| Revision as of 04:19, 8 December 2020 view sourceLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,316 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 320, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321) (bot← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:47, 11 January 2025 view source Koshuri Sultan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,441 edits →Does this source even exists?: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit New topic | ||
| 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}} | ||
| {{pp-sock|small=yes}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}} | |||
| {{cent}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 463 | ||
| |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 | ||
| --- |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ||
| --> | --> | ||
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | |||
| ==New York Times article on paid reporting== | |||
| <!-- ] 19:05, 23 October 2030 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1919012743}} | |||
| Not sure if this belongs here or on the talk page. This article mentions many items that are of interest to us. For example: | |||
| <blockquote> Maine Business Daily is part of a fast-growing network of nearly 1,300 websites that aim to fill a void left by vanishing local newspapers across the country. Yet the network, now in all 50 states, is built not on traditional journalism but on propaganda ordered up by dozens of conservative think tanks, political operatives, corporate executives and public-relations professionals, a Times investigation found.</blockquote> | |||
| ] (]) 22:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| : Look at what happened to Newsweek on ] after International Business Times bought it in 2013. It's certainly possible for the newspaper to have different reliability depending on era. ] (]) 23:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::And that article is published by the NYTimes? The same NYTimes that endorsed Joe Biden for US president? No way! {{stretch}} ] ] ] 00:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::You know better than that on this page. ] (]) 00:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Better than what? Trying to point out that a competitor is concerned about opposition to their POV? What's your point? ] ] ] 00:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Don’t even start... We don’t need to hear it all again. We know that your personal opinions on what constitutes a reliable source differs greatly from the current consensus, you don’t have to keep reminding us when its only vaguely on topic. ] (]) 03:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::CJR reported on this back in 2019: https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/hundreds-of-pink-slime-local-news-outlets-are-distributing-algorithmic-stories-conservative-talking-points.php (] · ]) ''']''' 06:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I suggest that we view all Metric Media sites as, at best, questionable sources. This reporting indicates that the sites have minimal editorial controls, are directed by people buying articles, and are generally ]. This clearly fails ] and ] standards. ] (]) 02:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Right, just as we wouldn't want to consider ] sites to be reliable sources of news, it doesn't sound like these Metric Media sites would qualify either. --] ] 03:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * Good work by the Times there, I'd say. This looks like an open and shut case: these sources should not be used. In fact if anyone has a full list of domains there should probably be an edit filter. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 11:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Here is a start. .] (]) 17:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Here is a list with over 1,000 domains belonging to Metric Media: https://github.com/MassMove/AttackVectors/blob/master/LocalJournals/sites.csv (] · ]) ''']''' 06:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * ''New York Times'' has the complete list of the fraudulent "news" sites . I believe this these should be added as ] on ] (do we need an RFC for that?), and a bot may be needed to create a list of wikipedia articles where they are currently used. ] (]) 18:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :* Does that mean they will be added to a filter of sorts? I can imagine that it will be hard for editors to keep up with all the different sources. Might be better to just block the URLs like a spam filter to pretty users from accidentally adding these pseudo-news sites. ] (]) 21:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *As noted above, we need to be careful about blanket removal because these papers existed before being subsumed by 'pink slime'. -- ]] 18:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Though it's certainly far too common among established media, it's also fair to note that they violate the copyright of Misplaced Pages contributors (see ] I left one user whose CC-BY 3.0 image of a local school wasn't attributed) ] (]) 05:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ping|ThatMontrealIP|Abecedare}} I happened to be looking into this and came across this discussion. I've published a table with the number of article-space links to URLs identified by NYT from the Google Doc linked above at ]. I only list URLs that had a non-zero number of mainspace links. ] (]) 19:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == RFC Science-Based Medicine == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{discussion top|There is a general consensus that at least some articles on this site can be considered self-published, and substantial disagreement over whether the site's editorial control is adequate, with even some partial supports acknowledging that material on the site may not be substantially reviewed if reviewed at all. As such, material from this site should be used with caution, probably with attribution, and should not on its own be used to support negative or controversial content in BLPs. Particular articles from the site may still be reliable on the basis of self-published sources by experts; those should be considered on an individual basis. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 10:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC) }} | |||
| <!-- ] 02:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1736474472}} | |||
