should be called out for what it is. I don't think we're using Cuomo on Cuomo interviews as anything other than an occasional source of amusement. – ] (]) 18:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1 and Comment.''' FOX News has had a ] at the ] along with NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN for a very long time reporting on the activities of multiple presidencies, both Democrat and Republican. I believe that FOX News should be treated *the same way* as NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN. Also, to the OP ], in the interest of transparency, could you please fill out your User Page with some information about yourself? Thank you. '''''<span style="font-family:Georgia">] <sup>(])+(])</sup></span>''''' 20:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|History DMZ}}, Please do not ask editors to post personal information. It is not required to post political opinions either. Please respect ]. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 20:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{u|Buidhe}}, I never asked for *personal* information. I asked for *some* information. That can be userboxes, a short introduction, etc. Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't speak. But to be clear, NO personal information was asked of the OP. Cordially, '''''<span style="font-family:Georgia">] <sup>(])+(])</sup></span>''''' 20:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::: {{u|History DMZ}}, I can tell you that I don't really care for '']'', despite the fact my account is named after it, having never edited the article. I do think the article (alongside that of '']'') are in need of serious work though. ] (]) 20:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{u|Hemiauchenia}}, thank you for your cordial and humorous reply. Perhaps what you just shared is TMI for some lol. But seriously, it wouldn't hurt if you introduced yourself a little to the community through your user page. It's *optional* of course. Cheers, '''''<span style="font-family:Georgia">] <sup>(])+(])</sup></span>''''' 20:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|History DMZ}}, The White House gave press passes to Infowars and OANN. That means literally nothing. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 12:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{u|JzG}}, The Obama White House (2009-2017), whom I voted into office and hold no bias for or against, gave *front-row* press passes to FOX News and sat them next to NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN. That means a lot. Cordially, '''''<span style="font-family:Georgia">] <sup>(])+(])</sup></span>''''' 18:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::: {{ping|History DMZ}} that was then. They have totally changed because of Trump. It's a symbiotic relationship made in hell. They have moved from ordinary right-wing RS, to extreme right-wing allies of Russian propaganda defending Trump, no matter what, and we know he lies constantly. -- ] (]) 05:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' Far more reliable than its cable competitors such as the pathetic CNN or MSNBC that are little more than 24/7 coverage of "we hate Trump". Considering all the poorly worded tones of once reliable sources such as the NYTimes, the WaPo, BBC and simliar mostly print based news entities, FoxNews appears as reliable as as them overall. Since we shy away from posting news opinion pieces in most BLPs we also do so with cable based pundit commentary, or at least we should.--] (]) 20:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2, with Option 3 for political content'''. Speaking as a journalist, Fox News's news coverage, while better than its opinions commentary, still flouts the professional standards of the industry, and this has worsened since the prior RfC. The Seth Rich example (] headline: "") is just one of many. While it does often publish decent enough content, I agree with Nemo that anything we cite to it would have to be confirmed somewhere else more reliable, at which point it is no longer functioning as a source. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>]</sup> 20:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' - Opinion, punditry, and headlines aside, their straight news stuff is fine. Like SJ says, on par with CNN, MSNBC, or any other cable news. (Well, better actually than some cable news, like OANN and Newsmax.) I agree with Masem's comments above that making mistakes and correcting them later is not a sign of unreliability. I think it's quite the opposite in fact. Fox News is not a top-tier source and can usually be replaced by a better source, but it's an RS, when used properly. By the way, we just did this last year. ] <sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 20:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''- How many more of these discussions do we need to have. Sure I understand that consensus can change, but having the same exact discussion every other month just because there is a group of people who hate Fox News is a massive waste of time. It is at least as reliable as its competitor CNN and we haven't banned that as a source yet.--] (]) 23:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' Reliable. ] (]) 23:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' Per Atsme. ] (]) 00:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' As far as actual factual reporting they seem to do about as well as most NewsOrgs. They post their corrections which are easy to call out. Not a huge fan of what they choose to write about but that doesn't make it unreliable. The Punditry is hot garbage but then most punditry isn't reliable anyway.] (]) 00:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Options 1 to 4'''. The news department will generally get "sky is blue" type facts right. They still get all the way over into reporting debunked information, which is ''sometimes'' called out by other members of the team, but not always. | |||
| : '''Are they "reliable for US Politics"? Hell no.''' Ask yourself if their reporting deviates from what all other mainstream news sources report. If someone can't see that there is a huge difference between their reporting and the reporting from the rest of mainstream media, they are blind. If they do see the difference, and still consider Fox News generally reliable for US politics, they don't know what's really happening, are buying the GOP party line without thinking, and don't know how to vet sources for reliability. Note that such people consistently hate fact-checking sources. | |||
| : Keep in mind that research shows that '''''' | |||
| : Fox News was created by Roger Ailes to be a voice for the GOP, not a real "news" station. It's their propaganda channel. With the arrival of Trump, they have gone from normal right-wing (which can be opinionated, but still reliable) to extreme right-wing (which, like extreme left-wing, are not reliable) and often repeat Russian talking points, the exact same ones being pushed by RT and Sputnik, which are Russian propaganda channels. That is very worrying.-- ] (]) 00:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Valjean}}, for the sake of academic clarity - two FDU professors that were involved in the original New Jersey and later international polling (your link above), , explained the misleading results by the news media as follows: {{xt|"Does Fox News make you dumb? No, but that was the headline generated by news aggregators re-reporting research by Fairleigh Dickinson University‘s PublicMind."}} They closed with the following statement: {{xt|We never said, nor meant to say, that Fox viewers are dumb — or MSNBC viewers for that matter. They’re no better or worse than the average respondents. Clearly, anyone who is dumb and watching TV was dumb when he or she sat down in front of the tube. Some news sources just don’t help matters any.}} ] <sub>]</sub> ] 17:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::To ] - Results from the 2012 Fairleigh Dickinson University (FDU) survey that ] reported on (above) found that "Fox News viewers were less informed about current events than people who didn't follow the news at all." That's the result of their study. So it's best to avoid getting hung-up on a ''headline'' & instead focus on the <u>results</u> of the study. ] (]) 20:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2.''' Great to be here. Lots of folks out there are saying Option 1 and many are saying Option 3, but I like Option 2. In my experience, the reliability of the "News Division" of Fox News has gone down over recent years. I don't think enough people here are talking about that. For me, since ] left,<sup class="plainlinks"></sup> their standards have started to lax. According to ], Smith wasn't the only person in the News Division to leave, and he reported that Fox News executives are mainly trying to head the company away from prioritizing actual journalism in their coverage.<sup class="plainlinks"></sup> Regardless, it is certainly clear that they have changed in ''some'' way over time.<sup class="plainlinks"></sup><br />While writing this comment, I did some digging. I wanted a ''reliable source'' to tell me how ''other reliable sources'' think things are. It's easy to get caught up in your own perceptions of things, so I wanted something outside my own biases. What I found was ''''''. It's answer: {{shrug}}<br />It's not clear, and no one knows for sure. We can debate it all we want, but we're never going to get a satisfactory answer out of this question besides (to me) Option 2. –<span style="font-family:CG Times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 02:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *It keeps coming up, because it's such a hard case. Ultimately, I land '''Option 2''' for the news. Certainly the pundits/talk shows can range anywhere from option 2-4, depending, but the news content is ok for a lot of subjects. I think where it's hardest is when it comes to story selection and word choice. Fox doesn't regularly simply get it wrong and doesn't often contradict other sources on the basic facts, but will cover some things that don't get any traction elsewhere and is more likely to use particular kinds of language to cover those stories (like one they've gotten some flack for in the past is "thug" -- for which they're certainly not the only one, of course). Not sure if that should factor in to RSP -- just seemed worth mentioning — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 04:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2, generally.''' Mostly per all of the above. I'd also add that Fox tends to be a good source in terms of determining what the Republican Party's stance on an issue is. This is roughly in line with my opinion on the merits of including ] or ] as a barometer of the "official stance" of the CCP. ] (]) 04:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''': The arguments that Fox News is generally reliable ''because'' of ] aren't convincing. This specific part of the RS content guideline reflects general consensus for the entire class of sources that are news organizations, and the following are ''not the same'':{{bulleted list|{{xt|'''generally considered''' to be reliable}} (from WP:NEWSORG, bolding mine)|{{!xt|considered to be '''generally reliable'''}} (an apparently common interpretation here)}} When it comes to an RfC to determine the consensus on the individual reliability of a particular news organization, it's a very weak argument to just say that Fox News is a news organization and then point to the massively general group of news organizations. We need to identify whether the particular news organization {{tq|engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy}}{{pb}}There is problematic journalism by Fox News, which is elaborated by (among others): JzG and Aquillion regarding misinformation and inaccuracies, Snooganssnoogans and Aquillion regarding climate change and conspiracy theories, Aquillion regarding academic studies on the priority given to ideology, and Sdkb and MJL regarding general journalistic standards.{{pb}}Fox News ''does'' have editorial oversight, yes, but the ''existence'' of an editorial team doesn't guarantee reliability. The ''quality and standards'' of that editorial process is not at the same level expected of a ] (bolding mine): {{tqb|The source has a reputation for '''fact-checking''', '''accuracy''', and '''error-correction''', often in the form of a '''strong''' editorial team.}} The historical level of journalism over the past decade requires editors to pay significant attention to individual articles, in many contexts, before they can be used as references. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 05:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * {{ec}} (Standard disclaimer of I'mabout their opinion/commentary, which is a solid "4", but just the actual news...) Either '''3''' or '''4''' overall, and its questionable assessment of appropriate weight means it absolutely '''should not be used in assessing WP:DUE'''; probably '''2''' for the basic facts themselves. I don't think it's the worst offender in regular use on ENWP; it tends to get basic facts right more than it gets them wrong (admittedly a shamefully low bar to set); it strikes me as only a dull roar of awfulness surrounded by a sea of utter journalistic tripe. I'd rank it substantially below "real" reporting — Reuters, AP, NYT — but a bit above all the tabloid-y rags like Huffington Post, Daily Beast, Washington Examiner, Complex, ''etc.'' By all means let's ditch Fox, but let's also take care of the tabloid infestation while we're at it! —{{u|]}} (they/them)｜]｜] 06:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' per JzG, Devonian Wombat, Aquillion, Snooganssnoogans, etc. ] <small>(])</small> 12:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2 1/2''' My feelings mirror that of ] for national programming fairly closely. I live in a very small television market, but I would have to say '''Option 1''' for local affiliate news programming. My local station, ] contracts with the NBC affiliate for news programming. -- ] (]) 15:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1:''' Respectable ] with editorial control no different then NYT --] (]) 17:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Shrike}}, oh, I can think of some differences :-) ] <sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 18:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * I haven't done any investigation of the issue myself, but just looking at this thread, the points put forward by ] are a lot more convincing than any of the points set out by those arguing against (many of which bring up things which aren't relevant to reliability). --] (]) 21:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2/3'''. I think by now it is clear that the pundit shows are not included in this analysis. That said, Fox has shown a top-to-bottom willingness to slant coverage, to use misleading headlines, chyrons, tickers, etc., to give mouthpieces for despicable views a platform, to present conspiracy theories as facts, etc. ] does not apply when a source has a well-established pattern and editorial direction that allows rumors and untruths <small>(NB:untruths are different from usual journalistic mistruths)</small> to be reported as facts. This is not merely bias. Unfortunately, a blanket statement about which of those options applies is impossible because the reliability varies depending on context, story subject, and even time slot. ] ] ] 22:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' Per {{u|Aquillion}}, {{u|Snooganssnoogans}}, and ]. Everyday non-political/scientific event reporting is fine, but their record in fact-checking and explicit error correction is unacceptable. ] (]) 23:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1. treat the same as CNN, NYT, etc.''' As with any source, my first check is whether or not they have a corrections process and/or policy. They do. Sure, they have gotten stories wrong, and corrected themselves, but then again they didn't treat us to 2 years of Russia Hoax, either. Their bias seems to be less of an issue than with, for example, CNN, which has broadcast 10 interviews of Andrew Cuomo by Chris Cuomo . Additionally, the inclusion of Fox as a "gold-standard" source would '''give Misplaced Pages some sorely-needed political diversity''' in its "gold standard" sourcing on US politics, something we lack if we treat it any less than CNN, NYT, etc. ] (]) 01:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ** {{ping|Adoring nanny}} "they didn't treat us to 2 years of Russia Hoax, either". Therein lies the rub. Editors who think that Fox News '''constant''' pushing of the completely false conspiracy theory that the proven fact that Russia interfered in the election to help Trump win (that is the narrative from all RS) is a "Russia hoax" have swallowed the kool-aid served daily by Fox News. No wonder the votes for Option 1. They actually see that there is a huge difference between the counterfactual narrative pushed by Fox News, RT, Sputnik, Breitbart, Bongino, and all other fringe sources, and the factual narrative documented by all mainstream sources (IOW the ones we consider RS), and seeing that difference, they still believe the false conspiracy theories because they have been deceived into believing Trump's lie that mainstream media are fake news. No wonder we have this problem. They don't know how to vet sources. Fox Fake News is treated by them as equal to CNN, ABC, BBC, etc. No, there is a world of difference. -- ] (]) 05:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *** The hoax is the assertion that Trump colluded with the Russians. ] (]) 11:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **** {{ping|Adoring nanny}} that's not the only part denied by Fox News, but, just to keep the terminology correct, the Mueller Report ''was not able to collect enough evidence'' (because of Trump's proven obstruction of the investigation) to prove "conspiracy"/"coordination", but did describe numerous examples of what could be considered collusion/co-operation/invitation/facilitation, which is not a crime, just disloyal to the interests of the United States. Trump and Fox News still attempt to deny/downplay that Russia interfered, and the term "Russia hoax" includes that, not just the part about collusion/no collusion. Trump has still not done anything to prevent the current disruption of the elections and has stated he would accept foreign interference to help him, and that he might not even notify the FBI, which would make him vulnerable to blackmail by foreign bad actors like Russia. -- ] (]) 16:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***** MR. CLAPPER: Well, no, it's not. I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election . So Fox was right about that all along. A fine example of why we need them as a first-class source. ] (]) 21:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ****** You seem to be ignoring the difference between "conspiracy" and co-operation/collusion. Mueller describes the Trump campaign's actions quite well as '''"the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests."''' The Trump campaign did take myriad proven '''"actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests"''', but without evidence of a formal written or spoken agreement, conspiracy could not be proven, even if everything done, and the results of those actions, indicated that such an understanding existed, regardless of whether a formal "agreement" existed. Conspirators usually avoid leaving such evidence. | |||
| :::::: Starting in 2015, EIGHT foreign allied intelligence agencies reported to the FBI that numerous Trump campaign members and associates were secretly meeting with known Russian intelligence agents (who were being monitored). The campaign lied about all these contacts. Their conversations were so worrying and a threat to American democracy that those intelligence agencies reported their findings to the FBI (and maybe CIA). The Trump campaign was deeply involved with Russian intelligence, and we saw the results. That's collusion (or unproven conspiracy), no matter how it's defined. Fox News will not tell you any of that, but RS do, and our articles here do. | |||
| :::::: There is a huge difference in the coverage by Fox News and mainstream news. Fox News paints Trump and his campaign as innocent victims of a witch hunt, when all the suspicion was actually justified and a result of the campaign's own actions. Trump's continued refusals to condemn the interference and constant cozying up to Putin doesn't help. Now he's threatening to withdraw American troops from Germany, which is a nice gift to Putin. | |||
| :::::: The Steele Dossier alleged “a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation". Well guess what. Even though the "conspiracy" was not proven, what actually happened was loads of proven "co-operation". Fox News ignores what actually happened and focuses on what was not proven. How convenient. Trump is still "co-operating" with Putin, and that's very wrong. -- ] (]) 00:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: There is zero requirement that a RS tell a complete story. Obviously we give more credibility to the sources that have routinely shown commitment to tell the full story and follow up as needed (NYTimes) but plenty of other high-quality RSes will go to press with 3/4ths of the story and may update as the go along or the like (like CNN). Omission by choice of part of the story is also acceptable but of course this might depends on what's omitted and why. If a story involves a rumor about X and the publication doesn't even attempt to reach X to ask about it, that's iffy, while when a source does try to reach out to X and gets no response, they'll say that. Fox will omit parts of stories, this is not in doubt, and this leads to their bias, but it doesn't change their reliability in a big-picture sense. I would say that if a source is making so many omissions in a story to make it swiss cheese and or to actually make it swing a totally different way by omission of essential details, then we'd have a problem but that's not what Fox does. --] (]) 00:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Masem, I agree with everything except the last part. Fox News consistently ignores or downplays anything that is negative about Trump. That's classic pseudoscientific "journalism", because it's agenda-driven reporting. It's not real journalism. It's propaganda. They paint a totally different picture than the picture painted by all the mainstream sources, and that is not by accident. It's not a bug that they ignore "essential details" and end up pushing counterfactual narratives. They do it so egregiously that Shep Smith and Wallace were constantly having to call out the others. That's problematic. -- ] (]) 00:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Ahem, on their front page as of right now we have , with a big photo on their main page. ] (]) 22:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: Yes, they actually document how Democrats criticize Pence. Nothing new about that. Now find examples of them criticizing Trump and you'll have examples of the ], IOW proof that they rarely do it themselves. Such examples do exist, and they are remarkable, showing that they exceptionally rise to the standards of proper journalism they routinely violate. -- ] (]) 02:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::From what I've read throughout this RfC, the opposition to FN is not convincing. Journalistic opinion in the media has become the norm as I've already demonstrated in this month's Signpost Op-Ed. Fox News has covered stories that others in MSM have refused to cover...at least until they basically had no choice but to cover it...Tara Reade comes to mind. As editors, we are responsible for encyclopedic content - not political rhetoric and speculation. Going back and forth over a RS not publishing what we expect per our POV vs another RS publishing what aligns with our POV - despite it being pure speculation in many cases (such as the Steele dossier and the Russian collusion conspiracy theory) - is what RECENTISM actually prevents from being included in our encyclopedia, and helps avoid the criticism we've been seeing in the media regarding WP having a leftist slant when our articles should be touted as being neutral. This problem is growing and it needs resolution for the sake of the project. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 22:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: ] doesn't prevent the inclusion of that content, although I have repeatedly seen it invoked in that context with the meaning that "we will prevent anything negative about Trump from being included until we see RS reporting only positive content about him, and only ''then'' will we allow it." That version of "recentism" is not according to policy. No, we use RS as they appear ''en masse'' (IOW when multiple RS report something), and we don't wait until our preferred version appears in RS. What we do is document what RS say now (sometimes waiting a few days to avoid violating "recentism"), and we update and revise content if the narrative and details in RS change, and that is what has been happening with that content you mention. The multiple attempts to completely delete the Steele dossier article have ''always'' been against multiple existing policies and have revealed a politically-driven agenda, not a policy-based agenda. -- ] (]) 00:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::While we arguably can use the present attitudes of the press en masse and change as time goes along, as you suggest, this is what leads to at least 50% of the problems in the AP2 ArbCom discretionary area because editors are rushing to include the latest commentary about a topic. We'd have a lot smoother editing process overall if NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM were considered to avoid the rush to include media commentary until we have a better idea of how to frame everything about it and the long-term picture. Yes, ultimately we'd get to the same place but one is far less strive-ridden, and deals with things like the issues around Fox's bias, for example. We ''are'' writing for the long-term , not the short term (that's Wikinews if you really want that). and that means avoiding certain material that may be readily available in the press "now" until we now how best to write about it "later" from more academic more distant sources. --] (]) 22:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :*Treat the same as '']''? This is not a serious !vote and should not be afforded any weight. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>]</sup> 00:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :*Political diversity is not a factor for reliability. Using extreme neo-Nazi and anarchist blogs would also be politically diverse, but that's irrelevant to their (un-)reliability. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 06:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::* No, but it does show how treating Fox as somehow more biased than (for example) CNN, we harm Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 11:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' as a standard American news org. Obviously they have pundits and talkshows, and common sense must be used just like with any source. In his 2014 book ''Partisan Journalism: A History of Media Bias in the United States'', Virginia Tech media professor ] wrote that partisan journalism is a very widespread and old phenomenon in the mainstream US news. I would not muddy the waters between reliable and opinionated sources further, and strongly oppose popularity contests of singling out news orgs from a partisan media field for this reason. --] (]) 08:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2:''' This is my first time participating in something like this, so weight it accordingly, but I found more persuasive arguments in favour of anything less than Option 1 which is mainly citing ] or bothsideism, among other flawed rationales (see the ''Russia hoax'' claim or the argument that, along with other news outlets, Fox had the front-row seat at the White House Press Briefing Room; InfoWars and other unreliable news outlets have been invited too). Certainly, I disagree with the current wording of {{tq|Some editors perceive FOX News to be a biased source whereas others do not; neither affects reliability of the source}} which should probably reflect the change in recent years to {{tq|Most editors consider Fox a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons}} like ''The Daily Beast'' (I do not have any opinion yet on whether it should be demoted, I trust the consensus; and I do not think that we should demote it just to compensate for a possible demotion of Fox as a bothsideism). The difference between the two is that, as {{u|MarkH21}} put it, Fox may '''now''' {{!xt|considered to be '''generally reliable'''}} which is different from {{xt|'''generally considered''' to be reliable}} for the green box and the overcited NEWSORG. I also agree with {{u|Goldenshimmer}} assessment that Fox is closer to the ''Huffington Post'' (which is currently yellow) and others mentioned than the AP, ''The New York Times'' and Reuters which, if anything and like Misplaced Pages (for those who claim Misplaced Pages to have a left bias), have a centrist bias rather than left bias, at best centre-left and mainly on socio-cultural issues. Finally, if we are going to prefer those sources over Fox anyway and we need those sources to confirm whether Fox was reliable or not on a case-by-case analysis, we are already following Option 2.--] (]) 11:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1''' as generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG for factual reporting. Talking head punditry stuff is rarely used in articles and where used is attributed as it should be. an important news source which expands into subject areas other NEWSORGs may not. -- ] ] 16:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Option 3'''</s> - the discussion here is convincing me that this is a terrible source even for news. '''Option 2''' as second choice. If a local affiliate has a news story that's worth noting, it'll be in less tainted sources - ] (]) 19:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC) Changing this to '''Option 4''', given the deliberate fabrication of news story photos - deliberate fabrication is deprecation material - ] (]) 10:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' I would be fine with option 1 also, but from the discussion it seems that there are "additional considerations" as to the division between reporting and editorials. I prefer option 2 because it allows us to make that distinction clear since unlike many other news organizations brought up, their editorials are generally not reliable for information. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]</span> 00:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''': better sources are available w/o the risk of running into misinformation or conspiracy theories. If Fox is the only media org covering a certain issue, then it's probably undue anyway. --] (]) 02:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''': Local affiliate stations are generally reliable, but the Fox News Network has reliability problems when it comes to certain topics such as climate change and the Trump Administration. I would favor deprecating it as a reliable source for topics on which it has demonstrated a history of misleading coverage. ] (]) 03:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' generally reliable as a news org. Yes, they have pundits with a bias that most Wikipedians don't share, but this isn't about that. ] (]) 13:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' FACT: ] in the UK are unlikely to award a licence to Fox News as they are not impartial: "British media regulator ] has concluded that Fox News programs featuring Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson violated the U.K.’s broadcasting code by breaching impartiality rules...Sky dropped Fox News from its UK lineup in August, but Ofcom has continued to investigate complaints about shows that aired before the channel went dark. The regulator said Monday that both “Tucker Carlson Tonight” and “Hannity” broke the rules on the “due impartiality” expected of news coverage in Britain.<ref>{{cite web |title=British Media Regulator Censures Fox News for Breaking Impartiality Rules|url=https://variety.com/2017/tv/news/british-media-regulator-ofcom-censures-fox-news-1202607652/|website=]|accessdate=11 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Broadcast Standards cases - In Breach: Hannity, Fox News, 31 January 2017, 06:15|url=https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0028/107569/issue-341-broadcast-on-demand-bulletin.pdf|website=]|accessdate=11 June 2020}}</ref> <span style="font-family: bookman old style">]]</span> 20:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| : {{Ping|Seth Whales}} The RfC specifically mentions "as separate from their cable pundits" to avoid confusion and to solely focus on Fox News general reporting. Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity both fall under the "Cable pundit" classification, and there's no way that anything from their programmes should be cited in wikivoice to begin with, only as attributed opinion under specific circumstances where the comments were found to be independently notable. ] (]) 20:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::* The "pundits" and any "news coverage" are inseparable. They may show the same television pictures, but it is the commentary that is all important that goes with it. I remain '''Option 4''' <span style="font-family: bookman old style">]]</span> 20:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1'''. We're ] at this point, and I think it's time to drop the stick. Yes, Fox is biased. So is almost every other major US news outlet, like NYT, NBC, and CNN. Fox is a standard ]. ]]] 21:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' Fox has its biases, as do all of the networks and the NY Times and WaPo etc. But it is a generally reliable source when reporting factual stories. I realize that Fox's editorial biases are unpopular around here but this never ending attempt to blacklist Fox is getting old. It reminds me of the old expression "the voting shall continue until the correct result is returned." And I for one am concerned about what appears to be an insidious drift towards creating an ideological bubble into which all sources to be considered RS must fall. There is already widespread suspicion among conservatives of a leftwing bias on the project. These endless attacks on Fox News only add fuel to that fire. -] (]) 22:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1''' per numerous arguments showing that Fox News meets all ] criteria for editorial oversight. All news sources have bias, and as long as we distinguish opinion from reporting, Fox is no different from CNN. — ] <sup>]</sup> 22:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' I think that Masem is correct. As far as the news programs go, they are perfectly comparable to CNN, MSNBC, BBC, CBC and other news sources that Misplaced Pages already uses all the time. ] (]) 01:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per Ad Orientem. This sort of partisanship is disgusting. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">] (])</span> 01:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' FoxNews definitely meets ]; and while biased so too are CNN, The Guardian, NYT, MSNBC, etc. but they are allowed. I fear this RfC would be used to get around ]. The solution to bias in reporting by a right leaning source is to simply add text sourced to a left leaning source and vice versa. If we go down the slippery slope of banning major right leaning news sources then we will bias our content and gain a reputation of censorship and partisanship and then our article quality will deteriorate and we will be seen to be a biased source that fewer people take seriously. Finally, FoxNews does an enormous amount of reporting on neutral non political matters. Conclusion: right leaning sources are just as welcome as left leaning sources on the NPOV encyclopedia that anyone can edit.--] | ] 01:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :* '''Comment:''' Yes, every other news outlets may have a bias (certainly more centrist bias than the often overused left bias; ''The Canary'' and ''Occupy Democrats'' are red) but not all biases are the same and they do not affect factual reporting, whether Fox's bias seems to be stronger that it affects its reporting more often that all those news outlets mentioned and this is something to consider. So clearly, if bothsideism is the best rationale one can offer for Option 1 as it is the most cited along with ], I am not impressed. There are better more right-leaning sources anyway. A change from {{tq|Some editors perceive FOX News to be a biased source whereas others do not; neither affects reliability of the source}} to {{tq|Most editors consider Fox a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons}} (even while remaining green) seems to be at least warranted.--] (]) 08:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Either '''Option 1''' or '''Option 4''' - Every single thing said above in terms of Fox being a ] is also true of the Daily Mail, the Daily Mail also has an editorial team, it also covers actual news stories, it also has a front-row seat at various events. It also shares all of the DM's vices in terms of tabloidism. The DM ban (let's not try to pretend that it is anything but a ban) was an example of primarily US-based editors finding it easy to deprecate the media of another country, this RFC shows that many of them are not capable of applying the same standards to a source closer to home. Therefore, either Fox is generally reliable as a ] (but so, within the limits of tabloidism, is the DM) or Fox should be deprecated along with the DM. Personally, I deplore these RFCs on general reliability of ]s in countries where media can generally operate freely, and think them no better than popularity contests pillorying "bad" media, completely detached from the actual contexts in which editors actually wish to use these sources. ] (]) 09:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''', with a little bit of 2 for US politics. Yes, they have editorial bias, so does pretty much every news outlet. I'm aware that elements of the "woke brigade" want to rule them out of existence. That's not Misplaced Pages's role. ] (]) 10:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question: why isn't this decision based on existing academic research instead of opinion''' Rather than base this decision on opinion it would be helpful to bring in academic studies of media reliability, many professional researchers have spent years collecting evidence on this question. That would give us something to work from and also provide information on if Misplaced Pages should separate reliability of the website and the TV channel or by subject, e.g Fox News is currently . Misplaced Pages is based on reliable sources, I suggest it makes sense to decide what reliable sources are through in depth analysis which many people have already done. ] (]) 12:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ** FWIW, has been summarily dismissed, and Fox's side was baced by a trade org that includes CNN and MSNBC in supporting First Amendment speech. --] (]) 12:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''': I see a lot of good pieces of evidence above, including the ''Business Insider'' report, the Ofcom finding and MJL's comment. I would like to add to the discussion the fact that we are a global encyclopedia and America's "left-wing" and "right-wing" are not that of the world. We here in Europe might find some things said on CNN to be right-wing-only talking points. Those afraid that we may have listed too many left-wing sources as reliable and too many right-wing sources as unreliable might do well to remember that this is a nationality-specific claim. I'd like to suggest some general principles: '''biased for international reporting''', where Fox's ] may be wildly off; '''biased for U.S. politics''' (including reports on protests and human rights movements); '''generally factually accurate''' for events that are not capital P political; '''use only with care''' for business-related content (per BD2412's very worrying comment); '''treat pundits as ]'''. Some are discussing Fox's climate change denial but no news media is suitable for scientific content in this way anyway; it is, however, something to bear in mind for e.g. climate change protest coverage, or coverage of a person's views on a scientific issue. — ] (<span style="background-color:#ffff00">]</span>) 12:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' This is the type of thing that needs to be decided on a case by case basis. If, for example, someone was writing/editing an article about say, a plane crash for example, and a Fox News segment about that crash stated the names of the pilots, there would be no reason to assume that that information is made up. This is true of any news station. Empirical claims about objective facts made by a prominent news station are unlikely to have been fabricated. As far as other kinds of claims are concerned, any news station, not just Fox, should be taken with a grain of salt, and only be used as a source if the individual editor makes a judgement call to include it. A brings a number of studies, but so does . Media outlets in general are designed to appeal to a target audience, and are not designed to be entirely factual. <s>According to , and are equally biased.</s> It's not a question of which station is being used as a source, it's just about whether or not a better source can be found. Peer reviewed journals will always take precedence over news stations, regardless of the station. --]<b><sup style="font-family:Century Gothic">]</sup></b> 15:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC) + strikethrough in response to following comment {{bcc|Buidhe}} --]<b><sup style="font-family:Century Gothic">]</sup></b> 02:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Puzzledvegetable}}, ] is rated generally unreliable and self-published. It's not a good source for the reliability of other sources. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 17:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1''' The ''news programs'' on Fox News are as reliable as the ''news programs'' on other cable news channels, such as CNN and MSNBC. I'm going to be very blunt and just state the obvious: Fox News is not much liked around here (on Misplaced Pages) because of the political slant of the commentary in its opinion shows. That does not render the factual reporting on its news programs any more unreliable than the news reporting on CNN or MSNBC (which, I note, also have a very heavy slant in their opinion programs, albeit a slant that many more Wikipedians feel comfortable with). The ''commentary programs'' on Fox News are obviously unreliable for statements of fact, just like the commentary from any opinion column is unreliable for statements of fact. The factual reporting in ''news articles'' on foxnews.com is generally reliable. There are political biases in ''which stories'' Fox News chooses to cover, just as there are political biases in which stories CNN and MSNBC choose to cover. And for certain categories of information, I would consider all three generally unreliable (e.g., ] content). Why am I comparing Fox News to CNN and MSNBC? Because those two channels are very comparable to Fox News - they're cable news channels with strong political biases and a clear partisan affiliation. Yet I don't think we'll see many calls for them to be considered unreliable, because their political biases better align with the views of most Wikipedians. -] (]) 19:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{like}} -] (]) 19:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{like}} - ] <sub>]</sub> ] 23:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ==RfC: NewsNation== | |||
| *'''Option 4'''. I'd like everyone to see from ''The Seattle Times'' that shows Fox News digitally altering images to misrepresent the current situation in Seattle. This is not their first act of news manipulation and far from the last. ''']]''' 05:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| What is the reliability of ]? | |||
| ** As noted below: photos like headlines and other material around an article should not be taken as the work of the reporters or editorial desk and should not be used to judge the reliability of the content. Bias, absolutely. --] (]) 05:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:Interesting. Now before FOX news gets deprecated, Jan 2019, Seattle FOX affiliate ] (Q13 FOX) altered a video of Trump.<ref>https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/seattle-tv-station-fires-editor-over-doctored-video-of-trumps-oval-office-address</ref> One of the additional questions to this RfC is {{tq|Do local affiliate stations have a separate reliability to the main Fox News operation?}} Possibly not, but most likely not when reporting national news since affiliates use their national news affiliation. <span style="color:#666666">{{]|]}}</span>'s ] page! 18:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''': A 2015 fact-check of Fox News pundits by punditfact found that "". In terms of international affairs, Fox News always restates the American government positions uncritically, presenting the administrations' propaganda as facts. An example of this is its coverage of the assassination of Qassem Soleimani in January 2020. . ] (]) 07:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' Comparing Fox News to CNN or MSNBC is not an argument. Only Fox News is being discussed here. ] (]) 07:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option <s>3</s>4''' FFS, if they are doing a daily mirror and faking photos that should be a no there and then. That was not "The Colin the Conservative show" that was Fox news (you know the people who fought for lies to be counted as free speech). Sorry that pushes them over into 3 for me, and its borderline 4.] (]) 09:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' We can't honestly separate out the propagandistic tactics like digitially faking images just because the reporters might not be involved. Whoever makes the decision, whoever implements the dirty work, that's the content they choose to show the world. By their fruits shall ye know them. ] (]) 16:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' at least and preferably '''Option 4''' Reporting rumor as fact and not even bothering to delinieate between the two as well as faking pics and editing other videos to distort what happned is beyond the pale. ]|] 17:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' a news organisation that recieves talking points from a Republican adminstration that pedals in conspiracy theories an obsfucation. ] (]) 18:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. It's my understanding that the news stories reported by Fox News can normally also be confirmed by reporting in other sources whose reliability is less controversial. For example, the lead story currently on FoxNews.com is . For comparison, see the article on ]'s website (the Seattle ABC network affiliate), . The Fox News article may emphasize certain aspects of the story more than other news sources might, but that does not make it inaccurate. --] ] 20:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:That's pretty much the opposite of how it goes with a site given to fabrication, like Fox News - the non-fabricated stories also being findable in non-fabricating news sites was part of the justification to deprecate the ] - ] (]) 21:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::No evidence has been presented of Fox News fabricating the news parts of stories from the news desk. Reporting that has been fixed via errate, yes (but that's eexpect), and tclear evidence of bias due to which angle they take in cover but which does not eliminate a source from being an RS. But ''intentional fabrication'' that has never been corrected or addressed , like there was with the DM and Brietbart cases, has yet to be shown. --] (]) 21:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::: {{Ping|Masem}} Fox News fabricated quotes of John Kerry in 2004, see these stories in The Guardian <ref>{{Cite news|last=Burkeman|first=Oliver|date=2004-10-04|title=Fox News apologises for Kerry fabrication|language=en-GB|work=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/oct/04/digitalmedia.uselections2004|access-date=2020-06-13|issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and The New York Times <ref>{{Cite news|last=Lichtblau|first=Eric|date=2004-10-03|title=Fabricated Kerry Posting Leads to Apology From Fox News|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/politics/campaign/fabricated-kerry-posting-leads-to-apology-from-fox-news.html|access-date=2020-06-13|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>] (]) 21:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Which, as your ref points out, Fox apologized and corrected, expected of RSes when mistakes are made. We're talking cases where , in the situation of DM, they falsified quotes and when challenged, said nothing, and didn't change anything. It was obvious DM wanted to keep the fabrication. Now, we can play the hypothetical thought game if Fox "intentionally" used the misattributed quotes with plans to revoke later if they were challenged, but we can't make that presumption without further evidence of this. There's nothing to objectively doubt their rational of "fatique" that lead to the misuse of those quotes. --] (]) 22:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There was also that ridiculous case in which the ''Daily Mail'' had two articles prepared for the Amanda Knox verdict ''before the verdict'' was even announced and accidentally , complete with fabricated quotes, events, and everything. I don't think Fox can even get ''close'' to that. ]]] 22:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. Photos and headlines should not be relied upon regardless of the source. Furthermore Fox's talk shows/opinion pieces are already treated differently than its core news reporting, which is generally reliable.--] (]) 22:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2 generally but Option 3 for all politics and science subjects''' Fox News pundits/opinion pieces should not be considered reliable and should be deprecated across the board (they don't appear to be used all that much), but given the deterioration of the reliability of Fox News over the last ten years and the linked examples of editorial direction to downplay science and support Trump's lies, all Fox News citations about science or politics should be attributed in-text at a minimum ie "According to Fox News,...". Based on their demonstrated bias, the weight given to Fox News news reports should be significantly reduced. ] (]) 00:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| *'''Option 4''' FOX News's coverage of the Seattle protests has been fake news at best. Their article of armed gunmen in the Autonomous Zone had Photoshopped images, as exposed in a CNN Business expose <ref>{{Cite news|last=Darcy|first=Oliver|date=2020-06-13|title=Fox News publishes digitally altered and misleading images of Seattle demonstrations |language=en-US|work=CNN Business|url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/13/media/seattle-fox-news-autonomous-zone-protest/index.html|access-date=2020-06-13}}</ref>. While it is photos, the photoshopped headline was significant enough to be outed in another media outlet, and therefore should be taken into consideration for being fully deprecated. ] (]) 13:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small> | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| *'''Option 3:''' Per {{u|Aquillion}}, {{u|Snooganssnoogans}}, and ] and others. The is media bias and then the is fake news and clearly unreliable for factual reporting such as the seattle protests, covid-19 and the riduclous reporting that turned the Birmingham, the UKs second largest city into muslim controlled no-go area . The news service needs to clean up its act if we are going to treat with confidence as a reliable source.]<sup>]</sup> 16:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| *'''Option 5:''' If inclusion in WP hinges on whether reporting by a single NEWSORG is reliable then you've already failed. Remove and replace where acadmeic sources are more appropriate, cede AP2 to the POV pushers—readers can't trust that content anyway—and wait until editors start listening to {{u|Masem}}. ](]) 17:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for news, '''Option 2/3''' for commentary depending on which pundit is involved. The weight/focus given to certain topics is perhaps not agreeable; but looking at articles individually, nothing suggests a lack of editorial control which would jeopardize editorial control, as Masem points out. When readers look at citations to Fox News articles, they are looking at individual news articles, not the network/website as a whole. ] | freedom isn't free 02:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for news and politics, '''Option 3''' for science-related matters. Ten years ago, I would have selected Option 3 for the entire news organization, but the last decade has witnessed a slow but steady decline in reporting standards across the Western world, so in that sense, Fox is no longer any better or worse than other major networks such as CNN or MSNBC in terms of reliability and impartiality. That being said, I don't think Fox should generally be considered a ] when it comes to science-related matters, given that it has consistently provided a platform to climate change deniers and often runs stories suggesting that climate change is not caused by human activity. ] (]) 05:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for news and politics. They were the only major media to cover the Tara Reid situation while the others tried to bury it. Fox has a clear conservative bias, but as mentioned above, there is no such thing as bias-free political reporting. It needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis.] (]) 15:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Odd, as we do not even use Fox news in her bio, so what is this "situation" that is so important we do not mention in?] (]) 16:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: Their Tara Reade reporting is actually a reason to NOT use Fox News. They immediately jumped on the situation (a BLP and NOTNEWS violation here), without getting more clarity on the subject, because they will immediately grab and exaggerate anything that smears Biden and helps Trump. That's their reflex and job, to smear, not report news accurately. That's why they were the first to write much about it. | |||
| :: Other RS were more circumspect and cautious, waiting for more clarity and evidence. Fox News was acting like the National Enquirer, and lots of what they originally wrote is now seen to be outdated and wrong. Of all sources, Fox News and the National Enquirer are the types we should wait a long time with before using. Fox News should be deprecated, just like the Enquirer. | |||
| :: In fact, try comparing how Fox News ignored and downplayed Trump's boasting/confession of his habit and methodology of non-consensually sexually assaulting women, and their ignoring and downplaying of all the credible allegations by numerous women who experienced that and did not want it, and then compare their reporting on Tara Reade. That comparison shows they are not "news" but "propaganda". -- ] (]) 16:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ohh, Tara Reade Mmmmmm, the story that was being " not ignored" as early as 2019 by "not Fox news".] (]) 16:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Valjean}}, what Tara Reade reporting from Fox {{tq|is now seen to be outdated and wrong}}? <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8">]]]</b> 22:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' <strike>for news; any punditry should be</strike> Didn't mean to hit publish; waiting on response from {{u|Valjean}} above... <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8">]]]</b> 19:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''3.7''' -- It is a propaganda outlet which occasionally broadcasts news. ] (]) 20:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''': In 2015, President Reagan's former domestic policy advisor, ], published his detailed analysis of Fox News wherein Bartlett concludes Fox News is a "Propaganda Machine." . In his analysis, Barlett reports on several studies that found "Fox viewers are misinformed" and are "more likely to have factually untrue beliefs than those who receive their news from mainstream sources." In my view, even if you look only at their alleged 'news shows," Fox is a propaganda outlet. For example, on their alleged 'news shows:' <br> | |||
| :* Just last week <u>Fox News</u> finally removed their "digitally altered video" of their coverage of the protests in Seattle after they admitted the cities in their video were not of Seattle at all. . Fox News' "deceitful tactic was called out by The Seattle Times. The local newspaper reported that when it asked Fox News about the images, the network removed them. Fox News' depiction of the demonstration mirrors much of right-wing media's attempt to portray it as menacing." <br> | |||
| :* On Fox News Special Report w/<u><b>Bret Baier</u></b>: Bret Baier displayed a racist graphic alleging that the Stock Market gets a big boost when black men are murdered or beaten to near death. After criticism, Bret Baier actually had the racist-nerve to justify ''producing'' his racist graphic but did apologize for ''airing'' his racist graphic “It was used to illustrate market reactions to historic periods of civil unrest and should have never aired." <br> | |||
| :* Fox News' <u><b>Martha MacCallum</u></b>: On the rapidly spreading, deadly coronavirus, Martha MacCallum told her Fox viewers that re-opening the U.S. economy is more important than mitigating the spread of coronavirus, Recently Marth MacCallum told her viewers that the May job's report is vindication for all of Trump supporters who protested with their assault weapons against state's that shut-down to mitigate the spread of coronavirus. In mid-May, Martha MacCallum cut away from coronavirus coverage to pushTrump's Obamagate conspiracy onto her Fox viewers. <br> | |||
| :* Fox News' <u><b>Bill Hemmer</u></b>: On the 2018 midterms, to his Fox viewers, Bill Hemmer equated Democrat voters to Saddam Hussein supporters when Hemmer compared Democratic voter turnout in the midterm elections to “Saddam Hussein numbers.” In a March 25, 2020 interview, Bill Hemmer did not challenge Trump and did not correct Trump's lies for Fox viewers when Trump as on Hemmer's show lying and misrepresenting facts about the coronavirus. . <br>*** | |||
| :* Fox News' <u><b>Ed Henry</u></b>: When the public learned of the whistleblower report against Trump, Ed Henry told his Fox viewers that the whistleblower was acting with “political bias” against Trump. Ed Henry recently told his Fox viewers that other media were spreading lies about Trump tear-gassing peaceful protesters in DC for a photo-op. Ed Henry said, “We should also point out though that some of the reporting from a couple nights ago was false, which is that there was all of this talk that really spun this up into a controversy, that pepper spray and whatnot was used,” <br> | |||
| :* Fox News' <u><b>Shannon Bream</u></b> pushed anti-Transgender propaganda to her Fox viewers and did not challenge two of her guests when they "made false and dangerous claims that protections for transgender people put other Americans at risk." Other times, Shannon Bream 'misgenders' and stigmatizes transgender athletes to her Fox viewers and described JayCee Cooper as a “biological male, now identifying as female” and described NCAA track & field runner CeeCee Telfer as “a biological male who now identifies as a woman.” <br> | |||
| :* Fox News' <u><b>Sandra Smith</u></b>: During Sandra Smith's interview of K.T. McFarland, McFarland equated Rep. Adam Schiff to Hitler's propagandist, Joseph Goebbles. Instead of telling her Fox viewers to ignore McFarland for equating a Jewish man to Hitler's propagandist, Sandra Smith simply said, "K.T McFarland, great to have you on this morning, thanks so much." Sandra Smith lied to her Fox viewers and falsely claimed that Trump wants key witnesses like Mick Mulvaney and John Bolton to testify in the Impeachment hearings even though Trump blocked them and all witnesses from testifying during the entire impeachment process. | |||
| :::Based off these examples, and more that I did not put here, <b>Option 3</b> is my choice ] (]) 17:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Your list of critical opinions above that you used as the reason to demote a generally RS needs to be cited to generally reliable sources or better, not biased opinions published in questionable or biased sources like HuffPo, Mediaite, Glaad, Daily Caller, Media Matters, and a few competitor sources. Also, the criticism and commentary you added about the photo illlustration and photoshopped images is noncompliant with WP:RECENTISM and WP:BREAKING, especially considering the images were retracted by Fox which is a sign of credibility. The same applies to the graph that was used without context - apologies were made by two Fox news anchors including Bret Baier. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 01:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Options 2, 3 and 4'''. At the very least Fox News news needs to be marked as a biased source and all content needs to be carefully considered through this lens, so option 2 should apply across the board. They should be regarded as deprecated for US political content (fairly broadly interpeted) including climate change, race relations in the United States and gun control in the United States, except for ] references. Option 3 should apply for content that is peripherally or indirectly related to US politics, including UK politics. ] (]) 18:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' Fox News is about as reliable as the New York Times or CNN. It is important to distinguish their talk shows and general reporting. The general reporting is much more reliable than the opinion pieces and the talk shows. The talk shows and opinion pieces are about as reliable as the New York Times opinion pieces. ] (]) 18:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4'''. As the history of Fox News as an organization demonstrates, it was invented, designed, developed, and produced with the sole purpose of undermining the practice of journalism due to its fundamental belief that reality has a liberal bias. You can read this for yourself in any number of historical works about the organization. The idea for Fox News came out of the conservative right-wing’s disgust with how Nixon was treated by the press. Vowing that they would never allow facts and evidence to interfere with reality ever again, Fox was created as a parallel world, where conservative facts replaced “liberal” ones, mostly by engaging in open distortion, fabrication, and wholesale lying. The fact that they sometimes regurgitate Associated Press stories does not save them from their fate or wipe the slate clean. Fox is not a news organization. It has never been fair and balanced. It has never been the slightest bit interested in reporting and letting the audience decide. It is a giant lie, and has operated as a liar, from the day it opened its doors. It exists solely to undermine truth, to impede the rule of law based on the body of observable facts, data, and evidence, and to constrain the democratic impulse of informing the electorate for which journalism as a practice and a discipline takes its role as a function of a responsible citizen. There is no other option than option 4. ] (]) 22:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''', or failing that '''Option 3'''. At best, Fox is a highly partisan source which misrepresents through distortion and selectivity. At worst, it publishes outright falsehoods. The problem here is not that Fox is right-leaning, but that is a purveyor of bad journalism. --] <small>] • (])</small> 23:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' for straight "sky is blue" reporting, '''Option 3''' for most pundits, '''Option 4''' for certain folks including but not limited to ] and ]. In other words, it's a case by case basis. We can't apply a one-size fits all. Heck, for straight sports reporting without editorial commentary (their ] is decent), they are almost to '''Option 1''' (much as I really hate to admit it). And I say all of the above as a known US liberal Democrat. JMO. But the thing I'm seeing here is a lot of people starting to personalize this discussion, and that's inappropriate ]<sup>]</sup> 16:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Option 1 or Option 2 - the television news offered by Fox and similar outlets is not reliable for anything but opinion. However Fox News stories online should generally be expected to be reliable for fact, understanding that Fox in general has a pro-Republican bias. This RfC is a great example of Perennial Sources List mission creep: no longer providing commentary or guidance on wholly unreliable sources, and instead serving as an excuse to deprecate news sources with undesirable political opinion. This leads me to think we need to look hard at the perennial sources list and what exactly it’s being used for. -] (]) 03:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''', generally - Their reporting is mostly factual (apart from their punditry), but especially when it comes to international affairs, it is sloppy on the details, and therefore not completely reliable. See article for an example. ] (]) 14:18, 19 June 2020 (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). | |||
| *US media landscape has changed a lot since 2010, and not to the better. That being said, I am interested to see what concrete examples of inaccuracies on Fox's part that can be found. Talk shows on any network should never be cited for facts imo. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 20:08, 7 June 2020 (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. | |||
| **I don't think lack of factual falsehoods makes a source reliable. Remember that the coverage of something in RS is also used for determining WP:WEIGHT in Misplaced Pages so if a fact collection is sufficiently biased or omits relevant info due to agenda pushing, it can end up tilting what we call the NPOV if we treat the fact selection as neutral. Facts themselves can also be distorted without being stated falsely outright, and the nature of agenda pushing is to do that. This is goes beyond Fox News. ] (]) 21:26, 7 June 2020 (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. | |||
| :::If factual accuracy is not the metric, then what is? If ] is not about reliability, there's a danger that the policy will end up being used to remove sources simply because they cover issues that editors don't want to be included on Misplaced Pages. -] (]) 19:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***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’."}} | |||
| *The local affiliates will make this a really tricky one - ] (]) 20:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***He wrote a UFO book titled ''Plain Sight'' which ] described as a {{xT|"conspiracy narrative"}} and a {{xt|"slipshod summary"}}. | |||
| *I agree with Buidhe, my opinion is that the RfC from 2010 was outdated, as I agree that the US media landscape has changed greatly since 2010. Fox News tends to discussed a lot, so I thought it was worth opening a proper RfC to settle the issue. One of the main controversies about the factual accuracy of Fox News since 2010 revolves around the now retracted false claims that ] was in contact with Wikileaks back in 2017, see and these and articles, there are allergations that . ] (]) 20:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***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.”}} | |||
| *{{u|Newslinger}}, please remind me again - wasn't the purpose of ] to avoid multiple time-sink RfCs? ] <sub>]</sub> ] 21:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***The ] did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking {{xt|"Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary?}} while strongly implying the former. | |||
| *: The purpose of the ] is to index past discussions on this noticeboard. The previous uninterrupted RfC on Fox News is from 2010, a decade ago. As noted in the "Controversially classified sources" notice at the top of ], Fox News and the ] {{rspe|Southern Poverty Law Center}} are the only sources whose entries were subjected to ] since the list was created, and based on that, I had been expecting RfCs on these sources for some time. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 22:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***The '']'' has described him as a {{Xt|"UFO truther"}} with {{xt|"little appetite for scrutiny"}}. | |||
| *::Well, if this is a "real" RfC, the projects and wider community need to be informed. Who is in charge of doing that? [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em | |||
| ***Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked ] investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians. | |||
| -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D"><sup>Atsme</sup></span>]] <sub>]</sub> ] 01:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs: | |||
| *::''adding'' - {{u|Newslinger}} - this RfC is malformed because it doesn't separate the pundit shows from the actual news, and it doesn't say anything about it being Fox cable or Fox broadcast. 01:05, 8 June 2020 (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"}}. | |||
| *::: This RfC is not malformed. The RfC statement includes the text {{xt|"(as separate from their cable pundits)"}}, which clarifies that it refers to the ] entry. (If the statement didn't include the text, the RfC would cover both the Fox News (news and website) and the ] entries.) In my experience, notifying WikiProjects of discussions on this noticeboard about mainstream American news sources tends not to make a difference in participation, but you or anyone else can notify related projects if you wish to do so. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 01:18, 8 June 2020 (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 . | |||
| *::::{{u|Newslinger}} - it doesn't specifically state FoxNews (cable/satellite) vs FoxNews network affiliate broadcast stations. The latter are subject to FCC regulations that are different from networks and satellite transmitted news. I see {{u|David Gerard}} also mentioned it above. Oh, and thank you for adding this RfC to WP:CENT. My concern is the continuous partisan push (for years now) to downgrade this RS because of its conservative bias while keeping only center-left and left leaning biased sources. It appears the arguments are based primarily on POV opposition rather than factual news reporting. A network like Fox News doesn't become a most watched political news station whose viewership is bipartisan by being unreliably biased. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 15:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::: No problem. It looks like {{np|Hemiauchenia}} has inserted an additional question into the RfC statement that specifically asks about affiliate stations. As a general rule of thumb, RSP entries for television channels only refer to the main channel, and not to any affiliate stations of the parent company's television network. For Fox, the ] is scoped to ], and the stations listed in ] are out of scope. If an affiliate station becomes controversial enough to meet the ] on its own, it would receive a separate entry on RSP. I trust the community and the closers (preferably a panel of closers) to reach the right decision. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 05:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage ] (]) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::: Actually, the most effective way to publicize this RfC is to list it on the ], which would put this RfC on the same level of vetting as the ones for the '']'' {{rspe|Daily Mail}} and ] {{rspe|Quackwatch}}. ] — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 05:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{Ping|Atsme}} I'm not sure what your point is, the last RfC on Fox News really was in 2010. Fox News is also listed at ] as one of the most controversial sources on the list (alongside SPLC, which has never had a RfC) and recommends opening a new one. There have not been any recent-discussion on the general reliability of Fox News, so I thought it was worth having this discussion as a reference for subsequent discussions about Fox News's reliability, a lot has changed since 2010, especially with the election of Donald Trump, so I think it is worth doing. ] (]) 21:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. ] (]) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*] 2018 RfC <sup>update per below: ] 15:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)</sup> | |||
| *'''Option 2''' per Chetsford. – ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*] 2019 Discussion | |||
| *'''Option 1''' since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative.] (]) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*] Oct 2019 | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. Compare ]. ] (]) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*] March 2020 | |||
| *'''Option 3''' why are we putting ''any'' stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “]” syndrome. ] (]) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*And there were several other discussions in 2020 that point editors back to eariler discussions. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 21:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:{{u|Atsme}}, ]. We're likely to see the Mail off the list at some point if the new editor continues to make progress. In the same way, Fox has changed over time and the March discussion was narrowly focused. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 22:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::{{ping|Atsme}} I don’t see an RfC in the 2018 post in Archive 237? — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 05:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::I think it might be Archive 238 ]. ] (]) 05:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::Thank you for finding that, {{u|PackMecEng}}. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 15:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::Ah, thanks! It seems to have been limited in scope and then withdrawn, so there really hasn’t been a full RS RfC since 2010. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 05:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::Looks like, though the discussion that spawned that 2018 RFC had quite the participation. ] (]) 05:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Ping|Atsme}} Fair enough, the issue is that none of these were actually properly formatted as a RfC, though the 237 and 257 Archive discussions are substantial, I apologise for not checking thoroughly. By formatting this as a proper RfC, hopefully we can end the endless cyclical discussions about Fox News. ] (]) 21:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * Also, even the Daily Mail being depreciated has not stopped endless discussions about it. ] (]) 21:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:Apples and oranges. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 22:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I think we need to keep in mind that the Misplaced Pages policy of reliable sources is editorial oversight. Fox News does fact checking like any other major news organization, but the end result is always disputable on significance and implications '''(just like CNNs or MSNBC's reporting)'''. News organisations create narratives that often times are not real or are exaggerated (for example ideas like government collision or broad racism or social justice are not perceived in the same way by these organizations). But keep in mind that "truth" and "facts" on events that come out of any news organization will carry bias since they tend to interpret little facts like a case of police brutality and then extrapolate it to abstractions like racism or harassment and so on. When it comes to these mega interpretations, there is very little truth since there is no such thing as an organization that determines the truth of an interpretation. If Fox News has been discussed multiple times back to back recently then this is a closed debate.] (]) 22:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *There is always a comment that we are talking about Fox news anchors “as separate from their cable pundits”. Firstly, the latter is what everyone watches and thinks of as Fox News. But there is another point we keep avoiding (at least as far as I’ve seen); and that is Fox broadcast versus the Fox website. The Fox website is cited heavily in WP. But, the site is embarrassing to read. The main stories are nearly always political attacks. If there is no news, they will go back and run stories about Benghazi and Lewinsky. ] (]) 01:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:Let's not make this about one topic, and whether a RS believes it 100% or not, or whether or not they choose to publish opposing views. That does not make them unreliable - it makes them opposition to one POV. We need diversity - not a single POV - and attempting to eliminate all opposition to a single scientific belief when there are others is censorship. This isn't a case of the world is round, not yet, anyway, so we give DUE to prevailing science theory and also include what the opposition believes (if it is also based on scientific theory). Science can factually and steadfastly state a lot of things as fact, just not questionable predictions which deserve mention. As long as there is , we include it - we don't have to believe it. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 14:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * ''The references here have been moved to ], as the {{tl|reflist-talk}} template captures all references above the template, including ones added in newer comments. {{np|Atsme}}'s comment below was made when the references template looked like this: {{slink|Special:Diff/961474909#Discussion (Fox News)}}. The {{tl|reflist-talk}} template was originally in the bottom of the Responses section, then moved to the bottom of this Discussion section, and now finally to its own References section. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 05:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)'' | |||
| *:The references above are either not reliable or not up-to-date (WP:RECENTISM) if they say Fox didn't retract the Seth Rich story - (and that is part of the reason this RfC needs an experienced closer who is not politically biased). See the article which states: {{xt|Fox News on Tuesday retracted a story linking the murder of a Democratic National Committee staff member with the email hacks that aided President Trump’s campaign, effectively quashing a conspiracy theory that had taken hold across the right-wing news media.}} It goes on to say ('''most importantly''') that: ''"<u>it also underscored a schism between the network’s news-gathering operation and one of its biggest stars: the conservative commentator Sean Hannity</u>"''. Again, the news portion of FOX is a '''reliable source''' but like other cable news, the pundits are opinion. Oh, and ''The Washington Times'' did apologize and retract per . I find the allegations that Fox News did something irreversibly wrong to be very disconcerting, and I do hope the closer of this RfC takes those misrepresentations into consideration. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 17:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *The elephant in the room is that we always are coming back to Fox NEws because editors on all sides willing ignore NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM, rushing to put in breaking stories and commentary, or what I've seen called "hyperjournalism" (its gotten worse with how we've covered COVID) We ''can'' be up to date, but our up to the minute coverage should stick to bare facts and have nearly no coverage of anything controversial until that story has had a chance to go through the news cycle a few times (eg like the Rich story, or as an opposite example, the ] from last year which has ended with egg on the WaPost and others' faces) We shouldn't be including '''any commentary''' from journalists or experts unless its actually part of the story (eg Trump's comments on mail-in ballots leading to Twitter's fact check leading to Trumps EO on Section 230 fully qualifies in the article on Section 230). But we have both new '''and''' experienced editors going around rushing to fill these in as soon as they happen. Now, I agree that short term, if I was pulling info from NYTimes in the short term compared to Fox News, I'd have less a concern, but if we were properly waiting until the "long term" (a few news cycles out), it is much much easier to realize that we can treat Fox News (the news desk, not the pundits) as an RS, but that with information from the multiple news cycles, we have a way to apply UNDUE appropriate to know if actually need to include them. Most of that time, that is "no", as they are usually repeating the same basic story from other good sources. This is in contrast to Daily Mail or Breitbart that under the same conditions, we'd have NOTHING usable because we simply outright cannot trust their material. This is how we can justify Fox as an RS but still respect that it's probably not going to be used often due to UNDUE, but we need more editors aware that respecting the principles of NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM will avoid having Fox being pushed as hard as a source (since ideally, we won't be seeing as much liberal opinion as quickly as possible either). --] (]) 19:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Masem}}, that's a very good point. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 12:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::With all due respect to {{u|Masem}}, I would have equal concern over the coverage by the NYTimes considering their spin, mistakes and bad judgment calls when publishing material from anonymous sources that turned out to not be accurate throughout the left's Russian collusion conspiracy theory that was promoted by MSM based on the Steele dossier and false information provided to the FISA court. We should have waited per ]. We cannot put 100% of our trust in online headlines and the instant news that follows those headlines, regardless of who is publishing it. The NYTimes' own brought to light the "unmistakeable anti-Trump" coverage. Perhaps WP editors who are anti-Trump themselves do not see anything wrong with the NYTimes being anti-Trump, and therein the problem lies. It is unequivocal bias, the same as it was when the right disliked Obama because it is politically motivated partisanship. In my ] this month, I added a link to the discussion with ] who did an excellent job explaining the problem. It is real, and it does exist in internet, cable, broadcast and print political news media because we are dealing with a different era in journalism. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 21:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Oh, I don't disagree that RECENTISM should apply equally to all sources and better to wait to add to judge when we have a better concept of the full picture, have most corrections in place, etc. For example, that lead to Morales' loss (NYTimes was not the only thing going on). Now obviously, WP wasn't a part of that, but I mean, that situation or the MAGA Hat cases are examples that our most trusted sources can still be wrong in the short term. But were I to bet on which source would be less wrong in the short term, between the NYTimes and Fox? My money is on NYTimes. --] (]) 22:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *{{replyto|Hemiauchenia}} {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|prev|961484766|This edit}} has had {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture|prev|961493190|this effect}} because it has taken the RfC statement beyond ]. Please amend the statement (not necessarily that line) to be less verbose, so that it will once again be listed on the RfC boards. --] 🌹 (]) 23:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{Ping|Redrose64}} Sorry about that, is the amended version better below the word limit? ] (]) 23:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{ty}} Yes, it's {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals|prev|961523544|displaying properly now}}. --] 🌹 (]) 09:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * An additional comment: some of the views expressed in the discussion seem to equate finding Fox unreliable with having a liberal bias. I would point out that there are many ''much'' more serious and factually reliable conservative news sources, such as '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', and '']'', to name a few. None of these will exhibit characteristics such as the tabloid tone and shock headline attributes of Fox. ] ] 04:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *: Please don't call ''Reason'' conservative. They favor legalization of all drugs (including crystal meth and heroin) legalization of prostitution, zero restrictions on immigration -- 100% open borders with no border patrol or DEA -- immediate closure of every US military base outside the US, no tariffs or trade restrictions, and equal marriage rights for gays. Those are ''not'' positions conservatives support. --] (]) 05:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:: Whether you consider ''Reason'' conservative is entirely based on whether you consider American Libertarianism a branch of conservatism. Personally, I would say so. Being within the loosely defined blocs of Liberal and Conservative certainly does not imply universal agreement. ] (]) 07:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:: {{re|Guy Macon}} ''Reason'' is unquestionably conservative with respect to fiscal and economic policy, and minimizing government intervention. There is, of course, variation within conservatism that deviates from those principles in the service of empowering government to maintain notions of traditionalism, but the specific positions taken are highly liquid. Incidentally, opposition to gay marriage is no longer really a conservative position. Republicans are now (including President Trump, an unwavering gay marriage supporter, for which he has been given little credit). Fox News itself has been called out by activists . ] ] 15:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Slightly off-topic, but the American ] is a good example of strong ] with neutrality on ]. There's a bit of detail on this at ]. Here in the United Kingdom, the Conservative ] legalised same-sex marriage, amongst other non-socially-conservative things. ] (]) 16:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*While they overlap in some areas, no reasonable person considers US Libertarianism to be a branch of US conservatism. Again, legalizing heroin, opening up the borders, defunding the police, and solving the problem of prayer in government schools by getting rid of the government schools are not positions that are widely popular among any branch of US conservatism. I could also argue that abolishing the income tax, removing all restrictions on firearms, and closing down the FDA and FCC are not positions that are widely popular among any branch of US liberalism. | |||
| :::::'''Related: ].''' | |||
| :::::Please note that I hold US Libertarians in the same low regard as I hold US Democrats, US Republicans, and US Greens. The greens and libertarians just haven't had the opportunity to disappoint us yet. --] (]) 17:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hmmm...so basically, you don't like US politics. Here on Bonaire, my needs align more with . In the US, I'm up and down...] and still cling (does that make me a ]?) to the values of JFK, as best I can recall. I'm ]. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 23:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|BD2412}}, Oops. The Federalist just got banned from Google's ad platform due to publishing disinformation about BLM. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 20:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **: That is actually not what that article says (''ZeroHedge'' was banned, while ''The Federalist'' was merely warned, apparently over "comments"), but even so, ''The Federalist'' remains some number of levels more reliable than Fox News. ] ] 20:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **::{{u|BD2412}}, a low bar indeed... ''']''' <small>(])</small> 21:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **:::{{u|JzG|Guy}}, Zero Hedge is unreliable, we already know that - they said the protests were fake, and had already demonetized that part of their site (probably a video). The Federalist case was different - they were simply warned about monetizing race-related content which Google deems a violation of their monetization policy. {{xt|"The Federalist published an article claiming the media had been lying about looting and violence during the protests}}. All Google is doing is appeasing a British nonprofit group and preventing Google customers from earning clickbait revenue from Google placed ads. Look at the NBC misleading headline: ''Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles'' - so what does it all actually mean? Google told The Federalist to demonitize (probably page ads and video) which means no clickbait ad revenue from Google for that content. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 23:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **::::{{u|Atsme}}, that's a very idiosyncratic presentation. No, they are not "appeasing" anybody. They have policies, a pressure group noted that the Federalist was violating those policies, and that Zero Hedge was publishing fake news while violating those polices. Google checked, agreed, and took action. | |||
| **::::Early reports conflated the two. Most have now been updated to correctly reflect the different actions taken. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 23:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Exactly - "Early reports conflated..." - that's why we have WP:RECENTISM & NOTNEWS, and why this RfC and the comments that conflate politcal commentary with Fox News are just plain wrong. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:32, June 17, 2020 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *Comment - It's an example of a massive double-standard on here that the UK-based Daily Mail was effectively banned but primarily US-based editors on here feel unable to apply the same logic to Fox News, which shares all of the DM's vices and virtues. ] (]) 09:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ** DM - and to be fair on the US - Breitbart - has been shown to actually falsify information to get the story they want. Fox News (the news side) may bias and swing a story's details to tell a specific angle to a story but we don't have yet anywhere close to the massive scale of falsification. (Misreporting with later redactions do not count because that we expect out of an RS). --] (]) 12:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***And it turns out that Fox has been fabricating too - ] (]) 15:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::*They all do it, David. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, WaPo - left-leaning media are not unlike the right because they are all spewing political commentary right on their front pages. CNN chooses to call their pundits "news journalists". The first sentence in the ] lead tells our readers that he is "an American television journalist" whereas ] is "an American talk show host and conservative political commentator." Now look at ] - "an American television news program host and liberal political commentator." ], another inaccurate description of a political commentator vs journalist or newscaster/news anchor. was on target when he wrote: {{xt|"Singling out Blitzer for a thrashing does not exonerate the other cable news anchors—their crimes remain under investigation. The Situation Room and other less-bad CNN prime-time programs—Erin Burnett Outfront, Anderson Cooper 360° and CNN Tonight With Don Lemon—churn through their time slots lighting news fuses that promise fireworks but often deliver duds. Once you start viewing these CNN programs as talk shows about the news in which hosts interview reporters, “specialists” and newsmakers, and not as news programs, per se, your journalistic expectations recede."}} Fox News Channel defines their political commentators correctly and keep those shows separate from the news, but based on some of the comments above, several editors are still conflating the two, perhaps because they are not well-versed in the operations of television networks. I think with their June 2018 survey, ''Between Factual and Opinion Statements in the News''. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 02:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*As you've been told several times, ] is not a convincing argument at Misplaced Pages. We're talking about this thing, not other things - ] (]) 08:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*{{xt|As you've been told several times...}} - wow, David, that sounds awfully bullyish. I'm not some child who has to be ''told'' anything. I welcome reminders - none of us are perfect - and you can certainly disagree with my position, but unless you can quote a policy that forbids such use of comparisons, you're just stating opinion, and I will continue to use comparisons to demonstrate the need for consistency in support of NPOV when making decisions as important as this one, and to overcome political bias in the decision-making process, perceived or otherwise. Happy editing! ] <sub>]</sub> ] 19:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] is about article notability, content, etc. We're discussing something much more general here - whether a major news source should be excluded. It is very important for decisions on which sources are considered reliable to be consistent. What appears to me to be happening is that people are trying to exclude Fox News for its failings, while ignoring the failings of equivalent news sources (CNN & MSNBC) that have very similar failings. The inconsistency appears to me to be ''politically motivated''. I'm no fan of any of the cable news channels - they are all guilty of the same sorts of sensationalism and partisanship. However, if we're going to declare Fox News unreliable, we really have to declare CNN and MSNBC to also be unreliable. If we aren't consistent, then it looks very much like ] is being applied only when it's politically convenient. -] (]) 14:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: The statement above ignores a fundamental difference: "... trying to exclude Fox News for its failings, while ignoring the failings of equivalent news sources (CNN & MSNBC) that have very similar failings." | |||
| ::::::: For CNN & MSNBC, such "failings" are a "bug", IOW exceptional errors they immediately correct. For Fox News, such "failings" are a "feature" of their ''modus operandi''. Unless called out on a large scale by myriad other major sources, they will not correct the error, and other extreme right-wing media do the same. That is a major difference between left-wing media and right-wing media. The left uses fact-checkers and corrects errors, whereas the right ignores fact-checkers, attacks fact-checkers (Trump told his supporters to not believe fact-checkers), and persistently uses propaganda as a tool, even when it has been proven to be false/fake. | |||
| ::::::: Fox News is no longer just a right-wing RS we can use. It has slid to the far-right (CNN is considered slightly right-wing by the rest of the world) and is focused as a tool of Trump, with a '''''' (search that term) that is documented as a phenomenon. . There are many. -- ] (]) 18:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Your argument is similar to others, all of which have been successfully disputed throughout this discussion. The oppose iVotes appear to be very partisan in nature, and have failed to produce any evidence that supports downgrading Fox News as a generally RS. Our own WP article describes our left bias, ], and that is what we need to fix and what I believe we are doing now to preserve and maintain a NPOV for the benefit of the project overall. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 19:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:{{u|Atsme}}, no, they do not ''fabricate'' stuff. They may spin, and they may make mistakes. Fox News has been literally photoshopping a guy with a gun into images of otherwise peaceful protests. ''That'' is fake news. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 20:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*{{u|JzG}}, they including the New York Times and ] Remember ] and who returned their Pulitzer? Do the research, Guy. You once told me I was naive - uhm, no. It's not me. After over 35 years in & out of newsrooms, tv studios, post production, artwork & layouts, typesetting - I am not the least bit hesitant in telling it like it is while backing it up with RS to support my position which I just did. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 20:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*:{{u|Atsme}}, this is exactly the problem. A reporter at NYT faked reports (quite common). This was detected ''by the Times'' and he was pushed out. With the Fox pictures, they are ''still defending them'' and there has been no action, that we know of, against those responsible. | |||
| ::::*:And then there's the false and misleading stories on COVID-19, and climate change, and the many other instances. | |||
| ::::*:You can excuse thema ll away one by one if you like, but in the end the pattern is clear and systemic and entirely in line with the academic research that shows Fox News to have joined FNC in using an agenda-driven, not fact-driven, model. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 21:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*{{u|JzG|Guy}}, my views align more closely with {{u|Masem}}. I'm not making any excuses - I'm simply stating facts. After reading ], I'm of the mind that we will probably find ourselves in disagreement more often than not so I'm going to leave it there. I've got plenty of work to do helping to reduce the AfC/NPP backlog which keeps growing. Happy editing! ] <sub>]</sub> ] 13:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There's no evidence yet - and I'd love to be proven wrong - of the news content (not headlines, not photos) coming from the reporters and checked by the editors out of the Fox news side of intentional/malicious fabrication as was clearly shown on the DM/Brietbart cases. That would be a slam dunk in closing this against the use of Fox News. But everything listed above that is claim of Fox fabrication is either being due to Fox's bias (not fabrication but presenting in a specific angle which RS does not judge but cautions about when NPOV comes along), corrected stories (of which we can play mind games of whether these were intentional or not until pointed out), or simply outside of the news-desk editorial content, like the Seattle picture stuff. I'm trying to be the devil's advocate (literally, almost) here - There's a lot of personal and other reasons that people want to see Fox News demoted from reliable, and I would tend to agree that net result, but we need to prove the case out on this, otherwise, any weak rational can come back to bite us in the future ("You demote Fox for fake headlines, CNN has done fake headlines..." type logic). And that's why I'm point out that even with Fox news still considered reliable, UNDUE drives away from its use as a source when other sources covering the same event exist. --] (]) 13:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (NewsNation)=== | |||
| * I am of the same opinion as ] on this..."You shouldn't really use Misplaced Pages as the sole source for anything, ever. You shouldn't use anything as the sole source for anything, in my view."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2011/feb/19/interview-jimmy-wales-wikipedia|publisher=] |title= The Saturday interview: Misplaced Pages's Jimmy Wales|accessdate=14 June 2020}}</ref> Misplaced Pages is an Anglo-American encyclopedia, and so it values western opinions/references/sources and denounces other news agencies as "government controlled/funded", when it is clear that American and British journalists either toe the line and use government press releases as fact, or they are ostracised. What I am saying is that every editor must be careful, what they are publishing, for instance, Bolivian coup. Every western news organisation shouted out "election fraud", only for ] to state (months later) "There is not any statistical evidence of fraud that we can find,” wrote John Curiel and Jack R Williams, both from MIT, adding that the conclusions of an audit by the Organization of American States “would appear deeply flawed”.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/01/no-evidence-of-in-morales-poll-victory-say-us-researchers-bolivia|publisher=] |title= No evidence of fraud’ in Morales poll victory, say US researchers|accessdate=14 June 2020}}</ref>. My message, be very sceptical of western news agents (BBC, CNN, Fox), as much as eastern news agents from China or Russia.<span style="font-family: bookman old style">]]</span> 15:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *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) | |||
| *:+1 - I'm on the same page, Seth Whales. As several of us have repeated over and over again, comply with WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS and exercise caution toward all news sources in today's clickbait environment, especially political news which in and of itself is subject to the biases of the authors/journalists/publishers. If we had been adhering to our PAGs, this issue never would have been brought up, much less noticed - it would have disappeared in the anus of internet history. Correction was made/published by the news source - end of story. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 18:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Deprecate Fox News for AMPol2. We don't save a source because only two out of a dozen+ of its hosts are good.''' When it's accurate, other sources should be used. <u>Speaking only of Fox News, not its talking heads,</u> with the exception of Shep Smith (consistently good, but no longer at Fox) and Chris Wallace (he occasionally dares to do the right thing), Fox News should be deprecated for politics. Those two hosts are the rare ]. The other hosts in the newsroom are generally unreliable. | |||
| : Fox employees leaving the company have described the "newsroom" (not just ''any'' room) as "an extension of the Trump White House." The situation is worse now, to the point where the influence of Fox News and Fox & Friends on Trump and the GOP cannot be ignored. The tail is wagging the dog: | |||
| :: '''"Fox News is no longer the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. The Republican Party is the legislative arm of Fox News."''' -- , '']'' | |||
| : Deprecate it for AMPol2, which is not a total ban. When Wallace and others are accurate, they can still be used for politics, but we only know that by comparing them with other sources, so we should generally use those sources. (The rest of the hosts should be blacklisted for politics.) -- ] (]) 15:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Pop Crave == | |||
| === Picture manipulation by Fox? === | |||
| 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. | |||
| Just saw , claiming blatant photo manipulation by the Fox News site. It's 2am here - is anyone here familiar with the originals? If true, this sort of practice would rule out Option 1 - ] (]) 00:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| : {{ping|David Gerard|David Gerard}} here's another source: | |||
| :: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fox-news-runs-digitally-altered-images-in-coverage-of-seattles-protests-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone/ | |||
| : BTW, your comment ended up in the wrong section, so I moved it here. I hope you don't mind. -- ] (]) 03:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{u|David Gerard}}, there have been several examples of this in the past, a few of which can be found in the article ], though there are a few others that didn’t get enough coverage to be due there. I sort of agree that this should preclude Option 1 to some extent, as this isn’t a regular occurrence from other outlets, but it happens periodically with some degree of regularity with Fox. I would presume a lot of people are !voting “Option 1“ based on the Fox News of a decade ago, or are simply unaware of these kinds of things. ] (]) 04:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::I mean, pictures shouldn't be considered as part of the story written by the byline of the author of the article. That's some guy trying to illustrate the paper, and just like headlines and anything else outside the article should not be taken as representative of what passes the editorial desk. It is clear example of the bias that Fox will try to do which, as I've commented below, usually makes their covers just unnecessary to include when other more RSes are covering the same thing ''if'' we are taking cautious steps in applying NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM. --] (]) 04:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't buy this excuse. Making stuff up is making stuff up. OK, headlines should be disregarded and not cited—for example, I have seen a false headline in a very reliable paper (]), albeit it was quickly fixed. Deliberately falsifying images, however, is falsification and my standard for deprecation is "deliberately and consistently reports falsehoods." <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 06:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It was a montage - most people familiar with images can see that...but it appears Fox competitors are scraping the barrel to find fault. Life goes on. It's not half as bad as publishing images of and falsely claiming it was Trump when the photos were from the Obama administration, and worse, promoting a who lied about it. Again, as I've stated above - exercise caution, comply with ] and wait for the retrospective from historians and academics. We need to stop with the Twitter feed - it's unreliable - and stop breaking news - ]. Follow our PAGs and we'll be fine. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 15:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Come off it. They're blatantly and intentionally lying. This is beyond the pale. Stop apologizing for liars. ] (]) 15:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: A “montage”? Is any other reliable source characterizing it this way except Fox News itself? ] (]) 15:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The desk jockies that write headlines for CNN and other sites are just as bad in terms of writing clickbait titles (there's a whole case around Lawrence Lessig and the NYTimes just over a bad headline, despite the article content being legit). . (Whether that suit will develop into anything we don't know, just the point that headlines are written without the care of the body of the articles). This happens across the board, but since we don't use headlines or pictures or picture captures as "reliable" because of the fact they are written outside the editorial process, this type of manipulation should not be counted against the reliability of the reporters and editors above the Fox News desk. Bias of the overall work, heck yes. --] (]) 17:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: The more respectable and reliable conservative sources that I mentioned in the previous section—e.g., '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', and you can throw in '']''—wouldn't be caught dead engaging in tabloid practices like this. Considering the fact that Fox's prominent posting of this panic-inducing image coincided with one of the worst stock market drops of the year, I would think that Misplaced Pages should definitely avoid linking to such content. Perhaps the best solution would be some means of examining potential uses of Fox as a source on a case by case basis, with a consensus-based process to vet individual news articles for propriety before using them. ] ] 17:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I agree those sources would not manipulate photos like that, but again, we're looking to what is usable by WP, the article content, not the photos or headlines. That they do that type of manipulation should put up a big caution that they are biased outside the newsdesk and thus when applying UNDUE for inclusion, that weighs heavily against them. That's how you apply consensus on a case-by-case basis without eliminating the use of Fox for most other topics where there are few issues with their reporting, and without applying "not reliable for X topics" which always get plagued with debate if that's used. I know it seems earlier just to say Fox is not an RS, but the evidence is not there for that... But we have ways to work around the problems of its bias as long as consensus-based processes build on NPOV are used on case-by-case. --] (]) 17:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{od}} - Please...see our WP article ]. I would think the montage was used to depict different events in one image, such as the protestors in the images published by The Detroit News which Armed - with guns. First of all, Tucker Carlson, the subject of the tweet in this particular discussion, is '''not a newscaster''', rather he is a pundit so why are we having this discussion at all, {{u|David Gerard}}? Hannity is also a pundit and he also addressed the gun toting protestors. There are pictures in the article I linked to with the caption ''Armed men weapons in the Senate gallery on Thursday, April 30. (Photo: Craig Mauger, The Detroit News)'' but there are also other images with gun toting protestors. Are you saying there were no guns, and the image is a false depiction of the protest? ] <sub>]</sub> ] 17:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{tq|Please...see our WP article ]}} which is a subsection of the section "Political and ethical issues", and links to ]. You're providing evidence against your own position here. Photomanipulation in this manner is a deprecation offense - ] (]) 17:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<s>What newscast used the image?</s> ] <sub>]</sub> ] 18:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Nevermind, I found which states: {{xt|Editor’s Note: A FoxNews.com home page photo collage which originally accompanied this story included multiple scenes from Seattle’s “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” and of wreckage following recent riots. The collage did not clearly delineate between these images, and has since been replaced. In addition, a recent slideshow depicting scenes from Seattle mistakenly included a picture from St. Paul, Minnesota. Fox News regrets these errors.}} If you're talking about deprecating based on that, then a whole lot of once considered RS are going down with it, including , , and so is , , well...here's a ] <sub>]</sub> ] 18:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Even their "correction" was false. It was not a collage. It was a photo-shopped image inserting a weapon carrying person into the image to push a false narrative that the POTUS is pushing. ] (]) 19:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The correction was not false - and what "false narrative" is POTUS pushing? ] <sub>]</sub> ] 18:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''All of them''' - of all major networks, despite claims to the contrary by others, FOX is the only one whose main network coverage is specifically regularly factually inaccurate. While MSNBC or CNN may have programs that are informed by a Talking Head, or their news and op-ed can become amalgamated because modern reporting has become that way inclined (with US media in particular), FOX is the only news source that openly leads with journalists that aren't journalists, repeating conspiracy theories from the internet in live bulletin and stories that are not listed as opinion. This isn't a Tucked Carlson issue, this is objectively bad journalism across the board with terrible editorial decisions being made - the kind of decisions that lead to Piers Morgan losing his job in the UK, but lead to very little in the US other than defence of the behaviour because of WHATABOUTISM because of the perception that the largely centrist position of reality is to the left of the general perception of the average conservative American. As Colbert once said, "reality has a well known liberal bias". FOX is the only mainstream network where it is clear that entire topics are handled by partisan groups that are different to the core journalists that they actually have in their employ. It's why they can challenge the president for factual inaccuracies on Monday and appear legitimate, but still be publishing their own factual inaccuracies for days after until surreptitiously changing their articles without indicating what has been later altered. Most reliable networks publish their "corrections" openly. FOX is well documented for failing to do so, and often allowing their affiliates to continue using the incorrect versions of events in their broadcasts even while amending their incorrect news articles. ] (]) 05:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * This isn't necessarily an issue that's exclusive to Fox. MSNBC, for instance, has been caught deceptively editing recordings to portray figures in an unflattering light. Take , when they deliberately presented Mitt Romney comments out of context, or , when they spliced together George Zimmerman's 911 call to make it sound like he was racist. ]]] 12:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **Two wrongs do not make a right, and this is a rather more incendiary situation than Zimmerman's.] (]) 12:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***...what? Why should we treat Fox differently than other outlets that are guilty of similar manipulation? MSNBC was ; it's been a recurring issue with that network for years. As some users, like {{u|Ad Orientem}}, {{u|Atsme}}, and {{u|Thucydides411}}, said above, I think some editors are treating Fox differently because it has a political slant they don't agree with. ]]] 14:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **** I can only speak to my perspective on this, but I think part of the issue here is the frequency with which both this issue arises, and the frequency with which there are multiple factual errors in their reporting, and how skewed the presentation is, including “news” programs such as Bret Baier. As well as the general reluctancy to highlight omissions and errors. It happens more often with Fox than with most other mainstream sources. ] (]) 15:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ****Because faking pictures of people carrying guns at a time when there are troops (even if they are Saturday afternoon ones) paroling the streets of some cities and the president calling for the army to intervene is rather more serious in its potential repercussions and thus should have been dealt with with far more care. Also Otherstuffdoesnotesxist is an invalid an argument as ]. As well as (as I already said) just because wee do not prohibit X does not mean we should not prohibit Y (rather its an argument for also prohibiting X). And to add, this is fox news, not commentary or chat shows. One of the argument is has always been "But its not Fox news that does it", guess what...it does. Moreover No its not because they are right wing, its because this had the potential to inflame a very very dangerous situation (and , by the way, the Daily Mirror is not right wing).] (]) 15:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***:{{u|TheJoebro64}}, MSNBC is an opinion broadcaster. We've long recognised the difference between Fox News and FNC; in the same way, we recognise the difference between NBC and MSNBC. The difference here is that there are ''multiple'' images, and they were used by Fox News, not FNC, to promote a false narrative around the Seattle protests. If Fox had put their hands up, we might be able to have a conversation aboutt hat, but their apology amounts to "sorry we got caught". They have not acknowledged the underlying problem, still less undertaken to do anything about it. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 09:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|TheJoebro64}}, If there's a pattern of MSNBC doing this I would also support it being rated generally unreliable at an RFC. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 16:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Speaking as a journalist, the manipulation is an egregious violation of photojournalism ethics, and the lack of a proper retraction that acknowledges that the original images were manipulated makes the issue massively worse. This is a perfect example of why option 1 is unacceptable. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>]</sup> 19:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Apparently not just one image, and not just run in one segment, and so obvious they had to know ].] (]) 17:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Slatersteven}}, this is an absolute slam dunk. Literal fake news. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 09:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Here ] is the edited report where they have removed the image, note they do not actually admit it was faked. So no they are not owning up to it.] (]) 18:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Retraction {{xt|Fox News in a statement said it "regrets these errors," specifically for not clearly delineating between the images.}} Can we move on? ] <sub>]</sub> ] 18:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is not a retraction, they do not say "we used fake imagery" do they?] (]) 18:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::IN fact I would go further, by not admitting the picture was fake they are (in effect) saying it was genuine.] (]) 18:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, don't go too far - see my above. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 18:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would, the image was a cut and paste job, and they stand by its authenticity by not admitting it was faked.] (]) 19:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::That "retraction" does not acknowledge that the original imagery was manipulated. This makes the error far worse, not better. So no, we should absolutely not "move on" — this is a clear current example of the kinds of problems Fox News has. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>]</sup> 19:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is little question that the final image - the armed person in front of the Seattle shot - was designed to manipulate the reader to think that the SAZ was being patrolled by armed militia-like people. But is the image itself "manipulated" ? Adding a clearly second image atop a first ("count the pixels" may seem trite but the cut-off elbow is an obvious sign this wasn't anywhere close to trying to be a pixel-perfect digital manipulation) I will agree with what is said from the NPPA in Seattle Times' report that they needed to have marked that from an ethical standpoint, which is the key problem here when we talk about bias; even if they had that statement, that's still a very biased combination of elements designed to manipulation the average reader's thinking. Other sources have done this before: ] the infamous case of Time darkening the photo of OJ for example. This is why we ignore headlines, section titles, photos, and other incidental materials as part of what we consider "reliable" for any reliable source, because that's a whole different editorial team from the people writing and editing the news, all designed to draw the reader's eye, for ''any'' work. I will still argue that this bias from Fox can be used in most problematic cases to eliminate it as a source when UNDUE is taken into account, but no need to touch it as an RS source (from its news desk, obviously not from its opinion side) --] (]) 19:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ec}} stated: {{xt|"The misleading material spliced a June 10 photograph of an armed man at the Seattle protests with different photographs — one also from June 10, of a sign reading, “You Are Now Entering Free Cap Hill,” and others from images captured May 30 of a shattered storefront and other unrest downtown."}} The retraction is self-explanatory but WaPo further stated that Fox News explained there is an "editor’s note appended to three online articles" which I've already provided. In this case, the man with the gun was standing in front of a car at CHAZ on June 10th during the Seattle protests (the David Ryder image). His image was digitally copied, and photoshopped into the Fox montage and into another image to show him standing beside the CHAZ sign. That is typically handled by a separate dept. such as artwork & layout for the website. That's where online publications can get in trouble unlike newsprint which afforded the publishers more time to prep and check, and even then it wasn't 100% foolproof. The image of the man with the gun is real per {{xt|The June 10 photo of an unidentified man with a gun standing in front of a car in CHAZ was taken by Seattle freelance photographer David Ryder, who distributed the photo through Getty Images.}} Fox News retracted it as responsible news networks are expected to do. It's a done deal. Somebody is probably going to be fired or moved to another dept., which is typically what happens in such cases. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 20:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::And what about the image of him also standing in front of a smashed shop, how did they explain that? Or the one oh the same bloke, in the same stance standing next to a free zone sigh?] (]) 10:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You keep repeating the same thinig over and over - look at the Seattle Times article - it is explained in detail with the photos. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 17:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::] "Fox News is one such media outlet that published a series of articles on how the Seattle 'autonomous zone' has armed guards and local businesses are being threatened with extortion, and how the Seattle Police has been urged to take back control from "brazen, anti-cop anarchists." "One image shows the armed man standing in front of what appears to be a smashed retail store".] (]) 17:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I know there's a small chance of this going through. But I think it's also worth seriously re-examining our social media sources policy. The younger generations are getting their news from these sources way more than any others. That number will only increase as the years go by. And as a result, these sources will become more reliable. We need to get in touch. ] (]) 03:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| However, social media users were quick to notice that the images in all the Fox News articles had one thing in common – they all featured the same armed white individual wearing a bulletproof vest and holding an assault weapon. After some digging, users discovered that Fox News had photoshopped the image of the armed guard into all of its images to portray a more "dangerous" situation in the self-declared autonomous zone." | |||
| *Seems to me this is rather serious. We have the POTUS claiming that antifa is involved with the demonstrations and declaring that antifa is a terrorist group. We have the Seattle police saying this might spread to other cities. Then, Fox publishes a fake photo seemingly supporting Trump’s claims. All of this together pushes an image of the country under siege by armed terrorists starting a violent revolution. This is in a heated atmosphere, in a country with guys with AK47s waiting for a race war. ] (]) 20:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Photos are ALREADY considered unreliable for use as a source. ] (]) 20:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, yes (although I can't actually find a guideline to that effect). But, suppose a source fakes a photo of Trump starting the fire behind the church that he held a bible in front of. Would you continue to support such a source as reliable? Headlines are often exaggerated. But, actually faking a photo to push a conspiracy theory favorable to the POTUS that a "news" source has consistently supported is beyond the pale. We have to draw a line somewhere. ] (]) 00:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Its not about using the photograph(S)it is the fact that it was a lie broadcast on fox news (and other parts of the Fox empire). Its the fact it shows they make shit up.] (]) 10:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::I just read this entire thread and carefully looked at the webpages/images referenced. The obvious "lying by Photoshop" and the weaselly retraction that failed to acknowledge that they lied by Photoshop made me change my opinion of Fox News from "Use with care" to "'''Generally unreliable for facts, events, interviews and quotes.'''" Those images shown at raise the question: if Fox News is willing to mislead me about where a particular person carrying a gun and wearing a green mask was standing, how can I trust anything else they present to me? --] (]) 12:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So let's now declare that all RSes that uses clickbait and misleading headlines be also "generally unreliable" which is '''all of them''' including the NYTimes, if you go that direction. Pictures, like headlines, are not part of the reliable content we are judging or can use in WP. This is why we have that line being drawn. --] (]) 13:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This was not a headline, click bait or otherwise, it was included in multiple programs across Fox.] (]) 13:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It is still part of the content outside of control of the actual editorial control of the news desk. Its stuff we as editors can't use as part of a topic. If we want to make reliable sources be responsible and reliable for all content they publish - headlines, photos, etc. - so be it, but that would affect many "normally RS" sources which I don't think is the goal here. --] (]) 13:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::What Fox news has no control over what photos they include in a news broadcast? Christ I could not view the Seattle time article and so assumed the picture I could see was a mock up by the Seattle times because it was such an obvious fake. When I saw in fact what I assumed was a joke at foxes expense was actually what they had tried to use (not once but multiple times) I had no choice but to change my choice. Sorry but "no one even thought "this looks a bit off" better not use it" becasue "well its not MY job to think" is not a defence.] (]) 14:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Consider what parts of a Fox News broadcast we'd use within articles presuming they were reliable - we can only use what is said by the anchors and any quoted text from video interviews or news clips. What's said by the anchors is copyproofed text from the news department, which is what we're looking at here, and nothing implies that the clips and interviews are being tampered with (outside of cutting them to show Fox's bias). Now, if Fox News was playing with splicing or ] game with interviews during those segments, that the equivalent of the DM falsification that we can work from to deprecate Fox. --] (]) 14:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::"President thingywobble was not seen at a press interview" cue fake picture of President thingywobble shaking hands with a child rapist "and the white house has not answered our request for clarification of where he it", yes a picture can be used to mislead whilst the words do not, its called a dog whistle. This is my last word here, we should not use news organisations that actually fake content, not even dishonestly edit, actually fake it.] (]) 14:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{u|Masem}}, that might carry some weight if the news desk had issued a statement and demanded disciplinary action against the person responsible. Not seeing any evidence of that. | |||