| Is the blog ] in whole or in part, a ]? ] (]) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] is an Indian-news channel. It is at present the most popular news channel and website in India. It is my personal ideology, that it isn't politically reliable, but is reliable in all other cases. I think it deserves to be in this list.--] (]) 09:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *The network has been identified as a source of false or misleading claims about Islam and "fake news" 10.1109/CSPA48992.2020.9068673 Obviously it is known for right-wing, pro-BJP and Hindutva stance (] · ]) ''']''' 11:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **I am unconcerned about bias, it is not a reason to reject a source, but if more evidence can me made for falsification that would render it unreliable.] (]) 11:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::What is it being used for? ] (]) 12:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| It is my opinion that the channel is not politically 100% reliable, but it is not also 100% unreliable. So it should be shown as 'Generally Unreliable' in political status. | |||
| But for non-political reliability. It should come as 'Generally Reliable'.--] (]) 12:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :It should be considered unreliable in most other cases as well. It's reporting around Sushant Singh Rajput would be one major instance of it. There is also a thin line between what's political and what is not. A channel which wouldn't even refrain from fabricating quotes (see ) is not usable for anything, imv. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 13:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK if it fabricate quotes its not an RS.] (]) 13:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I agree with the Sushant Singh Rajput point. But, that was close to politics as it aimed at the Maharashtra government. But the other news on entertainment, sports, biography's, non-political headlines etc.. are 99.9% reliable. So non-political should be presented (in my opinion) as 'Generally Reliable'. --] (]) 13:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ] I would like to point out that they had produced fake news on the Karnataka Home Minister's comments, as it was political. I wouldn't mind the politically unreliable statement. But the non-political matter is the matter. The Sushant Singh Rajput case, was related to politics. Even otherwise it was just 1 issue. Rliable sources like ] also have shown unreliability in some issues. But their other articles were fair.--] (]) 13:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Atlantis77177}}, If the Sushant Singh Rajput case was political then anything can be turned political, the case is also a very good reason why it should never be used in any ]. It's not possible to separate the junk from what's good without relying on other sources, at which point there is no legitimate uses anymore. This is the case with most of our deprecated sources. '']'' {{rspe|The Guardian}} in comparison may have a political leaning but you will never find them outright manufacturing quotes for example, it's more comparable to the '']'' {{rspe|Daily Mail}} if not anything else, perhaps even worse than it. | |||
| : | |||
| :By the way, please don't copy my sign. Instead use ] or ] to notify me. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 14:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::] (]), the ] case is just an example. It just happened once, and could happen to any reliable source. But the other incident is 100% political, and I have accepted that they are politically unreliable, but what I suggested is that every NEWS website, would have presented their own view on a topic, and campaigned for it, as Republic did in the Sushant Singh Rajput case. One case shouldn't alone affect their reliability in non-political matters. I expect more comments on the topic.--] (]) 15:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's not something "that happened" but rather something they deliberately do, persistently and consistently. The Sushant Singh Rajput case is also not the "only non-political case", although the case should be enough. See the list of examples below, there is a political twist to these but as it goes with Republic, anything can be turned political or manufactured for political purposes. | |||
| *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) | |||
| :::* Fabricated story about ] accusing ] of sexual harrassment. | |||
| :::* Fabricated story about non-payment of dues by ]. | |||
| :::* Misinformation related to Covid-19 pandemic. | |||
| :::* Editing tweets to sanitisize the image of another fake news site (see ]) | |||
| :::* Fabricated quote, attributed to the journalist ]. | |||
| :::* Hosting an entire debate on the basis of a fabricated quote. | |||
| :::I have listed this on the noticeboard for India-related topics which should bring in more comments. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 16:46, 12 November 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) | |||
| '''The misinformation on the Covid-19 pandemic were on ], which is another channel, though they are the same brand.''' Also the rest are all either political, or about famous people in different field, who have a strong political career. For example- check out ''']''' and also the fact that '''] has been critical of the illegal encounters in ], which was ruled by ]. Also see | |||
| ::Never mind, Raladic added it. ] (]) 20:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ''' on ] doing fake news. Yet, they are considered to be politically reliable, as they generally are. That is by considering the general case. The same should go for Republic as they are generally reliablr for non-political matters. | |||
| ===Responses (Science-Based Medicine)=== | |||
| I am asking the other editors about factors like entertainment, sports and such non-political events where ] is reliable.--] (]) 17:17, 12 November 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) | |||
| :One of them is about ], the other is about ]. Both of them fall under the same editorial hierarchy and republish each other's content. The '']'' article is about ]'s historical use of propaganda in service of British foreign interests which doesn't apply to its current standards, the corporation became editorially independent from state interests around the 80s and 90s. We can't use ] era material from BBC for example. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 18:06, 12 November 2020 (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) | |||