| ::::::::This lends credence to the theory that Shep Smith was the canary in the mine. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 21:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Again, devils advocate here: when other RSes have screws up like this like Time's OJ picture/etc. have we expected them to call out the person responsible? RS demands editorial control which, even as a stretch here because the photo side is outside the news department, still happened, but does it require appropriate disciplinary action? There's clearly a huge weight of bias to want to tip Fox news into deprecation, and certainly enough of these things that it would seem easiest to be done with it by doing so, but we're going to have people come back to this case and use arguments we're setting here against other RSes to argument for their deprecation over and over and over again, so lets make sure that we are doing it. | |||
| :::::::::The other route, which is circular but would be a lot easier to say why Fox needs to be deprecated, is to modify RS to not only talk about editorial control, but where appropriate, particularly for a mainstream source, adherence for journalistic ethics. Of which the list of misdeeds by Fox (from its news team) starts to grow incredibly long, while leaving little of our main RS untouched. It might take a way a few other sources that are biased that don't show ethics (which I would sort of demand/expect in the AP2 field if we went that way) but I would guess at the benefit of putting Fox into the deprecated category this would be an acceptable loss, to speak --] (]) 21:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::On the question of where we talk about headlines not being an RS, ] this essay came out of discussion last month that we all agreed headlines were not RSes from past discussions we never really codified that. --] (]) 13:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Others are free to chime in, but the fact that a source is considered "reliable" on another website -- especially social media -- is of little consequence in the context of determining its reliability on Misplaced Pages. What ultimately matters is how it conforms to policies and guidelines such as ] and ]. Assessing the source on its own merits, I Googled their staff page since I couldn't find it on their homepage (, for those interested), and there is no information provided about these people beyond their roles at the site, which frequently strikes me as the sign of a dubious source. Furthermore, there are no authors listed on any of the articles presented on their homepage, which is not a good sign. All things considered, this really does just look like a social media-type fansite, which in addition to not meeting the criteria of ], would also make it unusable on ] articles. | |||
| * Rushing to judgment on the basis of one recent incident (in which Fox News issued corrections) would be very unwise. Letting momentary outrage drive long-term decisions on which sources are ] would be very short-sighted. Based on this rationale, we could have banned any number of reliable sources. In December 2016, the Washington Post ran about Russia supposedly hacking into a utility grid in Vermont. The story was widely reprinted and caused a good deal of panic before it turned out to be completely false - one laptop that was not connected to the utility's control systems had malware that's widely available to hackers online. The Washington Post issued a half-way correction to the story (mentioning that the computer wasn't attached to the utility's control systems, but not mentioning that the malware isn't connected to Russia), but kept the misleading title in place. The Washington Post acted irresponsibly by running a dubious story that aligns with their political outlook, but which a bit of research would have shown to be completely unsupported, and then failed to fully correct the story. Yet it would be really short-sighted to use this one instance to rule that the Washington Post is not a ]. I'm sure that there wouldn't be a widespread call by Wikipedians to rule out the Washington Post anyways, because the Washington Post's editorial slant aligns much better with the views of most Wikipedians than that of Fox News does. -] (]) 14:25, 14 June 2020 (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) | |||
| ::You could always nominate it and see.] (]) 14:29, 14 June 2020 (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.--] (] | ]) 16:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, I don't see how that WaPo story was "false". They correctly reported what officials said. I don't see how WaPo faked anything and they made no claims in their own voice. A far cry from digitally altering a photo, and claiming another was from a different city. And let us not pretend this was "one recent incident". Fox is on this page on a regular basis. ] (]) 14:34, 14 June 2020 (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) | |||
| :::That's a bit like when Fox News makes absurd statements, phrased as a question. The Washington Post's article repeatedly says that Russia hacked the utility, but appends some version of "officials say." In fact, I recall arguing with editors at ] (including some of those who have responded to me here) back around that time about these very sorts of claims. There were many editors were insisting that these sorts of claims had to be stated in Wikivoice, because the US intelligence agencies are reliable, and also arguing against interpreting many of these statements as ''claims'' made by officials - but rather as claims made by the Washington Post and other newspapers. For example, take this sentence in the Washington Post article: | |||
| * 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) | |||
| ::::{{talkquote|The penetration may have been designed to disrupt the utility’s operations or as a test by the Russians to see whether they could penetrate a portion of the grid.}} | |||
| :::That sentence appears to state, as a fact, that the penetration occurred, and back then, I'm sure those generally arguing for inclusion of as much Russiagate material as possible would have argued that that statement should be interpreted factually (for an example, take a look at ). | |||
| :::The Washington Post's article spawned a whole spate of articles in other news sources, with titles directly stating that Russia had hacked the utility. . . . . . The Washington Post did not do basic due diligence on the claims made by the officials, and those claims were debunked by others within days, leading to the Washington Post to correct some - but not all - of the false claims made in the article. If you were only to read that one Washington Post article and the editor's note at the top, you would not know that the malware involved is widely available to hackers - not just Russian state hackers. | |||
| :::In other words, the Washington Post uncritically presented the claims of government officials, and appeared to repeat their claims in its own voice in places. That led to widespread coverage claiming - as a fact - that Russia had hacked the utility. The story then fell apart after basic inspection, which the Washington Post had failed to do before running the article, and the Washington Post never fully corrected the article. But that one incident (and it's not the only from that time involving the Washington Post, including the infamous ) should not lead the Washington Post to be listed as unreliable. Making decisions based on individual stories like this - especially in the heat of the moment - is bad practice. -] (]) 19:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Surely WaPo is not responsible for what is published in other sources. The WaPo article appears to be correct as it repeatedly attributes, as they should. ] (]) 20:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::In the sentence I quoted above, they did not clearly attribute the statement. But more than that, the Washington Post failed to do even basic verification of what the government officials were telling it, and the story collapsed within days, once other news agencies approached the story with greater rigor. Yet the Washington Post never fully corrected the article. I don't see how you can view this as anything other than a failure to live up to basic journalistic practices. -] (]) 13:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thucydides, that argument is an example of the kind of dumbfoundingly vacuous cherrypicking that is at the core of this RfC. Are we ready to have editors falsely and routinely hold WaPo's 150+ year record on a par with Fox? Just about every website posts at least a sizable percentage of fact. Today it is Sunday. It may rain next week. If that's your best shot, we are never going to reach consensus above option 3. Please try to make comments that do not deny the central issue. ]] 15:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{re|Thucydides411}} That's a great demonstration of a particularly egregious failure on the part of the ''Washington Post''. On the other hand {{re|SPECIFICO}}, your reply is, to use your own words, {{tq|"an example of the kind of dumbfoundingly vacuous"}} approaches some editors take towards civility, which is not only required by policy here but also useful in life. Surely there's no need to scrape the bottom of the barrel. -] (]) 03:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Pop Crave doesn't have a track record of reliability we would want for a RS, especially in the BLP space. Looking at the bios of some of the authors that I was able to find (Dylan Anthony, their most prolific writer, does not appear to be on LinkedIn). most have little journalism experience, especially with RSs. That being said, they do have some experience, do not seem like grifters, and do get interviews. It seems like their interviews should be safe enough for ] statements if it's not egregiously self-serving. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is getting closer to election time in the US, right? I'm of the mind that the upcoming election might be part of the reason for the repeated attempts to eliminate Fox News as a generally RS, and with such <s>vengeance</s> vehemence in a try-and-try again effort to reach what has been an elusive result. I have provided the following quote as an aside to the fact that Fox News has been the #1 rated cable news channel for 18 consecutive years,<ref name="Joyella 2020">{{cite web | last=Joyella | first=Mark | title=‘We Passed CNN...And Never Looked Back’: Fox News Hits 18 Years At #1 | website=Forbes | date=2020-01-28 | url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2020/01/28/fox-news-celebrates-18-years-as-number-one-network-in-cable-news/ | access-date=2020-06-14}}</ref> much to the dismay of their competitors and political opposition; many of whom continue to throw stones at Fox News from glass houses.<ref name="Poynter 2020">{{cite web | title=Fox News’ best-ever ratings signify that we are a country divided | website=Poynter | date=2020-04-29 | url=https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2020/fox-news-best-ever-ratings-signify-that-we-are-a-country-divided/ | access-date=2020-06-14}}</ref> I would have cited the NYTimes or WaPo instead of Forbes for Fox's rating but lo and behold they did not publish even a blurb about it, which speaks volumes as to why we should not eliminate or downgrade all of our RS, like Forbes and the Washington Times, based purely on political bias. Anyway, the following is quoted from a literature review in the ''International Journal on Digital Libraries''. It made me go "Hmmm..." so I thought it was important to share it as part of this discussion in the event political bias might be a factor in this RfC, unknowing or otherwise, and if it is, then at least now we are better able to understand why: | |||
| :{{talk quote|"Not all frame analyses focus on the text of news articles. For instance, DellaVigna and Kaplan analyzed the gradual adoption of cable TV of Fox News between 1996 and 2000 to show that Fox News had a “significant impact” on the presidential elections. Essentially, the study analyzed whether a district had already adopted the Fox News channel, and what the election result was. The results revealed that the Republican party had an increased vote share in those towns that had adopted Fox News."<ref name="Hamborg Donnay Gipp pp. 391–415">{{cite journal | last=Hamborg | first=Felix | last2=Donnay | first2=Karsten | last3=Gipp | first3=Bela | title=Automated identification of media bias in news articles: an interdisciplinary literature review | journal=International Journal on Digital Libraries | publisher=Springer Science and Business Media LLC | volume=20 | issue=4 | date=2018-11-16 | issn=1432-5012 | doi=10.1007/s00799-018-0261-y | pages=391–415}}</ref>}} | |||
| :] <sub>]</sub> ] 21:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Atsme, this is an odd edit. The study you linked to does indeed say that Fox has had an undue effect on elections. It also stated that Fox was significantly slanted and that Fox viewers were the most uninformed about the Iraq War. So yes, we are trying to reduce dependence on an unreliable source as per guidelines. So yes, {{tq| it is getting closer to election time in the US, right?}} But, your claim that those efforts to stop using a bad source is based upon “vengeance“ is a violation of AGF and CIV and completely ignores that they simply don’t like usage of bad sources, while you think you are on the side of goodness to continue usage of a source your own citation criticizes so heavily. ] (]) 00:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I corrected it - that was not the word I originally intended to use. I'm actually done here. Happy editing. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 03:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Lately I've noticed a tendency to appeal to dictionaries in cases like these. O3000 you might like to look at the definition of "" to understand how (at least in modern English) this is an impersonal expression. A lot of people are having trouble identifying what is and isn't civil these days. I've noticed it seems to depend a lot more on status than on fact. Not sure if that's what happened here, but I thought it was worth providing some expert testimony from a trusted source. -- ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 05:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Atsme already changed the wording. ] (]) 14:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Look, guys, gals and either or else, if we have to have a discussion about every website that has become a ] we've already eliminated half of the sources considered generally reliable a decade ago, and if we consider bias and opinionation to be a damning factor, there's the other half gone. | |||
| OK how about this ]?] (]) 18:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| Or ] "Fox altering the images without any disclaimer was “terribly misleading.”".] (]) 11:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :This is an awful response to give at the ''reliable source noticeboard''. Discussing sources is what is done here, and this person is asking a good-faith question on the use of a source. Your participation isn't required if you're already exasperated for some reason. ] ] 03:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Further evidence of recent malign behaviour by ''Fox News'' === | |||
| ::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) | |||
| '''Comment''' I came here to point out the self-same doctored fake news story as the one discussed above after having voted (above, option 3) some time ago. The ''Fox News'' fake-photo debacle is one of a long line of disgraceful truth-evasion on behalf of Fox's editorial standards. They are the American ''Sputnik'', and I have great difficulty understanding why so many people disagree with/are blind to/ignorant of/overlook this. (Delete as appropriate.) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| Here, though, is yet another instance of ''Fox''`s ] level of nefariousness: In short, the now-famous recent incident of ''CNN'' journalists arrested live on air is twisted by ''Fox'' into an attack article on its less far-right competitor by: seeking to bury the wholly self-explanatory video of the incident; using the anchor's script smarmily and baselessly to malign ''CNN'' journalists; and, to finish: a heavy dusting of their standard line that "the liberal media is disobedient/disingenuous/violent/non-white/]". It is unthinkable that such an organization can be considered a reliable source for anything related to news, politics, America, or anything else important or potentially controversial. And I don't for a minute buy this alleged firewall between their newsroom and their pundits. They choose the pundits, they pay them, broadcast them, and embed their opinions in videos on their news articles of ''FoxNews.com'' ] (]) 13:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I get your frustration. Frankly it is what motivates a lot of my strong and loudly expressed preference for academic work and books published by reliable presses over journalistic content in these discussions. Because, yeah, journalism is in a dire place. Globally. (And I say this as someone who aspired to be a journalist early in his career only to watch the profession die.) I also agree there are certainly degrees here. In fact my antipathy toward ] is mostly motivated from the fact I ''fully agree with you'' that we should be treating reliability contextually most of the time rather than making general statements. | |||
| ::::However, in this specific case, I'd say PopCrave, as a particular outlet, was never farther up the journalism ladder than the bottom rung. ] (]) 17:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::that system I propose is seriously the only way I believe we'll get anything sourcable. Journalism is a lobster, @]. That means it is mostly a shell (useless and non-consumable) and we must look for and dig out the meat (useful and consumable content). I'm not posting to bitch and moan only, I'm trying to hit the nail on the head and I'm providing a method of thought to deal with how to wade through the swamp of garbage journalism. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::and each site is probably a lobster, so to speak. Each site, some more than others, is a shell, but with careful judgement, substance can be drawn from it. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The "system you propose" doesn't exist yet, and its not appropriate to propose it in the middle of someone's valid question. Go take it to ] or something. Stop derailing this thread. ] ] 17:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|it's probably prudent to know how to pick the meat from the shells}} I completely agree with this, but your comment doesn't help the OP know how to do that. If your not going to offer advice or knowledge then you're posting to the wrong place. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Editors come here looking for advice on how to make a good judgement on a source, so telling them they need to use their own good judgement doesn't help. Answering questions simply as YES/NO is equally as bad, instead try to answer question in a way that helps the OP understand policy and how to make good judgements. | |||
| :Also although for some reason people believe Misplaced Pages considers bias or opinion in reliability matters it doesn't, see ] and ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Is this article declaring the ] a 12th c. baptistry a reliable source for the tower?? == | |||
| === Studies on the reliability of Fox News=== | |||
| ====General (Fox News)==== | |||
| * . | |||
| * . Found that study participants who watched Fox News we less informed than people who watched no news . | |||
| *{{Cite web|url=https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/fox-news-partisan-progaganda-research.php|title=What is Fox News? Researchers want to know|website=Columbia Journalism Review|last=Nelson|first=Jacob L.|date=January 23, 2019 }} | |||
| 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) | |||
| ====Climate change (Fox News)==== | |||
| * ''93% of global warming coverage by the Fox News Channel was misleading'' | |||
| * . | |||
| * https://www.citizen.org/article/foxic-fox-news-networks-dangerous-climate-denial-2019/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=52dbcd4f-2756-4284-973a-7fe06c039cd5 Public Citizen: Fox News Network’s Dangerous Climate Denial 2019] ''Of the 247 segments, 212 or 86% were dismissive of the climate crisis, cast warming and its consequences in doubt or employed fear mongering when discussing climate solutions.'' and ''“Tucker Carlson Tonight” ran the most climate denial segments with 41 or approximately seven per month, followed by “Hannity” with 32 and “The Five” with 29'' | |||
| :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) | |||
| ====COVID-19 (Fox News)==== | |||
| ::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) | |||
| * ''In this paper, we report the results of an automated content analysis showing that right-leaning news outlets (e.g., Fox News, Breitbart) were more than 2.5 times more likely than mainstream outlets to discuss COVID-19 misinformation during the early stages of the U.S. pandemic response.'' | |||
| ::], 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 == | |||
| ====No Go Zone anti-Muslim conspiracy theory (Fox News)==== | |||
| * ''“there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in;” (at the time of the interview, Birmingham’s population was 80% non-Muslim).'' <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:07, June 14, 2020 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| ===Discussion 2 (Fox News)=== | |||
| *'''Comment''' - I previously hatted this discussion and it was reverted. The reason for my action was because this entire section is irrelevant to the scope of the RfC, and a waste of editors' valuable time. The first source, which is a biased progressive opinion source, briefly mentions the Fox newscast bias, and goes on and on about the Fox News Channel's talk-shows and political commentary that has nothing at all to do with the Fox News Channel's newscasts. Every other source/analysis/poll included after that first source are irrelevant to the RfC because the scope encompasses only the Fox News Channel's political commentary and talk-show pundits, '''not''' the newscasts. Hopefully this explanation will save editors from wasting any of their valuable time on off-topic opinions that have no relevance to the RfC. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 03:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **Given that you've started literally positing a conspiracy against "conservative" sources operating on this page, at this stage you're ] and probably aren't someone who should be telling anyone else what to post - ] (]) 15:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *** {{ping|David Gerard}} I agree. The constant accusations of editorial bias is a personal attack and must be stopped (for some reason the accuser(s) don't realize their own bias can be seen as the reason they are defending Fox News...{{;)}}. How odd! They shouldn't cast stones.): | |||
| :::: "Using someone's political affiliations as an ''ad hominem'' means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being ] or ], is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions." | |||
| ::: It is the lack of accuracy and pushing of political and scientific pseudoscience, IOW pushing counterfactual content and narratives, that is the reason we don't like Fox News. Hey, someone in the news media has to do this propaganda job (that's the nature of the beast), and instead of leaving this job to the most extreme right-wing sources, Fox News has joined the fray after Trump's rise to power (which happened largely because of them as his propaganda voice). Editorial bias has nothing to do with our opposition to Fox News's inaccuracy. That is their own doing. -- ] (]) 15:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Do you think there's a difference between the box-office numbers in Pinkvilla and their general articles? Could one be considered reliable and the other not, or is this looking at the site as a whole? ''']''' (]) 20:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've stated several times now that I do not consider any of the cable news channels particularly reliable, and though it's completely irrelevant, I'll just mention that my political biases are extremely different from those of Fox News. However, it does appear clear to me that the reason why there is a push to exclude Fox News specifically as a source - as opposed to CNN and MSNBC, which are on a very comparable level of overall reliability and political bias/partisanship - is because the bias that Fox News exhibits does not align with the views of most Wikipedians. Misplaced Pages should have a consistent policy on reliable sources, which means that either all three major American cable news channels are reliable, or all three are unreliable. Taking an inconsistent, politically biased approach to ] will just serve to tilt articles. -] (]) 09:34, 16 June 2020 (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) | |||
| :::::Since you clearly missed the nuance, let me spell it out for you, Fox News has been inaccurate on multiple occasions. They made their platform available to pundits who have been wrong on multiple occasions. I recommend either you read the comments carefully to avoid making blatantly pointless accusations or just not say anything that might be viewed as accusatory. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">] (] <span style="color:#000">愛</span> ])</span> 09:56, 16 June 2020 (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? == | |||
| ::::::You have to distinguish between opinion (e.g., pundits) and news articles. Politically motivated reporting is not a peculiarity of Fox News, however - CNN recently ran an interview with Susan Rice in which she claimed the violence at protests over the killing of George Floyd might be instigated by Russia: . All three major American cable news channels (Fox News, CNN and MSNBC) are questionable, and should be handled similarly. Treating the news articles on their websites as reliable is a reasonable policy. Opinion articles and opinion shows are definitely not reliable. It would be reasonable to class broadcast news reports on all three channels are unreliable (as opposed to articles on their websites), in my opinion. -] (]) 17:59, 16 June 2020 (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|Thucydides411}}, have a quick look at the Ad Fontes chart. https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ - notice that it distinguishes CNN.com from CNN Cable, and Fox News from FNC. We also make this distinction. We distinguish NBC from MSNBC, because, yes, we all know that cable infotainment is not the same as real news. | |||
| :::::Fox News (as opposed to FNC) has been considered reliable up to now. What's changed is not us, it's Fox News. It's now rated less reliable and more biased than the Daily Mail. | |||
| :::::Fox now blurs the line between its editorial agenda and its news reporting. The canary in the mine was Shep Smith. The doctored images of Seattle were on Fox News, not FNC. Fox has changed. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 16:07, 16 June 2020 (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) | |||
| ::::::What makes Ad Fontes reliable? {{tq|The doctored images of Seattle were on Fox News}}. Fox News issued a correction, which is one of the things we look for in reliable sources. -] (]) 17:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Thucydides411: You've several times repeated your assertion, {{orange|'''All three major American cable news channels (Fox News, CNN and MSNBC) are questionable, and should be handled similarly.'''}} without giving any reasons or explaining why they should not be differentiated based on the evidence under discussion. Can you give us several examples, instances of Fox making an error biased against Trump and the Right and then issuing a correction? Or is it all the other way -- Right-leaning bias in prime time and then a correction buried elsewhere? Thank you. ]] 18:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{u|Thucydides411}}, no they did not. They mumbled something about the home-page photos “did not clearly delineate” the splicing together of multiple images from different locations. That's a "sorry we got caught". In a responsible news org, the editor would have been fired or at least disciplined. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 20:26, 16 June 2020 (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) | |||
| ::::::::I don't know what you mean by "mumbled." They posted written corrections at the top of the articles and changed the images. -] (]) 21:05, 16 June 2020 (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 . 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 == | |||
| Lets all lay of the PA's, and assume good faith.] (]) 09:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree, Slatersteven. Let's stick to the facts as follows: WaPo returned a Pulitzer because of a fabricated story they published, and so did the NYTimes. See for the links to the stories. Why haven't we demoted or even deprecated those 2 sources considering they were actually reporting '''the news''', and not opinion or political analysis? For news & statements of fact, they cannot be trusted after those two major screw-ups. How can we ever trust them again, especially after the past 3 years of them pushing a Russian collusion story - using anonymous sources and unverified material - misleading their readers/audiences - and winning more Pulitizers for getting it wrong? Fox News Channel was one of few who did not promote the Russian collusion story - the talk-shows (political commentary) investigated it and found zero collusion. They got it right and everybody got it wrong. They also got the 2016 election right - but that was analysis/opinion/commentary not news. ] was a ? , and on and on. What the broadcast did was actually news. What Fox did was garnishments - art depictions on their website. Deadlines cause mistakes and that is why we should closely adhere to RECENTISM & NOTNEWS. If we had, this would not be an issue because it was quickly removed. No...Fox News is not anymore unreliable than any of the other news channels. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 21:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Your point is fifty long comments now. Many are the same thing rephrased (like propping up instances of center-left journalists who've been wrong, like it's a 1:1 exchange of "bad Cillizza tweet" to "X claims Hillary killed Seth Rich" articles.) There's no reason be so passive aggressive and smarmy. As the OP mentioned, the vote favors Fox News and my understanding is nothing will change. Your criteria is a blank check that performs terribly as a discriminator function, which is part of why others were criticizing you. Thanks to ] for the janitorial work, it's appreciated. ] (]) 02:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::^^^'''Note to closer: This user has 13 total edits.'''^^^ ] <sub>]</sub> ] 12:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::^^^'''Note to Atsme: I'm new, I know. That's why I chose not to vote and just left a comment instead.'''^^^ Please respond to my content rather than my edit count. We've already established that it's simple to rack that number up on talk pages. ] (]) 01:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good work on the ] argument. This RfC is about Fox News so all you could really do was to prove how other journalistic institutions got it wrong in some instances instead of proving the arguments wrong about how Fox News has diminished in their role as a source of reliable journalism. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">] (] <span style="color:#000">愛</span> ])</span> 09:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|QEDK}}, please explain your comment and to whom you've directed it. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 12:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{re|Atsme}} It's very clearly directed at your ''arguments'' in the wall of text (which is something you already knew given your talk page posting, so let's not be ingenuine here). There's nothing to explain, I recommend you read the wikilinked page and understand what I was saying, if you still don't, the second sentence of my paragraph is simple enough to explain that kind of argument. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">] (] <span style="color:#000">愛</span> ])</span> 12:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am offended by your comment, or that you would even use such a racist analogy. Fox News Channel is currently rated as a generally reliable source - and until proven otherwise, that is how it stands, and from what I'm seeing in the iVotes, it will remain a generally reliable source whether we like it or not. Your insult and use of lynching is unbecomming an administrator. You should be desysopped for making such a comment on this noticeboard. The sentiment that has been displayed here about conservatives and racist comments like yours do not belong here. I advise you to strike your racist comment. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 12:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't think you understand what's racist and what's not, and unfortunately I don't have the time or effort explaining the multitude of levels you're wrong on. I was not the one who came up with this analogy so perhaps you should take it up with Soviet propagandists who did and while you're at it, also understand why I said your argument was fallacious and calling people racist without a) any knowledge of their race or personal life, b) any evidentiary proof that they are racist, is the most offensive aspect about all of this. I'm going to leave this here and you can resume your name-calling if you please. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">] (] <span style="color:#000">愛</span> ])</span> 13:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{U|QEDK}}, I'm not following why you chose to say "{{tq|Good work on the ] argument.}}" "Good work on the ] argument" would have been less inflammatory. You're saying {{U|Atsme}} made a comment referencing racism on this page? I see references to racism in others' comments but I don't see references in Atsme's. Actually it's inflammatory to reference an article about Russian arguments; no need for denegrating Russians. I think this boils down to an "]" argument. ] (]) 15:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Answering because you pinged me, {{re|wbm1058}}, I chose to say it because that was the basis of Atsme's argument. Maybe it would have been less colourful (commenting on arguments is not inflammatory) but it would also have been inaccurate, since Atsme's point was a variation of the ''tu quoque'' fallacy and borderline ]. Similar to how the Soviets used the terminology to deflect criticism of their own wrongs, Atsme is using the wrongs of other journalistic institutions to deflect criticism of Fox News (which very ironically gives platform to racist pundits) {{emdash}} so no, it was not denigrating Russians either (that is how the catchphrase is used). I never said that Atsme made racist comments, I said that they (implicitly) labeled me a racist, {{tq|racist comments like yours...}}, {{tq|...advise you to strike your racist comment...}}, which is again very ironic given my predisposition. I have always tried to comment on the content and not the contributor and in this case, I've also done the same. So to hear that I'm a racist and I made personal attacks, I'm baffled. In any case, Atsme is free to attack me in any way they deem necessary, I don't mind. Good day. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">] (] <span style="color:#000">愛</span> ])</span> 17:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (B and C): | |||
| ===Fox News: reliability in context=== | |||
| * '''A: Geni.com''' | |||
| In the RfC responses above, the ''New York Times'' was invoked several times as something of a 'gold standard' RS. With that in mind, I ask editors to consider a '''comparison''' of ''Fox News'' with the following: | |||
| * '''B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley''' | |||
| * | |||
| * '''C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav''' | |||
| * The NYT printed a and has not corrected it after 10 months. Per {{u|Newslinger}} "Following up on my correction submission to The New York Times, I have not yet received a response from the NYT, and "" has not yet been amended". The claim serves to exonerate Clinton from ties to Epstein's island, and in so doing, smears victim Virginia Giuffre as a liar. (And since the recent Netflix special, Giuffre is .) | |||
| :Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles. | |||
| * The NYT printed an inaccurate statement from Joseph Backholm, one of Tara Reade's corroborators, and did not respond to a request for correction. So, if Backholm is interviewed again he can potentially be discredited for having changed his story. The ''Times'' (May 31) has: {{tq|Joseph Backholm, who said she had told him about an assault by an unnamed senator when they were students together}}. However, "Backholm says that Times inaccurately reported details he told them ("She didn’t provide any details and didn’t say it was a senator") Backholm texted back to Lerer.". In a tweet dated May 26, Backholm stated {{tq|she told me that while working in DC she had been sexually assaulted by "someone you would know."}} | |||
| :They should be: | |||
| * The NYT stealth edited their investigative piece on the Tara Reade allegation against Joe Biden ''on behalf of the Biden campaign'', removing a caveat from their summary. According to ''Fox News'', {{tq|The Times originally reported: "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.}} The final sentence was removed because the Biden camp "thought the phrasing was awkward", per Ben Smith. | |||
| * '''Option 1: listed as ]''' (change nothing to A; add B and C at ] as such) | |||
| : | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' (list them as such at ]) | |||
| I have yet to see anything comparable to these examples from ''Fox News''. What am I missing? <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8">]]]</b> 22:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2) | |||
| ::]? --] (]) 23:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::From what I've observed, editors are saying that ''Fox'' corrects their mistakes. Is this not true? | |||
| :::In your list, nothing even remotely compares with ].<b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8">]]]</b> 23:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Petrarchan, your emphasis on the WMD and the New York Times seems besides the point. The vast majority of US news outlets, including Fox News, posted uncritical WMD coverage both before and after the invasion of Iraq. What sets the Times apart is that it issued a retraction, not the error itself which was also made by most of its peers. ] (]) 23:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't agree that I emphasized it, in fact I personally find most egregious the ''Times'' lack of response to requests for correction, and the fact that they took editorial advice from the subject of a sexual assault 'investigation'. Imagine of we found out ''Fox News'' looked into one of the rape allegations against Donald Trump, and that after 19 days of diligent work, concluded that he had a pattern of behaviour worth noting... but then received a call from his office stating that he didn't like the way it sounded, so ''Fox'' edited their report exactly as Trump requested. Now imagine that they did this without alerting readers. This is exactly what NYT has done, and I am still waiting for a similar example regarding ''Fox''. <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8">]]]</b> 19:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Petrarchan47}}, they have a correction system in place, but it's used woefully inadequately (see e.g. ) <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>]</sup> 16:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Sdkb, thank you for this. "Inadequate" is actually a step up from what I've personally witnessed from the NYT, which is "non-existent". <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8">]]]</b> 19:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Read ] and drop this. This RfC is about Fox News, not the NYT. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>]</sup> 16:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, take it to the many folks who've previously invoked the NYT in the RfC above. As I stated, The NYT is being touted unquestioningly as somewhat of a 'gold standard' RS. One good way to gauge the RfC questions is by determining what exactly editors find to be a shining example of good practices, and then compare (in this case) ''Fox News'' to it. The NYT comparison is highly relevant. One might even ask, why is this RfC focused on ''Fox'' when we have worse, or comparable, behaviour from all similar news sources including the gold standard. <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8">]]]</b> 19:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| === Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu) === | |||
| ===Clarification requested (Fox News)=== | |||
| * A: See "Geni.com" at ]. | |||
| This has been raised in passing above, but not clearly answered - what is the scope of this RFC? When we say “Fox News”, what are we referring to? Does it include the news programming of local Fox affiliates (such as WNEW in New York City)? Does it include the Fox Business cable channel (FBN)? What about Fox’s talk radio broadcasting? Or is the RFC limited to just the main cable news station and its associated website? ] (]) 15:25, 16 June 2020 (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. | |||
| :Local affiliates have separately operated newsrooms, so they're not under this discussion. This is about whether or not the cable news channel's news operations have let their bias undermine the reliability of their news coverage. (I say yes.) ] (]) 15:43, 16 June 2020 (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) | |||
| ::Problem is... it isn’t as clear cut as that. The cable channel will often go to local affiliates for coverage of news events, since the locals have camera crews and reporters on scene. So would that reporting be ok or not? It’s on both local AND cable. ] (]) 18:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Ping|Blueboar}} My main focus when calling the RfC was the parts of the Fox News operation that are citable on Misplaced Pages, i.e. primarily the website and the main cable channel. I added the affiliate question as a response to quieries, but as Newslinger pointed out above, affiliate stations generally are considered to have a separate reliability to the main news operation, and so I don't consider the RfC a vertict on the reliability of affiliate stations. ] (]) 15:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| === Preliminaries === | |||
| I also wish to address here why I opened the RfC in the first place. Ultimately including option 4 was not because I was intent on depreciating Fox News, but that the language I chose was a standard boilerplate that has been used in other RfCs. Generally reliable, unclear / additional considerations apply and generally unreliable is a useful standard for RfC, and provides some nuance in the discussion. It is far better than "should Fox News be depreciated" that had previously been proposed. There is overwhelming concensus in the RfC that Fox News shouldn't be depreciated, which I agree with. I should note that I generally don't edit the American politics area at all (check my edit history), and this wasn't an attempt to attack Fox News, I would be happy to see it retain its generally reliable status. The RfC is about arguments not simply a straight vote, so when the RfC is closed it will be decided based on the strength of arguments, so if the arguments against Fox News are bad (which I agree that some arguments in this RfC against Fox News are), then they will simply be discounted by the panel of closers. I think that this article in the Columbia Journalism Review "" in probably the most relevant piece to this RfC. It discusses many issues that have come up in this discussion, including the lack of research on the reporting of Fox News itself as opposed to the pundits. Calling this RfC has been a huge learning experience for me, and maybe doing some kind of pre-RfC that was done for Quackwatch would've been better in hindsight. Thanks for your understanding. ] (]) 15:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Probably need to add the website to the list of unreliable sources. It also uses Misplaced Pages articles which would be ]. --] 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Request''' please could someone list the different 'parts' of Fox News, this would be helpful in differentiating different comments. ] (]) 14:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a ]. But it could be a good follow-up. ] (]) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|John Cummings}}, I see it as: | |||
| :::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) | |||
| *:* Fox News; | |||
| ::::PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. ] (]) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:* Fox News Channel (FNC), the opinion broadcaster which accounts for most of what people think of as "Fox News" (Hannity etc); | |||
| Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. ] (]) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:* Fox local affiliates | |||
| *:Others may have different definitions. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 14:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::I see no evidance that "fox news" is a separate entity from ].] (]) 14:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would break it down with; | |||
| ::#FNC (the main cable news channel) | |||
| ::#FBN (Fox Business Network - business news and commentary) | |||
| ::#Local affiliates (each with a news division) | |||
| ::#foxnews.com | |||
| ::These are all interconnected... for example: when a story is breaking, FNC may use local affiliate film crews and reporters to cover it (as they are on scene). That coverage may then get a synopsis posted to foxnews.com. Usually, it is the synopsis on foxnews.com that gets cited on Misplaced Pages, and not the broadcasted footage. ] (]) 15:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC?  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === References (Fox News) === | |||
| ::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) | |||
| Collapsed because these are references primarily to political pundits, like Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel, not '''Fox News'''. reads ''Fox News Was Duped by a Seth Rich Conspiracy Pushed by Russian Intelligence''. Fox News retracted the story from their news section but pundit Hannity continued. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 18:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Read Background: B. ] (]) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :What's the point of viewing Fox News in isolation? They are the ones who provide the platform to people like Sean Hannity and hence they should be treated as the same entity, or atleast related. "Not '''Fox News'''" is an incorrect conclusion. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">] (] <span style="color:#000">愛</span> ])</span> 16:36, 14 June 2020 (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) | |||
| ::Well, probably because this RfC is about Fox News which is separate from the Fox News Channel's talk-show commentary: {{xt|Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of Fox News? (as separate from their cable pundits) foxnews.com}}. It appears this RfC may have wasted a significant amount of our valuable time arguing with those editors who conflated the two and did not distinguish between factual newscasts by Fox News anchors and the channel's political talk-shows. I was concerned about that issue from the very beginning, and mentioned it to {{u|Newslinger}}. I'm afraid you may have just validated the reason for my concern. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 20:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::It was a drawn implication, hence I clarified my vote in each aspect of reliability, my point is simply to correct the notion of Fox News and pundits being separate entities when they function in conjunction. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">] (] <span style="color:#000">愛</span> ])</span> 20:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Atsme}} How are they separate? What other news organizations are only reliable at certain times of day? Do we have to specifically disbar "pundits" (regular employees, not mere guests) with other news outlets? Where do we disqualify such content under the BBC's head? ] (]) 22:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hi, {{u|GPinkerton}} - please see my sidebar note which follows my iVote in the RfC iVoting segment above. The scope of this RfC is strictly the newscasts, not the talk show entertainment on the Fox News Channel - two entirely different things. Think of it as you would an ABC broadcast on channel 8A which includes daytime & primetime talk shows, movies, series, and then there is "the news". Also, a few questions were added below the original RfC , and should not be considered part of the actual RfC. I do hope editors have not been confused by it. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 23:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Also... (not Atsme’s point, but worth noting)... there is an analogy to print journalism, where we draw a distinction between the “op-Ed” (opinion) pages and other (news) sections of the paper. We can equate stuff like Hannity’s show to the op-Ed page. ] (]) 21:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Just to clarify, the {{tl|sources-talk}} template above captures citations in everyone's comments from this RfC, including comments posted after the ones above. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 10:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * Uncollapsed and moved to bottom (again). --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">] (] <span style="color:#000">愛</span> ])</span> 16:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Reflist-talk}} | |||
| == |
=== Survey A: Geni.com === | ||
| :'''Deprecate'''. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. ] (]) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''.<strike>'''Question'''. Isn't it already deprecated?</strike>--] (]) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate''' A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : '''Unsure'''. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) ] (]) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley === | |||
| Over at ] a user has challenged thediplomat.com as "a bucket full of the American propaganda bullshit" ] so is this ] an RS for "A deleted tweet by the Donetsk People’s Republic showed a BUK-M1 system in the group’s possession".?] (]) 12:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate''', per background discussion. ] (]) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Reliable''' ] is a reputable current affairs magazine. The user is banned from the article in question for disruptive editing. The deleted tweet has been covered in other outlets, see. . ] (]) 13:18, 8 June 2020 (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) | |||
| :: {{re|Hemiauchenia}} and why quotation marks are used by ] if it is an official twitter account of the Donetsk People's Republic?? (: | |||
| :'''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) | |||
| ::<blockquote>On Thursday a Twitter account for the '''"Donetsk People's Republic"''' issued several posts claiming to have seized a missile system from the Ukrainian army.</blockquote> | |||
| ::{{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) | |||
| :: The official Twitter account has a special mark. And I don't see one. So everyone could create this account, right? That is why I would like to see a proof of the ownership but not these propagandist publications on the media and a picture of the "seized Buk launcher on 29 June 2014" which was posted in 2011 . --] (]) 15:41, 8 June 2020 (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. | |||
| Worth noting that The Diplomat has come up before, see ] ] (]) 15:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :{{re|Hemiauchenia}} Well, let's just consider this publication of the Diplomat to lack reliability? --] (]) 16:01, 8 June 2020 (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) | |||
| *'''Reliable''' Seems to meet our usual standards, remember bias is not a criteria (assuming they are). Nor am I seeing any evidence they are not reliable.] (]) 16:04, 8 June 2020 (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 === | |||
| *'''Reliable''', they also walk pretty far from the traditional line of "American propaganda bullshit” if thats the concern, I have found them to be one of the most if not the most even handed english language publication covering the indo-pacific. Ownership is Japanese and the majority of staff is non-American. Just a note that anything from the section “The Debate” is either comment or opinion and should be treated thusly although that should be pretty obvious. There are three internal degrees of quality but given that all are over Misplaced Pages’s bar for reliability I don’t think there is much to be gained from delving into that as it isn’t relevant to the problem at hand. ] (]) 16:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. ] (]) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also the author of that piece, Ankit Panda, is one of the most respected security analysts of his generation (pretty much everyone has published him) as well as an editor at The Diplomat. I don’t think there is a legitimate objection being made here. ] (]) 16:24, 8 June 2020 (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) | |||
| * '''Reliable''', but the editor has been topic banned anyway. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 23:38, 8 June 2020 (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) | |||
| *'''Probably reliable''' however as I noted on the talk page, I don't think we should be using that particular article if possible. It seems to be a late breaking news piece since it notes it may be updated. I assume that is no longer the case, however such pieces should always be used with care since the level of fact checking can be more limited. And there is a particular issue with this piece which raises concern. It mentions a tweet and links to a screenshot of that tweet on Twitter. There is no doubt that the tweet is real, and the screenshot very likely is as well. However there's strong indications the screenshot is a machine translation of the original tweet in Russian. While machine translations have their uses, they need to be used with care. It's unclear why the article linked to a machine translation of the tweet and yet gave no indication that it was a machine translation (and nor does the tweet they linked to). Does this mean the source relied exclusively machine translation? Did they even know it was a machine translation? Given they didn't mention the machine translation issue at all, we don't know. While it may be acceptable for a source to rely on a machine translation, it seems quite questionable for a source to rely solely on a machine translation and not mention that is what they were going by. IMO this is likely a good example where we need to remember that just because a source is generally reliable, doesn't mean it always is. If there is ample evidence for problems with a particular article, we have to carefully consider whether we should use it or instead rely on other sources for which don't have that problem. It's not clear to me there's anything that the source claims which isn't backed up by other sources, so there is probably no reason to use that particular article. ] (]) 14:53, 9 June 2020 (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) | |||
| ::Shouldn’t we “if possible” always be looking to upgrade dated journalistic sources to more current academic ones? Like you said I can’t imagine its too hard to find this piece of information in the ocean of scholarly work published about the incident in the last six years. ] (]) 14:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''Reliable for what it is reliable for''' - The diplomat carries both opinion and analytical pieces, it has an editorial team, its opinion pieces should be treated as opinion, its analysis (assuming it comes from an expert) should be treated as expert analysis. ] (]) 09:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :'''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) | |||
| * '''Reliable but also includes opinion/analysis that may need to be attributed in some cases'''. {{u|FOARP}} is correct that the site carries a lot of opinion/analytical pieces and those should be treated accordingly. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". ] (]) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Reliable''' The Diplomat is generally considered a reliable source along with Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs. In the case of opinions and analysis, the text needs to be modified accordingly. ''According to...'' etc. --] (]) 20:19, 18 June 2020 (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)=== | |||
| == HIV & AIDS In Africa == | |||
| {{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} my apologies also. To be clear, I respect your concern, and I think I understand it. I think we've conveyed our concerns, and laid out some pros and cons, and background principles. I'm not stressed about that. I think its a point of getting the balance right. In practical reality the three sources should not normally be used, and I see no big disagreements. I just think the difference between the two categories offered is (or should be) meaningful, and I wanted to make that clear. I am not really disagreeing with any other specific point.--] (]) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Although I disagree I can understand you position. It's to easy to get stuck in disagreement spirals are part of RFCs. Let's see if anyone else brings any new ideas. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| At ], {{u|WhatamIdoing}} suggested four books that he thought were relevant and helpful. One was {{Cite book|last=Jacquineau|first=Azetsop|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hl3ADAAAQBAJ&newbks=0|title=HIV & AIDS In Africa: Christian Reflection, Public Health, Social Transformation|date=2016-09-15|publisher=]|isbn=978-1-60833-671-5}}. {{u|AlmostFrancis}} disputes its reliability because ] is "unabashedly religious and Marxist," and because several of the chapters are written by Catholic priests. He has removed , including secondary citations to pre-existing content. In general, is this book reliable for this article? Are chapters written by expert priests reliable? Thank you. --] (]) 13:43, 8 June 2020 (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) | |||
| :I can see ] issues with this, and it can be argued to not exactly be third party.] (]) 13:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Slatersteven}}, Could you elaborate on the undue issue, please? -- ] (]) 13:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I said its not exactly third party, thus one can argue it represents a very narrow and biased viewpoint. One can go as far as to say self serving and promotional.] (]) 13:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Or not. I assume you haven't read it? One of the sentences blanked from the article is this: {{xt|In early days of AIDS, discriminatory views of political leaders were supported by religious leaders, including Catholic clergy, hampering the response and worsening the pandemic in some parts of Africa.}} That's cited to the director of the African Jesuit Historical Institute, who has a PhD in African political history from Oxford. I would not consider that a self-serving statement, and I bet nobody else would, either. | |||
| ::::Given that this article is "Named organization and subject", it would be ] to omit everything published by anyone related to that organization, but that is a subject for a different noticeboard. The question for RSN is whether this source is reliable enough to support this statement. What do you think? ] (]) 15:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Self serving and "serving that version of my organisation" are not the same thing. It promotes a specific opinion, one that may not be independent of the publishers agenda, hence why I said this is more a case of undue.] (]) 15:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The same claim could be made with greater justice of basically any newspaper. I assume that you don't think that major newspapers regularly publish things that their publishers disagree with? Hearst would be rolling in his grave. ] has nothing to do with whether publishers choose to publish authors whose views are congenial to their own. ] (]) 16:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No, but it does if those views are only represented by that one source (it is after all what it means, an undue opinion). Yes (by the way) I would and have said that if an opinion only appears in one newspaper then it might well be undue to mention it).] (]) 19:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Before we get to in the weeds on that quote, which is why this should all be on the talk page, it was also going to be a two sentence section where the second one was promotional. The bigger issue was that the page cited doesn't seem to be in the source, page 522 out of 424.] (]) 20:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Thats ], not RS. But its a valid point.] (]) 20:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Hey, I didn't bring it here :) ] (]) 21:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{u|AlmostFrancis}}, I cited "location" 522, not "page" 522, because I cited the of the book. I also said I'm to cite a Kindle, so if you have some advice I would be obliged. -- ] (]) 20:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: Add a bookmark on the kindle which you can then view the page number. Alternatively you can search for the quote you are using on the google books page, which will return the page number, though you may not be able to view the page itself. I recommend the search because no one wants to be forced to use the kindle.] (]) 21:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{u|Slatersteven}}, The source was also used as a secondary source to further support existing content. While admittedly I only skimmed the chapters that didn't seem directly relevant, and while I haven't worked my way through the entire book yet, I haven't seen anything that looked like a fringe position. -- ] (]) 20:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I would still consider it possibly undue,. It doers not have to be fringe. If there are other sources just use those. My concearn would be this on its own.] (]) 20:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Slatersteven}}, I agree. Exactly the kind of source we should steer clear of in a controversial area like this. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 23:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Not sure what RS has to do with this as it is mostly a Due Weight issue. It is a weak source for two reasons. One the publisher follows ] and is an imprint of a ] which has a ] focus. The Chapters added so far were not written by experts but by Catholic priests, Jesuits I believe. I am not sure where the "expert" part came for the priests, though?] (]) 15:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Probably when they get PhDs from Oxford, is my guess. ] (]) 15:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: Being a priest or a Jesuit does not preclude being an expert... I agree that this is more a due weight issue though. ] (]) 16:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's what I get for trying to be brief. One priest was a director of a what looks like a Jesuit archival institute, which does produce a journal, who does not seem to produce much if any scholarship. Unless everyone with a DPhil is an expert then he would not be. The other priest "taught" at a number of schools but mostly just seems to contribute to various church magazines, though again he does have a Ph.D. Too be fair some of the other priests in the book do publish, seem to have actual academic jobs, and might fit under expert. But this should be decided on a DUE basis at the actual talk page. For all I know I just missed where these two priests have shown expertise. ] (]) 17:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::]'s only definition of ''expert'' is anyone "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". The PhDs are optional under our rules. Mkenda certainly qualifies, as ] (as in, "the largest global academic publisher within humanities and social sciences") tapped him to write a chapter in {{ISBN|9781134505777}}. | |||
| ::::Your edit summary, when you blanked this, said that you thought the source was ], not that you thought it was UNDUE. UNDUE would mean that you thought there was too much in the article from priests writing that their organizations were discriminating against PWA. If you're no longer concerned that the source is unreliable for the stated claim, and you don't believe that there is too much criticism about discrimination against PWA, then maybe you'd like to go restore that sentence and its citation. ] (]) 18:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It is dishonest to say that I said it was ] when I in no way tied myself to that wikilink. Unless you are arguing that "questionable" doesn't have a understood English meaning, I ask you too strike your comment and not misquote me again. The rest of your comment is a strawman argument and belongs on the talk page anyway.] (]) 19:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You have made more than 500 edits at this point. If you use jargon, we're going to assume that you're doing it on purpose. ] (]) 15:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Dishonesty is its own punishment. Everyone can look at the diffs if they want and see that you did not accurately portray what I wrote. So I guess you are arguing that questionable does not have English meaning and can only be understood as jargon.] (]) 04:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|AlmostFrancis}}, You said ", which is why I brought it here. You didn't say anything about due weight. -- ] (]) 20:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment''' Oxford University does not award PhDs and never has. Anyone claiming to {{tq|"get PhDs from Oxford"}} should be treated with the utmost derision. I also agree that any self-published book by a POV source connected with the book's and the article's subject should not be considered reliable, nor consideration of it due. Having purportedly got a (probably theological) doctorate does not make a priest an impartial expert on the failings of the church to which he belongs. ] (]) 05:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :The difference between a PhD and a DPhil is purely semantic --] | ] 16:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with Guerillero. The "DPhil" is in history, not theology. And Misplaced Pages does not require sources to be impartial; see ]. Excluding everything written by historians who also happen to be Catholic priests is its own kind of ] (and surely we'd rather use a book written by an African historian–priest than a newsletter written by a journalist for a local diocese?). ] (]) 15:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Guerillero}}, Though Dr. Phil not so much... ''']''' <small>(])</small> 15:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :The DPhil was for history. Thesis was on the effects of state policy in Tanzania on the Chaggas(sp?) people. Of course it was from the Jesuit private hall :) , still oxford is oxford so pretty sure we can trust them ] (]) 04:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == ettoday.net == | |||
| == Franklin Open == | |||
| * {{duses|ettoday.net}} | |||
| This site was linked in a couple of articles as Epoch Times, but it's not an Epoch Times domain (maybe it was syndicated). Looking at the site through Google Translate, it appears to be the Higashimori New Media Holding Co., Ltd - new media being in my experience largely a synonym for ad-riddled clickbait, which certainly looks to be the case here. | |||
| 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 — I searched and couldn't find it.) --] (]) 22:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Is it just designed for a completely different audience, or is it as crappy as it looks? ''']''' <small>(])</small> 08:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :It's published by Elsevier on behalf of the Franklin Institute. So not self-published.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 04:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * From a quick look, the site seems not to be affiliated with Epoch Times, even if the names are similar. The articles on ETtoday are still not very reliable though, most are poorly sourced and have clickbait headlines like . The political reporting on ETtoday is not nearly as partisan as what I would expect from Epoch Times, which is somewhat good I suppose. For their political stories, ETtoday mostly focuses on politics in Taiwan, with fewer conspiracy theories and self-supporting "exposés" than Epoch Times has. | |||
| ::But the question is, is the stuff peer-reviewed in any meaningful sense? --] (]) 05:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| (I suppose there is a chance that the site could be a minor Epoch Times offshoot, and if proof could be found supporting that, I would be glad to change my assessment) ] ] 12:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Like any other Elsevier/Franklin Institute journals. Reliable in its area of expertise, which is mostly engineering and applied mathematics.  <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?  <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 == | |||
| :* Just wanted to point out that Higashimori is a Japanese word and the news title translation is horribly wrong. Goes on to say how we shouldn't rely on Google Translate too much. ] <small>(])</small> 17:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Generally reliable'''. ETToday is a subsidiary of the ] (]), one of the largest cable television networks in Taiwan. It is a "well-established news outlet" per ]. It is in no way affiliated with the Epoch Times. If some articles link it as "Epoch Times", these citations should be edited to fix the mistake. ] | freedom isn't free 02:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC) Addendum: "new media" (Chinese: 新媒體) in the Chinese-language context commonly refers simply to online-focused news media rather than newspapers or TV. It suggests nothing about the quality of articles. ] | freedom isn't free 17:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Feminist}}, thanks, very helpful. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 15:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Generally reliable'''. The situation is more complicated than it initially looks, although I don't think it affects reliability. ETToday was indeed owned and operated by the {{ill|Eastern Broadcasting Company|zh|東森電視|display=y}}, but according to '''' (2016) published by ] and edited by ], the Eastern Broadcasting Company's ETToday had been renamed to {{ill|NOWnews|zh|NOWnews今日新聞|display=y}} and was sold to {{ill|Chunghwa Telecom|zh|中華電信|display=y}}'s parent company in 2008. NOWnews appears to be located at . The {{ill|ETtoday|zh|ETtoday新聞雲|display=y}} (with a lowercase second "t") that is currently located at was established in 2011 (according to Chinese Misplaced Pages) by a subsidiary of {{ill|Eastern Media International|zh|東森國際|display=1}}, a conglomerate that partially owns the Eastern Broadcasting Company. From this, it looks like Eastern Media International and its related companies sold the original ETToday, but retained the trademark to use for the new ETtoday. Unless someone provides evidence against ETtoday's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, it should be considered generally reliable under the ]. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 01:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)</p> | |||
| 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. | |||
| == RfC: The Red Pill Movie == | |||
| {{Not a ballot}} | |||
| {{RSN RfC status|1592525997}}<!-- ] 00:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC) --> | |||
| {{rfc|soc|rfcid=85A80C9}} | |||
| Is '']'' (2016), directed by ], a ] for subjects related to the ] or the ]? — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 00:19, 12 June 2020 (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) | |||
| There's a discussion going on about this film, ] at the ] article. I think the film is one sided, dishonest and ]. Having shared my opinion of the film, I'd like to know what other editors think, is this a reliable source for the ] or ] articles? Official site here: Reviews here: Cheers ] (]) 23:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Absolutely not except for attributed opinion of people who are filmed. We should avoid citing films anyway as they are difficult to verify. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 00:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not reliable''' per my comments at the manosphere talk page. To repeat them here, the film been criticized for lack of accuracy: {{tq|From the outset, Jaye’s film is tilted in favor of the MRAs she interviews and lacks a coherent argument, not due to her own internal conflict but because the film is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevant terms, including “rights,” “patriarchy” and “feminism.”}} (), and there is no indication it meets requirements at ] that it be {{tq|recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party}}. ] <small>]</small> 00:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:Well I don't think that's a fair counter argument to say the doc 'misunderstand the terms'...it presents a challenge to the meaning of those terms, yes, but a debate cant really be dismissed as misunderstanding if the arguments are coherent enough. I'd say enough factual basis supports the doc to say it has merit <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)</small><small>— '''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that ] (] • ]) has been ] to this discussion. ()</small> | |||
| *::I am simply presenting one (of quite a few) sources that have taken issue with the accuracy of the film; it is not my criticism. ] <small>]</small> 02:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Thae LA Times article is a film review not an academic critique. Moreover the author doesn't seem to understand the issues from a factual view. In any case if it's a contest about what sources are reliable we certainly cannot rely on this opinion piece. ] (]) 07:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC) <small>— '''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that ] (] • ]) has been ] to this discussion. </small> | |||
| *::::I've presented it as just one example of many criticisms of this film's lack of factual accuracy (others found at ] or a quick Google search). However I'm not sure I understand your objection—the film is certainly not an academic work, so why may only academic sources criticize it? ] <small>]</small> 16:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not reliable''' I'm familiar with the documentary mostly due to the author's TED talk. I suspect there is a lot of good information in it. However, I think it counts as basically self published. As such it can't be treated as a RS. A third party RS can reference it if it makes an important point and that would possibly make it DUE for inclusion but by itself, not a RS. ] (]) 00:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''reliable''' The film interviews multiple feminists and doesn't treat them any differently to the MRAs, so it's hard to say it's biased. If anything, she started off being very biased against the MRAs by her own admission. We should not trust sources attacking the film for biased reasons. For example, The LA Times is known to be a very feminist outlet - so of course it would object to feminism being criticised. The point of the film is to actually investigate the movement - something very few people seem to do. If we are going to discard the film, then we also need to discard all other opinion pieces about the movement. ] (]) 14:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:Can you expand on how the film actually meets the policy requirements at ]? ] <small>]</small> 15:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:: Certainly. The film is published by a reputable mass-media cohttps://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&action=edit§ion=42mpany known as Gravitas Ventures, which is a part of Red Arrow Studios. It has also been vouched for by The , and Heat Street; the latter of which wrote an interesting piece on the reaction to the film. It may challenge the ideology of some commentators, but it is a valid and valuable source regarding what MRAs believe; it should be treated as a character study on the movement, at the very least. Especially since we now know that several of its most famous detractors didn't actually watch it before attacking it. ] (]) 16:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We have no evidence that documentaries from Gravitas should be regarded as ]. This film appears to be more entertainment than journalism, and certainly not scholarly in any way. --] | ] 16:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Reliable sources on these men's movements seem sparse, if I'm honest. Major news outlets seem to conflate the names of entirely different groups - as if they were basically factions of the same thing, or all in it together. As far as sources go, this is actually the most accurate one I've ever seen outside of that article I linked above. ] (]) 18:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Agreed with Orangemike on the lack of support for Gravitas being a publisher that make its documentaries RSes. As for the sparsity of sourcing that you're claiming, that's absolutely not the case. ''eight'' separate, peer-reviewed papers that are currently in use at the ] article, and that's not even counting the book sources. I added most of those myself, and I only have access to two academic databases; there are far more out there that others who have broader access could add. We absolutely do not need to resort to poor quality documentaries due to lack of other quality sourcing; there is plenty. You have claimed that this is "actually the most accurate you've seen", which seems to mean it fits your own opinions on the MRM, not that it in any way meets the requirements of ]. You have also just one of the academic sources as "biased" because it does not match your own definition of the MRM, despite it being a peer-reviewed paper by a professor of sociology. I'm not sure you are in a good position to be determining the reliability of sources in this topic area at all. ] <small>]</small> 19:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: GorillaWarfare, of your eight peer-reviewed papers only two are relevant and the only one I was able to read featured multiple misconceptions and ideological statements about men's rights groups and what they want. This should not be surprising as these are Gender Studies journals you linked to - which are absolutely notorious for the poor quality of their work. The whole field has been disenfranchised in at least one country because of it. ] to get prominent Gender Studies journals to print Mein Kamph by changing 'Jews' to 'men' and 'Aryans' to 'women'. ] (]) 22:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You wrote on the manosphere talk page that "Only two of those even mention the men's rights movement", which I assume is what you're referring to here when you mention only two of the journals being relevant. I'll copy what I said there: Well, this article is about the manosphere, not just the men's rights movement. Some of these sources focus on the MRM, some on other manosphere groups, and some on the manosphere as a whole. I'm not sure where your claim that only two of these sources mention the MRM is coming from, unless you're only reading the titles—I'm pretty sure that every single one of these papers discusses the MRM in some capacity. | |||
| ::::::::If you really want to start a discussion that gender studies journals are wholly unreliable, you can start another discussion here at ]; I look forward to replying there to that absurd claim. Otherwise we will continue to follow ]. I will note that the journal you're referring to with your mention of the ] is not among the academic sources used in this article. ] <small>]</small> 22:58, 10 June 2020 (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. | |||
| *'''Comment''' Could you please list what information that is being considered for inclusion if this is accepted as an RS in this situation? ] (]) 19:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :If I've misunderstood your question, can you give us some examples of the tweets and how they would be used? ] (]) 01:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] one of their post is here , they recognized the awards for the Best Inspirational Secular Song at the 46th Catholic Mass Media Awards, and this is only the piece of sources i searched. ] ] 02:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Too vague for me to give a good opinion. ] (]) 23:58, 10 June 2020 (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) | |||
| * I think the film is fine for attributed opinions and views of the films subjects, per ] and ], as long as those claims are not contentious. As far as I can see from the talkpage, the usage seems to be hypothetical. Can specific examples of sentences of where you would like to use the source be given? ] (]) 22:42, 10 June 2020 (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. | |||
| *:As ] has said above, I believe they wish to reframe the entire article and the definitions of the "manosphere", "men's rights movement", etc. based on that documentary (which would contravene every other source in the article). This is what they did in their first edit to the page: . As of yet TiggyTheTerrible has not been able to find a reliable source supporting their point of view, and so is trying to get this documentary accepted as a reliable source to rebut the much higher-quality sources used in the article's current form. ] <small>]</small> 23:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| *::Not in Wikivoice, no. ] (]) 00:24, 11 June 2020 (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. | |||
| *::(Conversation about the scholarly sources moved to ]. ] <small>]</small> 01:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)) | |||
| :::::{{tq|The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim}} | |||
| *'''Reliable''' Personally I think the documentary is rather surprisingly well done; it DID make me see the men's rights sphere in a different light- I still do think there are many flaws to be said, but I think the arguments were decent enough and well enough sourced. I watched it about a year ago, I remember jumping on google (lol and wiki) to fact check some of the things presented, and was surprised to see how much was true. I don't think it's all that one sided, nor dishonest. As for 'begging the question, I wouldn't agree...it used a lot of statistics and references to laws/government programs...one might disagree with the interpretation, but that's hardly assuming the truth of the conclusion. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)</small><small>— '''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that ] (] • ]) has been ] to this discussion. ()</small> | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| *'''Attribute, do not use as proposed'''. It is certainly not more reliable than scholarly sources, and should 100% not be used for what ] is proposing, but it’s not plain wrong to the degree that it can not be used at all. ] (]) 04:37, 11 June 2020 (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? == | |||
| *'''Reliable''' I don't understand why this is even up for debate? The documentary may present points of view that you and I may disagree with but it does not misrepresent anything. We may also both disagree with many Trans-Exclusive Radfems but we won't say that their documentaries are "unreliable" for citation in articles about Radical Feminism. ] <small>]</small> 04:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC) <small>— '''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that ] (] • ]) has been ] to this discussion. ()</small> | |||
| 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. | |||
| *'''Comment''' Is there ] happening here? It's pretty odd for an IP with no other edits (]) and an editor who's not edited in a year (and only edited six times in the past ''decade'') and never previously commented at RSN or at ] (]) to suddenly show up here and argue that the documentary is a reliable source. ] <small>]</small> 15:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:Update: just found that a canvassing request was posted on Reddit: ] <small>]</small> 15:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:: I've upgraded this discussion to an RfC to request opinions from a broader section of the community. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 00:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| *'''Not reliable except for quotes''': It's a documentary that interviews many people relevant to the topic, and so it's reliable as a source for the views of the people in it. However, it's also a documentary by one person who we have no reason to expect any particular editorial rigor from. She directed it, she's the presenter, she appears to own the production company, and it was funded on Kickstarter so she doesn't even really have any pressure to fact-check it from funders. Regardless of any slant, that alone makes it not a reliable source: it's about as reliable as any YouTube video. ] (]) 03:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| *'''Not reliable''' except for quotes, as above. This is basically a self published source - 'Gravitas Ventures' is a film distributor, not a publisher, and would not have filled any kind of fact checking or editing role. - ] (]) 12:24, 12 June 2020 (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. ] (]) 17:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Per the ], mainstream news organizations are assumed to be ] absent evidence to the contrary. As , ] is a mainstream news organization. Despite tending to than '']'' and '']'', I have not found any patterns of concern that would warrant considering Infobae less than generally reliable. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 17:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Far Out Magazine == | |||
| *'''Not reliable''' - The existence of the film is significant, barely, but this isn't the same thing as being reliable. Anything the movie says which is important, quote or not, can be better supported by more reliable sources. ] (]) 01:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Would ] be considered a reliable source for music and the arts? ] (]) 23:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not reliable''' - laughably unreliable, I wouldn't even use it for statements about its own content unless that particular content was noteworthy by inclusion in an RS, in which case use that. As{{u|LokiTheLiar}} says, this is on the level of a self-published YouTube video with production values - ] (]) 16:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not reliable''' as a self-published source by someone who is not recognized as a subject-matter expert. Quotes from the film can be usable as opinion if covered by a third-party RS – basically per Springee. (Ironically, watching the film pushed me more towards feminism than vice versa, but that's beside the point.) ] | freedom isn't free 17:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not reliable''' of course not, there are much better available sources including scholarly ones. If an independent source considered more reliable mentions it in a particular context, it could be used to mention it. —]] – 07:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not reliable''' - can use more reliable sources that talk about the film to the extent including mention of the film makes sense. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 14:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Not reliable''' seems about right here. Quite aside from issues of accuracy, there is an inherent tension between narrative pace and factual nuance. I hope we don't cite Michael Moore films either. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 15:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Only RSN-comment I could find on it here: ]. I can't find an "about"-page. Currently it's used on WP quite a bit, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be. ] (]) 08:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Use of extended quotation solely from Daily Mail on Death of Keith Blakelock == | |||
| :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) | |||
| {{la|Death of Keith Blakelock}} | |||
| == Are the sources in these articles primary or secondary? == | |||
| Please see ] for discussion of deleting or keeping an extended quotation sourced solely to the DM, including a claim that noting the DM's habit of fabricating quotes is {{tq|a serious BLP violation}}, {{tq|It's a BLP violation because you're alleging of the reporter with the byline that he makes things up.}} - so, more eyes would be welcomed - ] (]) 12:15, 11 June 2020 (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) | |||
| The discussion there has become a relitigation of ], to the point of pinging the RFC closers to this end. As such, I've moved the discussion here from there, pasted in below - ] (]) 11:13, 12 June 2020 (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". ] (]) 10:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **Newspapers are interesting to discuss because their classification evolves with time. Historians usually classify recent newspaper reports as being secondary, but ''old'' reports are classified as primary (this is because the sources used by the newspaper have been lost, and so the newspaper becomes the earliest available record of the events… with more modern sources based on that old newspaper). ] (]) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Reliability isn't the issue here. It is if the sources are primary or secondary. Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, and Berkeley considers contemporary newspaper articles as primary sources: ] (]) 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == AdWeek == | |||
| :*This is, of course, not the board to discuss BLP violations - that's ]. If this claim of a serious BLP violation is in fact a serious claim, and not just a spurious justification thrown into an argument in support of keeping the Daily Mail, I am sure it will be brought to BLPN properly. Else withdrawn - ] (]) 11:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * I think that the quote is overly long anyway, and I don't think its removal seriously detracts from the article. The question is whether the quote is ]. Usage of the Daily Mail was "generally prohibited" for good reason. As for the editors who are upset with the Daily Mail's removal, we saw similar drama with portals where a handful of holdout editors were strongly opposed to their removal. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. ] (]) 12:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * Dacre-era Daily Mail plus the context suggests that we shouldn't trust it - they have been known to fabricate quotes. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 13:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Would ] be considered a reliable source in terms of advertising campaigns? ] (]) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Worth noting that some of these claims seem to be almost intentionally vague and or faintly ridiculous precisely to avoid legal action. Others seem deliberately crafted to have two quite different meanings, for the same purpose. You'll never go wrong with a specific claim, as long as you're not lying, or even if you had reasonable grounds to believe it was true (thereby excluding "I read it on Misplaced Pages" of course). Specificity. Accuracy. Umabiguity. Should all come naturally to encyclopedia editors, or so you would have thought. ] (]) 05:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * AdWeek is a perfectly reliable advertising trade magazine. ] (]) 21:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The thing is public relations notices aren’t usually considered reliable for companies. ] (]) 22:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::As an established trade magazine, I consider ''AdWeek'' ] for topics related to the ]. ''AdWeek''{{'s}} , which consist of a small number of articles published under {{code|adweek.com/press}} between 2017 and 2022, are ] ] that are ], and should not be considered the same as ''AdWeek''{{'s}} standard content. Are these press releases the public relations notices that you are referring to? — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 05:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Langweiledich.net == | ||
| I came across being used in the ] article to support this claim: | |||
| This came off BLP/N, where - what appears to be a site managed by one person - is used about 300 times presently on WP. | |||
| {{tq|In 2023, users of the ''Touhou Project'', '']'' and ] subreddits collaborated to recreate "Bad Apple!!" on ] ] canvas, during its 2023 event.}} It's in German, so I can't really judge the reliability of this site myself - would it be considered a reliable source? ]] 22:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It's the self-published blog of Maik Zehrfeld. There's some advice about self-published sources here ]. I don't think it would be considered reliable, best to find a better source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| For living persons, this immediately fails ]. Furthermore, looking at any specific entry page, it is similar reposting key published articles about the killer/suspect from major sources, which also presents a copyvio problem when linking to them. BUT that does provide the benefit that we can replace these with the works that source cites directly. eg pulling up a random entry like includes Misplaced Pages's entry and then a number of Times of India articles in full, which are the RIGHT sources to use instead. | |||
| == Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] == | |||
| So I would suggest this be a blacklisted source, and that we have these methodically removed in favor of the sources given on these pages. If this means tagging them as "deprecated" or with a tag to indicate they should be replaced and identifying the ease which they can be, so be it. --] (]) 15:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Yep, pretty much looks like an SPS, and a rather iffy one (Misplaced Pages as a source?). Yep, blacklist it.] (]) 15:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Support blacklisting per Masem's rationale. We should avoid linking to this site per ]. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 15:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with blacklisting this source, anything to do with murder and BLP's is extremely sensitive and needs far better sourcing than this. Also the COPYVIO is a serious issue. ] (]) 15:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Deprecate and blacklist - ] (]) 16:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| : Ditto everyone, thanks Masem for starting this here. --] (]) 16:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: By the way: I guess it won't surprise anyone that the use of Murderpedia is often accompanied by the use of FindAGrave. I've been removing both when I see them. --] (]) 21:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: For {{u|David Gerard|those of you who are into this kind of thing}}, ] has only two references: the multiple-copyright-violating Murderpedia, and the Daily Mail. --] (]) 22:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Charming headline that ''Mail'' article ... ] (]) 03:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Fortunately as I've hopefully explained, at least we know of 5 BBC articles that that specific article can at least be expanded with at minimum. But they do need to be added and sourced individually. --] (]) 03:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Blacklist'''. The site hosts ] and its use frequently violates ]. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 03:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Newslinger}}, any examples on WP? I am completely up for this. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 13:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] on the multiple issues regarding that article. | |||
| * Murderpedia is okay for research, but we shouldn't be sourcing articles to it. FindAGrave is okay, but shoud be moved to WikiData when found.--<span style="text-shadow:#FFD700 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">] ]</span> 21:59, 12 June 2020 (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> | |||
| == thisismoney: just Daily Mail reprints? == | |||
| 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. | |||
| I added thisismoney.co.uk as an additional URL under Daily Mail on ]. It self-describes as the "money section of the MailOnline" in its . | |||
| ]: 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> | |||
| I just thought I should double-check here: is anything on thisismoney ''not'' just DM/MoS reprints? | |||
| ]: 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): | |||
| (Though I'd think the "money section of the MailOnline" was sufficient to be covered by ].) - ] (]) 16:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| :I would say yes, being part of something means they are covered by the rules pertaining to it.] (]) 16:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved: | |||
| * | |||
| ''']]''' 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Is it not self evident that if it reprints stories from the entirely separate Mail and MoS, then it is simply untrue to say, for editorial purposes, it is governed by the same rules as MailOnline. It stands to reason that the entire point of choosing a separate brand name and domain, is to draw a distinction from MailOnline, reflecting what is, as anyone would know if they had ever picked up a copy, the fact that "This Is Money" originates from the name of the financial section of the print editions. Being part of the MailOnline would appear to only refer to the fact the MailOnline is the digital platform, and if all thisismoney.co.uk do is reprints of the print editions, it stands to reason the only involvement of MailOnline is technical support or other related activities not directly pertinent to editorial control, which presumably has to be quite strict in any financial newsroom. The City Editor of the Mail has been in post for twenty years, and for ten years before that was Financial Eitor of The Guardian. This surely contradicts everything we have been told about the reputation, culture and environment of the MailOnline by the more overtly biased sources out there, and as I have noted above, there is a notable absence from Misplaced Pages itself of anyone except Misplaced Pages being prepared to declare even the MailOnline generally unreliable. ] (]) 03:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in ''The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast'' (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. also seems to be a relevant document. ] (]) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|1=There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle}}<br>]?<br>{{tq|1=citing Portuguese records}}<br>That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above ''']]''' 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. ] (]) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::One example of another secondary source comparing the accounts (after C. F. Buckingham) is Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1997). ''The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama''. pp. 290-291. () ] (]) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--] (]) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?''']]''' 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. ''The Independent'' is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. ] (]) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the ] was a thing according to a Facebook post made by a high school that he attended).{{efn|Machine translation: Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamusa, a native of Al-Shahr and a graduate of the third class of Al-Mukalla High School for Boys (now Bin Shihab High School for Boys)<br>High School Flags<br>Tuesday, September 17, 2024<br>After years of parting, Abu Bakr Bin Shihab High School for Boys in Mukalla embraced Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamoussa, who graduated on the educational ladder for years and is now at the age of retirement. He visited the high school and in his gaze with passion and love for the past years, he climbed the stairs of the high school to the second floor to the office of the principal Mr. Saeed Ahmed Al-Amari, who welcomed him warmly and said that this visit gave us a boost and moral support, and the visit for Mr. Bamoussa was to ask about the old administrators, services and guards who were who were in the period of the sixties and seventies, but unfortunately the administration could not answer this and invites everyone who has information about them to raise it quickly, as Mr. Bamoussa has been working for years on writing a book about the beginning of education in Hadramawt since the time of the Qaitian Sultanate in the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, and he made a very important statement that the first principal of the high school is Mr. Karama Bammin from Tarim and then came after him Mr. Al-Sudani Al-Taloudi and this was a surprise for us and he confirmed this in his book that will see the light after completion of it.<br>May God prolong his life and give him health and wellness to provide us with important information about the history of education in Hadramawt.<br>The high school administration thanks Mr. Mohammed Bamoussi for this visit and this effort exerted by him for this wonderful work, and wishes the officials in the Ministry of Education, the governorate office and the local authority to adopt such people who raise the slogan of education and the slogan of Hadramawt, the land of science, knowledge and culture.}} He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others . He also published a book about the city of Shihr . He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023 {{pb}}{{talkreflist|group=lower-alpha}} ''']]''' 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.] (]) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the ] ] and ] sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) ''']]''' 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. ] (]) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. ] (]) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in , which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! ] (]) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hi, @]. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this: | |||
| ::::::"Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India , his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." ] (]) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{tq|1=capturing Al-Shihr}}<br>hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? ''']]''' 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder. | |||
| ::::::::I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. ] (]) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city ''']]''' 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. ] (]) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{outdent|8}} {{tq|1="Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, '''capturing Al-Shihr''',}} (Never happened btw) {{tq|1= and how important it would be to conquer Diu."}}<br> ''']]''' 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? ''']]''' 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned ''']]''' 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::capturing a city != sacking it <br>your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here ''']]''' 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Bossip == | |||
| == Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart == | |||
| 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) | |||
| ] is an organisation founded by former patent attorney Vanessa Otero, which publishes a and gives ratings to to sources similar to ]. It has been invoked in recent discussions on this noticeboard notably ] and the Fox News RfC. Their methodology can be found , which apparently involved the rating of around 1800 individual articles and TV shows. My question is why is this source being invoked as an authority on source reliability when MB/FC is ], as both are self published sources and as pointed out by {{u|NatGertler}} in the neutrality discussion above and in the : {{quote|text= Both efforts suffer from the very problem they’re trying to address: Their subjective assessments leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in. Compared to , the five to 20 stories typically judged on these sites represent but a drop of mainstream news outlets’ production.}} | |||
| :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) | |||
| : Apparently Ad Fontes has come up before, see ], but that was for its use as an authority of the political position of a news outlet in article space, not to justify discussions on this noticeboard. ] (]) 21:10, 12 June 2020 (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) | |||
| *'''Generally unreliable''' for the same reason as MBFC. I don't see any major differences between these two publications in terms of their reliability. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 22:52, 12 June 2020 (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) | |||
| * '''Generally unreliable.''' As with MBFC, this is an armchair analysis of media bias by amateurs and non-experts. The people who put these ratings together are random volunteers who get $100, a mug and a t-shirt. ] (]) 14:23, 14 June 2020 (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) | |||
| * '''Usable''' with attribution (as no such assessments can be an exact science): I don't personally treat it as an authority but as a good reference/guide. The project also initially started small but funding was a success and it has a team, became notable, etc. —]] – 07:04, 16 June 2020 (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) | |||
| * I would not cite it on the encyclopaedia, it is a useful guide for us here to be factored in holistic assessment of a source based on multiple perspectives on its reliability. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 10:37, 16 June 2020 (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 == | |||
| * '''Attribute (encyclopedia) / Minimal Weight (debates)'''. "but a drop of mainstream news outlets’ production." resonates. Certainly doesn't imply a scientific approach, accepting the irony that "but a drop" is a very unscientific phraseology. ] (]) 04:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == deaddeath.com == | |||
| :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) | |||
| {{linkSummary|deaddeath.com}} | |||
| ::I believe it meets that criteria, however, I will revise it further to make sure that it does. ] (]) 01:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Beebom.com == | |||
| I want to ask about whitelisting a citation for the death of ], but I can't find any mention of it in the archive for the blacklist. I want to know it's reliable, and/or why it was blocked. --<span style="text-shadow:#FFD700 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">] ]</span> 21:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * No editorial oversight and simply reprints material from elsewhere on the web, including rumours from social media. It may also copy from reliable sources, but the social media thing is clearly a no-no. ] 12:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :* Oh, and the entry for the wrestler is indeed, just copies of social media posts and a summary of his life stolen from elsewhere on the web. ] 12:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. I decided to go with another ref.--<span style="text-shadow:#FFD700 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">] ]</span> 13:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * I found this by accident yesterday. It aggregates other reports, of distinctly variable reliability, including what appears to be speculation. Basically clickbait, not a usable source. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 10:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| == Court sentence being used in an article on archaeology == | |||
| I'm not familiar enough with Beebom to know their overall reporting but I've come across issues. | |||
| At ] an editor has twice made this edit. | |||
| "Despite this assertion held by the accusation, the two UPV-EHU experts committed an appreciation error, since the lines carved in the pieces are not actually letters, and no "RIP" can be inferred from them, as concluded in the June 2020 sentence.<ref>{{Cite web|last=JUZGADO DE LO PENAL Nº 1 DE VITORIA-GASTEIZ - UPAD PENAL.|first=ZIGOR-ARLOKO ZULUP - GASTEIZKO ZIGOR-ARLOKO 1 ZENBAKIKO EPAITEGIA|date=2020-06-10|title=CAUSA / AUZIA:Procedimiento abreviado /Prozedura laburtua389/2018 - M|url=https://www.eitb.eus/multimedia/documentos/2020/06/10/2616548/Sentencia%20Iru%C3%B1a%20Veleia.pdf|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-06-13|website=EITB > Multimedia > Documentos}}</ref> | |||
| * They don't have a masthead so I don't know who their writers are or what their expertise is. The most they have is an with a few higher roles not in editorial and then two editors without any information. This makes it difficult to establish their level of independence and editorial control. A previous RS discussion pointed out some of their content being written by "Beebom Staff" which is still the case but not often. | |||
| I'm also unsure about this source (which in any case is being misused): | |||
| * 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). | |||
| In May 2009, prominent archaeologist ] published the conclusions of a detailed assessment of the findings in Iruña-Veleia, according to the copies submitted to him by the excavations team in charge, with the scholar examining the excavation method, recording of plan and section data, as well as the compilation and illustration of stratigraphic sequences. He concluded that the findings held true, according to the evidence provided.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Harris|first=Richard C.|date=2009-06-10|title=Iruna Veleia Archaeological Assessment, To Whom It May Concern|work=SOS Veleia|url=http://sos-veleia1.wdfiles.com/local--files/harris/Info-Harris.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=2020-06-13}}</ref> As you can tell by the title, it's something written "To Whom It May Concern" on a blog. The author is an expert on stratigraphy (which isn't really an issue for the apparent hoax), but on a blog? In any case the blog is since a court case last week directing people to a new website arguing the issue, so it looks as though both sites are not neutral about the artefacts in question. ] ] 14:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **A 2016 interview explains that they make money from sponsored posts and partnerships. This isn't included in their editorial guidelines. I bring it up since they feature this interview on their About Us page, but Misplaced Pages blocks links to the interviewer's site, YourStory. | |||
| **They as "#sponsored" 5 years ago but stopped. It seems they now use a byline named "Partner Content" for those articles. But they don't mention anything about a sponsorship or partnership in their latest article under this byline. Nor is there anything about this in their policies. So I can't confirm if they do this for all paid content or not. | |||
| *I tried looking into their gaming coverage after seeing them on the ] page and found a where they deliberately lie. The headline is, "Black Myth: Wukong Is Now the Most Played Steam Game of All Time", which they almost immediately state isn't true. While also stating "Yes, Black Myth Wukong is now the most-played Steam game of all time!" This makes me question their overall fact checking and reliability when they lie in a news headline. | |||
| I can't find much mention of Beebom aside from their own social media on google. Even after removing their social media, I can't find anything. ] (]) 02:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : is obviously usable, but I'm not sure for the others, especially if they're both primary and transient... —]] – 03:31, 15 June 2020 (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. ] (]) 15:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{ref talk}} | |||
| ::So I did a bit of digging and they haven't really been keeping their website up to date. One of the two editors has now moved into the position of "content strategist". This looks like a very marginal source. I've definitely seen worse in the video game space but I'd personally hesitate to use it for anything controversial. I would also suggest that opinion from this source is likely undue unless there is a named author on the byline with some sort of expertise independent of the outlet. ] (]) 16:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Jacobin == | |||
| == Gazelle - The Palestinian Biological Bulletin == | |||
| Hosted either here: https://jaffacity.wixsite.com/gazellebulletin/ - or here - http://www.gazelle.8m.net/index.html - unclear which of these is supposed to be the "official" address. | |||
| Jacobin is currently listed as "generally reliable" under ]. ] (]) 08:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This appears to be the homegrown, self-hosted, non-peer-reviewed journal of a single author (]). We got a heads-up from deWP about the possibly fishy status of several taxonomic descriptions (see current AfD here: ]) and that publication in particular ; unlike them we seem to have escaped getting an English article about , also published in the "journal". Following that, I have removed the dozen or so citations to this source that the author has inserted on enWP over the last few years. | |||
| :There are definitely issues with Jacobin, and a reevaluation of its reliability is probably going to come sooner or later. I don't think a Reddit page full of amateur pundits, who are in turn discussing another social media discussion, is going to give us anything meaningful to work with. ] (]) 08:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I wouldn't have thought that there's much room for disagreement here, but since {{u|Tisquesusa}} just reverted me , it appears we need to have this discussion. What bearing being hosted on ] and having an ] number has on reliability is a bit of a mystery to me, however. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 20:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Not a good look, but I will note that the says at the bottom: {{tpq|q=y|Correction: An earlier version of this article overstated the amount of US housing stock that Blackstone owns.}} So far as I can tell, the sentence in question is removed from the current version of the article entirely. --] (]) 08:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : I agree. Tisquesua I'm not sure what your thinking here is. Researchgate is considered an unreliable source per ] {{Quote|text=ResearchGate is a social network that hosts a repository of user-generated publications, including preprints. ResearchGate does not perform fact checking or peer reviewing, and is considered a self-published source. Verify whether a paper on ResearchGate is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate).}} Also the paper itself "Ornithomimid Dinosaur Tracks from Beit Zeit, West of Jerusalem, Palestine" is not relevant to the ] article itself, which is in Tanzania. As far as I can tell the article is not cited in the text. ] (]) 20:08, 13 June 2020 (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) | |||
| Tisquesusa has since reverted his re-adding the publication, so there's no longer an issue. ] (]) 21:27, 13 June 2020 (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) | |||
| :I saw; it is appreciated :) However, if a couple more people wanted to add their assessment, that would be useful. I can see this coming up again - the author is currently busy decorating lots of other language WPs, and sooner or later that journal is going to rear its head again here. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 22:31, 13 June 2020 (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) | |||
| :: {{Ping|Elmidae}} If it is being spammed with the intent to promote the "journal" then it should be added to the ], as as a publication with no effective peer review it is no better than something published in ]. {{Ping|Headbomb}} do you think that this is worth adding to your unreliable script? ] (]) 22:47, 13 June 2020 (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) | |||
| :::{{Ping|Hemiauchenia}} Re Headbomb's ref highlighter, that already is picking it up; sole red standout on several of the pages where I removed it. Works as advertised! --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 00:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just as an aside, RFCs are ] (if they were then reliability would be based on the personal opinions of those taking part). I can't speak for the closer of that RFC, but it appears those saying that Jacobin is 'general reliable' had better policy based reasons. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Sources making corrections, as has happened in this case, is a sign of reliability. Things that happen on social media, and reactions on social media, are mostly irrelevant. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The ] that supposedly found ''Jacobin'' to be reliable really is a bit of a tenuous close. A simple beancount in that RfC would lean against treating it as ], and I'm not really able to discern ''why'' the arguments for reliability were so much stronger than those in opposition that an affirmative Option 1 consensus was declared instead of a no-consensus close (at minimum). I do think that it's ripe for re-evaluation. — ] <sub>]</sub> 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I don't think reviewing this again is going to change anything much, the "worst" outcome is likely a 2, but because it often mixes news and opinion, even a 1 is going to be caveated with caution or attribute, so absent falsehoods, etc might as well let sleeping dogs lie. ] (]) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors == | |||
| == Photos == | |||
| {{Archive top|status=|result=The discussion is partially non-topical for this forum. The discussion about the issues that belong here continues below in {{slink||The Heritage Foundation}}.—] 19:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] | |||
| Taking this here based on a recommendation from {{U|Aquillion}}. The conversation began where a report from forward was shared . According to this report, the Heritage Foundation {{tq|plan to use facial recognition software and a database of hacked usernames and passwords in order to identify contributors to the online encyclopedia}}. A copy of the Heritage Foundation proposal deck is available . This Heritage Foundation plan to dox wikipedia editors also {{tq|would include creating fake Misplaced Pages user accounts to try to trick editors into identifying themselves by sharing personal information or clicking on malicious tracking links that can identify people who click on them. It is unclear whether this has begun.}} | |||
| It seems there is not policy (as far as I know) that forbids the use of photos published by news organisations. As plenty of people seem to think they are not RS maybe we need to write this into policy. | |||
| 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) | |||
| Should we forbid the use of photos published without accompanying text?] (]) 15:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I am unsure about a retalitory deprecation (or whatever). ] (]) 14:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *A photograph should never be used as a ''source'' for information on Misplaced Pages... however, a photograph can be used to ''illustrate'' information that is ''otherwise'' reliably sourced. ] (]) 15:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::No this would be a preventative deprecation. The idea, to my understanding, is to remove the ability of Heritage Foundation domains to interact with en.wp as much as possible. ] (]) 14:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **But do we say that anywhere?] (]) 15:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is that not best done with range blocks, to prevent them from setting up accounts? ] (]) 14:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***I do know that we have discussed the issue of images from an original research perspective (saying that an analysis of a photo by an editor would constitute OR)... and we do have ] (but that talks about images created by Wikipedians, not images created by news orgs.) we may also have discussed them from a WP:COPYRIGHT perspective. I would agree that we should say something about them from an WP:V and WP:RS perspective. ] (]) 16:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think this is a discussion to be had at the Village Pump, as it's not a matter of reliability. Deprecation wouldn't have the effect that your looking for, you would need blacklisting and I don't think this would fall within the normal process of blacklisting. So a discussion at VP seems more appropriate as it's something outside of prior policy or guidelines. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *As a note, using photos from media organizations on WP is prevented by ] - we do not allow photos which are meant to be purchased from press corps like Gettys to be used as they have commercial value, ''unless'' they are the subject of discussion themselves (like the flag raising on Iwo Jima). --] (]) 16:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::A village pump discussion was created and the suggestion to bring the conversation here actually arose from discussion of that conversation at the arbitration page. Honestly I'm pretty nervous about a pseudo-governmental organization trying to interfere with individual Misplaced Pages editors in this way so I'll happily take the conversation to whatever board we think is most appropriate. But right now we've got a whole lot of conversations pointing to different places as a precis to discussing the actual problem. ] (]) 14:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is using them not citing them.] (]) 16:29, 14 June 2020 (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) | |||
| :::Consider what if we were using graph data from a news article...We're allowed to cite graph information but in such a case I would expect that we know the source of the graph data is reliable - which might be the actual work that published it but more often is a third-party source. But in this case, we can't make any further interpretations beyond ] of graph data in the articles. (eg trying to interprete climate change data for ourselves, that would need the expert statements of what it means, but dropping a 100-yr graph of average temps going up, we can say this shows the average rising temperature over the past 100 years). Photos become more fuzzy because nearly everything about that is not hard data but interpretation that CALC doesn't apply to, and thus we have never considered them as reliable sources in discussions, but never iterated in policy. --] (]) 16:42, 14 June 2020 (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) | |||
| ::::Which is why I am asking if we should.] (]) 16:47, 14 June 2020 (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) | |||
| :::::We should, but I think its more an NOR issue than an RS, though the source of the photo/graph/image needs to be taken into account as a first step (sourcing graph data from a questionable source isn't going to work either). --] (]) 17:00, 14 June 2020 (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}} | |||
| :::::::If a picture show X its not OR to say it shows X. Thus the only issue would be its its depiction of X an RS.] (]) 17:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::::::::Yes, but we have to be careful because a photo can't show other things like intent or action or the like. I've seen editors try to show a photo of X and Y together (X and Y being BLP) and then assert some type of connection between X and Y that may or may not exist. And unless the origin of the photo is clearly know, other factors, like identifying a location based on landmarks, as well as potentially identifying specific persons if the image is not clear. There's almost no case I can see using an image (outside graphs) solely as a reliable point of information. --] (]) 18:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Over at millhist it crops up every so often for issues such as military decorations (well this picture shows it on his uniform (but that is usually OR anyway)) for example.] (]) 18:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Regarding the OP (which seems to be sort talking about a photo being a source) this policy creates a sourcing requirement for the presence of material, not a requirement that restricts the inclusion of sources. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 16:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I think that Blueboar is addressing a different issue, which is that the caption of an image or sometimes the mere presence of an image in context is itself a statement which may need to be sourced. An example is that putting an image of John Smith into an article on Australians may be an implied statement that John Smith is an Australian. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 16:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes that is what I am talking about, a lot of users seem to be under then impression that A: Photographs are not RS (like headlines) and that B: you cannot judge the RS by the quality of pictures it uses (because of A, we cannot use the picture). But this does not appear to be the case. So therefore as some users seem to think (and from their tone agree) that they should not be regarded as reliable I am asking the community should that in fact be the case.] (]) 16:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: This is just a category error. My sandwich from lunch can't be used as a reliable source, because it lacks the relevant kind of information. The same is true of photographs. People who say "in the photo one can easily see ..." are committing original research, just as if I tried to add "anyone who has a bite of my sandwich can easily tell it contains tomatoes, and is delicious". --] (]) 19:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Online photographs are basically digital art. The art and layout departments in today's clickbait environment may not always consider potential ethical implications when using a manipulated photograph to accompany an article headline, especially when working under time restrictions in the race to beat competitors to the punch. You can also liken it to ] - the artists often see nothing wrong with combining elements from different digital images that took place at the same time in basically the same location. The editor-in-chief and copy editors may not even know an image was manipulated until after they go online. I retired quite early from a 30+ year career in media, but have maintained an expert level in photography, digital image enhancement and photoshopping, field & post production for online video and television, and there are times when I can't even tell the difference when the job is done well; therefore, I have no reservations in saying that images are/can be changed without us ever knowing it. I agree with Masem in that images are not a RS. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 01:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Could someone who can read Bengali take a look at ]? == | |||
| :There is ]. Images can be taken from any source, provided copyright is respected. But, "Images should ''look like'' what the are meant to illustrate." I don't know how specific the guideline needs to be. Editors should not use images to provide misleading information because of a perceived loophole in policy or guidelines, but should adhere to the spirit of the project. | |||
| :I remember a case where an editor created an image of Hitler and Stalin. In fact they had never met and the photo was deleted. | |||
| :] (]) 01:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::And what if the are from an RS? How do we know an image is of what it claims to be?] (]) 09:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::If it is from a generally accepted RS we accept the image is what it is claimed to be in the RS. Anything else is OR unless its clearly and obviously a mistake (source says dress is white, dress is red in photo etc) We would not use the photo *as* a source for articles in most cases because our rules around inclusion of non-free media start to come into play. The exceptions are specifically where the photo itself is the subject of the article. This seems to be a rather specific query however, is there an example that has prompted this? If you look at the very top of this board in quite clear writing, it says in order to get an answer we need the source, the article, and the content the source is to support. ] (]) 12:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think this is more a meta issue than one with a specific example in mind. The question probably should have been asked at the talk page of WP:RS itself - as a preliminary to (potentially) amending the guideline - rather than here at RS/N. That said, since it HAS been asked here, I don’t see any harm in continuing to discuss it. | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::::As I see it, the underlying question is: in terms of reliability, do we consider photos appearing in news sources as being SEPARATE from the news reporting (as we do with headlines), or are they PART of the news reporting? ] (]) 14:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Pictures being an instant snapshot of a situation lack context without a written description. You cant use a picture as a source for anything except the basic facts of what the picture is showing. Take most famous picture. Its a man pointing a gun at another man. There are plenty of factual things about the photo you can state, but anything actually useful (where it is, why, context, who, that one of the subjects was in the midst of being executed) cannot be sourced without accompanying text. Taken in isolation you cant even say its not a still from a war movie. As a primary source a photo is reliable for the basic details of what the photo shows. In much the same way any other visual media is a primary source for its own content. So I would say they cannot be considered except as part of the reporting (except in the cases like the above where the picture is the subject itself). ] (]) 07:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :You may have more luck asking at ] or ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Mustang == | |||
| ::Thanks, will repost there (West Bengal, since it's the Wikiproject whose scope covers the article's subject). --] (]) 22:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == The Heritage Foundation == | |||
| There is currently a discussion over at ] for the ] article over whether the following footnote should be included in the article. {{quote|text=According to Claire Henderson, an ethnohistorian at Laval Univeristy ] oral history and the reports of early European explorers of the Upper Missouri River, there is a hypothesis that Equus was not completely extirpated from North America, but that the northern ] had domesticated and preserved a ] (Equus ferus ferus) like horse prior to the arrival of the Europeans. (Yvette Running Horse Collin pursued this idea further in her 2017 PhD thesis The Relationship Between the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas and the Horse: Deconstructing a Eurocentric Myth). However, no physical evidence such as bones dating after 8000 B.C.E. and prior to 1500 A.D.E. have been found.}} This relates to the "horse continuity theory" in the americas, the (fringe) idea that horses in Pleistocene North America are the ancestors of living mustangs, despite the lack of genetic or archaeological evidence. This theory is often found on self published pro-mustang websites and blogs. The first source is "" (which is also cited in the ] article) a statement given in 1991 by Claire Henderson, an ethno-historian at Laval University (I have been unable to find any other information on her other than relating to the statement in the Chicago Tribune) the second is "" a 2017 PhD thesis by Yvette Running Horse Collin in Indigenous Studies at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Both studies have the same issues, both are arguably ], don't have any evidence backing up their claims, only reasons to cast doubt, and rely on the oral tradition of various elders, and oral history is notoriously unreliable for long timescales. The latter paper also includes these wild quotes, among others {{quote|text=In keeping with the traditions of my Plains Indian ancestors, my education began with a spiritual experience I had involving a gift from an Indigenous “medicine man and woman” who lived on a New Mexico Pueblo. During a time when I was in desperate need of healing, they gifted me with two horses - a red roan mare that had been trained (according to their People’s traditions) to protect others during spiritual battle - and her four-day-old paint foal. My education continued with a vision that I experienced from my Ancestors. I gained this initial knowledge through firsthand observation, the utilization of all of my senses, and other experiential learning methods. Thus, began my role as a participant-researcher.}} {{quote|text=Scientists have discovered that horses emit “alpha waves” – the same waves emitted by humans during prayer - and they are beginning to recognize that the emission of such waves can be beneficial in treating brain injuries}} | |||
| ] 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 operated by or published by the Heritage Foundation.—] 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :We should definitely be avoiding using sources that intentionally put forward disinformation. ] (]) 19:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I honestly was at a bit of a loss which noticeboard to post this to. I think much of the oral history (as I mentioned on the talk page) stems from the fact that horses spread much earlier into the American interior than colonists, and considering the hundreds of years that have passed this could lead to the impression that they always had horses. My own view is that neither of these sources are reliable enough to cite as an authority, even for a minority view and that the footnote should be removed entirely. ] (]) 18:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::What about the ]? —] 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Absolutely not''' These sources are reliable for oral history saying that it is true, but the WP:WEIGHT of such claims is nothing compared to actual scientific evidence. The content should be moved to an article dealing with oral history. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 20:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nothing of value would be lost if we had to do away with that one. ] (]) 19:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''No horses in America before Columbus'''. Definitely not. Oral history and visions of the ancestors emitting equine alpha waves is exactly what it sounds like. Plains Indians had horses before Europeans reached the upper Missouri, but that was centuries after 1492 and as everyone knows horses are faster than people. ] (]) 00:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::I like how the United States is 0.6 points away from not being green in that index. ] (]) 20:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' this out of context discussion by an editor who is creating some drama over at the article misses the point that the '''existing consensus''' of the long-standing editors of this article agree that is it a fringe theory. However, we put it in a small end footnote because it is something that occasionally keeps being added back in. We tossed it out for some time, but it was recently put back in again, in part because of the actions of the above editor who initially appeared at the article, apparently supporting the “non-extirpation” position. In other words, the note was added to ''debunk'' thentheory, not support it. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::What about the books published by the Heritage Foundation? | |||
| ::::Let's just wrap this up. As MBW said, the sources were not meant to validate the fringe theory, but to acknowledge the existence of it. I've revised the section to do what I think is better job of both acknowledging and de-bunking it.] (]) 12:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::What about https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future as a source in ]? —] 19:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Probably not''' - like any fringe theory (and in fact ALL content on ENWP) in order to be included in an article it requires a reliable source to discuss/acknowledge it. If there are no reliable sources that discuss it, then it doesnt go in an article. This is how all fringe theories are dealt with. If there are reliable sources that discuss it (and usually for fringe nonsense, dismiss it) then its acceptable to include it and what those realiable sources say about it. As there doesnt appear to be any argument about the reliability of the sources used, the fringe noticeboard is probably a better place to gain consensus on if it should be in the article or not. ] (]) 12:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Not sure I would want to go direct to deprecation unless they are demonstrably churning out falsehoods. | |||
| * This is mythology not fact, on the face of it. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 10:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :On a quick search, I only found in the archives, about the Daily Signal, which looks like a pretty partisan affair. ] (]) 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **Precisely. But thus a mention is in order, in context, which we are trying to do. There really isn't an editing dispute here. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :A lot of these are country rankings on the foundation's ]. Not sure if we want this used or not. ] ] 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:{{u|Montanabw}}, sure. Either way, not an RS question, but a content (]) question, right? ''']''' <small>(])</small> 18:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was a bit flip above with my comment regarding that index but I guess my question would be what value it is? I mean, let's be honest, the methodological claim in our own article on the index {{tq|The creators of the index assert that they take an approach inspired by Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations}} suggests they've derived their index from theories in an outdated treatise on economics from 1776. Furthermore we could probably reproduce the index just by measuring how deregulated any given economy is. I'm not sure what neutral value there is to Misplaced Pages giving breathing space to an index that equates economic deregulation with freedom on the basis of a 250 year old book. ] (]) 20:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I mean, just as an example, their benchmark for Government spending is $0. IE: The ideal case, for this index, is that there is no government at all. ] (]) 20:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That just means you personally disagree with them. I could turn it around on you by asking what value there is to the contributions of editors who describe themselves as socialists in their userboxes. | |||
| ::::Obviously the index in question is from a particular point of view, but I don't see any evidence adduced that it's not reliable for descriptions of countries according to that POV, which is something that can be of interest. --] (]) 21:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh do stop. I've heard that particular ] violation a thousand times. My argument is that they have no valid methodology and a ] ] perspective, it is not that they are an extreme right-wing group. ] (]) 22:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I don't know much about their methodology; that's something that could be explored. As to the perspective, I think the reference to Smith is more normative than descriptive. I don't think you can apply AGEMATTERS to moral propositions. --] (]) 22:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's a moral proposition tp build your economic worldview on a text that predates electricity? ] (]) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It's a moral proposition to value lesser regulation per se (as opposed to achieve some other goal). --] (]) 23:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Their index is pseudoscience. We aren't supposed to use that in Misplaced Pages except to critique it. ] (]) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::That's a bold claim. Evidence? --] (]) 04:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don’t really care about whatever their wacky economic index dealio is, we just flat-out shouldn’t trust an organization that wants to systematically attack our userbase and will most likely harvest any data it finds for that purpose. It’s like reaching for a source in a bear trap. ] (]) 11:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::What about https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB850689110237569500 (). We are not worried that the Wall Street Journal will systematically attack our userbase etc. —] 11:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It appears that the use in these pages are not problematic and supported by ], replacing sources in 5000 pages would be a ton of work. I would like to first know in which pages did the actual use of this source appear unreliable, such as promoting ]. ] (]) 20:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think they can be counted as a reliable source but I see no objection to saying what they think since they are important if it is obvious they are being quoted as a heavily biased party. They make it fairly clear what they are rather than trying to be deceptive about their aims which at least is a mercy. Really most of these 'think tanks' and 'foundations' and 'institutes' and even 'research organizations' are like that and we'd be well off if they were specially marked as such instead of being mixed up with reliable sources. ] (]) 20:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I would consider it ] since it’s self published and openly partisan. ] (]) 21:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not self-published in the sense we use that term. Lots of reliable sources publish their own materials, including e.g. serious thinktanks. It may be GUNREL, but SPS is not a valid policy-based argument in this case. ] (]) 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::There was recently (may still be going on) a very extensive discussion about whether ] applies to "gray" sources such as think tanks and advocacy groups. This line of reasoning probably is coming out of that discussion. ] (]) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There was an ] as well, there wasn't a consensus on how to define such sources but there was consensus against ''always'' considering them to be self-published. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it can be used, but like with most such sources attribution is appropriate. ] (]) 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Please review reference no. 6 in ] ({{tq|Additionally, each state is entitled to select a number of electors to vote in the Electoral College, the body that elects the president of the United States, equal to the total of representatives and senators in Congress from that state}}). Is the source adequate? Would we want to replace it? —] 23:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah thats somewhere where I just don't see using Heritage (or any other think tank) being due. That seems like a place where academic sourcing should be pretty easy to find. ] (]) 23:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks. What do you think about the following paragraph found in ], supported by the Project 2025 publication, ''with attribution'': {{tqq|], a conservative think tank, dubbed the Space Development Agency "a model for the military". In their ''2025 Mandate for Leadership'', they call to develop new offensive space capabilities to "impose will if necessary". They further claim the Biden administration "has eliminated almost all offensive deterrence capabilities" in space that were planned under the Trump administration.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf|title=Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise|first=Heritage|last=Foundation|date=1 February 2023|website=]|access-date=1 September 2023|archive-date=16 November 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231116113522/https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>}} Is this where "attribution is appropriate", or should this entire paragraph simply be removed unless there's a secondary source on the fact that the Heritage Foundation has said so and so. —] 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Given what we now know, this can be cited as another example of their modus operandi: do what they say, or else. ] (]) 11:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It could go either way, I'm not familiar enough with the topic area. ] (]) 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think the issue is them being unreliable. I think the issue is them tracking the IP of anyone who visits their sites and trying to doxx editors with that info. There might be a way to just archive all the links and then replace the links with links to the wayback machine or something to avoid sending people directly to their site. ] (]) 23:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's not a topical matter on this noticeboard. —] 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't know about that. If a source is willing to go to such extent to silence people, then I don't see how it can possibly be considered reliable. ] (]) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, if a source is operating in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, that is ''directly'' relevant to an evaluation of whether they are a reliable source; namely, it's (additional) direct evidence that they do dishonest and untrustworthy things and are unreliable. Together with the other evidence of unreliability presented in OP's first post, I think they have gone beyond unreliability, into territory where deprecation and blacklisting is in order. ] (]) 05:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support ''' blacklisting ''']]''' 07:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Minor point but it's used on not 5000. The search caught false positives such as english-heritage.org. ] (]) 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Should just be considered unreliable for unreliability in general, but the implications they would go to doxxing is icing on the cake to suggest blacklisting at this point. ] (]) 04:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Usage of opinion articles on Epoch Times == | |||
| As with ALL think-tanks, I think they should be considered ]; though if some of their reports see ] than those could be used with attribution.---''']]''' 06:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I recently reverted a section on ] (which itself is a deprecated source on WP) which cited three opinion articles on the ]'s coverage of ET's peddling of conspiracy theories on COVID-19, which the editor has misrepresented as reports from ]. Does these opinion articles constitute due weight on ] article? --] (]) 09:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :You removed more than that. In the same edit you removed all of this, saying "Removed per WP:UNDUE. You cited several opinion columnists which fails WP:RS": | |||
| :"On April 29, 2020 ] reported that some ] was upset with Epoch Times's claim that China was behind the COVID-19. It described that the Epoch Times polarized people and advanced a ] about the origin of the ]. The report noted an earlier version of the headline incorrectly stated "the Epoch Times claimed China made the virus as a bio-weapon".<ref name=":10">{{Cite news|last=Bellemare|first=Andrea|last2=Ho|first2=Jason|last3=Nicholson|first3=Katie|date=April 29, 2020|title=Some Canadians who received unsolicited copy of Epoch Times upset by claim that China was behind virus|work=CBC|url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/epoch-times-coronavirus-bioweapon-1.5548217|url-status=live|access-date=2020-06-13}}</ref> Since its publication, the CBC report's headline had been changed for three times. At the beginning, the headline included words '] and inflammatory', which was removed in the later versions of the headline.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-04-29|title='Racist and inflammatory': Canadians upset by Epoch Times claim China…|url=http://archive.is/OBNUt|access-date=2020-06-14|website=archive.is}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-04-30|title=Some Canadians who received unsolicited copy of Epoch Times upset by …|url=http://archive.is/D6FHq|access-date=2020-06-14|website=archive.is}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-04-30|title=Some Canadians see claims in Epoch Times about origin of virus as 'ra…|url=http://archive.is/2aPOO|access-date=2020-06-14|website=archive.is}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-04-30|title=Some Canadians who received unsolicited copy of Epoch Times upset by …|url=http://archive.is/Clf44|access-date=2020-06-14|website=archive.is}}</ref> | |||
| Could we see some evidence of doxing please? If this is something they do to people it is a safety concern and we probably need to deprecate. As for the rest, I think they are an over-used fringe source, but there are probably times when their attributed opinion is due. The Economic Freedom Index was something you used to see quoted a lot in newspapers and on TV in the UK, not so much now. It shouldn't be mentioned in our ] or ] type articles.--] (]) 06:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :"On May 1, 2020, an article on ] defended the Epoch Times and argued that the ] did originate in ] and reputable ] outlets had reported the virus possibly escaped from a viral research lab in ]. The article was titled with "Canada Need a better CBC". It commented that Epoch Times' suggestion that the virus could be accidentally released from a Wuhan lab does not justify CBC's hit piece and urged that ] should appoint serious leaders for ]. The report said due to its extensive contacts in China, the Epoch Times has often led ] in matters the ] regime has tried to suppress, including the effort to cover up information about the ]. The article also commented that ] government quarantined ] but didn't inform ] about the danger of COVID-19, which caused the world-wide pandemic later. Many governments in the world shared the same view with The Epoch Times that Chinese government was of "irresponsibility and dishonesty".<ref>{{Cite web|last=Comment|first=Full|date=2020-05-01|title=Conrad Black: Canada needs a much better CBC {{!}} National Post|url=https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-canada-needs-a-much-better-cbc|access-date=2020-06-14|language=en-CA}}</ref> | |||
| :What's wrong with for instance? | |||
| : expose in ], a respected progressive Jewish outlet, is the main source of information on this scheme. ] (]) 11:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :And although this isn't NPOVN, I don't understand what was "undue". ] ] 09:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ] ] 09:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::You don't understand how an article section detailing three opinion pieces is undue? The looks to be an improvement to the article. There is summary text in the COVID section for ''Some Canadians...'' CBC news piece. I'd argue {{u|PatCheng}} did not go far enough and {{tq|Some columnists defended Epoch Times' coverage of COVID-19 and noted that criticism...}} citing the three columns is undue and should be removed. ](]) 15:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support''' blacklisting. I don’t know if it’s “spam” per se but an organization that has stated an intent to dox editors is obviously just a simple threat to user safety. And I don’t think there’s any debate their content is all garbage, disinfo, and propaganda. Even ] content should easily be obtainable via respectable 3rd-party sources. ] (]) 11:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{ref talk}} | |||
| '''Support''' blacklisting. ] am I right in thinking your script marks this as unreliable? ] ] 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Now the section has "It has promoted anti-China rhetoric and conspiracy theories around the coronavirus outbreak, for example through an 8-page special edition called "How the Chinese Communist Party Endangered the World", which was distributed unsolicited in April 2020 to mail customers in areas of USA, Canada, and Australia. " The msn.com cite is worthless, it doesn't say that anyone received that particular edition. The cbc.ca cite is dubious for saying "anti-China rhetoric" because, as the opinion articles point out, the opinion of a woman in Kelowna plus an anonymous postal employee isn't the same as a fact. The cbc.ca cite is also poor support for saying "conspiracy theories" because it was apparently influenced by their headline (PatCheng "The earlier headline also incorrectly stated the Epoch Times claimed China made the virus as a bioweapon." and later the cite which showed the headline). I think therefore that the stuff which cites the CBC story doesn't belong in the article, but it is also workable to point out what others think of the CBC story. ] (]) 15:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Peter Gulutzan}}, plenty of sources for this (and it happened in the UK and Ireland, too): , , . What are you challenging? The fact of it being distributed or the fact of it being anti-Chinese conspiracist claptrap? ''']''' <small>(])</small> 10:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Guy, I do not see a way that I could make it more clear without repeating. We'll see whether other people bother to read. ] (]) 13:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::The /opinion/ ones can probably be left-out, but the CBC April 29 article is a good source. Normally we don't need to include undue ET responses if independent sources don't also mention them. —]] – 06:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Yes - we don't need ]-level denials not covered in third party sources. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 10:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello , I'd like share some view | |||
| :#There are also a lot of third-party media defending Epoch Times. Different views from reliable sources should be allowed in Misplaced Pages per WP:NPOV.-------Here are 3 examples: 1.、 2. 、3. | |||
| :#"'''Weather Virus came/leak from Laboratory?'''" That's not "anti-Chinese conspiracy theory" but possibilityies for truth-finding. <u>Chinese Communist Party CCP not equal to China.</u> CCP is a Totalitarian regime , bad records on abusing biotech and genetic Engineering, persecute Chinese people, forcely harvests organs from living Chinese Prisoner of conscience for money. | |||
| ::#Epochtimes's report did not say Covid-19 "a Chinese made bioweapon".' but maybe possibilities like leaking from China laboratory. and indeed, '''many mainstream media international or of Taiwan, even Hong Kong(also Pro-Beijing Madia)''' , also reported several possibilities. '''Taiwanese and Hongkongner are also Chinese people, That's irrelevant to anti-Chinese conspiracy.''' | |||
| ::#Besides many mainstream media reported about Covid-19 and Wuhan laboratory, and wheather CCP have military biotech project.for example: | |||
| ::##:Amir Attaran, a law professor and epidemiologist at the University of Ottawa said ''"It is suspicious. It is alarming. It is potentially life-threatening," said "We have a researcher who was removed by the RCMP from the highest security laboratory that Canada has for reasons that government is unwilling to disclose. The intelligence remains secret. But what we know is that before she was removed, <u>she sent one of the deadliest viruses on Earth, and multiple varieties of it to maximize the genetic diversity and maximize what experimenters in China could do with it, to a laboratory in China that does dangerous gain of function experiments. And that has links to the Chinese military.</u>"'' | |||
| ::## | |||
| ::##Taiwan's mainstream ](a public Media owned by all people): | |||
| ::##Hong Kong's mainstream pro-Beijing Media report: | |||
| ::##more example can be listed, also many chinese-language media reported, even pro-Beijing media in Taiwan and Hong Kong also reported some. Many expert keep the possibilities,also the USA and UK Government, and ex-vicehead(lead fight 2003 SARS) of Taiwan's DOH(Department of Health). | |||
| ::##Some media reported that France expert or China ex-officer concerned about wheather ChineseCommunistParty use the P4-laboratory for what? for risky research? for bioweapon? Many assumptions and doubts comes form--- CCP's opaque and deny international and WHO expert a field investigation in china. ] (]) 05:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::##:IDK about the others but ] is not an acceptable source. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 06:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::##Thank you. Sources above not including DailyMail. In fact, many Taiwan Mainstream reported about Virus possibilities with laboratory. ] (]) 11:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{u|Wetrace}}, those don't come across as anything close to the quality of sources that criticise Epoch Times. It's also pretty clear why a popular Taiwanese site would support the Epoch Times' anti-CPC agenda. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 15:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Heritage.org is marked as unreliable, yes.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 11:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == The Week ( theweek.co.uk / theweek.com ) == | |||
| '''Support''' blacklisting of this Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". ] (]) 12:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Falls into the same ballpark of works like ]; weekly politically-oriented news magazine. Typically editorial practices for such a work, and have not seen anything to suggest that they engaging in any fabrication or the like (in searching for any incidents on the web). May not be the Old Grey Mare but nothing to blemish editorial practices that I can see and when I've used them, nothing that stands out. Only small bit to note being a more central (but still left-leaning) magazine. So '''reliable'''. --] (]) 13:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::And just to note, there is a UK version and a US version, same ownership (like Wired US and Wired UK). Same rational applies to both. --] (]) 13:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::The Week isn't so much a publisher as a re-publisher. | |||
| :::Pieces which are "original" to The Week are composites of pieces from elsewhere. For example, a piece on Covid Lockdown in the UK is peppered with attributions: | |||
| :::* Britons feel betrayed, ''said ] in ]''. | |||
| :::* This escapade has unleashed "public rage," ''said Rachel Shabi in Independent.co.uk''. | |||
| :::* Johnson has sabotaged public trust, a crucial weapon in the fight against Covid-19, ''said ] in ]''. | |||
| :::* The Left wants Cummings fired because he knows how to win, ''said ] in the ]''. | |||
| :::* That’s why the prime minister won’t get rid of him, ''said ] in ]''. | |||
| :::Other pieces are covered by the small print disclaimer at the foot of the final page: | |||
| :::{{tq2|Sources: A complete list of publications cited in ] can be found at .}} | |||
| :::which leads to a list of publications and their websites with no way of linking fact to source. | |||
| :::In short, it's reliable, but citing The Week denies credit to the original source of the material, and falls shy of being truly ]. ] (]) 14:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * I looked up some of the uses on obvious hot button topics. What I found was not encouraging. Articles with no bylines, listicles and the like, but also attributed comment to (e.g.) ] (''who he? -- ed.''), whose qualification as a valid opinion appears to be that he writes opinion pieces, mainly in The Week, where he was at the time Executive Editor. Opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one. I don't see any valid reason for citing opinions form people known only for having opinions, in publications that only really publish opinions. We should strive for a more grounded approach to fact. I don't see any indicators that this is a generally unreliable source, i.e. that it makes stuff up, but I owuld say that any of the current uses I have seen should not, and probably would not, survive any challenge to removal. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 09:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support''' blacklisting. The Heritage Foundation produces two things: disinformation and opinion. I don't think the opinion of a disinformation vendor is particularly noteworthy except in ] contexts. With such minimal value to use of this group as a source let's just show them the door. ] (]) 13:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Catholic News Agency == | |||
| * '''Support blacklisting'''. The site is published by an ideologically-motivated group which is well-documented for making false claims of fact, using dubious methodologies in their work, and is now engaged in efforts to damage this very project. There's absolutely no use, and much potential harm to come from using them. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Article: ] | |||
| * URL: (general), (article in question) | |||
| === RFC: The Heritage Foundation === | |||
| Hi folks, I don't see much discussion of Catholic News Agency on this board (it only comes up once in the archives with a tangential mention) so I'm looking for opinions on its reliability. Right now, the second link above is being used to support a claim that a BLP was accused of sexual misconduct, which is obviously an area where we want high-quality sourcing. In this case, I've looked at the primary sources they're referring to, and I believe that the article is accurately reporting that the accusations exist. I've modified the article to attribute the report to Catholic News Agency, but I'm interested in wider input on the reliability of the source, both in this case and in general. My initial read is that it's not the best source (though it does at least claim to have editorial oversight), but in this case I think using it with attribution is reasonable. ] (]) 13:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC) (please ping in replies) | |||
| <!-- ] 16:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739462471}} | |||
| *I think this falls into the “best used with in text attribution” category. Reporting won’t be inaccurate, but it may be one sided. ] (]) 14:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{rfc|pol|rfcid=08190DC}} | |||
| *According to its about page, "Catholic News Agency was founded in 2004, in response to Pope St. John Paul II’s call for a “]." It is one of the fastest-growing Catholic news providers in the world." I would say it is probably reliable for facts but obviously expresses a Catholic POV and should be combined with other sources for NPOV. When in doubt, attribute. In the case where a Catholic person is accused of misconduct I would say it's entirely usable as ]. But in that case it doesn't hurt to attribute. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 18:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| What is the reliability of ] and should it be blacklisted? ] (]) 15:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **That doesn't sound like something that can be used as evidence of notability, though, for instance. It sounds like they haven't been caught lying - which is good, but then I think about the deprecated ], which is used as an opinion outlet by Catholic hierarchy. To what extent are they hooked into that media sphere? - ] (]) 22:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***Hmm, you may be right about that. I randomly clicked on their front page and , but Pew says only 25% of Czechs identify as atheists ("largely secular country" would be accurate). However, CNA is probably reliable for reporting what Pell says (just not WP:DUE). <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 23:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***It's , but mostly for quoting Catholic Church figures. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 23:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * I would say reliable with attribution for statements by Catholic figures, handle with care for anything else, does not establish notability. Its mission is to evangelise, not to publish fact, so we should not treat it as an authority for fact. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 09:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| == Reliability of sources on religious texts== | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 5: ]''' | |||
| ==== Poll ==== | |||
| * <s>'''Option 5: Blacklist'''</s>: Multiple examples of the foundation publishing complete misinformation. The use of links to try to determine and datamine user identity moves to a trust issue and indicates a need to blacklist links to protect users and editors. ] (]) 15:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Pinging @]@]@]@]@], they voted above before I made this RFC. ] (]) 15:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Barnards.tar seems correct... We need to be able to cite some of their opinions, and pure blacklist would harm our mission... but i'm not certain its worth using their material if this is the new world we are in. | |||
| *:is there a way to place warnings on links when you click on them that would warn users about this scenario though? that would be a good compromise.. otherwise keeping vote for 5] (]) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I honestly don't see how blacklisting such a garbage source would harm this project. ] (]) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support option 5''' - Allowing this website to exist on wikipedia is a danger to editors' privacy and safety. The Heritage Foundation needs to be blacklisted ASAP ''']]''' 15:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The Heritage Foundation is not a website. It's an organization. You can treat the website as one of its publications. There may be other websites. There are further publications, such as the paperback yearly Indices of Economic Freedom: https://isbndb.com/book/9780891952930. We can't blacklist paperback sources. What's the status of that going to be? How does your recommendation answer this question? —] 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Not our problem. We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization. ''']]''' 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::They are works published by the organization. If an organization is such an unreliable source (in the conception of an organization as a source as per {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Definition of a source}}; that's point no. 3), which is the framing of this RfC, as to be "blacklisted", should we really retain the status quo wrt its printed works? —] 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Do paperbacks get special dispensation in policy from reliability requirements? If (say) David Irving published a paperback would it magically become reliable? ] (]) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yes, according to Abo Yemen. He said: {{tqq|We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization}}—] 16:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Ay dont be quoting me on that. I didn't give a complete answer. I have no idea how unreliable this source is but according to other editors, it is not reliable. But if the paperback was reliable enough compared to stuff they publish on their website then i dont see why it shouldn't be used. All i did was try to give an answer to your question ig ''']]''' 17:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::They don't. ] (]) 17:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::What is the status of (a printed work) going to be then, according to you: perhaps a deprecated source? —] 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Whatever we decide, but (again) it being a paperback has no relevance. ] (]) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::This is an RfC, Slatersteven, it's the time when things are decided. Saying "Whatever we decide" is clearly not moving things forward. —] 17:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Its status now is that is is an RS, its status when this is over will be determined by this RFC. ] (]) 17:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Please start engaging more meaningfully. It doesn't appear that you're getting it. How do you blacklist a printed work? Only web domains can be blacklisted. What is the consequence for the printed work as the outcome of this RfC if the consensus is to "blacklist the Heritage Foundation"? —] 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::We do it all the time, we have plenty of blacklisted printed works (the Daily Mail for one). Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? So it would not, in fact, be covered by any ban on the heritage foundation. ] (]) 17:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::If ''Daily Mail'' is blacklisted, how is this possible (edit: I intentionally broke the link later after a complaint that a source highlighter script is painting too much red):{{blist| | |||
| <nowiki>{{cite web |last1=Earle |first1=Geoff |title=Justin Trudeau glares at Trump amid his threat to absorb country |url=https://www.d ailymail.co.uk/news/article-14267497/justin-trudeau-glares-trump-jimmy-carter-funeral-canada-threats.html |website=Mail Online |access-date=9 January 2025 |date=9 January 2025}} | |||
| </nowiki>}}...?{{br}}I'll help you: ''Daily Mail'' is not blacklisted.—] 17:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::]. ] (]) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::That's not an entry marked as blacklisted. Please find me an entry which is in fact blacklisted, for me to believe that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking when discussing specifically blacklisting something. —] 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::Ahh I see, well yes we cannot blacklist spam if is hardcopy, but we can depreciate it, and it can be assumed that if you choose 5, you are choosing to also depreciate it. Are you you arguing that if you vote 5 it will not cover hard copy? ] (]) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::I think there is a misunderstanding of what is meant "blacklisting the source". Please see ] below. ] (]) 17:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::Ok, I'll give more responses to your slightly earlier comment: {{tqq|Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing).}} Yes, nothing says so; I wasn't arguing otherwise. {{tqq|But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal?}} Does not appear to be. The sole publisher of this paperback edition is The Heritage Foundation.{{pb}}Going onward... You said that this country ranking, which is a primary source and an unscientific publication from a think tank, is a RS. On no day would that simply be a reliable source. So I'm going to circle back to my original question, to which you replied with the rhetorical question of {{tqq|Do paperbacks get special dispensation ...}}. That original question, mildly rephrased, is:{{pb}}''How does the recommendation to blacklist heritage.org the website for safety reasons answer the question of how to treat the reliability of The Heritage Foundation as a source, whereby "source" means publisher, consistent with ], which is how this RfC's question is also formulated ({{tqq|'''What is the reliability of <u>The Heritage Foundation</u> ...'''}})''?{{pb}}Your answer to this question is that blacklisting an organization's website creates an assumption that all publications from that organization which can not be blacklisted are treated as deprecated sources. This answer is ''possible'', but it is not what, say, ] thinks. He wrote: {{tqq|... we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question ...}}. —] 18:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::Hey Alalch can you change the source you change this to a normal link because the entire section is now colored red because of the source reliability gadget thing ''']]''' 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::Yes, I'll break the link. My highlighter doesn't work like that. It only colors the link red, not the whole section. —] 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::Ultimately I think this is somewhat moot as, notwithstanding the safety concern, they're also a deeply unreliable fringe source that has been spammed all over our project. As such I do sincerely think there is a justification for options 4 and 5 even if this group wasn't trying to target Misplaced Pages editors. That they're also doing this is, in my view, an inflaming element but I think that getting this pervasive fringe source out of our project is a good for the project on its own merits. ] (]) 18:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Also this is an online source, so may be a security risk. ] (]) 17:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::You are mistaken. The link I posted is a link to a database entry on the website isbndb.com. It contains information about a printed work published by The Heritage Foundation. —] 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' already said why, garbage source that’s a threat to user safety. ] (]) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support option 5 and option 4''' per my statements above. ] (]) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *: I added option 4 to my support message to clarify I support both blacklisting and deprecating this source. ] (]) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3,''' with '''Option 5''' post 2016 and '''Option 4''' for any hard copy after 2016. ] (]) 15:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Only blacklisting/deprecating content from a certain time period is not possible unless the domains are different. ] (]) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3: generally unreliable'''. Too many examples of them publishing bunk. However, blacklisting would also be wrong, because they seem to have a deep archive of relevant material, such as by ] which we link to on his article. For readers who want to read the subject's writings, that is a useful link. Putting the heritage.org domain on the spam blacklist would prevent this. This is far from the only example. Furthermore, the call to blacklist seems to be a misguided attempt to prevent the doxxing op that they have planned. Blacklisting will not prevent any of that plan being executed. It's just the wrong tool. By all means aggressively block accounts and IP addresses implicated in doxxing, but blacklisting their domain is a completely unrelated action. ] (]) 15:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| There is a somewhat unusual situation at ] and ] concerning the inclusion of the following text (and variants thereof): | |||
| *'''Option 5''' and '''Option 4'''. this is literally a Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". ] (]) 15:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' maybe the doxing threat would be a good enough reason, but the fact it publishes misinformation is an overwhelming reason. ] ] 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2 for pre-2016''' (meaning: same status as the Cato Institute and the other "]" think tanks) and '''Option 4 for 2016 and later'''. While spam websites can get spam-blacklisted if they're recognized as obvious spam in discussions held in this forum (happens rarely), I oppose the notion that this forum has an ability to decide to blacklist a non-spam source for computer security reasons, because the subset of editors at large interested in reliability of sources used on Misplaced Pages, who are predominantly the editors commenting here, here do not have the competence to make an informed decision on matters of user safety. Facts and arguments should be collected in a discussion devoted to that specifically, which discussion has a chance of attracting editors with suitable knowledge and skill, and decisions should be made going forward from that (i.e., ''']''' (])), not from value judgements.—] 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Actually, we do have the competence and the right to decide whether a source should be blacklisted in this appropriate venue. ] (]) 16:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Disagreed. I.e., agreed for spam, disagreed for safety.—] 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' We can't control what they do with their site, and they've indicated their willingness to use malicious applications and methods to harm Misplaced Pages. Allowing links from our site to theirs is a fundamental cybersecurity concern, given their announced intention to target our editors. And given their use of misinformation, their all but explicitly stated goal of engaged in broad political activity to undermine the constitution of their home nation, which is also the host nation of this project and whose constitution outlines fundamental principles of this project, there will be no appreciable loss to the project from doing so. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' - blacklist website for cybersecurity reasons. Not sure about non-website references. --] 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' blacklist for security reasons, noting that they have brought this on themselves - I would otherwise oppose blacklisting, as they sometimes carry content from individuals whose opinions we would give weight to. ] (]) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' Blacklist -- ''but this does not mean removing the reference''. Rather, we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question, but with their announced intent to use links to try to break Misplaced Pages privacy, they are a malware site and should be treated as such. This needs to be done to all links to their websites, regardless of date. -- ] (]) 17:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' They are often publishing pure opinion, and what they publish is definitely the opinion of the people writing. Where these opinions might be due is to be discussed on the relevant talkpages. Their editorial content (i.e. anything published by them without a name attached) is generally unreliable ('''option 3''') as they are into ] conspiracy theories and disinformation. I don't get how anybody is voting 4 or 5 on merit here though, and this board no jurisdiction over their alleged cyber-stalking attempt.] (]) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' per Vanamonde93, the known security risks make this an exception to past precedent, basically they have now entered "]." I would guess anything notable published there would be picked up by on other news outlets and/or scholarly sources that can be cited instead. The Clarence Thomas article mentioned above, for instance, is widely cited and also has a Google Books entry which at least is not a technological risk. ] (]) 17:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' per Vanamonde93. If necessary to use, we can use other sources that refer to the organization, to an offline publication, or use an archival link (which I think would resolve security issues). Perhaps archiving all existing links might be an option as well? -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' I have seen enough to make me think that attribution is insufficient here, gunrel leaves the door ajar for citations but not that many, hopefully. Blacklisting their websites seems more of a technical question, but wouldn't it require a 4 first? ] (]) 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. ] (]) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? ] (]) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{re|JoJo Anthrax|Bluethricecreamman|Abo Yemen|Dronebogus|Doug Weller|MjolnirPants|SarekOfVulcan|Vanamonde93|NatGertler|Boynamedsue|Gnomingstuff|Patar knight|1AmNobody24|Tryptofish|Chaotic Enby|Horse Eye's Back}} | |||
| *:::While it's reasonable to assume that "option 5" would automatically include "option 4", some editors seem to think that it doesn't. Please ignore this request if you agree with them, otherwise, you might want to adjust your !vote (i.e., also comment on the reliability) to alleviate any confusion. Thanks. ] (]) 19:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::My comment is only on security grounds. I don't believe that in the current context it is possible to evaluate their reliability independent of those security concerns and so will not be attempting to do so. ] (]) 19:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I did already comment on the reliability in my !vote, but thanks for the reminder! ] (] · ]) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I don't have a strong opinion on this - if it weren't for the security risk I'd be somewhere between options 3 and 4. ] (]) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I do have a strong opinion on this, but am backing it down to 3+5 for NPOV reasons. As said elsewhere, named op-eds might be legitimate references. --] 20:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' Don't think this needs any explanation anymore. ] (]) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 6''', ]. We're trying to solve a very real issue of not giving out personal information, but blacklisting isn't really a way to do this. The risk by clicking on the link is something like the risk of clicking on a link to a state-owned media site, or frankly any potentially hostile website. This is because there's no malware required to be installed to get one's IP; the execution is extremely simple because you ''give out your IP when you visit any website'' and, if you allow cookies to be downloaded generally, ''this is the exact way that advertisers track your browsing''.{{pb}}The way that spearphishing to get one's IP address works is that you have to click on a ''very specific link'', and they have to be fairly certain that ''only you'' could have clicked on that link (or that a very small number of people could have done so). Blacklisting one domain name is sufficient to start a game of Whac-A-Mole, but it doesn't really protect us against this sort of thing; all they have to do is register a new domain name that ''outwardly looks like'' something benign and send it to you in an email (or even posting it on a rarely-viewed talk page). And, if they're already engaging sockpuppet burner accounts to do this, we're going to see this often and possibly without even knowing it.{{pb}}If the concern is spearphishing, blacklisting a public website that has some legitimate uses is the wrong approach. In fact, it would wind up making the spearphishing be ''more effective'' by necessity, since people who are alert to Heritage urls would be directed to click on something that doesn't look like one. And perhaps it would even lull people into letting down their guard in this respect.{{pb}}The is used in >5000 articles often as a supplementary/] source. And that's because it's influential in the course of AmPol and it's often useful to include those links in a reference work. This sort of spearphishing would appear to be a new low.{{pb}}What I really don't want is for editors to have a false sense of security here; blacklisting is not going to stop this sort of activity, and it's somewhat trivial to get around this. The proposal would give us as much extra security as blacklisting state-owned media/government-controlled websites from countries known to try to de-identify and harass Wikipedians. We don't generally do that, and we really don't need to; it would be ineffective in achieving its goals of protecting our users. (Perhaps I'm off-base here, and the community would want to blacklist those too.) But it really is a bit of a feel-good measure more than an effective one for privacy from a sophisticated actor.{{pb}}The technical solutions offered at ] are in some ways more robust than a blacklist. What the technical solutions ''would'' do is make it harder to trace back traffic to ordinary (i.e. non-spearphishing) links on the website to Misplaced Pages, and it would reduce the risk associated with existing citations. They're not perfect; ultimately nothing can prevent you from clicking the outlink to a burner website, but those solutions don't lull users into the false sense of security that blacklisting the Heritage website would. — ] <sub>]</sub> 18:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:We can do both. We can remove a ] source that is being far too pervasively used across Misplaced Pages and we can also pursue those technical solutions to protect privacy. And this would have a tertiary effect of pointing out that the Misplaced Pages community will vigorously protect itself from this sort of ] interference.] (]) 18:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The issues outside of reliability or blacklisting is out of scope for this noticeboard. Discussion about protecting editors from hostile actions should continue on the village pump. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is ''very'' relevant. — ] <sub>]</sub> 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yeah that isn't really a valid reason for blacklisting. The point of closing ] above, and starting a new section, was to focus on reliability issues. That they appear to be taking hostile actions against Misplaced Pages's editors isn't a V/RS policy reason for blacklisting. | |||
| *:::Blacklisting won't protect editors, which is something that will proby need WMF involvement, which is why I suggest the VP discussion continue. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a really pertinent point, there are genuine security concerns, we need to discuss them in the correct place. Most of the people here are clueless about online security, I know I am, it's not a reliability issue. The comments on here seem to be completely reactionary, and more about sending a message to the ghouls in question that they can fuck off. Let's be honest, the people voting option 5 are doing so as retaliation. I understand that instinct, I'm fuming about this myself, but it's making us look daft. We shouldn't be getting into bunfights with organisations that are so clearly beneath us. --] (]) 19:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm all for discussing the Heritage Foundation based on the merits of its reliability and protecting Wikipedians from their harassment, but I completely agree with Redtail here. I really doubt that we'd need to blacklist new Primary additions, and Heritage can't doxx Wikipedians through existing citations without doxxing everyone who visits a Heritage link; we don't have trackers on our Heritage reference links. What we should do instead is try and rangeblock Heritage or other stuff already discussed. ] (]) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| So, in fact it IS being argued that 5 does not also include 4, so if you also think derpication as well you need to (explicitly) say it, as I now do. ] (]) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5: Blacklist''' (along with '''4: Deprecate'''). For our security as editors, and for the security of our readers – and yes, they brought this on themselves. --] (]) 18:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5: Blacklist''', primarily for editor safety reasons. While I agree with Red-tailed hawk that blacklisting this specific source will not be a perfect solution, editors posting unknown websites for spearfishing purposes can be dealt with individually (in fact, I don't think they would wait for heritage.org to be blacklisted to do so, and blacklisting the main site keeps us more alert on that fact). If the Heritage Foundation intends to directly endanger Misplaced Pages editors, blacklisting their website and treating it as potential malware is the minimum we should do. In terms of accuracy, '''generally unreliable''' at least, and neutral on deprecation, although NatGertler's approach (removing the links in existing citations) can also be up for consideration. ] (] · ]) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| NO security is perfect, and if its not they even black list spam (they will find a way). it is about not making is casual. So easy that it just means copying and pasting nickyouriddotcom into a cite. Making it even slightly harder might be enough to prevent its casual use. ] (]) 18:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote>but ] says regarding Samsara that Vikruti Evam Prakriti (perversity/diversity is what nature is all about, or, what seems unnatural is also natural), which some scholars believe recognizes the cyclical constancy of homosexual/transsexual dimensions of human life, like all forms of universal diversities.</blockquote> | |||
| * I've got a multi-stage vote of sorts, if that makes sense: | |||
| :*In general, '''Option 5''' for editor security reasons, as per all above. | |||
| :*With specific regard to HF-authored pieces/editorials, '''Option 4''' as they repeatedly publish dis/misinformation intended solely to serve ] theories. | |||
| :*With specific regard to op-eds that have an actual name attached to them, '''somewhere between option 2 and option 3''' - ] would typically lean toward the former, but even the op-ed pieces veer into FRINGE often enough that I'm not comfortable with an outright 2. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 18:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' Because as Bernards points out, there are still some good links, particularly in archives. And as Red-tailed explains, Blacklisting creates its own set of problems that won't solve what many think it will ie. it's a dangerous solution because it puts a veneer on the problem that looks like solid wood underneath that is not. -- ]] 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| As well as the following challenging text, which is not currently present in the article: | |||
| *'''Option 5''' on security grounds, this is a bit atypical but we don't have a large history of sources purposefully turning their links into honeypots with the explicit intent of harming wikipedia editors and readers. ] (]) 18:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' for any web-based source connected to the organisation on grounds of cybersecurity. No comment as to reliability. ] (]) 19:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' This foundation knowingly and intentionally publishes disinformation, and it has self-identified as a threat to Misplaced Pages and its editors. ] (]) 19:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Um why does anybody think the links they would use would be to a heritage foundation url? Also, this isn’t a social media site, this isn’t some place where the interests of the users are supposed to trump the interests of the product, that being our articles. If there is some evidence that an actual heritage.org link has been used for some nefarious purpose then you can talk about blacklisting, but other than that this is supposed to be judged based on what’s best for our articles, not our editors. ''']''' - 19:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yeah, this is the main problem with blacklisting. It’s ], which generally does more harm than good, as I think Red-tailed hawk articulated well. Using heritage.org as the actual spearphishing domain doesn’t line up to the MO given in the leaked slides, which talk about using redirects. It would also be weirdly amateurish to create that kind of paper trail leading directly to the perps, especially now that they (presumably) know we’re onto them and any of their agents caught in such an obvious blunder could be subject to countermeasures. ] (]) 20:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5: blacklist any and all known Heritage Foundation websites''' as soon as possible, past and present links included. The organization has made its malicious intentions clear. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' this is purely retaliatory behaviour based on an alleged document. The usage of this source hasn't been shown to be problematic and a few bad articles doesn't inherently make a source unreliable. If you're worried about your safety then block the links yourself, but Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to serve you and your paranoia. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --] (]) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::The document mentions nothing about using phishing links nor would their references serve as a useful phishing link. ] (]) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' (like all think tanks). This seems purely retaliatory. I mean sure, they want to spy on us, but famously so did the NSA, for which we sued the NSA and lost. And it’s not like we are banned from citing US websites. This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity, do you think an FBI agent led attempt to steal our information would use their basic domain? They have millions of dollars they will just buy more or use connections to do it to other sites. This does nothing and is performative. And I don’t find the evidence above convincing, it’s a think tank, producing think tank type fare. ] (]) 21:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' per {{u|PARAKANYAA}}. Well said. - ] (]) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' There is absolutely no downside to blacklisting this source. Nothing of value is lost, and unreliable information is kept out - it's a win-win situation. ] 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' Those sites are not reliable enough. Privacy wise, those sites are dangerous for editors and readers to visit. ] (]) 21:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' and in case it's considered seperate '''Option 4''' as well. THF are not only publishers of ] but are posing an active threat to ] ] (]) 22:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Reference Subsection === | |||
| <blockquote>Hindus have many sacred texts and different communities give special importance to different texts. Even more so than in other religions, Hindus also foster disparate interpretations of the meaning of various texts. The ], which form the foundation of Hinduism for many, do not refer explicitly to homosexuality, but '''some authors claim''' that the ] says regarding Samsara that Vikruti Evam Prakriti (perversity/diversity is what nature is all about, or, what seems unnatural is also natural), '''although ] does not attest either ''vikriti''<ref>https://sanskrit.inria.fr/MW/236.html#vik.rti</ref> or ''prakriti''<ref>https://sanskrit.inria.fr/MW/163.html#prak.rti</ref> in the text of the Rig Veda'''. '''Some writers believe''' this phrase recognizes the cyclical constancy of homosexual/transsexual dimensions of human life, like all forms of universal diversities,<ref>'Expose the Hindu Taliban!' by ]</ref> '''although academic Sanskritists like Jamison & Brereton<ref>Jamison, Stephanie, and Joel Brereton. The Rigveda. Oxford University Press, 2020</ref> do not accept the existence of the phrase in the text, as with Sastri in the revised Vedic concordance.<ref>Bandhu, Vishva, ed. A Grammatical Word-index to Rgveda: In Collaboration with Bhimdev (o. fl. a.). Vishveshvaranand Vedic Research Institute, 1963.</ref>'''</blockquote> | |||
| In summary, in the present version of the articles, there is text asserting that the ], an ancient compendium of Sanskrit religious poetry, contains the line "vikruti evam prakriti", which is claimed to mean "what seems unnatural is also natural", which is alleged to be a statement about homosexuality. These statements are currently sourced to this article in a popular publication <ref>'Expose the Hindu Taliban!' by ]</ref>, and this academic source on religion and sexuality<ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=yfvkSlLF1Q0C&pg=PT368#v=onepage&q&f=false</ref>. This text is currently being challenged on the grounds that the line "vikruti evam prakriti" does not actually occur in the Rig Veda, in support of which a number of authoritative sources on Sanskrit and the Rig Veda, which do not accept the attestation of the line in the Rig Veda, are cited, as well as searchable databases of the raw text itself. Exclusion of the challenged line and/or inclusion of text suggesting that the challenged line does not exist in the Rig Veda are both currently being rejected on the grounds that the academic sources on Sanskrit and Rig Veda are "irrelevant" because they do not specifically deal with homosexuality. | |||
| So the questions are: | |||
| # Are the sources cited in support of the existence of the phrase (a popular publication, and an academic work on religion and sexuality) reliable in the context of making a specific claim about the existence of a phrase in a specific religious text in a specific language, where the authors are not specialists on any of the religion, the language, or the work, and where no further citations are present in those sources attributing the claim to specialist works on Sanskrit or the Rig Veda? | |||
| # Are the sources cited in opposition to the existence of the phrase (all academic works on Sanskrit and the Rig Veda, of which several of the most salient ones are cited, which document the entirety of the Vedic corpus, according to which not only the challenged line, but even the individual words within it, are not attested in the Rig Veda) unreliable and/or irrelevant in the context of the articles in question? | |||
| ] (]) 00:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | {{reflist-talk}} | ||
| * The text is poorly written and looks very much like a ]. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 09:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *It is ], unless the reliable sources entirely support the text. ] (]) 08:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: Crowdfunders == | |||
| {{RSN RfC status|1592902740}}<!-- ] 08:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC) --> | |||
| {{rfc|prop|rfcid=048D2EB}} | |||
| Should crowdfunding platforms be blacklisted, as petition sites are, with specific links whitelisted as needed? ''']''' <small>(])</small> 08:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ; Background | |||
| Petition sites are blacklisted, with specific links handled by whitelisting. This is due to widespread use of Misplaced Pages to promote petitions, often but certainly not always in good faith. Most uses of petition sites were of the form ''In (year), a petition was launched for (cause). Source: Link to the petition.'' | |||
| The same applies to crowdfunders, with the additional problem that they are not just asking for signatures, but actual money. Many of the links are (inevitably) to campaigns that have now ended, but even here, they are primary. Example: | |||
| : On April 24th 2013 Braff started a ] campaign to finance "Wish I Was Here" which based on a script he wrote with his brother Adam Braff.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1869987317/wish-i-was-here-1}}</ref> | |||
| {{reflist talk}} | |||
| This was added . | |||
| The scale of the problem is not small. | |||
| * {{duses|gofundme.com}} (123 references) | |||
| * {{duses|indiegogo.com}} (876 references) | |||
| * {{duses|kickstarter.com}} (2,973 references) | |||
| ===Opinions (Crowdfunders) === | |||
| * '''Support''' as proposer. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 08:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' per Guy - ] (]) 09:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' – If the crowdfund is notable, then it should not be hard to find a secondary source as a reference. If there is no secondary source, then it is not notable and should not be mentioned. I also have a hard time imagining a situation in which these websites are necessary as a source for notable facts. (Perhaps as a source for self-published birth date on a BLP, but a request to whitelist will suffice in that situation.) --- ]&]]) 09:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' if crowdfund is not covered in secondary RS, we should not cover it either. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 12:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - We can mention the existence of a crowdfund if it is mentioned by independent reliable sources... but we should not link to it. ] (]) 12:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' I agree, these funding requests can become very political, very quickly. --- ] (]) 12:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' Agreed, a crowdfunding campaign on its own without secondary coverage does not establish notability. ] (]) 13:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' seems obvious to me. ] (]) 14:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' I agree crowdfunding sites should be blocked. They are like fundraising links. You would not allow PayPal pages or links to someone's ebay page. --] (]) 15:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * <s>'''Support:''' no brainer. --] (]) 17:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)</s> | |||
| * '''Oppose''' as explained below. --] (]) 22:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' But I'll explain more below - we should not be using these sites for anything notability related or similar, but once a notability threshold is reached they are fair game as equivalent to primary sources for the projects backed. --] (]) 20:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Allow in external links''' for crowdfunding in relation to notable subjects, per Masem. BLPs who are supported by Patreon subscriptions, for example, ought to have their crowdfunding linked. ] (]) 20:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|EllenCT}}, What? Why? Why on earth would we include a link that basically says "give this person money here"? We can link the official website, and leave them to do thier own panhandling. My monthly Patreon bill for subscribed content is in excess of $100, I'm not opposed to crowdfunding, but it's not our job to drive donations to the article subject. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 09:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' for closed campaigns as per Masem's rationale but deprecate links to live campaigns, imv ] (]) 22:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Citations of active crowdfunding campaigns violate ], and should be substituted with reliable ]. Citations of closed campaigns might be usable as ] when used to supplement reliable secondary sources, but those cases can be ] as needed when there is consensus to use them. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - We can always whitelist a link if relevant and appropriate. But we should ensure the message warning that the site is blacklisted includes an explanation on how to appeal for whitelisting. Per Newslinger. ]] 05:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', with the proviso that needed whitelisting be done without a lot of tooth-pulling. The main reason to cite one of these is for ] purposes (e.g. that a crowdfunding proposal claimed something at a certain date, and we've quoted it; or that a certain crowdsourcing has a policy that states {{var|X}} and we're writing about that). That can be handled by selective whitelisting. We could also do this for cases where the subject has no official webpage other than their Patreon or whatever. We don't block Amazon.com on the article about Amazon, despite the fact that following that link will lead you to a site at which you might agree to spend money. So "there's a shopping card form there" isn't really a rationale. Links to such pages frequently being added gratuitously as a fundrasing mechanism, like posting survey links on WP as an input-generating means for them, is the actual problem to address. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 13:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion=== | |||
| *If there is no secondary source for a crowdfunder, then it is not significant. If there is a secondary source then use it and don't link the crowdfunder. This seems obvious to me. It's the approach we take for petitions, and it is working well for that. An edit filter or revert list will not work I think: revert lists can be overridden trivially by simply reinserting the link, an edit filter set to warn will be ignored, as is the case for blogs and self-published sources (e.g. filter 894, 1045), and if set to enforce, whitelisting of individual links is obscure. The blacklist / whitelist process is well suited to handling this issue. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 08:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **This seems pretty obvious and clear - ] (]) 09:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * ] (but see discussion below) | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| I think I want to create ], a crowdfunding site to collect donations for creating new crowdfunding sites. If it works out, ]... --] (]) 14:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Guy Macon}}, but how will you fund that? ''']''' <small>(])</small> 15:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps the WMF will create wikifunding. They seem to be ]... --] (]) 17:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *{{rE|Guy Macon}} AngelList is not a crowdfunding site, it has information similar to Crunchbase and is more like Linkedin. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">] (] <span style="color:#000">愛</span> ])</span> 09:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sounds reasonable. Would you be so kind as to look at ] and remove any non-crowdfunding platforms you see?? | |||
| ::{{tl|Crowdfunding platforms}}--] (]) 12:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::<small>for some reason, having this template expanded at the indent level was screwing up indents down the rest of the entire talk page, I've "nulled" out the expansion from above as a note. --] (]) 13:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)</small> | |||
| * I disagree with the rapid sense to treat these like change.org (which I fully agree should be blacklisted) but I do agree with waving the huge flag on their frivolous use. Hundreds of projects attempt crowdfunding, few met their goal, and fewer still of those are WP:N-notable before they get completed. But there ''are'' more than a few exceptions of projects that have been announced first through things like Kickstarter that get attention through secondary sources that we have had articles on. And where I have found the crowdfunding sites sometimes useful is in that they serve as a primary source for some information not always captured by the secondary sources but needed to properly flesh out an article. (but not documenting EVERYTHING said on the funding page). This is no different from using a development blog hosted anywhere else for some of the finer details, as long as notability has clearly been shown and we're talking filling in some of the holes rather than building the entire page off that primary source. But again, this is under limited cases, and not the common situation that these links are used for which is the promotional spam without any sense of notability. --] (]) 20:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: I agree with Masem. I took the time to look through a few dozen pages with these links to get a sense of how they're used. I removed a few clearly egregious cases, but in a reasonable minority of cases I see this pattern: a secondary source describes an event/item that underwent crowdfunding, and the crowdfunding reference is placed after the secondary reference. I can see from a user's perspective why this would be useful. ] (]) 22:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think Masem has a good point. Look at ] as one example of a legitimate citation. --] (]) 22:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If we have to spamlist it as opposed to blacklist (so that I have to press "accept my edit" twice to reduce the "change.org"-type additions, that's fine. I understand the clear concern of when these are being added as inappropriate promotional links and this is definitely a goal I back. And I would certainly make it a RS/P item as very situational as a primary source, not for notability, only to be used in moderation when trying to be comprehensive but not "complete". (I am speaker here as having backed video and board games through KS and others, and have once in a while used those sources here to add the odd missing detail, but not to do anything close to ] regurgitation which is the other side of caution when allowing these.) And of course, when talking about crowdfunding, the non-funding parts of these sites ''are'' authoritative, such as KS listing out its top projects by $ amount. --] (]) 23:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|Masem}}, OK, but look at filter 1045 (blog) or filter 869 (deprecated source). Most editors are clicking through and making the edit anyway. And a mainspace filter will not prevent people spamming crowdfunders on talk pages. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 09:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Guy Macon}}, I looked at Ogre. I tried to find a secondary source for the content currently cited to Kickstarter. Turns out to be remarkably difficult. Which is kind of my point: the two main uses are (a) active campaigns added by obvious fans and (b) primary sources for trivia. Neither passes ]. | |||
| ::::Of course , some never ship at all - we both agree I think that live campaigns should not be included. How do we police that? How do we stop it on Talk pages? | |||
| ::::With petition sites, we ''do'' link (via whitelist) a few closed petitions that have received external coverage and where the content of the petition page is of specific interest. That is exactly what I am proposing here, in fact. But for the most part the primary source is either excessive detail or an active solicitation for support, which is inappropriate IMO. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 09:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There is a factor here that not all crowdfunding sites are the same. Whereas I trying to make sure that Kickstarter or IndieGoGo pages are still open - because a key feature of most projects there is their running devblog/progress which is the information value we want - a site like Patreon or GoFundMe is all about getting you donation and rarely provides useful info or is about anything notable in the long run. (And as this question started, if any of those types of campaigns are actually of note, they will get secondary coverage). The Kickstarter/IndieGogo pages (and I think there's a few others like this) are the ones that are the basis typically for notable commercial products, which is a key difference here, and usually that's not going to be something "personal" that will get started. You still might have people spamming links during their open campaigns to get others to help support that, which is an issue but because these usually can't be started "on a whim" like a Patreon, GoFundMe, or change.org petition, they aren't as frequent or common. That might be a key distinction to think about here. --] (]) 13:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Masem}}, crowdfunding is indeed a notable thing. We should certainly include it when mentioned by secondary sources. What we should not do is include links to crowdfunding projects, for exactly the same reason that we don't link to petitions. When I have gone through and found the original addition, almost all appear to have been added ''while the campaign was active''. This seems to me to be a serious problem. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 09:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::Some crowdfunding projects gain notability while they are active in the month or so (And then you have something of the situation like ] which has been in a perpetual crowdfunding situation since 2013, but let's call that one the outlier). In some cases (and these are cases I've edited on so I can speak to it), these are easily tied to existing topics - the ] revival passed its goal quickly but that was easy to already tie to a notable topic (the original show). Surprisingly at the end of the day, the only time I ended up linking to the kickstarter was to provide a snippet of information about the ORIGINAL show that we didn't have before that came during the project updates during the campaign period from the show's creator. A separate case would be the example of ] which when it launched as a KS in Feb 2012 was just known as Double Fine Adventure, and at the time because one of the highest-funded projects and gained significant attention to a point that it was clearly notable whether or not it ended up being made (in part because the team behind it was already a known factor ( eg ) Now, at this point, we hadn't had to link to KS, the only link being the one in the External Link, because the secondary sources were covering it well, but my point is that can be crowdfunded projects that are notable or tied to notable topics that we may need to touch on the updated and informational pages that most crowdfunding sites use for keeping the crowdfunding supporters up-to-date on the project as primary sources. Additions where they are used to build out details that we would expect for contemporary works like development (conception, influences, behind-the-scenes, etc.) are useful, and this is where I'm worried the action here is potentially cutting those off. But in both cases, and in general, these were only included until after secondary sources established that crowdfunding was going on (and in the latter case, enough to establish independent notability). I fully agree that if first mention of any project is by the inclusion of the crowdfunding link, particularly while it is actively, is more an attempt to draw people to participate in it, not to use for informational purposes, but that's not the only use of crowdfunding sites for WP's purposes. --] (]) 13:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:::To add and stress: the cases I only started adding significant information on the crowdfunding efforts in these examples and others was ''after'' the project was clearly past its target goal well before the end of the project (these two examples were within days of the start of the campaign) Obviously, this is a key factor for notability. --] (]) 13:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{u|Masem}}, I do not disagree at all. I just don't think we should be using the primary source, or indeed allowing users to publish links to crowdfunders on talk pages. The crowdfunder pages are SPS and primary and almost by definition promotional. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 14:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::::SPS nor primary sources are not immediately disallowed by any policy (though obviously can't be used in some situations like BLP), and whether the links are used in a promotional fashion or not all depends on context where it is being used. There are some of the crowdfunding sites that you listed like Patreon that I cannot see any other use but promotional in any article because of how that is setup, whereas a Kickstarter project's use is going to depend how its incorporated - just dropping a link off on talk and saying you should back this is clearly promotion, while dropping the link off and saying there's some details on the project's inspiration that can be added is a good use, and something we'd not want to block. Now I fully agree that I'd rather pull that info from a secondary/third-party source repeating the information from the crowdfunding page, but that's not always possible. --] (]) 14:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I have no problem with MENTIONING a crowdfunding campaign in an article. The concern is with LINKING to it. Linking seems promotional in nature rather than informational. ] (]) 12:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: It seems to me that linking to a crowdfunding campaign that... | |||
| ::* is closed and no longer accepts money, and | |||
| ::* is the origin of a product or service notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages article | |||
| :: ...is not automatically promotional. --] (]) 13:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Guy Macon}}, well, it's primary and self-published, but it's also a marketing communication, isn't it? ''']''' <small>(])</small> 14:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Some certainly are. But the story in ] documenting how the game morphed from a tiny game in a zip lock bag that fits in your pocket to a massive box -- far larger than any board game I have ever seen -- because so many people donated is an interesting story, and the huge size (but not necessarily how it got that way) has been noted in multiple reviews of the game. Seeing as how they sold out of them and have no plans for making any more, it is hard to see how at this point that particular kickstarter page is promotional. --] (]) 16:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|Guy Macon}}, yes, it's an interesting story. Is it covered in any secondary sources that make this point? ''']''' <small>(])</small> 15:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Keeping in mind that the sourcing for game reviews won't be found in ''The New York Times'' or ''The Gauardian'', there are many sources that comment on it being huge, but none really explain how it got that way. | |||
| {{collapse top|title=OGRE reviews}} | |||
| ::::::* "Back in December, I got my hands on a copy of the Designer’s Edition of Ogre. It weighed over twenty-five pounds, took hours to punch out and assemble all the hundreds of pieces, and took up more width on the couch than I do... It sat there for seven long months, taking up the entire laundry room, beckoning in the night like a green light flashing at the end of a pier. Why didn’t I play it? It really comes down to intimidation, or maybe the fact that I can hardly lift the thing without pulling my back, groin, biceps, and hamstrings." | |||
| ::::::* "Back in 2013, Mr. Jackson crowdfunded a special 6th edition of Ogre and you better bet I was on board for that. It proposed to be the complete Ogre package, featuring virtually everything ever made for it and then some. This was to be the first Ogre release since the somewhat ill-considered miniatures version of the game, featuring these lovely little cardboard models and big, mounted board that were a far cry from the tiny little paper maps that I once enlarged and mounted on foamcore. Fan material, supplements, all of the official expansions...it was epic. But it was also unwieldy, excessive and gigantic. The box was enormous, and in it were hundreds of counters, terrain overlays, variant Ogres, highly specialized units, and enough units for both sides to play multiple concurrent games. You'd think that an Ogre fan would be delighted. I wasn't. I was disappointed that the 'Designer's Edition' completely lost sight of the compact, contained nature of the game and turned it into a sprawling mess. It felt like a burden to own. I found myself wishing that there was something of a "compact" Designer's Edition. " | |||
| ::::::* " It’s too damned big. Yeah, I know big is the point with 6th Ed., but seriously now. With the counters punched out the box still weighs in at over thirty pounds and it’s got an enormous footprint. The only place I have that’s large enough to store it is either in the attic or on top of my wife’s dresser. Guess which she vetoed? It’s difficult to get down and while the carrying bag was good idea, the shoulder strap isn’t wide enough and the load digs into my shoulder terribly, so transporting it to other places to play is kind of a non-starter, unless I break down and buy a hand cart." | |||
| ::::::* "What’s 28 pounds, takes 2 people to lift and is back from the 1970s with a vengeance? Steve Jackson Game’s OGRE of course! " | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| :::::: --] (]) 20:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{-}} | |||
| == Owler == | |||
| Does anyone have views on the reliability of ]? Our article about the site explains that the content is crowdsourced, and I wonder whether it fails ], which was also my concern when looked at the site itself. My query is prompted by by {{u|Steinythefirst}}. ] (]) 12:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I noticed this too, as the user has been using it as a (naked) ref for company stats on a lot of pages. I don't think that it meets guidelines for a reliable source; there's no provenance or verifiability of the data. I'm going to ask the user to stop adding it to pages until we work this out and decide if it should be removed from all pages. ] (]) 15:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * Doesn't look as if it meets RS. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 16:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * In general offering “competitive insights” doesn't mesh well with good journalistic practices, the crowdsourced part is just the icing on the cake and due to that I would consider them even less reliable than a normal business information service. ] (]) 17:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::There seems to be agreement here then. Does anyone want to help with finding and removing references to this site? ] (]) 11:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Is it a problem that Misplaced Pages's own article on the Mail doesn't seem to justify depreciation as a source? == | |||
| {{collapse top|]}} | |||
| Is it a problem for Misplaced Pages's editors that the Misplaced Pages article on the Daily Mail doesn't seem to support a claim that they are generally unreliable (without having to synthesise a conclusion from the disparate examples offered)? And worse, the claim that the Mail has been "widely criticized for its unreliability", appears to be misrepresentation at best, fabrication at worst, once you actually examine the sources given to support it (accepting one is an offline source that I cannot check right now. ] (]) 17:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| : If you have complaints about the Daily Mail article the best place to take them is ]. One of the reasons that the Daily Mail was depreciated was that it its use in ] articles, which require high quality sourcing was unacceptable due to its sensationalism, and history of falsehoods. ] (]) 17:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::This isn't a complaint about the article, nor was I seeking a reason for the depreciation, only an opinion on the dissonance between the article and "history of falsehoods", if indeed you even see one in this context. Do you see one? ] (]) 20:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :NO as we are not an RS.] (]) 17:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Interesting way to look at it. Doesn't really excuse deliberate acts however, only accidental or excusable failures to ensure Misplaced Pages is as reliable and neutral as it can be, in both its content and decision making, within the limitations of a volunteer workforce.] (]) 20:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Its also not a question of the DM reliability so much as how an article is written. Remember Misplaced Pages is user written, so at any given time any given page may not be an accurate reflection of the subject. Nor can we police every article for accuracy, we rely on the competence of our fellow editors. All this shows is the DM article needs work.] (]) 09:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also (unless the article has been significantly altered in the last 24 hours) there is plenty about its "unreliability, as well as printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research, and for copyright violations".] (]) 09:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :As the others have said, it is not our place to go into the evidence behind the scenes (that no RS I've seen discuss directly) of why WP decided to depreciate DM, but that did lead me to find and add Jimbo's support for this move . But back to the key point, if you can find a RS that discusses specific points of the 2017 debate on the DM deprecation discussion , we can include those highlights, but most stories just said "WP deemes DM unusable" and that's how we have to present it to the mainspace. --] (]) 20:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::You got the wrong end of the stick entirely. This is not about how the article covers the debate that led to depreciation, it is about the surprising lack of any other support of the claim in the article, and what this might say about the methodology and the people behind it. ] (]) 02:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, I understand you want to have discussion of what sources and information that led the internal discussion to deprecate DM, but as I said, there's no external reliable sources that cover those deals, and we don't use WP as its own source here. The process is there if anyone wants to go review the history itself, it's not like it was conducted behind closed doors, we're just not going to incorporate it as an unreliable source into our article. --] (]) 03:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You haven't understood me at all. Not even a little bit. And I think I should know, it was me who asked the question after all. ] (]) 04:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :If you’re not satisfied that the article ] covers its controversies and RS assessments of its journalistic standards, that’s an issue to raise at ].{{pb}}If you believe that Daily Mail shouldn’t have been ''deprecated'', that’s an entirely different matter.{{pb}}If neither apply and you just want to opine about its ''deprecation'', then this discussion ]. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 04:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| : <p>When assessing a publication's reliability on this noticeboard, editors are not limited to using content that is cited in the Misplaced Pages article on the publication. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 01:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)</p> | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| == The Siberian Times == | |||
| ] is an english language web news site founded in 2012, dedicated to the Siberian region. It has been cited around 120 times on wikipedia according to {{duses|siberiantimes.com}}. Mashable : "These stories are allegedly real with a bit of hyperbole/Siberian fan fiction thrown in. ], despite being edited by a Russian woman, the site is the brainchild of Will Stewart, who, as proprietor of East2West Limited, is responsible for the vast majority of the sensationalist and often false stories about Russia in the British tabloid press, including the Mail, Express etc. ] (]) 17:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Not an RS.] (]) 17:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == HowStuffWorks == | |||
| ] (not to be confused with the excellent ]) is a website that "...source of unbiased, reliable, easy-to-understand answers and explanations of how the world actually works." It has been cited on Misplaced Pages over 3,000 times according to {{duses|howstuffworks.com}} The site has been around since 1997, it has only been briefly discussed on this noticeboard twice before in ] and ], alongside some other tangential discussions. I can find few secondary sources on the site other than . In my opinion the HowStuffWorks is a mid quality tertiary source, it's not a terrible low quality clickbait site, but that it is a lower quality source than Britannica, similar to the stories on history.com, and its medical content should not be cited at all per ]. ] (]) 21:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I glanced through a dozen or so of their articles. My impression is that their article quality varies widely, and seems to be mostly due to the freelance contributions. When one of their articles identifies sources, it may be better to use the sources instead. --] (]) 22:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: I agree, I've seen much worse sites but it isn't great either. There isn't really a good reason to cite it in most cases. Misplaced Pages should generally not cite tertiary sources unless they have a good reputation for accuracy (like Britannica), but even then sparingly. ] (]) 22:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *If HowStuffWorks is the only source for a statement I am highly doubtful of it. Therefore, uses should be replaced by more reliable sources. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 22:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == U.S. News == | |||
| Is this news agency, ], a reliable source? A recent article piece by U.S.News claims "''Indian government sources speaking on the condition of anonymity told The Times of India that 20 Indian army personnel had died in the fighting''", where as in reality there is anonymous source, Army itself released statement of 20 personnel KIA which all medias have covered. It seems presenting the article as investigative journalism success. Again it claims, "''American intelligence believes 35 Chinese troops died, including one senior officer, a source familiar with that assessment tells U.S. News''" where as for such casualty report there is no need to hide anything, US House of Foreign Affairs/Pentagon/CIA never support such claim, above that which assessment, who are doing this, nothing is mentioned neither Indian Govt./Army support such claim. No other US sources like of NYT, WP, CNN which will be the first to receive such infomration do not claim such. So, again is this particular article a reliable source? ] (]) 15:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Can't find anything in archives which would indicate that this is not a reliable source. There is no need for sources to reveal their actual identity as long as the news has been published by a ] and US news meets definition of WP:RS. --] (]) 16:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::No this was not the case here. The first claim is ''manupulating the veracity of the second claim''. They have written "anonymous source from Indian Govt. that 20 personnel KIA", ofcourse no need of revealing identity. But when someone read more online they will find out that this claim is true because Army has revealed the same, thus this gives a notion for the readers that as the first claim by anonymous source comes out to be true then the second claim by anonymous is also true, does not matters if any Govt./Army source provide such or not. the problem lies there. ] (]) 16:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::It may be simply a time factor; it's hard to check exact when who knew what, when things were published, etc. It would not be surprising if USN&WR got their information and published first, then the Army got theirs and other RSes published that. In such a case, where we have information via way of an intermediary source as in these cases, it can be preferable to use the more "reliable" intermediary source (a named official over an anonymous one) and the reliable source that backs that, but that does not impact the reliability of the source using the weaker intermediary source overall. US News remains a high quality source for such things. --] (]) 16:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Agree with Masem... there may be sources that are MORE reliable for a given bit of information, but that does not make US News UNreliable. As is always the case when covering recent events, as updated information comes in we need to update our article. And that may mean we need to switch the sources we cite. That does not make the old source “bad”... just the new source “better”. ] (]) 17:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *One of the better and less partisan US news sources imo. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 21:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * As far as I am aware, this is one of the few news sources that just quietly gets on with doing its job without really getting involved in the punditry business. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 12:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Clinical practice guidelines or not? (Medicine) == | |||
| http://www.indianjpsychiatry.org/article.asp?issn=0019-5545;year=2020;volume=62;issue=8;spage=280;epage=289;aulast=Subramanyam Subramanyam 2020] states "clinical practice guideline" at the top. I would like to be sure on the reliability for ] which states clinical practice guidelines as one of the best sources. It is in broadly in keeping with what I found found elsewhere although I am not familiar with the authors or journal. There is only one other practice guideline I am aware of on this topic. ] ''(they/them pronouns)'' ] 20:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Amousey}}, this is a MEDRS question, please ask at the medicine wikiproject. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 17:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Taiwan News Online == | |||
| Is Taiwan News reliable? I hear that it is very biased against the CCP but I want to gather insight from more Misplaced Pages editors. Website: <span style="background:deepskyblue;padding:2px 12px;font-size:14px">] <span style="color:navy;letter-spacing:-2px">❯❯❯</span> ]</span> 21:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :It would be striking if it were not opposed to the CCP. The layout seems to be normal for Asian news websites, and Google shows some citations by other sites but none by what I would accept as gold standard sources. So: a definite maybe from me ;-) ''']''' <small>(])</small> 12:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Generally reliable''', ] is generally reliable with the exception of coverage of companies within the same corporate group as them (primarily an issue with their coverage of ] which tends to be overly fawning), I would always defer to independent sources in that situation if there is a conflict. I would also take care with pulling words/language directly from them without attribution, its often a bit verbose and Taiwanese english is a bit heterodox at times (they also have a habit of going with the most provocative yet accurate translation of mandarin to english, they stay within the bounds of accuracy unlike say ] but its definitely skewed towards the provocative). This is not an issue unique to them though, we see the same thing in Indian WP:RS regulary and we see the opposite in Japanese WP:RS (they choose the least provocative translation). I also think we need context for why this is being discussed here, you hearing that they’re biased against the CCP doesn’t necessitate a RSN discussion and even if true bias (especially against a group as objectively evil as the CCP) is ok in reliable sources on wikipedia. ] (]) 19:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Steven Tibble == | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | status = | |||
| | result = The sources are reliable, the question of inclusion is one of ] and editorial judgment generally. An RfC may be appropriate. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 12:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| I would like to refer to Steven Tibble's following books in articles about the crusades: | |||
| *{{cite book|last=Tibble|first=Steven|year=2011|orig-year=1989|title=Monarchy and Lordships in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099-1291|publisher=Clarendon Press|isbn=978-0-19-822731-1|ref=none|url=https://books.google.hu/books?hl=hu&id=xxFnAAAAMAAJ&dq=Steven+Tibble&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=well+able}} | |||
| *{{cite book|last=Tibble|first=Steven|year=2018|title=The Crusader Armies: 1099-1187|publisher=Yale University Press|isbn=978-0-300-21814-5|ref=none|url=https://books.google.hu/books?hl=hu&id=xxFnAAAAMAAJ&dq=Steven+Tibble&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=well+able}} | |||
| His first work (''Monarchy and Lordships in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099-1291'') is cited, for instance, in the following works: | |||
| *{{cite book|last=Hamilton|first=Bernard|year=2005|orig-year=2000|title=The Leper King and His Heirs: Baldwin IV and the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem|publisher=]|isbn=978-0-521-64187-6|url=https://books.google.hu/books?id=IySQoHdviNkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Leper+King&hl=hu&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiY0N6RxorqAhUDmIsKHXL0BTsQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Leper%20King&f=false|ref=none}} - he thanks Tibble for drawing his attention to certain events, but also emphasizes that he does not share Tibble's all conclusions (p162) | |||
| *{{cite book|last=Jotischky|first=Andrew|year=2017|orig-year=2004|title=Crusading and the Crusader States|url=https://books.google.hu/books?id=rTUlDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=hu#v=onepage&q&f=false|publisher=]|isbn=978-1-138-80806-5|ref=none}} - he mentions that Tibble "extensively" analyzed "the lack of continuity among baronial families" during the first decades of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (p69) | |||
| *{{cite book|last=Barber|first=Malcolm|authorlink=Malcolm Barber|year=2012|title=The Crusader States|publisher=]|isbn=978-0-300-11312-9|url=https://books.google.hu/books?id=Bz_O7-Lb_CsC&dq=Malcolm+Barber&hl=hu&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj6y5maxYrqAhVtlosKHQpjAkYQ6AEISDAD|ref=none}} | |||
| His second work (''The Crusader Armies: 1099-1187'') is cited by Nicholas Morton - a lecturer in History at Nottingham Trent University. Morton writes that Tibble's work contains "many thought-provoking arguments" ({{cite book|last=Morton|first=Nicholas|year=2020|title=The Crusader States and Their Neighbours: A Military History, 1099-1187|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-882454-1|ref=none|url=https://books.google.hu/books?id=5MnhDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Nicholas+Morton+The+Crusader+States&hl=hu&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilqbuHyIrqAhWxlYsKHUYzCpsQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=Nicholas%20Morton%20The%20Crusader%20States&f=false|page=4}}). I must emphasize that Morton's book was published by the Oxford University Press. As {{U|Iridescent}} made it clear twice, this publishing house also published books like ''Emil's Clever Pig'' and ''Slayer Slang: A Buffy the Vampire Slayer Lexicon'' - so I may make a new mistake when referring to his work to verify the use of Tibble's book. | |||
| I seek your advice on Tibble's books, because he "is not an historian but works in PR and communications" as {{U|Norfolkbigfish}} emphasized when I wanted to refer to Tibble's first book (''Monarchy and Lordships in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099-1291'') in an article. I do not want to begin an edit war on the use of these two books of possibly low scholarship. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the reliability of Tibble's books. ] (]) 05:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| : | |||
| :(responding to ping) I have no opinion on this particular author as I know nothing about the author other than what's on his website; my concern (explained at greater length ]) is with the apparent misconception that publication by the Oxford University Press confers notability. OUP is a commercial publisher owned by Oxford University as opposed to the publishing arm of Oxford University, and as such publishes everything from to ; books published by OUP have to be evaluated on the basis of their individual merits, the same as we would with a book from Penguin, Macmillan etc. ‑ ] 09:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Which Steven Tibble is it? Because if its Dr Steve Tibble, he maybe but with attribution. I am seeing a lot of good reviews.] (]) 09:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::. ‑ ] 09:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::According to my experiences, editors who have actually read academic books about the crusades have no doubts about the reliability of Tibble's works. However, my experiences are limited. Two editors who are obviously more experienced than myself, Norfolkbigfish and Iridescent, challenged Tibble's reliability. ] (]) 10:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Editors are not RS. I see nothing to say these are not perfectly respectable book on the subject.] (]) 10:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * Short of delving into academic debates on which I am certainly not qualified to comment, those books appear to me to meet RS handily. Reputable publishers, cited by others. As to how much to rely on them, that's a ] question. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 12:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| There are multiple reviews of Tibble's first book on JSTOR, which in summary comment that there is some good work but also some significant weaknesses. Probably to be expected of what was effectively Tibble's PhD thesis. PW Edbury writes ''This book contains rather too many trivial errors : for example, Tibbie ought to have known that RRH no. 276 is a forgery (p. 86) ; that Walter of Caesarea does not appear as constable of Cyprus in 1206-we have to wait until 1210 (p. 127); and that it was Hugh and not "Henry" of Antioch Lusignan who contested the alienation of Sidon (p. 174). The form "Ch?teau P?lerin" is more bizarre. Furthermore in his statistical analysis of land-holding in the lordship of Caesarea and in some of his ex nihilo arguments, Tibbie lays his methodology wide open to criticism. The point, however, is this. Despite all the detailed shortcomings in his argumentation, the conclusions he reaches are, I believe, essentially valid. Many previously accepted opinions must now be jettisoned; our understanding of the history of the kingdom has advanced considerably''. Also ''Tibbie is strongest on the pre-1187 period. He gives little attention to the question of how the loss of territory and the partial reoccupation after 1187 affected the pattern of land-tenure and seigneurial authority. Nor does he consider the two major thirteenth-century creations, the reconstituted county of Jaffa as held by a branch of the Ibelin family from the mid-1240s and the de Montfort lordship in Tyre, and these omissions may mean that the impression he gives of the situation in the closing period of the kingdom's history is seriously distorted.'' | |||
| Peter Jackson writes ''At times the perspective appears a trifle narrow, as during the discussion of a grant to Balian of Beirut of an estate in the royal domain at Acre by King Henry I of Cyprus, in his capacity as regent (1246/7). To say that 'there is no reason to suppose that Henry's motives ... were anything other than a desire to offer financial support to a hard-pressed vassal' (p. 79) is to ignore Henry's precarious claim to the regency and his own need for support. The suggestion that John of Ibelin was given Beirut by his step-sister Queen Isabella on its recapture in I197 (p. 90), moreover, is actually contradicted by the charters, in none of which is John entitled dominus Beriti prior to 1206, when Isabella was dead. Such minor quibbles apart, however, this is an important work which makes a valuable contribution to the history of the Latin East''. | |||
| James Powell writes ''in his reading am concerned that the book's view is so limited that it will require considerable tion as a result of additional research. First of all, the author has been overly his predecessors in his approach to the institutions of the Latin Kingdom. He talizes feudal lordship in a way that excludes numerous other elements, most Italian maritime communes, from consideration as factors in the equation he establish. While he includes the military orders, his discussion of the role of pears to lack coherence. Certainly, relations between church and monarchy shape relations between the kings and the nobles. Even the question of economic is more elusive than the author seems to suggest. The assumption that, if the poor, the crown was wealthier and able to control them, is weakened not merely dence presented so convincingly concerning the growth of the power and military orders, but also by questions regarding the overall economic strength Kingdom. We need to know whether it was a viable economic entity, able to sustain a sub- stantial local military organization. If lordships were weak, was the monarchy in a position to gain significant advantage or did it too have problems? '' | |||
| As far as I can tell the second work hasn't been accademically reviewed. Tibble has been working in Public Relations since completing his PhD at Royal Holloway in 1982. '' His approach is indebted to the pioneering work of John LaMonte (Feudal Monarchy in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem) who argued that "a vigorous nobility exercised effective control over an emaciated monarchy." Recognizing that this picture has been substantially modified in the work of Joshua Prawer, Jean Richard, and Jonathan Riley-Smith...''. As he has been outside academia he doesn't seem to have published any peer reviewed articles. His works would seem to be interesting, informative and useful but open to challenge on both fact and analysis by academic historians, particularly those who specialise in the field. ] (]) 15:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Norfolkbigfish}}, which is an undue weight question. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 16:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|JzG}}, 100% agree ] (]) 17:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Editors who regularly read reviews of scholarly works are not surprised that each scholarly work has their weaknesses. | |||
| ::*When reviewing ]'s ''Crusader Institutions'', Robert B. Patterson notes that "...there are some aspects of the work that deserve challenge. The author's attribution of the Court of the Chain's inauguration to King Amaury I ... as probable rejects without explanation charter evidence... Many medievalists no longer consider a refutation of John L. La Monte's image of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem as an ideal feudal state to be necessary. Not a few of them will also reject the line of argument used." ({{cite journal |last=Patterson |first=Robert B. |title=Reviewed Work: Joshua Prawer: ''Crusader Institutions'' |journal=The American Historical Review |volume=86 |issue=4 |page=822 |date=October 1981 |url=https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article-abstract/86/4/822/59090?redirectedFrom=fulltext |issn=0002-8762 |ref=none}}). | |||
| ::*Factual errors can also be detected in scholarly works. ] concludes that there are "some scattered infelicities of expression" in ''The World of the Crusaders'' by Prawer, which also contains "occasional errors of facts, most of them relatively trivial" ({{cite journal |last=Brundage |first=James A. |title=Reviewed Work: ''The World of the Crusaders'' by Joshua Prawer |journal=Church History |volume=43 |issue=1 |pages=101–102 |date=March 1974 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/church-history/article/world-of-the-crusaders-by-joshua-prawer-new-york-quadrangle-books-1972-160-pp-895/BE8446F9595329E5E771982178CAFE2C |issn=0009-6407 |ref=none}}) | |||
| ::*Even the conceptual framework of important studies can be challenged - this is what we call science. When reviewing Prawer's two important books, ] writes: " deals at length with the Crusades as a colonial movement... Some reservations may be expressed about the adequacy, and even the necessity, of this conceptual framework. ... " ({{cite journal |last=Holt |first=P. M. |title=Reviewed Works: ''The World of the Crusaders'' by Joshua Prawer; ''The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages'' by Joshua Prawer |journal=Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London |volume=36 |issue=3 |pages=652–654 |year=1973 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bulletin-of-the-school-of-oriental-and-african-studies/article/joshua-prawer-the-world-of-the-crusaders-160-pp-72-plates-london-jerusalem-weidenfeld-and-nicolson-1973-325-joshua-prawer-the-latin-kingdom-of-jerusalem-european-colonialism-in-the-middle-ages-xi-587-pp-16-plates-london-jerusalem-weidenfeld-and-nicolson-1973-650/F645B9E6CB38DDB0D5C9DF0F30581E19 |issn=0041-977X |ref=none}}) | |||
| ::Should we reject Prawer, because his works contain factual errors, he occasionally ignores evidence and his conceptual framework can be challenged? The answer is obviously: no. | |||
| ::Returning to Tibble and the reviews cited above, {{U|Norfolkbigfish}}, quite surprisingly, failed to quote their authors' own conclusions. | |||
| ::*Peter W. Edbury writes "Despite all the detailed shortcommings in his argumentation, the conclusions reaches are, I believe, essentially valid." ({{cite journal |last=Edbury |first=Peter W. |title=Reviewed Work: ''Monarchy and Lordship in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099-1291'' by Steven Tibble |journal=Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Third Series |volume=1 |issue=1 |pages=115–116 |date=April 1991 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-royal-asiatic-society/article/monarchy-and-lordship-in-the-latin-kingdom-of-jerusalem-10991291-by-steven-tibble-pp-xviii-203-7-maps-oxford-clarendon-press-1989-2500/879B701A135918B14DF54D6830B115A5 |issn=1356-1863 |ref=none}}) | |||
| ::*James M. Powell emphasizes "Such queries, however, should not detract from the outstanding contribution has made in putting the lordships on a firm foundation. His book will serve us well." ({{cite journal |last=Powell |first=James M. |title=Reviewed Work: ''Monarchy and Lordships in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099-1291'' by Steven Tibble |journal=International Journal of Middle East Studies |volume=24 |issue=4 |pages=743–744 |date=November 1992 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-middle-east-studies/article/steven-tibble-monarchy-and-lordships-in-the-latin-kingdom-of-jerusalem-10991291-oxford-clarendon-press-1989-pp-218/77731192FF9435854A6614ABD95EB290 |issn=0020-7438 |ref=none}}) | |||
| ::If the reviewers are convinced that Tibble's work is useful and contains valid conclusions, why should we ignore him? ] (]) 01:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == RfC: '']'' == | |||
| {{RSN RfC status|1593077460}}<!-- ] 09:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC) --> | |||
| {{RFC|media|rfcid=D185172}} | |||
| Is {{duses|anphoblacht.com}} (369 uses—party organ of ]) reliable? It is used as the only source to support content such as "In late May, a physical altercation between protestors and the police, involving more than 8,000 coal miners, involved demonstrations on a march to the federal capital, Madrid." (]) and "The bombing killed 12 bystanders and severely injured many more. Barrett was arrested with several others in a wide ranging sweep of sympathisers with the Irish Republican cause and was the only one found guilty." (in ]) <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 09:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ===Responses (''An Phoblacht'') === | |||
| *My personal opinion is that it's a republican propaganda outlet and should be: '''deprecated''' for anything related to the Troubles, '''generally unreliable''' for facts, attributed opinion is '''undue''' unless discussed by third party sources. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 09:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Not an RS, as this is not an independent source but an actual party political publication.] (]) 09:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *It's reliable as to the politics and strategy of the RM at that point in time, and for their own self-analysis, but not for external reporting. Certainly wrt the examples above, it seems unlikely that the information cited wouldn't be found in another reliable source. ]]] 09:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Reliable as a source for official statements from Sinn Fein and for ''de facto'' official statements from the IRA (yes, I know they deny the connection, but they'd never have printed anything claiming to be an IRA statement without clearing it with the Army Council), but not as a source for news reporting in general. ‑ ] 09:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **I disagree with the last part, if they deny any connection we cannot claim there is.] (]) 10:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I would consider official statements from the IRA published in An Phoblach to fall under about self, Iridescent is 100% right when they say An Phoblacht wouldn’t publish an IRA statement which wasn’t legitimate... Lets just say their fact checking in this one regard is impeccable. ] (]) 18:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * Looks to be basically a SPS, reliable for attributed statements of the party but otherwise not so much. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 12:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * I’d say reliable for the views of Sinn Féin but only with attribution and not for much of anything beyond that. ] (]) 17:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * Reliable if used in accordance with ], and attribution may be needed depending on the content in question. I'd only use it with caution, and certainly not in ]. ] (]) 18:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Muraselon == | |||
| Is Muraselon.com a reliable source? It is used for articles about the Syrian Civil War, such as ],], ], ]. My personal view is that it is a pro-government blog and not a reputable news source. I think its use is because details of day to day advances and retreats in various Syrian battles are not reported in many reliable sources - but to me this suggests the details are not noteworthy and if Muraselon is the only source it's not worth including. I would welcome other views. ] (]) 11:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :This reads more like ] than an RS question. Bias is not an issue, accuracy is.] (]) 11:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::We mostly determine weight from coverage in RS though. ] (] • ]) 12:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, to be clear my main question is: is this source reliable? I only mentioned noteworthiness as sometimes I see a defence of such self-published sources that reliable sources don't cover the same level of detail. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that as muddies the water. Thanks. ] (]) 12:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I said bias is not an RS issue, so any evidence they fake stuff?] (]) 13:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't have evidence. I literally don't know if it's a reliable source, which is why I am asking. However, it looks like a self-published source to me; there is no information on the website about its funding, editorial team, corporate structure, standards, location or contact address; it is very hazy in stories about sources (e.g. "according to a field source"); a lot of content seems to be sourced from social media or YouTube or from Syrian army press statements; there is no effort to distinguish betweeen any rebel groups, which are all simply referred to as "jihadists" or "al-Qaeda"; I can't find any examples of use by other reliable sources; the only independent reference I can find to it on the web is a very un-complimentary discussion at reddit. In short, everything about it shouts unreliable, but I'd like that to be confirmed. ] (]) 08:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Electrek, one more time == | |||
| Apologies for reviving discussion of ] , but contrary to {{u|Lklundin}}'s point that Electrek's staff are divested from Tesla in terms of investing, it was brought to my attention that Fred Lambert yesterday admitted some 30% of his stock portfolio is in Tesla: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EawUtBGXgAAZ0FJ?format=png&name=900x900. If the editor-in-chief of a publication is heavily invested in a company that his website is "reporting" about, that certainly calls into question whether the publication should be allowed to be considered a reliable source on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes I would say that is a COI.] (]) 17:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :As the one who noted Lambert's comment I would agree that Electrek has a serious COI issue with respect to Tesla reporting. This COI has been noted by other automotive sources. If we look at the Tesla page there are 37 citations to Lambert alone, 49 to Electrek. I suspect most are rather innocuous facts or announcements from Tesla (Tesla says they will do X). However, it is clear that Tesla has used sympathetic newsish sites like Electrek to make sure Tesla's preferred narrative goes out to the public. In the worst cases there have been accusations that "leaked" emails were deliberately feed to Electrek or others to bypass SEC laws relating to corporate dissemination of information. With such a COI it's hard to say if some news story is DUE because it was covered by Electrek or not (Tesla "paid" for their preferred story to run). Electreck hasn't been 100% on Tesla's side. They recently ran an article a critical article relating to Tesla quality. Also, Electrek is often quoted by non-critical news stories. As such I'm not sure how best to handle it. Clear COI but cited by others. Personally I would suggest going with a bit of a custom approach. I would trust it for basic statements of fact/quotes. I would assume their editorial judgement is effectively purchased thus treat the site more like a notable blog. As such reporting by Electrek shouldn't establish WEIGHT and the site shouldn't be used as a source of reliable commentary etc. ] (]) 18:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::To add some examples. Here is an example I think would be not OK. In the article ], Electrek is cited by name as disputing one of Ruins' claims. I would say remove it as both UNDUE and not a RS. Conversely, this example could easily be sourced to a reliable publication ]. Certainly we should minimize citations to this source but I would not condone removal without replacement in most cases. I haven't tried to review the large number of citations in Tesla specific articles. Those may be more problematic to handle. ] (]) 20:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Here's my outsider opinion, from someeone who is pretty familiar with Electrek and has been semi-closely following Tesla news for years now. Even if Electrek ''didn't'' have any COI with Tesla, they shouldn't be treated as an RS regardless. It's true that Electrek sometimes publishes articles critical of Tesla. However, I'm sure that when they do so, lots of other more reputable sources are reporting on similar things. IMO Electrek should only be used for truly basic information (on XX/YY/ZZZZ Tesla/Musk said ABC). Aside from that it should be attribution-only - no "Misplaced Pages voice". <span style="letter-spacing:-2px">−−−</span> ] ] 03:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I feel Springee’s “custom approach” is pretty brilliant and appropriate given the atypical circumstances. I think the publication at its core is a good one and the Tesla bias is their only real stumbling block (reliable sources describe them as a "notably pro-Tesla publication”). Its also an issue that should be less problematic in the future when the electric car market is more diversified, this is such a big deal right now in COI terms because at the moment most electric car coverage can be summed up as “Tesla and the rest." ] (]) 18:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == WorldAtlas == | |||
| == Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) == | |||
| *] (PCORI) | |||
| I can't see a discussion of this particular source before, but wanted to gain consensus (or lack thereof) as I think we would benefit from having something that achieved this statistical aim on ]. We have it listed as a RS in the ], and , albeit only for latitutde and longitude and from 2011. Do we have a consensus on its reliability in other areas, e.g. population data, land size? Thanks, <span style="background-color: white">] ]</span> 21:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I had obviously missed ], but I don't think it particularly reached a conclusion. <span style="background-color: white">] ]</span> 15:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Are PCORI statements a ] for medical claims? Do PCORI statements pass ] as coming from a ]? | |||
| == RfC: ] == | |||
| I say yes. The organization is non-governmental, but was established by the United States government, and they have awarded about US$2 billion in grants over the past 10 years. They are a large research organization which takes care in making conventional statements. Also, they have good alignment with wiki community organizations, and have hosted and joined wiki editing events in the United States and with Wikimedia Medicine for almost 10 years. That alignment is because of PCORI's patient advocacy, and because typical people find this organization's statements to be more relevant than those from more industry-oriented medical organizations. While PCORI does drive a lot of research through peer reviewed journals, they also make expert consensus statements in the name of PCORI which are not peer reviewed. | |||
| {{RSN RfC status|1593136443}}<!-- ] 01:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC) --> | |||
| {{rfc|econ|pol|prop|rfcid=3B9D56F}} | |||
| Should ] be ] as a source, with an ] set to ] editors who attempt to use it as a reference? — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 01:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Zefr}} said that some PCORI statements are "neither vetted by peer-review nor is it mainstream clinical practice", which is correct, but I feel that they still meet MEDRS by being a statement from an authoritative organization. Similarly, {{ping|Whywhenwhohow}} reverted saying the sources were not MEDRS compliant. {{u|FULBERT}} made the statements as Wikimedian in Residence at PCORI, and I collaborate with FULBERT through United States Wikimedia groups and through the University of Virginia, where I also am a Wikimedian in Residence. | |||
| === Survey (Zero Hedge) === | |||
| * '''Yes'''. , . — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 01:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' any source should be deprecated if it deliberately disseminates conspiracy theories, which ZH certainly does. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 03:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''', clearly and deliberately publishes conspiracy theories and blatant lies, so it should be deprecated. ] (]) 04:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' - it promotes conspiracy theories and nonsense. It cannot be trusted to be a Misplaced Pages source - ] (]) 07:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' as per previous comments. It's original content is often completely untrue. ] (]) 08:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Yes''', obviously - but I thought it already was? This should be deprecated and systematically removed. Unlike the Daily Mail, ZeroHedge was always junk. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 10:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Leaning yes''', though the option to just add it to ] could be viable (see below; there are only about 20 citations to it, and they don't seem to be problematic ones). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 11:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|SMcCandlish}}, it's already there. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 12:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::Okay, so what's the issue? Are people regularly citing it for nonsense? I don't really have an issue blacklisting it, as long as we selectively permit certain specific URLs for ] citations as needed. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 13:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{u|SMcCandlish}}, I think Newslinger wants to include it in a filter with a warn template, presumably {{AbuseFilter|869}} ''']''' <small>(])</small> 14:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' distorts kernels of truth, misrepresents, possible ties to dark money propaganda. -- ]] 13:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Here are the talk notices about reversion. The statements are | |||
| === Discussion (Zero Hedge) === | |||
| * There have been three previous discussions of Zero Hedge on this noticeboard: | |||
| *# {{rsnl|199|ZeroHedge Blog post by "Tyler Durden}} (2015) | |||
| *# {{rsnl|238|Zero Hedge}} (2018) | |||
| *# {{rsnl|259|rate "Zero Hedge"}} (2019) | |||
| {{bi|em=1.6|Zero Hedge is currently used in {{duses|zerohedge.com|20 articles}}. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 01:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)}} | |||
| : 20 citations seems a bit low for a full blown depreciation RfC, though I had thought about proposing this myself. Have zerohedge citations been previously removed? ] (]) 02:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{np|COIBot}} reports that there were ] as of December 2017, although this includes non-English Wikipedias. With an ] of , Zero Hedge is a prominent website. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * I agree with {{u|Hemiauchenia}}. ZH has some provocative stories and I suspect there is a lot of good information there but there is also a lot of conspiracy stuff. Regardless, I feel like we shouldn't deprecate unless there is a real problem with the source being used badly. It doesn't appear that is the case here. Perhaps just add them to RSP as not reliable and leave it at that. ] (]) 02:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *It's a conspiracy blog. There is non-nonsense content, but the good stuff is not original and the original stuff is very bad indeed. Shouldn't be used as a source for anything, including statements about itself - ] (]) 07:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I hate the entire concept of deprecation... context matters. So rather than a simple !vote, I would say it is Reliable when used as a primary source, but Not reliable when used as a secondary source. ] (]) 11:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **What's your evidence that it can even be trusted as a primary source? - ] (]) 11:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***EVERY source is reliable when used as a primary source... the problem isn’t reliability, it’s that there are very limited situations in which it is appropriate to use primary sources. The problem with deprecation is that it ignores the few rare instances when it IS appropriate. ] (]) 12:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***:{{u|Blueboar}}, well, up to a point. I think I'd struggle to come up with a definition of ''reliable'' that encompasses whale.to. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 14:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Blueboar}}, in a sane world deprecation would not be needed: people would just not use crap sources. Seems we don't live in that world. There are still people trying to cite WorldNetDaily, and the essence of fake news sites is in any case to hide their fakeness so there are good faith errors as well as editors who simply don't understand what constitutes a reliable source. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 11:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::The question is: are there situations when it is appropriate to cite such sources? I say yes. They are very very limited, but they exist. Hence my opposition to deprecation as a concept. ] (]) 12:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Blueboar}}, actually that's a point in ''favour'' of deprecation (as opposed to blacklisting). Deprecation says that the source should be avoided unless there is clear consensus to include for some specific reason. That seems entirely consistent with your point here. Of course, people misinterpret it, and that's a valid criticism, but we should fix that by being really clear what we mean by deprecation. | |||
| ::::It's my view that we should include an optional parameter in the root citation template for something like "consensus=", to record consensus to include otherwise unreliable sources. That would include the handful of self-published books that are agreed to be RS, as well as deprecated or generally unreliable websites. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 14:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I have seen deprecation in action. It has become a defacto blacklist. The concept is flawed. ] (]) 18:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *] | |||
| == et al == | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| Here is an actual PCORI statement from the ] article. The reverted claim from this statement was that 40% of patients using a drug have adverse effects. | |||
| Can someone check if PhoneArena is a reliable website for a critics’ review (the review I want to cite is in the title)? They seem to be professional (albeit using a bit more technical terms than other reviewers) but given that I usually trust only TechRadar, CNET, Trusted Reviews and ], I want to see if this is an acceptable source. ]] 07:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *https://www.pcori.org/evidence-updates/comparing-treatments-multiple-sclerosis-related-fatigue | |||
| I support using this source for this claim. | |||
| Thoughts from others about PCORI generally? Thanks. ]] 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Bluerasberry - in the case of my , the was just a summary of preliminary results (n=33, i.e., primary research) from the "Treatment of Fatigue with Methylphenidate, Modafinil and Amantadine in MS" (TRIUMPHANT-MS) trial, which had been funded by PCORI. | |||
| == Royalcruft again == | |||
| :At this early stage,TRIUMPHANT-MS was actually just a ] reported . That study is not a MEDRS source for the article statement, "modafinil has been shown to be effective in managing fatigue in people with MS" when other more substantial sources, including a meta-analysis, are used. | |||
| :Further, the PCORI statement is that ''"These findings <u>can contribute to clinician and patient discussions</u> about treatments to reduce MS-related fatigue."'' In other words, the PCORI article is a) a progress report, and b) an advice source for a physician-patient discussion. | |||
| :In this case, such a brief update on funding for preliminary research is not an appropriate reference, and does not comment on the wider issue of PCORI as an organization. ] (]) 17:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I wouldn't say its non-governmental... It seems to be more semi or quasi governmental (Interestingly enough a notable concept that we seem to lack a wiki page for) ] (]) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Law&Crime Network == | |||
| Some more problematic royalty sites, and a couple of specific questions. | |||
| # {{duses|rootsweb.ancestry.com}} seems to be generally recognised as unreliable but there are nearly 8,000 references, does this need clarifying via RfC or should I just get on with removing them? | |||
| # {{duses|members.iinet.net.au}} is widely used for personal royalty pages, this appears to be generic web hostiong of no objective authority? Over 900 references. | |||
| # Some orders and titles are sourced to images of people wearing ribbons or other elements. That seems lik ]. Sourcing "Order of X" to a Flickr image of someone wearing a sash is just wrong, IMO. | |||
| # {{duses|chiefacoins.com}} looks like a personal site, does anyone know if it's RS? | |||
| No doubt there will be more... ''']''' <small>(])</small> 10:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Hello! I would like to know your opinion about youtube channel and their news site . Are they reliable source for information about murders/trials? ] (]) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *iinet is just an ISP and that's just personal hosting. So unless the site is owned by a notable expert ... - ] (]) 11:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Youtube channels are generally not reliable sources. Please see ] for additional context. ] (]) 17:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : No specific RfC on ancestry.com AFAIK, but it's a "frequent flyer" () - sufficient that we have ] as a shortcut to its "generally unreliable" listing at RSP. Its "unreliable" status predates ] (goes back to 2015 or earlier). It's been known to be unreliable for so long that it's a puzzle why it's still so widely used and still being added. My intent would be to go to {{tl|cn}} and leave the text unless it's obviously controversial. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 12:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Catholic-Hierarchy.org == | |||
| Thanks for the information. | |||
| '']'' is a self-published source that has been featured in two prior discussions (2016 and 2020). Multiple editors appear to consider it a reliable source specifically because it is used in other independent publications. This is a noted exception for self-published sources that can be found in WP:RS/SPS. However, users also acknowledge that it should never be used in biographies of living people. | |||
| In most cases I think that you need to give people time to find an alternative. You can do this by tagging the sources with {{tlx|unreliable source}} or {{{tlx|Self-published source}} and also {{tlx|Better source needed}}. They are then dated and if no alternative sources are provided then after six months remove the text and the citation. See for example the template {{tlx|rayment}} where there is a dispute over whether Rayment can be use as a source because although Misplaced Pages undeniable it is usually accurate. | |||
| Is there more discussion that should be had? Should these details be added to WP:RSPSOURCES? This source is used several thousand times on the English WP, so centralized standards for it might be desirable. ] (]) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I have frequently run AWB to find and tag such sources. For example search on <code>insource:/genealogy.euweb.cz/</code> and tagged them as such. So there are a bunch of unrliable sources that have been used as citation for more than 8 years where it is time for the citation to be removed and the text that they support. If such citations have not been tagged and you mass delete them then you are may run in to reverts under ]: | |||
| :{{green|Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step}} | |||
| and if you persist in mass deletions be accuse of being disruptive (which whether true or not is an unpleasant tine sink).. Much better to tag them and then bag them. -- ] (]) 12:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I do not think you should delete the citation and not the text. If the text is verifiable then find a source to replace the one you are deleting. Otherwise delete the text as well (see ] "{{green|Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information}}"). If you do not want to do that then just leave the citation in place with the tags and let someone else sort it out. -- ] (]) 12:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|PBS}}, my normal approach (used for multiple sources including several vanity presses): | |||
| :* Tag as {{tl|deprecated inline}} or similar, dated. | |||
| :* After at least 3 months, remove and either remove the content or tag {{tl|cn}}. | |||
| :It causes drama however you do it (just ask {{u|David Gerard}}). I have been told with equal confidence that (a) I must remove the content and the source; (b) I must ] the content and tag {{tl|cn}}; and (c) it is somehow my job to find a replacement source. In the end, the approach above seems to be mainly OK. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 12:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Is there any context, any new disagreement about the source that would warrant a new discussion? If not the RSP has ] and can be discussed on ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :rootsweb.ancestry.com / rootsweb.com (including subdomains home.rootsweb.com and sites.rootweb.com) should {{em|not}} be blanket blocked. It hosts a lot of legitimate material. It is one of the main ways to reference scans of various public records, and also has a searchable database of published obituaries (http://sites.rootsweb.com/~obituary/<nowiki />). Plus it provides the web hosting for various organizations such as the Canadian Military Heritage Project, Polish Genealogy Society, etc., some of which do not have their own domain names at which the same content can be reached. See list here: https://home.rootsweb.com/sites/siteDirectory<nowiki />. It unfortunately also hosts various ] family genealogy content; sometimes that's just how it goes, and we have to look at what is being cited and whether it is a legitimate source to use and is actually a source for what we say it is (which is diligence we should be doing anyway). However, some subsites and paths can definitely be blacklisted: wc.rootsweb.com (WorldConnect) is a site for people to post their personal genealogy database files (pure UGC); https://www.ancestry.com/family-tree/ and what's under it is the way to get material into that system, and doesn't have anything at it anyone should cite here. Everything under https://www.ancestry.com/boards/ can also be blacklisted; this is their forum. On the other hand, https://www.ancestry.com/search/ is generally legit; it's databases of public records (with URLs usually in the form https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/... or https://www.ancestry.com/search/places/...; I'm not finding forum or other UGC mateiral here. There may be some specific https://rootsweb.ancestry.com/... paths that can be blacklisted. This domain now redirects to rootsweb.com, and it's not clear exactly what in the older domain-and-path scheme corresponds to what in the new one; there may be entire trees under the original rootsweb.ancestry.com addressing that correspond to forums or UGC genealogies, which can be more narrowly blacklisted. www.ancestrycdn.com should be permitted; this is their content server for PDFs of records; it used to be c.ancestry.com, which is now dead, so various URLs that point to it will need updating (I just fixed some at ]). Now that I think of it, the https://home.rootsweb.com/sites/siteDirectory list itself could be used to create a list of hosted websites for family UGC to blacklist; just remove the entries in that list that are to resource collections, and organizations. https://www.newspapers.com (operated by Ancestry) is fine; it's scans of news sources, and we use it. Their https://www.fold3.com/ site is also fine; it's a database of US military and related records; not UGC. http://freepages.rootsweb.com/ can be blacklisted; this is their domain for individuals to host their own random webpages. https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/ AKA https://lists.rootsweb.com/ can be blacklisted, since the lists it archives are all UGC. https://wiki.rootsweb.com is probably okay; it no longer has a public login function or a means of requesting write access; it appears to be solely edited by their staff, and just consists of bibliographic information like , and a gazetteer of places and their genealogy associations, like . ] is also run by them, and I think we're already blacklisting it.<!-- | |||
| :{{Reply|OldPolandUpdates}} Where can that noted exception for self-published sources be found in WP:RS/SPS? ] (]) 19:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| --><p>Similar sites (not run by Ancestry): https://www.worldgenweb.org/ appears non-problematic; it is not a combined database of the UGC genealogy material submitted, but simply an index of genealogy resources arranged nationally (I'm not sure it would be useful as a source for anything, but it's not the kind of thing we need to blacklist). http://www.usgenweb.com/ is fine; it's just the site about the organization and doesn't provide any UGC itself. https://www.familysearch.org/wiki looks blacklistable; it's a user-editable wiki. However, some other things at that domain are not, including the records database at https://www.familysearch.org/search/<nowiki />; I'm not sure if any records found that way will actually have that "search" in the URL (like they do at the Ancestry.com site), but the only UGC I know of for certain there will be .../... material (I joined the site, and confirm that anyone can edit, after a trivial application process). ] is an open public wiki, so should be blacklisted, though we might need to make a specific exception for certain pages for ] citation reasons. There's been discussion for several years of making that a WMF project. ] is exactly the same kind of open wiki. https://www.GenUKI.org.uk/ will need some more detailed scrutiny; much of it is UGC stuff, but parts of it are not (public records scans, UK & Ireland placename database, etc., plus staff-written editorial content on genealogy research). The UGC material (forums, publicly editable wiki content, mailing list archives, personal family trees, etc.) can probably be isolated to specific directory paths, but I don't have all day for this. https://forebears.io/ was another site like this, but appears to be defunct. https://www.geni.com/ is another one, and like GenUKI appears to be a mix of UGC and staff editorial content which will need to be split up by path, so we only blacklist the UGC. Same with https://www.geneanet.org/ (AKA en.geneanet.org, de.geneanet.org, etc.). We also need to keep in mind that any page containing a blacklisted link will be impossible to save again, for any edit, until someone tracks down the offending link. This can be very confusing for non-expert editors, who think something is wrong with the material they inserted themselves in their own edit.<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 13:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)</p> | |||
| ::Mid-paragraph ]. ] (]) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : {{u|SMcCandlish}}, thanks, that's excellent! Does <pre>((freepages|lists|mailinglists|wc)\.rootsweb\.com|ancestry\.com/(family\-tree|boards)|genealogy\.euweb\.cz)</pre> look right to you? ''']''' <small>(])</small> 14:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others, that isn't there. The self publisher here is an amateur, a self described "Random Catholic Dude" ] (]) 19:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What is WP:EXPERTSPS? It redirects to ]. Do we have standards on who is/is not an expert? If ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is not an expert source, then it is not a reliable self-published source, and this has implications for thousands of WP articles. | |||
| ::::] seems to imply that if one's material is used by reliable publications, then one might be considered an established expert. ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is used in peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and other types of articles. Some of the usage is described here: ]. Therefore, the discussion might revolve around whether ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is used ''enough'' by external publications. | |||
| ::::If you consider ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' not reliable, then would you also agree that it be depicted as such in the WP:RSPSOURCES table? ] (]) 20:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:32, 9 January 2025
Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
List of archives , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 910, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460, 461, 462
Additional notes:
Shortcuts- RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
- While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
- This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.
RFC 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)
- No, Jay and Steve are brothers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:41, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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 -
- It's on a company check website that mentioned 25 employees, unfortunately such websites appear to be blacklisted on Misplaced Pages. However, another one less specific says 20-49 employees . I believe there are 4 full time employees - Jay Novella, Perry DeAngelis, Steven Novella, Evan Bertnstein and the rest are part timers. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their website lists the full time employees, there are actually probably 6 full time including the web manager Mike Lacelle. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Psychologist Guy: Those company check websites are hilariously bad, I don't know anyone who would actually take them at face value like that (we all had a good laugh when one listed the twenty odd person consulting group I was working for as "1,000-10,0000 employees"). The NESS website lists associated people but it doesn't appear to make any claim about their employment (volunteer vs paid or part vs full time). It also only lists six people total, a few of which we know have day jobs so they can't be full time employees and one (Perry DeAngelis) is almost two decades DEAD. Six doesn't seem to be any more legitimate a number than 25. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have contacted someone who should know about this; hopefully they get back to me and I can let you know what the current figure of their employees is with documentation if possible. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Psychologist Guy: 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Who is Steven P. Novella's publisher if not Steven P. Novella? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Science-Based Medicine and Neurologica have the exact same publisher. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:50, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- That is a direct quote from WP:SPS. - Palpable (talk) 17:46, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- So basically most local news is self-published as well then. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:57, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
- When we're looking at obviously non-self-published sources, they usually fit into one of these three models:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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, "
- @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)
- 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 SPSPartly 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 statesvolunteer 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- Not SPS. What someone means by "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" is "these writers aren't dumbasses and we trust them" with an implied "if an issue is found after the piece is out, we'll put out a correction", not "these people are infallible and we will never correct them because reasons". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- So they are essentially "Not SPS" because they claim to sometimes not be SPS. Got it. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The purpose of oversight is due diligence, not dumbass detection. SmolBrane (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Partly SPS and generally unsuitable for contentious topics on Misplaced Pages. While SBM is valuable for some scientic topics, it self-described as blog with inconsistent editorial oversight, allowing authors like Novella and Gorski to pubish without review. Gorski, who often takes strong positions, is a polarizing figure, and his articles often reflect a bias and lack of nuance. For controversial topics or biographies, more neutral and independently vetted sources would better meet Misplaced Pages standards. IntrepidContributor (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- SPS As I've said before on previous RfCs, this is explicitly a self-published source. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not SPS unless Gorski and Novella wrote the piece: SBM is one of the best sources for coveraging WP:FRINGE and WP:FRINGE activism we have and I'll note some, certainly not all, wanting to make it a SPS tend to have, at best, a WP:PROFRINGE attitude . Simply put, there is editorial oversight of contributors. We don't know if there is for Gorski and Novella, and should act accordingly and treat them as subject matter experts outside BLPs, but we do know that there is for other contributors. I'm somewhat concerned with the shape of this RFC - we have longstanding consensus that SBM is a reliable source and not an SPS. Instead of challenging that, this RFC was opened to challenge specifically the SPS designation in a seemingly roundabout way to question it's reliability.
- I also want to note that per WP:PARITY
In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed.
- so while I still maintain it's not an SPS, the standards for WP:FRINGE allow non-peer reviewed sources on fringe topics as long as they're reliable, so an SPS designation should not, unless we also agree it's not reliable, be used to go a purge of its use. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- No due to editorial oversight. Gamaliel (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given that the editors have stated that they do not provide oversight on all contributers prior to publication, this does not seem to be universally true. - Bilby (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- SPS I think it's important that the arguments about whether Science Based Medicine is SPS or not are removed from our own assessment of the topics they’ve covered, otherwise we infuse topic bias on a process matter and risk floating away from the core question of this RfC. SBM is SPS simply because of the lack of editorial oversight and independence needed for subject matter of medicine.--Evathedutch (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not SPS when it's "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" it means that you have to become a trusted author first before you can publish without prior review, i.e., the editorial oversight comes from becoming a trusted author. Banedon (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Editorial oversight means reviewing content prior to publishing to ensure the content being published is factual, etc. It's not about who the author is, it's about the substance of the content. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that if I write a letter to the editor of some local newspaper, and it is published, then the newspaper is a SPS? Banedon (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Banedon If it was published without review? Yes. A website that published unreviewed content is not a publisher, it's a self-publishing platform. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that the editors of the local newspaper basically do nothing? Banedon (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you are using the wrong analogy. If you can publish directly, based on your own decision to publish, without anyone else reading or vetting your writing before it appears, you are self publishing. If an editor checks the material and approves it before publication, it is not self publishing. SBM allow some editors to publish without checking or vetting the material before it is published, as you akcnowledged, so in those cases it is an SPS. - Bilby (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- At the very least anything written by Gorski and Novella there seems to be strong consensus that at minimum those articles are very clearly SPS. In other cases, I think it is dubious at best, since Gorski and Novella run the show and whether or not any real "editorial review" is happening on this blog appears to be very, very much in doubt. The analogy of a "local newspaper" and a blog is not actually analogous, and it is weird that an exception was ever carved out for this blog for it to somehow not be considered SPS. Thankfully it appears as if a new consensus has emerged as a result of this RfC in favor of SBM now being considered SPS, or at minimum, anything published by Gorski or Novella absolutely is without a shadow of a doubt SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you are using the wrong analogy. If you can publish directly, based on your own decision to publish, without anyone else reading or vetting your writing before it appears, you are self publishing. If an editor checks the material and approves it before publication, it is not self publishing. SBM allow some editors to publish without checking or vetting the material before it is published, as you akcnowledged, so in those cases it is an SPS. - Bilby (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that the editors of the local newspaper basically do nothing? Banedon (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Banedon If it was published without review? Yes. A website that published unreviewed content is not a publisher, it's a self-publishing platform. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that if I write a letter to the editor of some local newspaper, and it is published, then the newspaper is a SPS? Banedon (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- We are all making assumptions about "what it means" because SBM is not transparent enough about its editorial policies. It pales in comparison to journals that tackle many of the same topics. This is precisely why it's SPS. Evathedutch (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thats right. This "Not SPS" argument is without merit. SBM is not a journal, it is a blog and is 100% SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind. Banedon (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind. Banedon (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
RfC: Bild
 |
|
What is the reliability of the German tabloid Bild, including its website Bild.de?
- Generally reliable
- Additional considerations apply
- Generally unreliable
- 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 quoteBILD'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
- articles are published that hurt those affected and (can) irritate readers
- BILD is running campaigns against political opponents – against Angela Merkel, Karl Lauterbach, Annalena Baerbock, to name just three examples
- is said to have felt personally affected . Because he is co-owner of such a property in Berlin. He then prompted BILD editor-in-chief Reichelt to write extremely critical reports about Adidas and the rent freeze
- A woman who says she suffered under former editor-in-chief Reichelt is suing the German media group in the USA because she felt let down by her former employer
- A particularly drastic case occurred in early 2017, when the Frankfurt edition reported on sexual assaults by men with a migrant background on visitors to a prominent nightlife district - completely fabricated by people the editorial team trusted without checking. The embarrassment was great, and the retraction in the paper itself was inevitable.
- I think I understand the issues with it better now. Would you say that this is a reasonably complete summary or is there something else I missed?
- In my view #5 is most relevant for the assessment of reliability. They certainly didn't a good job as journalists but it doesn't seem like they fabricated stuff and in the end they published a retraction which is what we expect from sources. #2 and #3 show that it's clearly a very 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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):
- 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 saysreputation 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)
- 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
- 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)
- Becasue we allow other African news media, its just that we do not allow, falsehoods. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- If it results in a racially biased coverage how is that not racist? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:10, 20 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Should we do the same and ban all news from India? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:03, 20 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)
- It would affect them by prohibiting bad information from bad sources to be included. Sounds good. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:02, 20 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- "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)
- Vangaurd and The nation ]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 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)
- 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
The Nigerian Press, Brown Envelope Syndrome (BES), and Media Professionalism
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.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.
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)
- Here are some other references: chapter "Corruption in the Nigerian media: the brown envelope syndrome"
- ] ]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 25 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)
- 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 |
|---|
|
- 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)
- See WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. What did you mean by “…
- @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 towho 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)
- (Pinging you is difficult) Let me be blunter, you deletion rationale in that AfD
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The link they are referring to has been archived, see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 460#This Day on Bella Disu.
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I would suggest against one RFC to cover all the sources, unless there is a very specific question about the sources (more specific than 'are they reliable?'), as it will likely result in a train wreck.
- If the issue is just to add 'and verifiability', or removing the project link, I would suggest just doing it. Consensus is first built through editing, and the RSP is no different in that matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever way the discussion goes it, I suggest an RFC should be in a completely new section. RSN gets overloaded, and this section is already very large. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Fram (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Generally reliable
- Additional considerations apply
- Generally unreliable
- Deprecated"
- From there, editors can make their own arguments so if there should be a cut-off date for reliability. I think we can start with the more egregious media with examples and those who do not view them as unreliable should make the argument for why and when they should be considered reliable. 🄻🄰 19:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the TechCabal article is correct, then Nigerian newspapers were better before the internet. This might not apply to The Sun (Nigeria), which began publication in 2001. One of the earliest accounts of "brown envelopes" dates to the Second Republic (1979 to 1983): . On a search of Google Books, I found no references to "brown envelopes" in Nigeria in any book published before 1983. I found no more than 8 such references in books published before 1990, and 5 of those were from 1989: . In the absence of further evidence, I think we could take 1979 as a complete cut off point. Even after that, the evidence is not unequivocal. The study from 1984 says that NAN journalists may not be as corrupt as journalists are depicted: . And the claims of bribery during the Republic seem to relate more to government journalists, than to independent newspapers. The sources also suggest that Next (Nigeria) was more reliable. James500 (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Jeff Sneider / The InSneider
Used for many claims throughout pages for CBM movies, such as The Fantastic Four: First Steps, Superman (2025 film), Kraven the Hunter (film), and Peter Parker (The Amazing Spider-Man film series), including those which are otherwise unverifiable like Victor von Doom appearing in the first or that Spider-Man was supposed to appear in Madame Web (film) but was cut.
I really do not see why his claims is so widely allowed and accepted as fact, even though he is undoubtedly more reliable than random blogs or posts on Twitter he's still a journalist making claims without evidence. I would like to establish here definitively if we continue to site theinsneider.com as a source, as we currently do in many articles. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I did a Google News search and when other outlets report his stuff it is described as a rumour or "reportedly". He is also described as a "scooper". I don't think most of that should be used on Misplaced Pages because of NOTNEWS. Rumours about media that haven't been released yet aren't even news yet. Does he say that he got his info from a source? Then it should be attributed to that source. It also looks like a SPS. So everything sourced to him should be attributed, but even then it probably shouldn't be used. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right now, much of what is sourced to him is just taken as face value, for example Doom is listed in the cast for the Fantastic Four movie without clarification that it's based off a claim by him. My changes to remove such information from the pages were undone, so there seems to be some ambiguity if he is currently accepted as a RS. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- For any stories about named people (e.g. casting), WP:BLPSPS would probably bar use of this source, since he's self-published. His record on this is at best mixed from a quick search. For example, he reported that Sydney Sweeney would be starring in a new Johnny Depp film, which was swiftly denied, kept posting that it was true, and then a few months later, Penelope Cruz was announced as the co-star.
- I did some digging and apparently he made a recent post, copied here, , in which he says
This may speak to my own reckless vanity, but I’d rather be wrong sometimes than sit on 100 accurate stories and stand idly by and watch as Nellie Andreeva breaks every single one of them. Yes, it’s nauseating to get a story wrong — seriously, it makes me sick to my stomach — but it’s an even worse feeling when you don’t report something and then get beat by the competition.
If that's his attitude to reporting, then it would probably be best if we don't use him for non-BLP subjects as well. -- Patar knight - /contributions 21:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)- I've removed everything that clearly failed WP:BLPSPS and tried to beef up non-BLP uses of this (e.g. filming dates, projects in development) with better sources that cite his work. Honestly most reputable don't really cite him and hedge by using "rumoured" or "reportedly" and cannot corroborate. Definitely not an ideal source and probably runs afoul of WP:NOTGOSSIP, especially if not picked up by better sources citing him at all. -- Patar knight - /contributions 07:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
In the future it would be appreciated if you notified other editors of such a discussion rather than going on what I would describe as a deletion rampage, making dozens of edits to remove a source that is widely deemed to be reliable. Sneider clearly meets the SME requirement at WP:SELFPUB, he is a long time film and entertainment journalist whose work has previously been published by various reliable sources. The fact that he is now self-publishing his reporting does not now make him unreliable, which is what the wording at SELFPUB caters for. If you take issue with specific claims he has made or the wording of specific claims then the place to discuss those is at the talk pages of the articles in question, not here where the majority of editors will never see it. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have notified editors at WP:FILM, WP:TV, WP:MCU, DC Universe (franchise), and Sony's Spider-Man Universe. I think that should cover all the articles impacted so far by this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- For a lot of these pages, the relevant policy isn't WP:SELFPUB, but WP:BLPSPS, since the InSneider is self publishing reporting about living people (e.g. A didn't role B, C got fired because of D, E might be in F). BLPSPS is a bright-line rule and while WP:IAR exists, superhero movie rumours isn't going to justify that. This is especially true when non-selfpublished exist to cover the same claims or when WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies.
- For example, your revert at Black Widow (2021 film) restored The InSneider when the material in the sentence is already fully supported by the already cited The Hollywood Reporter piece and your revert at X-Men '97 restored material alleging very specific allegations of sexual misconduct with young men that is corroborated by independent sources . I've reverted the latter given the serious BLP issues there.
- It's less of an issue when the BLP-connection is less direct such as when it's talking about a film production in general (e.g. G starts filming in H, I was delayed to J, K is in development at L), but even SELFPUB recommends replacing with better sources when possible and I highlighted some reliability issues with Sneider above.
- I have also notified WP:BLPN since this touches on BLPSPS. -- Patar knight - /contributions 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think you are forgetting that there is a very big distinction between Sneider's pieces written for Collider and other RS and those he written on his own blog. He speculates much more and gives unverified, evidence-free information on his blog than he does when working with publications, and he isn't impeded by an editor or journalistic oversight in his own website.
- If you want to see proof that Sneider has made false and provably false claims on his own website before, then there's compilations of all the time he has made false claims thanks to the people at the subreddit for Marvel spoilers. Among the falsehoods he has promoted on his site include that the Fantastic Four movie would start filming in March, that Adam Driver was cast as Doom, that Jack Quaid was cast as Johnny Storm, and that Tom Holland was going to appear as a full role in Across the Spider-Verse. Sneider should be used in articles only when he is writing for reliable sources, otherwise we are inviting unsourced and oftentimes completely imagined speculation on our pages. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh wow, so he's basically correct about 2/3 of the time. Not terrible, I guess for online postings, but this would seem to fall well-short for WP:SELFPUB purposes, much less making an exception for WP:BLPSPS. -- Patar knight - /contributions 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think we should be letting some people from a Reddit community dictate what they think is true or false to determine notability on this encyclopedia. I understand Sneider gets a bad rap from some people and in the press, but he does qualify as a WP:Subject-matter expert in the field of entertainment news. I am subscribed to his newsletter and Sneider does a pretty good job clarifying what he is actually reporting from what are his own opinions and beliefs. A lot of what he says in his newsletter tends to be blown out of proportion or taken out of context, and not everything pans out in the film industry. For the Sydney Sweeney thing, I read that as the actress either being in talks or close to a deal but it likely fell apart and thus, Cruz came onboard, not that it was somehow false or intentionally misleading. A lot of the major trades do not cover every aspect of these film productions (because they get ad revenue from major companies involved) but Sneider has a good track record of reporting on industry details, deals, and events as they are in progress, which goes for the Fantastic Four castings and Black Widow. I have been working on adding third-party sources for some of his recent newsletter issues being cited to help make verifying his reports easier, though this takes time. I do not agree with removing his published articles from Collider, Variety, or his newsletter outright as we cannot disregard a source simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT or you don't believe in it. We go by WP:Verifiability, not truth, and report all the facts as presented, which is how an encyclopedia ought to be. I have not found any instances to my immediate recollection where editors cited a Sneider report only for it to be proven intentionally wrong or misleading. The Madame Web report was not disputed or debunked, and the recent reports of Superman and Beyond the Spider-Verse have since been clarified as a matter of semantics, not actually being intentional false news reporting on Sneider's part. A lot of what he says is regurgitated through aggregators and social media which tends to be less reliable or transparent than what he actually says in his newsletter or on his podcast The Hot Mic. I would not go as far as to say Sneider's newsletter reporting is "speculation", as he is an independent working journalist with 20+ years of experience in this profession. He knows his stuff but gets a lot of bad publicity from his social media activity and because some of his reporting hits a nerve with select communities. I would consider him a reliable source, but with clarification needed to specify when he is making an educated guess or providing an opinion alongside what he is reporting from his industry sources. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, because @Tinynanorobots questioned what Sneider's sources are, I suppose it ought to be explained that every journalist gets their information from sources. These individuals are usually people who work within the industry they are reporting about, so they are often talent agents, managers, PR workers, producers, involved creatives in a production, etc. who have first-hand information and provide information as a tip to a journalist. Most of these sources prefer to remain anonymous, so we cannot just find who his sources are to verify their tips. That's just not how this industry works. Filming schedules and castings change all the time, so to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS concern because no sources said these were absolutely false, and if you have any reliable sources saying Sneider specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report, that should be presented rather than just going off of some editors' opinions of a controversial figure. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Anonymously-sourced reporting obviously can be used in RSs, but you're not really making a strong case for reliability and encyclopedic quality by defending Sneider with
to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS concern because no sources said these were absolutely false,
. In respect to the Holland thing, it's not a good look to be confidently stating things about major casting at the tail end of February 2023 that then don't pan out upon release in at the end of May that year. Maybe he was right at the time, though no one else has corroborated this from what I can tell, but even then he would've published too early given he was ultimately wrong. specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report
would meet the standard for defamation of a public figure, but it isn't the standard for assessing if a particular source is reliable or a good indicator of if something is encyclopedic. If someone gets a lot of stuff wrong in good faith, they're still not reliable, especially in WP:BLPSPS situations. -- Patar knight - /contributions 05:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- Yes, using anonymous sources is common in journalism, but is not standard. The standard is to cite their sources. Sure, NYT and WaPo don't always follow their own guidelines on anonymous sources. Usually such guidelines involve mentioning that the information is from an anonymous source and giving clues as to the credibility of the source. When including information from anonymous sources, wikipedia should follow suite. If the NYT cites a "source close to the president" for a claim, the wikipedia article should also mention a "source close to the president" So how much info does Sneider give?
- Also, information should be verified. This might involve asking another source if they object to the publication of the information. Also, really, the studio should be asked to comment. If there is not a comment from the studio or a line saying that comment was sought, then best practices have not been followed.
- The idea that Sneider is a SME is questionable. The reporting in question seems to be a matter of insider knowledge not expertise. Basically, people are leaking the information to Sneider or gossiping to him about who will get the part. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- That's a misreading of BLPSPS, which says:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Which ones have not panned out? Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:10, 24 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.
andA 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 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.
- 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 forcontroversial 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.
- Screen Rant, (noted in the perennial source list as
- 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 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
I don't have a particular problem with using Sneider as a source, as long as we attribute his speculations properly. He has a generally good track record and is used by reliable sources. But I have come across situations where we report his speculations as fact. When he has an expectation that is not attributed to an official or at least genuinely connected source, if we choose to report that expectation at all, it needs to be attributed as "Sneider's expectation that such and such will occur", not as a Wikivoice statement that "such and such will occur." Rlendog (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Telegram (software)
Once Telegram gets mentioned on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, its shortcuts would be WP:TELEGRAM and WP:RSPTELEGRAM.Telegram is unreliable because:
- Telegram is an alt-tech platform, which means that it is highly unreliable as a source because it is used by the alt-right to evade censorship and publish far-right opinions and pseudoscientific conspiracy theories.
- Telegram is a self-published source because it is a social networking service.
- Most far-right things (such as Red Ice, The Light (newspaper), and Nicholas J. Fuentes) have escaped to Telegram after getting suspended on several mainstream social networking services.
- Telegram has been described as a "safe haven for spammers and crypto scams" because of how most Telegram groups are flooded with cryptocurrency scammers and other types of spammers. However, t.me links are barely seen on Misplaced Pages (or i just don't see them often).
- Pavel Durov has been arrested in France.
Telegram would either be WP:GUNREL (like all other self-published sources) or WP:DEPREC (because it is alt-tech). However, if t.me links are commonly used to violate WP:NOTSOAPBOX, it would be WP:SPB.
67.209.128.52 (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware there was anyone suggesting that it might be reliable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Telegram doesn't need to be on the RSP, it's obviously unreliable and I don't see anyone arguing that it is reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, it's just a user-generated source (WP:USERGEN). Reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF claims and posts by respectable experts/journalists/reliable sources, unreliable generally. Ca 16:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Aside from the fact that the alt-right i.e. literal neo-Nazis use it (which is something you can say about almost every social media platform at this point), Telegram, as a platform where anyone can create content with no clear editorial oversight, is a self-published source and unreliable, except in cases such as basic self-descriptions. I thought this was pretty obvious. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 00:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson
Ken Klippenstein is cited in the Media outlets section of this article. He's an independent journalist who self-publishes and doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist. Reliable or not? I say no. Some other editors from that article might come here with more context. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- permalink of the 'Media outlets' section. Mr. Klippenstein is being used to cite:
Klippenstein also alleged that The New York Times directed their staff to "dial back" on showing photographs containing Mangione's face.
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."
- Klippenstein, Ken (December 11, 2024). "NY Times Doesn't Want You to See Shooter's Face". kenklippenstein.com. Retrieved December 15, 2024.
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Again, I said
- is that a conspiracy or is that just actually saying a taboo? BarntToust 19:43, 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)
- 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 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 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 had to read the section again (didn't remember it from memory) so let me rephrase this:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
, whichalso 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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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 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)
- 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)
- The discussion is still ongoing, so I don't see that as relevant yet. Astaire (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- But WP:NOCON is also relevant:
- Please see WP:ONUS:
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- What is the intended use? Simonm223 (talk) 21:32, 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=11208910260268275851 – Cited by 17
- 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
- https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=14669897941185192559 – Cited by 2
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 .
- NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
- Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage Personisinsterest (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2: Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. BarntToust 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 per Chetsford. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage. Compare WP:ROLLINGSTONE. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 why are we putting any stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “broken clock” syndrome. Dronebogus (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu
The following genealogy sources are currently considered Generally unreliable at WP:RSP (A), or in repeated inquiries at WP:RSN (B and C):
- A: Geni.com
- B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
- C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav
- Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.
- They should be:
- Option 1: listed as Generally unreliable (change nothing to A; add B and C at WP:RSP as such)
- Option 2: Deprecated (list them as such at WP:RSP)
- Option 3: Blacklisted (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2)
NLeeuw (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)
- A: See "Geni.com" at WP:RSPSOURCES.
- B: See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#Have we got lists of reliable and unreliable websites for genealogical research?, in particular subsection #genealogy.eu, where this RfC for the 3 sources in question was prepared together with @ActivelyDisinterested. The other sources discussed there fall outside the scope of this RfC.
- C: See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy) (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). NLeeuw (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Preliminaries
- Probably need to add the website Genealogics.org to the list of unreliable sources. It also uses Misplaced Pages articles which would be WP:CIRC. --Kansas Bear 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK. But it could be a good follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. NLeeuw (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. NLeeuw (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. NLeeuw (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK. But it could be a good follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see WP: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#RfC: Universe Guide. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Read Background: B. NLeeuw (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey A: Geni.com
- Deprecate. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. JoelleJay (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate.
Question. Isn't it already deprecated?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC) - Deprecate A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unsure. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
- Deprecate, per background discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. I think this source has been often discussed in a superficial way, together with other sources, which does not always lead to a clear perspective. This is not like the other two. It collects a lot of useful extracts from primary sources than can be helpful for getting a grip on a topic. Although it is basically the work of one editor, this editor was assigned to do this for an organization which does make some efforts to maintain a reputation for quality. (The FMG publishes a journal, and it posts some online corrections to Keats-Rohan's reference works for the 11th and 12th century, and she has noted those helpful efforts in print.) On the other hand, Medlands does not use secondary material very much, so it is normally not going to the type of source we would use on WP on its own for anything non-obvious. I note these complications because I see that sources like Ancestry.com and Findmypast also have special notes about how they can sometimes have useful primary materials. To give a practical example of what might go wrong, what I saw in the past whenever this source was discussed, is that it was even deleted from external links sections and so on. I think this is a source that can be used for external links at the very least. I feel hesitant to say that it should NEVER EVER be used even in the main body to be honest, although I don't use it on WP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate Crawley has no academic background in history and MedLands is self-published. It is not published by FMG only hosted by them. That it contains a lot of useful information is not the same as it having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, something it doesn't have. Deprecation isn't blacklisting, editors are warned against adding it not blocked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "the source is generally prohibited". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Editors who know the fine print will be the ones using the source correctly, and will know how to handle the situation. The issue is that editors who don't know keep adding this as a reference to support content, and the many discussions on the source show they isn't support for that. Adding a warning when editors post will at least get editors to ask why they are getting the warning, and help them understand the situation.
- Deprecation of this source will reduce the pointless pseudo-legal debates, by reducing the problem of the source being repeatedly readded. Editors should use their own good judgement, but as repeated discussion about this source have shown that isn't happening. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes the cost of not having to continuously patrol for this source and have the same discussion about it's reliability again and again.
- Separately before the two of us fill the survey section with our disagreement (mea culpa), should we move this discussion to the Discussion section? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "the source is generally prohibited". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Generally unreliable. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) Generally unreliable is the one which says this:
"questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published"
I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would only allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be prohibited. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)- Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at the May 2023 MedLands RSN shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he knows may be of little factual significance at face value just because he finds them "interesting" (but is reproduced by way of interest), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't verify. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. NLeeuw (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the Generally unreliable category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then only as far as we have to. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at the May 2023 MedLands RSN shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he knows may be of little factual significance at face value just because he finds them "interesting" (but is reproduced by way of interest), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't verify. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. NLeeuw (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Generally reliable, in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. Ghirla 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav
- Deprecate. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. JoelleJay (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as genealogy.eu and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). NLeeuw (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Lancaster (talk • contribs) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the Europäische Stammtafeln, Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. Ghirla 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". NLeeuw (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; Foix. --Kansas Bear 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site here. And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the Europäische Stammtafeln. Ghirla 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. NLeeuw (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site here. And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the Europäische Stammtafeln. Ghirla 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- But the question is, is the stuff peer-reviewed in any meaningful sense? --Trovatore (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
- Woodroar I think it can be considered? because
- 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)
- @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)
- 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/pressbetween 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)
- 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
- 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)
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)
- Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?Abo Yemen✉ 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. The Independent is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the Quaiti Sultanate was a thing according to a Facebook post made by a high school that he attended). He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others . He also published a book about the city of Shihr . He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023
- This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. The Independent is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?Abo Yemen✉ 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. This also seems to be a relevant document. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
References
- Machine translation: Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamusa, a native of Al-Shahr and a graduate of the third class of Al-Mukalla High School for Boys (now Bin Shihab High School for Boys)
High School Flags
Tuesday, September 17, 2024
After years of parting, Abu Bakr Bin Shihab High School for Boys in Mukalla embraced Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamoussa, who graduated on the educational ladder for years and is now at the age of retirement. He visited the high school and in his gaze with passion and love for the past years, he climbed the stairs of the high school to the second floor to the office of the principal Mr. Saeed Ahmed Al-Amari, who welcomed him warmly and said that this visit gave us a boost and moral support, and the visit for Mr. Bamoussa was to ask about the old administrators, services and guards who were who were in the period of the sixties and seventies, but unfortunately the administration could not answer this and invites everyone who has information about them to raise it quickly, as Mr. Bamoussa has been working for years on writing a book about the beginning of education in Hadramawt since the time of the Qaitian Sultanate in the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, and he made a very important statement that the first principal of the high school is Mr. Karama Bammin from Tarim and then came after him Mr. Al-Sudani Al-Taloudi and this was a surprise for us and he confirmed this in his book that will see the light after completion of it.
May God prolong his life and give him health and wellness to provide us with important information about the history of education in Hadramawt.
The high school administration thanks Mr. Mohammed Bamoussi for this visit and this effort exerted by him for this wonderful work, and wishes the officials in the Ministry of Education, the governorate office and the local authority to adopt such people who raise the slogan of education and the slogan of Hadramawt, the land of science, knowledge and culture.
Abo Yemen✉ 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.GordonGlottal (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the Special:diff/1266430566#Background Special:diff/1266430566#Losses and Special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city Internet Archive a txt version of the book that can get machine translated can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) Abo Yemen✉ 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.GordonGlottal (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. Javext (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Javext If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in this letter, which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from the catalog description but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! GordonGlottal (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, @GordonGlottal. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this:
- "Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India , his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." Javext (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
capturing Al-Shihr
hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? Abo Yemen✉ 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder.
- I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. Javext (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city Abo Yemen✉ 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. Javext (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city Abo Yemen✉ 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Javext If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in this letter, which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from the catalog description but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! GordonGlottal (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. Javext (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
-
"Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr,
(Never happened btw)and how important it would be to conquer Diu."
Abo Yemen✉ 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- "Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? Abo Yemen✉ 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned Abo Yemen✉ 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- capturing a city != sacking it
your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here Abo Yemen✉ 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- capturing a city != sacking it
- You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? Abo Yemen✉ 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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
Jacobin is currently listed as "generally reliable" under WP:RSP. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are definitely issues with Jacobin, and a reevaluation of its reliability is probably going to come sooner or later. I don't think a Reddit page full of amateur pundits, who are in turn discussing another social media discussion, is going to give us anything meaningful to work with. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not a good look, but I will note that the article referred to says at the bottom:
Correction: An earlier version of this article overstated the amount of US housing stock that Blackstone owns.
So far as I can tell, the sentence in question is removed from the current version of the article entirely. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- That would indicate, notwithstanding snark on Twitter, the website for snark, Jacobin actually did the thing we expect of a reliable source and made a correction to an article with a factual error, identifying with a correction notice that a correction had been made. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think this justifies a significant increase in caution towards the author at the very least. In general, an in-depth look at it's reliability is probably due, even though a Reddit discussion isn't evidence. FortunateSons (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's strange that it was closed as 'generally reliable' in the first place, when most respondents voted either 'no consensus' or 'generally unreliable' in the last RFC. Hi! (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Had a quick perusal of the r/neoliberal subreddit. It appears to be discussing one sentence in one (possibly opinion) article in Jacobin. Are you asking whether that particular article is a reliable source for that one sentence? Burrobert (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just as an aside, RFCs are not votes (if they were then reliability would be based on the personal opinions of those taking part). I can't speak for the closer of that RFC, but it appears those saying that Jacobin is 'general reliable' had better policy based reasons. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sources making corrections, as has happened in this case, is a sign of reliability. Things that happen on social media, and reactions on social media, are mostly irrelevant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The original RfC that supposedly found Jacobin to be reliable really is a bit of a tenuous close. A simple beancount in that RfC would lean against treating it as WP:GREL, and I'm not really able to discern why the arguments for reliability were so much stronger than those in opposition that an affirmative Option 1 consensus was declared instead of a no-consensus close (at minimum). I do think that it's ripe for re-evaluation. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think reviewing this again is going to change anything much, the "worst" outcome is likely a 2, but because it often mixes news and opinion, even a 1 is going to be caveated with caution or attribute, so absent falsehoods, etc might as well let sleeping dogs lie. Selfstudier (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors
The discussion is partially non-topical for this forum. The discussion about the issues that belong here continues below in § The Heritage Foundation.—Alalch E. 19:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Taking this here based on a recommendation from Aquillion. The conversation began at the PIA arbitration evidence talk page where a report from forward was shared . According to this report, the Heritage Foundation plan to use facial recognition software and a database of hacked usernames and passwords in order to identify contributors to the online encyclopedia
. A copy of the Heritage Foundation proposal deck is available here. This Heritage Foundation plan to dox wikipedia editors also would include creating fake Misplaced Pages user accounts to try to trick editors into identifying themselves by sharing personal information or clicking on malicious tracking links that can identify people who click on them. It is unclear whether this has begun.
Clearly this situation is alarming in the extreme and the discussion at the arbitration case brought forward the very reasonable suggestion of a project-wide block of all Heritage Foundation domains. So why here? Well Aquillion suggested a reasonable first-step toward this would be to get the site deprecated and blacklisted via RS/N. So that's what I'm here to do. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am unsure about a retalitory deprecation (or whatever). Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- No this would be a preventative deprecation. The idea, to my understanding, is to remove the ability of Heritage Foundation domains to interact with en.wp as much as possible. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is that not best done with range blocks, to prevent them from setting up accounts? Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think this is a discussion to be had at the Village Pump, as it's not a matter of reliability. Deprecation wouldn't have the effect that your looking for, you would need blacklisting and I don't think this would fall within the normal process of blacklisting. So a discussion at VP seems more appropriate as it's something outside of prior policy or guidelines. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- A village pump discussion was created and the suggestion to bring the conversation here actually arose from discussion of that conversation at the arbitration page. Honestly I'm pretty nervous about a pseudo-governmental organization trying to interfere with individual Misplaced Pages editors in this way so I'll happily take the conversation to whatever board we think is most appropriate. But right now we've got a whole lot of conversations pointing to different places as a precis to discussing the actual problem. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hostile actions by a third party against Misplaced Pages or it's editors isn't a reliability issue, and this isn't a forum for anything but reliability issues. If anything it sounds more like safe guarding, a much bigger issue that should probably involve the WMF. However if editors want to start a discussion about it's reliability, per the sources below, that would be a seperate matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- New level 2 section. —Alalch E. 19:00, 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)
- Yes, new section. —Alalch E. 18:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's enough to open an RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 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)
References
- 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.
- Fisher, Michael. "Heritage Foundation". Archived from the original on August 8, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
- 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...
- 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...
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
- You may have more luck asking at WT:WikiProject Bangladesh or WT:WikiProject West Bengal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, will repost there (West Bengal, since it's the Wikiproject whose scope covers the article's subject). --Richard Yin (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation has published misinformation or disinformation about climate change, the FDA elections and politics, and more. It has been publishing obvious disinformation especially since the 2020 election. Its website heritage.org is used as a source on some 5000 pages. I'm inviting editors to consider whether this source should be deprecated. Another thing to consider are possible other sources such as websites and publications operated by or published by the Heritage Foundation.—Alalch E. 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- We should definitely be avoiding using sources that intentionally put forward disinformation. Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the Index of Economic Freedom? —Alalch E. 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nothing of value would be lost if we had to do away with that one. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I like how the United States is 0.6 points away from not being green in that index. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the books published by the Heritage Foundation?
- What about https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future as a source in Laffer curve? —Alalch E. 19:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the Index of Economic Freedom? —Alalch E. 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not sure I would want to go direct to deprecation unless they are demonstrably churning out falsehoods.
- On a quick search, I only found this discussion in the archives, about the Daily Signal, which looks like a pretty partisan affair. Selfstudier (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- A lot of these are country rankings on the foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. Not sure if we want this used or not. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was a bit flip above with my comment regarding that index but I guess my question would be what value it is? I mean, let's be honest, the methodological claim in our own article on the index
The creators of the index assert that they take an approach inspired by Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations
suggests they've derived their index from theories in an outdated treatise on economics from 1776. Furthermore we could probably reproduce the index just by measuring how deregulated any given economy is. I'm not sure what neutral value there is to Misplaced Pages giving breathing space to an index that equates economic deregulation with freedom on the basis of a 250 year old book. Simonm223 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- I mean, just as an example, their benchmark for Government spending is $0. IE: The ideal case, for this index, is that there is no government at all. Simonm223 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That just means you personally disagree with them. I could turn it around on you by asking what value there is to the contributions of editors who describe themselves as socialists in their userboxes.
- Obviously the index in question is from a particular point of view, but I don't see any evidence adduced that it's not reliable for descriptions of countries according to that POV, which is something that can be of interest. --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh do stop. I've heard that particular WP:NPA violation a thousand times. My argument is that they have no valid methodology and a WP:FRINGE WP:AGEMATTERS perspective, it is not that they are an extreme right-wing group. Simonm223 (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know much about their methodology; that's something that could be explored. As to the perspective, I think the reference to Smith is more normative than descriptive. I don't think you can apply AGEMATTERS to moral propositions. --Trovatore (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a moral proposition tp build your economic worldview on a text that predates electricity? Simonm223 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a moral proposition to value lesser regulation per se (as opposed to achieve some other goal). --Trovatore (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their index is pseudoscience. We aren't supposed to use that in Misplaced Pages except to critique it. Simonm223 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a bold claim. Evidence? --Trovatore (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t really care about whatever their wacky economic index dealio is, we just flat-out shouldn’t trust an organization that wants to systematically attack our userbase and will most likely harvest any data it finds for that purpose. It’s like reaching for a source in a bear trap. Dronebogus (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB850689110237569500 (archive.is). We are not worried that the Wall Street Journal will systematically attack our userbase etc. —Alalch E. 11:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t really care about whatever their wacky economic index dealio is, we just flat-out shouldn’t trust an organization that wants to systematically attack our userbase and will most likely harvest any data it finds for that purpose. It’s like reaching for a source in a bear trap. Dronebogus (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a bold claim. Evidence? --Trovatore (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their index is pseudoscience. We aren't supposed to use that in Misplaced Pages except to critique it. Simonm223 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a moral proposition to value lesser regulation per se (as opposed to achieve some other goal). --Trovatore (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a moral proposition tp build your economic worldview on a text that predates electricity? Simonm223 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know much about their methodology; that's something that could be explored. As to the perspective, I think the reference to Smith is more normative than descriptive. I don't think you can apply AGEMATTERS to moral propositions. --Trovatore (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh do stop. I've heard that particular WP:NPA violation a thousand times. My argument is that they have no valid methodology and a WP:FRINGE WP:AGEMATTERS perspective, it is not that they are an extreme right-wing group. Simonm223 (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mean, just as an example, their benchmark for Government spending is $0. IE: The ideal case, for this index, is that there is no government at all. Simonm223 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was a bit flip above with my comment regarding that index but I guess my question would be what value it is? I mean, let's be honest, the methodological claim in our own article on the index
- It appears that the use in these pages are not problematic and supported by WP:EDITCON, replacing sources in 5000 pages would be a ton of work. I would like to first know in which pages did the actual use of this source appear unreliable, such as promoting WP:FRINGE. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think they can be counted as a reliable source but I see no objection to saying what they think since they are important if it is obvious they are being quoted as a heavily biased party. They make it fairly clear what they are rather than trying to be deceptive about their aims which at least is a mercy. Really most of these 'think tanks' and 'foundations' and 'institutes' and even 'research organizations' are like that and we'd be well off if they were specially marked as such instead of being mixed up with reliable sources. NadVolum (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would consider it WP:GUNREL since it’s self published and openly partisan. HenrikHolen (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not self-published in the sense we use that term. Lots of reliable sources publish their own materials, including e.g. serious thinktanks. It may be GUNREL, but SPS is not a valid policy-based argument in this case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was recently (may still be going on) a very extensive discussion about whether WP:SPS applies to "gray" sources such as think tanks and advocacy groups. This line of reasoning probably is coming out of that discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was an RFC as well, there wasn't a consensus on how to define such sources but there was consensus against always considering them to be self-published. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was recently (may still be going on) a very extensive discussion about whether WP:SPS applies to "gray" sources such as think tanks and advocacy groups. This line of reasoning probably is coming out of that discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not self-published in the sense we use that term. Lots of reliable sources publish their own materials, including e.g. serious thinktanks. It may be GUNREL, but SPS is not a valid policy-based argument in this case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it can be used, but like with most such sources attribution is appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Please review reference no. 6 in Special:PermanentLink/1264352480 (
Additionally, each state is entitled to select a number of electors to vote in the Electoral College, the body that elects the president of the United States, equal to the total of representatives and senators in Congress from that state
). Is the source adequate? Would we want to replace it? —Alalch E. 23:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- Yeah thats somewhere where I just don't see using Heritage (or any other think tank) being due. That seems like a place where academic sourcing should be pretty easy to find. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. What do you think about the following paragraph found in Special:PermanentLink/1262085410#History, supported by the Project 2025 publication, with attribution:
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, dubbed the Space Development Agency "a model for the military". In their 2025 Mandate for Leadership, they call to develop new offensive space capabilities to "impose will if necessary". They further claim the Biden administration "has eliminated almost all offensive deterrence capabilities" in space that were planned under the Trump administration.
Is this where "attribution is appropriate", or should this entire paragraph simply be removed unless there's a secondary source on the fact that the Heritage Foundation has said so and so. —Alalch E. 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Given what we now know, this can be cited as another example of their modus operandi: do what they say, or else. M.Bitton (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It could go either way, I'm not familiar enough with the topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. What do you think about the following paragraph found in Special:PermanentLink/1262085410#History, supported by the Project 2025 publication, with attribution:
- Yeah thats somewhere where I just don't see using Heritage (or any other think tank) being due. That seems like a place where academic sourcing should be pretty easy to find. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Please review reference no. 6 in Special:PermanentLink/1264352480 (
- I don't think the issue is them being unreliable. I think the issue is them tracking the IP of anyone who visits their sites and trying to doxx editors with that info. There might be a way to just archive all the links and then replace the links with links to the wayback machine or something to avoid sending people directly to their site. Photos of Japan (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not a topical matter on this noticeboard. —Alalch E. 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know about that. If a source is willing to go to such extent to silence people, then I don't see how it can possibly be considered reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, if a source is operating in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, that is directly relevant to an evaluation of whether they are a reliable source; namely, it's (additional) direct evidence that they do dishonest and untrustworthy things and are unreliable. Together with the other evidence of unreliability presented in OP's first post, I think they have gone beyond unreliability, into territory where deprecation and blacklisting is in order. -sche (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know about that. If a source is willing to go to such extent to silence people, then I don't see how it can possibly be considered reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not a topical matter on this noticeboard. —Alalch E. 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support blacklisting Abo Yemen✉ 07:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Minor point but it's used on 1700 pages not 5000. The search caught false positives such as english-heritage.org. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Should just be considered unreliable for unreliability in general, but the implications they would go to doxxing is icing on the cake to suggest blacklisting at this point. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
As with ALL think-tanks, I think they should be considered WP:GUNREL; though if some of their reports see WP:USEBYOTHERS than those could be used with attribution.---Avatar317 06:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Could we see some evidence of doxing please? If this is something they do to people it is a safety concern and we probably need to deprecate. As for the rest, I think they are an over-used fringe source, but there are probably times when their attributed opinion is due. The Economic Freedom Index was something you used to see quoted a lot in newspapers and on TV in the UK, not so much now. It shouldn't be mentioned in our Economy of Narnia or Socialist Republic of Zenda type articles.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This expose in the Forward, a respected progressive Jewish outlet, is the main source of information on this scheme. Dronebogus (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blacklisting. I don’t know if it’s “spam” per se but an organization that has stated an intent to dox editors is obviously just a simple threat to user safety. And I don’t think there’s any debate their content is all garbage, disinfo, and propaganda. Even WP:ABOUTSELF content should easily be obtainable via respectable 3rd-party sources. Dronebogus (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blacklisting. User:Headbomb am I right in thinking your script marks this as unreliable? Doug Weller talk 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blacklisting of this Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". M.Bitton (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blacklisting. The Heritage Foundation produces two things: disinformation and opinion. I don't think the opinion of a disinformation vendor is particularly noteworthy except in WP:ABOUTSELF contexts. With such minimal value to use of this group as a source let's just show them the door. Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support blacklisting. The site is published by an ideologically-motivated group which is well-documented for making false claims of fact, using dubious methodologies in their work, and is now engaged in efforts to damage this very project. There's absolutely no use, and much potential harm to come from using them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
RFC: The Heritage Foundation
|
|
What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation and should it be blacklisted? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
- Option 5: Blacklist
Poll
Option 5: Blacklist: Multiple examples of the foundation publishing complete misinformation. The use of links to try to determine and datamine user identity moves to a trust issue and indicates a need to blacklist links to protect users and editors. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Pinging @Dronebogus@Doug Weller@M.Bitton@Simonm223@MjolnirPants, they voted above before I made this RFC. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Barnards.tar seems correct... We need to be able to cite some of their opinions, and pure blacklist would harm our mission... but i'm not certain its worth using their material if this is the new world we are in.
- is there a way to place warnings on links when you click on them that would warn users about this scenario though? that would be a good compromise.. otherwise keeping vote for 5Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I honestly don't see how blacklisting such a garbage source would harm this project. M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support option 5 - Allowing this website to exist on wikipedia is a danger to editors' privacy and safety. The Heritage Foundation needs to be blacklisted ASAP Abo Yemen✉ 15:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Heritage Foundation is not a website. It's an organization. You can treat the website as one of its publications. There may be other websites. There are further publications, such as the paperback yearly Indices of Economic Freedom: https://isbndb.com/book/9780891952930. We can't blacklist paperback sources. What's the status of that going to be? How does your recommendation answer this question? —Alalch E. 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not our problem. We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization. Abo Yemen✉ 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are works published by the organization. If an organization is such an unreliable source (in the conception of an organization as a source as per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources § Definition of a source; that's point no. 3), which is the framing of this RfC, as to be "blacklisted", should we really retain the status quo wrt its printed works? —Alalch E. 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do paperbacks get special dispensation in policy from reliability requirements? If (say) David Irving published a paperback would it magically become reliable? Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, according to Abo Yemen. He said:
We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization
—Alalch E. 16:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Ay dont be quoting me on that. I didn't give a complete answer. I have no idea how unreliable this source is but according to other editors, it is not reliable. But if the paperback was reliable enough compared to stuff they publish on their website then i dont see why it shouldn't be used. All i did was try to give an answer to your question ig Abo Yemen✉ 17:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- They don't. M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is the status of 2017 Index of Economic Freedom, Institute for Economic Freedom (a printed work) going to be then, according to you: perhaps a deprecated source? —Alalch E. 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever we decide, but (again) it being a paperback has no relevance. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is an RfC, Slatersteven, it's the time when things are decided. Saying "Whatever we decide" is clearly not moving things forward. —Alalch E. 17:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its status now is that is is an RS, its status when this is over will be determined by this RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please start engaging more meaningfully. It doesn't appear that you're getting it. How do you blacklist a printed work? Only web domains can be blacklisted. What is the consequence for the printed work as the outcome of this RfC if the consensus is to "blacklist the Heritage Foundation"? —Alalch E. 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- We do it all the time, we have plenty of blacklisted printed works (the Daily Mail for one). Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? So it would not, in fact, be covered by any ban on the heritage foundation. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If Daily Mail is blacklisted, how is this possible (edit: I intentionally broke the link later after a complaint that a source highlighter script is painting too much red):
- {{cite web |last1=Earle |first1=Geoff |title=Justin Trudeau glares at Trump amid his threat to absorb country |url=https://www.d ailymail.co.uk/news/article-14267497/justin-trudeau-glares-trump-jimmy-carter-funeral-canada-threats.html |website=Mail Online |access-date=9 January 2025 |date=9 January 2025}}
I'll help you: Daily Mail is not blacklisted.—Alalch E. 17:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- ]. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not an entry marked as blacklisted. Please find me an entry which is in fact blacklisted, for me to believe that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking when discussing specifically blacklisting something. —Alalch E. 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ahh I see, well yes we cannot blacklist spam if is hardcopy, but we can depreciate it, and it can be assumed that if you choose 5, you are choosing to also depreciate it. Are you you arguing that if you vote 5 it will not cover hard copy? Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think there is a misunderstanding of what is meant "blacklisting the source". Please see this comment below. M.Bitton (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll give more responses to your slightly earlier comment:
Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing).
Yes, nothing says so; I wasn't arguing otherwise.But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal?
Does not appear to be. The sole publisher of this paperback edition is The Heritage Foundation.Going onward... You said that this country ranking, which is a primary source and an unscientific publication from a think tank, is a RS. On no day would that simply be a reliable source. So I'm going to circle back to my original question, to which you replied with the rhetorical question ofDo paperbacks get special dispensation ...
. That original question, mildly rephrased, is:How does the recommendation to blacklist heritage.org the website for safety reasons answer the question of how to treat the reliability of The Heritage Foundation as a source, whereby "source" means publisher, consistent with Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Definition of a source, which is how this RfC's question is also formulated (What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation ...
)?Your answer to this question is that blacklisting an organization's website creates an assumption that all publications from that organization which can not be blacklisted are treated as deprecated sources. This answer is possible, but it is not what, say, User:NatGertler thinks. He wrote:... we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question ...
. —Alalch E. 18:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ahh I see, well yes we cannot blacklist spam if is hardcopy, but we can depreciate it, and it can be assumed that if you choose 5, you are choosing to also depreciate it. Are you you arguing that if you vote 5 it will not cover hard copy? Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not an entry marked as blacklisted. Please find me an entry which is in fact blacklisted, for me to believe that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking when discussing specifically blacklisting something. —Alalch E. 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hey Alalch can you change the source you change this to a normal link because the entire section is now colored red because of the source reliability gadget thing Abo Yemen✉ 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll break the link. My highlighter doesn't work like that. It only colors the link red, not the whole section. —Alalch E. 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ultimately I think this is somewhat moot as, notwithstanding the safety concern, they're also a deeply unreliable fringe source that has been spammed all over our project. As such I do sincerely think there is a justification for options 4 and 5 even if this group wasn't trying to target Misplaced Pages editors. That they're also doing this is, in my view, an inflaming element but I think that getting this pervasive fringe source out of our project is a good for the project on its own merits. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll break the link. My highlighter doesn't work like that. It only colors the link red, not the whole section. —Alalch E. 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If Daily Mail is blacklisted, how is this possible (edit: I intentionally broke the link later after a complaint that a source highlighter script is painting too much red):
- We do it all the time, we have plenty of blacklisted printed works (the Daily Mail for one). Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? So it would not, in fact, be covered by any ban on the heritage foundation. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please start engaging more meaningfully. It doesn't appear that you're getting it. How do you blacklist a printed work? Only web domains can be blacklisted. What is the consequence for the printed work as the outcome of this RfC if the consensus is to "blacklist the Heritage Foundation"? —Alalch E. 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its status now is that is is an RS, its status when this is over will be determined by this RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is an RfC, Slatersteven, it's the time when things are decided. Saying "Whatever we decide" is clearly not moving things forward. —Alalch E. 17:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also this is an online source, so may be a security risk. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. The link I posted is a link to a database entry on the website isbndb.com. It contains information about a printed work published by The Heritage Foundation. —Alalch E. 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever we decide, but (again) it being a paperback has no relevance. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is the status of 2017 Index of Economic Freedom, Institute for Economic Freedom (a printed work) going to be then, according to you: perhaps a deprecated source? —Alalch E. 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, according to Abo Yemen. He said:
- Not our problem. We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization. Abo Yemen✉ 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Heritage Foundation is not a website. It's an organization. You can treat the website as one of its publications. There may be other websites. There are further publications, such as the paperback yearly Indices of Economic Freedom: https://isbndb.com/book/9780891952930. We can't blacklist paperback sources. What's the status of that going to be? How does your recommendation answer this question? —Alalch E. 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 already said why, garbage source that’s a threat to user safety. Dronebogus (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support option 5 and option 4 per my statements above. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I added option 4 to my support message to clarify I support both blacklisting and deprecating this source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3, with Option 5 post 2016 and Option 4 for any hard copy after 2016. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only blacklisting/deprecating content from a certain time period is not possible unless the domains are different. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3: generally unreliable. Too many examples of them publishing bunk. However, blacklisting would also be wrong, because they seem to have a deep archive of relevant material, such as this article by Clarence Thomas which we link to on his article. For readers who want to read the subject's writings, that is a useful link. Putting the heritage.org domain on the spam blacklist would prevent this. This is far from the only example. Furthermore, the call to blacklist seems to be a misguided attempt to prevent the doxxing op that they have planned. Blacklisting will not prevent any of that plan being executed. It's just the wrong tool. By all means aggressively block accounts and IP addresses implicated in doxxing, but blacklisting their domain is a completely unrelated action. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 and Option 4. this is literally a Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". M.Bitton (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 maybe the doxing threat would be a good enough reason, but the fact it publishes misinformation is an overwhelming reason. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 for pre-2016 (meaning: same status as the Cato Institute and the other "yellow" think tanks) and Option 4 for 2016 and later. While spam websites can get spam-blacklisted if they're recognized as obvious spam in discussions held in this forum (happens rarely), I oppose the notion that this forum has an ability to decide to blacklist a non-spam source for computer security reasons, because the subset of editors at large interested in reliability of sources used on Misplaced Pages, who are predominantly the editors commenting here, here do not have the competence to make an informed decision on matters of user safety. Facts and arguments should be collected in a discussion devoted to that specifically, which discussion has a chance of attracting editors with suitable knowledge and skill, and decisions should be made going forward from that (i.e., this (permalink)), not from value judgements.—Alalch E. 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, we do have the competence and the right to decide whether a source should be blacklisted in this appropriate venue. M.Bitton (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Disagreed. I.e., agreed for spam, disagreed for safety.—Alalch E. 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, we do have the competence and the right to decide whether a source should be blacklisted in this appropriate venue. M.Bitton (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 We can't control what they do with their site, and they've indicated their willingness to use malicious applications and methods to harm Misplaced Pages. Allowing links from our site to theirs is a fundamental cybersecurity concern, given their announced intention to target our editors. And given their use of misinformation, their all but explicitly stated goal of engaged in broad political activity to undermine the constitution of their home nation, which is also the host nation of this project and whose constitution outlines fundamental principles of this project, there will be no appreciable loss to the project from doing so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 - blacklist website for cybersecurity reasons. Not sure about non-website references. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 blacklist for security reasons, noting that they have brought this on themselves - I would otherwise oppose blacklisting, as they sometimes carry content from individuals whose opinions we would give weight to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 Blacklist -- but this does not mean removing the reference. Rather, we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question, but with their announced intent to use links to try to break Misplaced Pages privacy, they are a malware site and should be treated as such. This needs to be done to all links to their websites, regardless of date. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 They are often publishing pure opinion, and what they publish is definitely the opinion of the people writing. Where these opinions might be due is to be discussed on the relevant talkpages. Their editorial content (i.e. anything published by them without a name attached) is generally unreliable (option 3) as they are into WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories and disinformation. I don't get how anybody is voting 4 or 5 on merit here though, and this board no jurisdiction over their alleged cyber-stalking attempt.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 per Vanamonde93, the known security risks make this an exception to past precedent, basically they have now entered "find out." I would guess anything notable published there would be picked up by on other news outlets and/or scholarly sources that can be cited instead. The Clarence Thomas article mentioned above, for instance, is widely cited and also has a Google Books entry which at least is not a technological risk. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 per Vanamonde93. If necessary to use, we can use other sources that refer to the organization, to an offline publication, or use an archival link (which I think would resolve security issues). Perhaps archiving all existing links might be an option as well? -- Patar knight - /contributions 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 I have seen enough to make me think that attribution is insufficient here, gunrel leaves the door ajar for citations but not that many, hopefully. Blacklisting their websites seems more of a technical question, but wouldn't it require a 4 first? Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JoJo Anthrax, Bluethricecreamman, Abo Yemen, Dronebogus, Doug Weller, MjolnirPants, SarekOfVulcan, Vanamonde93, NatGertler, Boynamedsue, Gnomingstuff, Patar knight, 1AmNobody24, Tryptofish, Chaotic Enby, and Horse Eye's Back:
- While it's reasonable to assume that "option 5" would automatically include "option 4", some editors seem to think that it doesn't. Please ignore this request if you agree with them, otherwise, you might want to adjust your !vote (i.e., also comment on the reliability) to alleviate any confusion. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- My comment is only on security grounds. I don't believe that in the current context it is possible to evaluate their reliability independent of those security concerns and so will not be attempting to do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did already comment on the reliability in my !vote, but thanks for the reminder! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong opinion on this - if it weren't for the security risk I'd be somewhere between options 3 and 4. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do have a strong opinion on this, but am backing it down to 3+5 for NPOV reasons. As said elsewhere, named op-eds might be legitimate references. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 Don't think this needs any explanation anymore. Nobody (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 6, Mu. We're trying to solve a very real issue of not giving out personal information, but blacklisting isn't really a way to do this. The risk by clicking on the link is something like the risk of clicking on a link to a state-owned media site, or frankly any potentially hostile website. This is because there's no malware required to be installed to get one's IP; the execution is extremely simple because you give out your IP when you visit any website and, if you allow cookies to be downloaded generally, this is the exact way that advertisers track your browsing.The way that spearphishing to get one's IP address works is that you have to click on a very specific link, and they have to be fairly certain that only you could have clicked on that link (or that a very small number of people could have done so). Blacklisting one domain name is sufficient to start a game of Whac-A-Mole, but it doesn't really protect us against this sort of thing; all they have to do is register a new domain name that outwardly looks like something benign and send it to you in an email (or even posting it on a rarely-viewed talk page). And, if they're already engaging sockpuppet burner accounts to do this, we're going to see this often and possibly without even knowing it.If the concern is spearphishing, blacklisting a public website that has some legitimate uses is the wrong approach. In fact, it would wind up making the spearphishing be more effective by necessity, since people who are alert to Heritage urls would be directed to click on something that doesn't look like one. And perhaps it would even lull people into letting down their guard in this respect.The Heritage foundation is used in >5000 articles often as a supplementary/WP:PRIMARY source. And that's because it's influential in the course of AmPol and it's often useful to include those links in a reference work. This sort of spearphishing would appear to be a new low.What I really don't want is for editors to have a false sense of security here; blacklisting is not going to stop this sort of activity, and it's somewhat trivial to get around this. The proposal would give us as much extra security as blacklisting state-owned media/government-controlled websites from countries known to try to de-identify and harass Wikipedians. We don't generally do that, and we really don't need to; it would be ineffective in achieving its goals of protecting our users. (Perhaps I'm off-base here, and the community would want to blacklist those too.) But it really is a bit of a feel-good measure more than an effective one for privacy from a sophisticated actor.The technical solutions offered at the Village pump are in some ways more robust than a blacklist. What the technical solutions would do is make it harder to trace back traffic to ordinary (i.e. non-spearphishing) links on the website to Misplaced Pages, and it would reduce the risk associated with existing citations. They're not perfect; ultimately nothing can prevent you from clicking the outlink to a burner website, but those solutions don't lull users into the false sense of security that blacklisting the Heritage website would. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can do both. We can remove a WP:FRINGE source that is being far too pervasively used across Misplaced Pages and we can also pursue those technical solutions to protect privacy. And this would have a tertiary effect of pointing out that the Misplaced Pages community will vigorously protect itself from this sort of bad-faith interference.Simonm223 (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The issues outside of reliability or blacklisting is out of scope for this noticeboard. Discussion about protecting editors from hostile actions should continue on the village pump. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is very relevant. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah that isn't really a valid reason for blacklisting. The point of closing #Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors above, and starting a new section, was to focus on reliability issues. That they appear to be taking hostile actions against Misplaced Pages's editors isn't a V/RS policy reason for blacklisting.
- Blacklisting won't protect editors, which is something that will proby need WMF involvement, which is why I suggest the VP discussion continue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is very relevant. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a really pertinent point, there are genuine security concerns, we need to discuss them in the correct place. Most of the people here are clueless about online security, I know I am, it's not a reliability issue. The comments on here seem to be completely reactionary, and more about sending a message to the ghouls in question that they can fuck off. Let's be honest, the people voting option 5 are doing so as retaliation. I understand that instinct, I'm fuming about this myself, but it's making us look daft. We shouldn't be getting into bunfights with organisations that are so clearly beneath us. --Boynamedsue (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm all for discussing the Heritage Foundation based on the merits of its reliability and protecting Wikipedians from their harassment, but I completely agree with Redtail here. I really doubt that we'd need to blacklist new Primary additions, and Heritage can't doxx Wikipedians through existing citations without doxxing everyone who visits a Heritage link; we don't have trackers on our Heritage reference links. What we should do instead is try and rangeblock Heritage or other stuff already discussed. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
So, in fact it IS being argued that 5 does not also include 4, so if you also think derpication as well you need to (explicitly) say it, as I now do. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: Blacklist (along with 4: Deprecate). For our security as editors, and for the security of our readers – and yes, they brought this on themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: Blacklist, primarily for editor safety reasons. While I agree with Red-tailed hawk that blacklisting this specific source will not be a perfect solution, editors posting unknown websites for spearfishing purposes can be dealt with individually (in fact, I don't think they would wait for heritage.org to be blacklisted to do so, and blacklisting the main site keeps us more alert on that fact). If the Heritage Foundation intends to directly endanger Misplaced Pages editors, blacklisting their website and treating it as potential malware is the minimum we should do. In terms of accuracy, generally unreliable at least, and neutral on deprecation, although NatGertler's approach (removing the links in existing citations) can also be up for consideration. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
NO security is perfect, and if its not they even black list spam (they will find a way). it is about not making is casual. So easy that it just means copying and pasting nickyouriddotcom into a cite. Making it even slightly harder might be enough to prevent its casual use. Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've got a multi-stage vote of sorts, if that makes sense:
- In general, Option 5 for editor security reasons, as per all above.
- With specific regard to HF-authored pieces/editorials, Option 4 as they repeatedly publish dis/misinformation intended solely to serve WP:FRINGE theories.
- With specific regard to op-eds that have an actual name attached to them, somewhere between option 2 and option 3 - WP:NEWSOPED would typically lean toward the former, but even the op-ed pieces veer into FRINGE often enough that I'm not comfortable with an outright 2. The Kip 18:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 Because as Bernards points out, there are still some good links, particularly in archives. And as Red-tailed explains, Blacklisting creates its own set of problems that won't solve what many think it will ie. it's a dangerous solution because it puts a veneer on the problem that looks like solid wood underneath that is not. -- GreenC 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 on security grounds, this is a bit atypical but we don't have a large history of sources purposefully turning their links into honeypots with the explicit intent of harming wikipedia editors and readers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 for any web-based source connected to the organisation on grounds of cybersecurity. No comment as to reliability. Daveosaurus (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 This foundation knowingly and intentionally publishes disinformation, and it has self-identified as a threat to Misplaced Pages and its editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Um why does anybody think the links they would use would be to a heritage foundation url? Also, this isn’t a social media site, this isn’t some place where the interests of the users are supposed to trump the interests of the product, that being our articles. If there is some evidence that an actual heritage.org link has been used for some nefarious purpose then you can talk about blacklisting, but other than that this is supposed to be judged based on what’s best for our articles, not our editors. nableezy - 19:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is the main problem with blacklisting. It’s security theater, which generally does more harm than good, as I think Red-tailed hawk articulated well. Using heritage.org as the actual spearphishing domain doesn’t line up to the MO given in the leaked slides, which talk about using redirects. It would also be weirdly amateurish to create that kind of paper trail leading directly to the perps, especially now that they (presumably) know we’re onto them and any of their agents caught in such an obvious blunder could be subject to countermeasures. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: blacklist any and all known Heritage Foundation websites as soon as possible, past and present links included. The organization has made its malicious intentions clear. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 this is purely retaliatory behaviour based on an alleged document. The usage of this source hasn't been shown to be problematic and a few bad articles doesn't inherently make a source unreliable. If you're worried about your safety then block the links yourself, but Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to serve you and your paranoia. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The document mentions nothing about using phishing links nor would their references serve as a useful phishing link. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 (like all think tanks). This seems purely retaliatory. I mean sure, they want to spy on us, but famously so did the NSA, for which we sued the NSA and lost. And it’s not like we are banned from citing US websites. This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity, do you think an FBI agent led attempt to steal our information would use their basic domain? They have millions of dollars they will just buy more or use connections to do it to other sites. This does nothing and is performative. And I don’t find the evidence above convincing, it’s a think tank, producing think tank type fare. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 per PARAKANYAA. Well said. - Amigao (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 There is absolutely no downside to blacklisting this source. Nothing of value is lost, and unreliable information is kept out - it's a win-win situation. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 Those sites are not reliable enough. Privacy wise, those sites are dangerous for editors and readers to visit. Ahri Boy (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 and in case it's considered seperate Option 4 as well. THF are not only publishers of WP:Fringe but are posing an active threat to WP:NOTCENSORED Bejakyo (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Reference Subsection
References
- 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.
- Fisher, Michael. "Heritage Foundation". Archived from the original on August 8, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
- 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...
- 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...
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Foundation, Heritage (1 February 2023). "Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise" (PDF). The Heritage Foundation. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 November 2023. Retrieved 1 September 2023.
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)
Are PCORI statements a WP:Reliable source for medical claims? Do PCORI statements pass WP:MEDRS as coming from a medical organization?
I say yes. The organization is non-governmental, but was established by the United States government, and they have awarded about US$2 billion in grants over the past 10 years. They are a large research organization which takes care in making conventional statements. Also, they have good alignment with wiki community organizations, and have hosted and joined wiki editing events in the United States and with Wikimedia Medicine for almost 10 years. That alignment is because of PCORI's patient advocacy, and because typical people find this organization's statements to be more relevant than those from more industry-oriented medical organizations. While PCORI does drive a lot of research through peer reviewed journals, they also make expert consensus statements in the name of PCORI which are not peer reviewed.
@Zefr: said that some PCORI statements are "neither vetted by peer-review nor is it mainstream clinical practice", which is correct, but I feel that they still meet MEDRS by being a statement from an authoritative organization. Similarly, @Whywhenwhohow: reverted saying the sources were not MEDRS compliant. FULBERT made the statements as Wikimedian in Residence at PCORI, and I collaborate with FULBERT through United States Wikimedia groups and through the University of Virginia, where I also am a Wikimedian in Residence.
Here are the talk notices about reversion. The statements are
- Talk:Modafinil#Clarification_on_a_WP:MEDRS_sourced_claim_that_was_reverted
- Talk:Amantadine#A_recent_WP:MEDRS_sourced_claim_that_was_reverted
- Talk:Methylphenidate#Update_on_a_WP:MEDRS_sourced_claim_that_was_reverted
Here is an actual PCORI statement from the Modafinil article. The reverted claim from this statement was that 40% of patients using a drug have adverse effects.
I support using this source for this claim.
Thoughts from others about PCORI generally? Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry - in the case of my revert at Modafinil, the PCORI report was just a summary of preliminary results (n=33, i.e., primary research) from the "Treatment of Fatigue with Methylphenidate, Modafinil and Amantadine in MS" (TRIUMPHANT-MS) trial, which had been funded by PCORI.
- At this early stage,TRIUMPHANT-MS was actually just a pilot study reported here. That study is not a MEDRS source for the article statement, "modafinil has been shown to be effective in managing fatigue in people with MS" when other more substantial sources, including a meta-analysis, are used.
- Further, the PCORI statement is that "These findings can contribute to clinician and patient discussions about treatments to reduce MS-related fatigue." In other words, the PCORI article is a) a progress report, and b) an advice source for a physician-patient discussion.
- In this case, such a brief update on funding for preliminary research is not an appropriate reference, and does not comment on the wider issue of PCORI as an organization. Zefr (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say its non-governmental... It seems to be more semi or quasi governmental (Interestingly enough a notable concept that we seem to lack a wiki page for) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Law&Crime Network
Hello! I would like to know your opinion about Law&Crime Network youtube channel and their news site Law&Crime News. Are they reliable source for information about murders/trials? SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Youtube channels are generally not reliable sources. Please see WP:RSPYT for additional context. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Catholic-Hierarchy.org
Catholic-Hierarchy.org is a self-published source that has been featured in two prior discussions (2016 and 2020). Multiple editors appear to consider it a reliable source specifically because it is used in other independent publications. This is a noted exception for self-published sources that can be found in WP:RS/SPS. However, users also acknowledge that it should never be used in biographies of living people.
Is there more discussion that should be had? Should these details be added to WP:RSPSOURCES? This source is used several thousand times on the English WP, so centralized standards for it might be desirable. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is there any context, any new disagreement about the source that would warrant a new discussion? If not the RSP has inclusion criteria and can be discussed on WT:RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @OldPolandUpdates: Where can that noted exception for self-published sources be found in WP:RS/SPS? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mid-paragraph here. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others, that isn't there. The self publisher here is an amateur, a self described "Random Catholic Dude" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is WP:EXPERTSPS? It redirects to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Do we have standards on who is/is not an expert? If Catholic-Hierarchy.org is not an expert source, then it is not a reliable self-published source, and this has implications for thousands of WP articles.
- Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources seems to imply that if one's material is used by reliable publications, then one might be considered an established expert. Catholic-Hierarchy.org is used in peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and other types of articles. Some of the usage is described here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_203#catholic-hierarchy.org. Therefore, the discussion might revolve around whether Catholic-Hierarchy.org is used enough by external publications.
- If you consider Catholic-Hierarchy.org not reliable, then would you also agree that it be depicted as such in the WP:RSPSOURCES table? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others, that isn't there. The self publisher here is an amateur, a self described "Random Catholic Dude" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mid-paragraph here. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)