| ::'''Please recheck the website you stated on the fake news on the pandemic, it is by ] and not by ]. It is true that they are of the same brand, but they have different editorial offices and employees, which is the reason that they can't be related in this discussion.''' I just can't understand, on why can't you accept that a channel is reliable in non-political matter, when it is the largest NEWS channel in ]. The political case is valid, and I have accepted the fact from the beginning, but in the case of non-political matters, the case is different. If you would like to clear the ] matter, please watch today's NEWS, on how a University declined her book, due to her political influence. | |||
| *:OP created different RFC here: ] which was closed as a bad RFC as it was not neutral and editors pointed out the lack of RFCBEFORE on a reasoning of why this needs to be rehashed. Given that that one was just closed and now this new one was immediately opened again without any RFCBEFORE discussion, it similarly appears to be looking for a problem without information as to why this RfC is here without any new evidence that should change the established consensus of the community. ] (]) 03:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:There was a discussion from a few years ago listed on RSP that seemed very mixed as to whether SBM is a SPS ] (]) 14:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SPS'''. Per what they wrote on their site: "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" If people are able to publish directly, by themselves, without being reviewed, then that meets the definition of SPS and we need to treat it that way for BLPs. Noting that this only means that it can't be used for direct statements about living people, but can still be used for statements about the truth (or, more often, otherwise) of views held by living people, the views of the authors about living people, and statements about fringe theories themselves. - ] (]) 03:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:You're citing a literal case where their editorial board retracted a published statement - that is literally acting like a non-SPS such as newspapers do and shows editorial oversight. This wasn't "random stranger published directly", it was a trusted author, and yet, their editorial board decided to retract the published article at the very link explaining their editorial oversight - {{tq|After careful review, the editors of SBM decided to retract this book review. Because we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness, occasionally corrections need to be made post-publication. In this case we felt there were too many issues with the treatment of the relevant science, and leaving the article up would not be appropriate given the standards of SBM.}}, so this looks like exactly what you'd expect from a non-SPS. You basically just made the case why they are not an SPS. ] (]) 03:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::In that case, they literally stated that they literally allow some people to self-publish on their site. That they might then retract the story if later they find a problem is a good thing. But it does not change how that article appeared there. Medium, for example, is a self-publishing platform, yet they can and do remove articles. This does not mean that we need to treat Medium as if it is not self published. SBM is definitely better than Medium, and I am confident that they have much higher standards. However, as they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs. - ] (]) 07:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::"''As they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs''". Which people though specifically? Where are the examples of this claim? Please list 5-10 authors at SBM who have self-published articles without any form of review. I do not see any good examples only one article from Harriet Hall that was retracted. Hall is now deceased. I would like to see the other examples. From what I can see none exist. ] (]) 13:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::It would seem that most of the content is self-published by only a small number (4) of writers, and yes, without any prior review as mentioned about by Bilby. The reliability is also debatable, but the self-publishing aspect of this blog seems as undeniable as ]. ] (]) 14:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::You haven't provided any evidence of self-publishing. Show us links to the self-published articles, I want to see them. Links and specific names please! ] (]) 14:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::This just seems like sealioning but here you go... ] (]) 14:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::You have linked to several articles by ]. Where does it claim on those articles they are self-published? David H. Gorski obviously reviewed those articles, he is listed in the link you cited below as the other editor. There are two editors so this isn't self-publishing. ] (]) 14:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Where are you seeing that? SBM seems to say the opposite, that Novella's articles are not checked by Gorski... Gorski also wouldn't be the publisher in that scenario, you're confusing an editor with the publisher. Novella's publisher would be Novella (either as founder and chief editor or as President of the society). ] (]) 14:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::The website says "''SBM is entirely owned and operated by the ]''" . So if you are after the publisher, not the editors it is that Society. Novella is listed as the current President of the New England Skeptical Society, he is not the publisher. We know that SBM has two current editors. The New England Skeptical Society that publishes SBM has 25 employees including its web manager Mike Lacelle. Its director is Jay Novella . This isn't a single man self-publishing house, an organization is behind it. ] (]) 15:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Is Jay Novella related to Steven Novella? If so this is getting worse, not better. ] (]) 15:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Yes it's his son but he is not the web manager for the website so he is not the publisher. He is the Director of Marketing and Technology . My understanding is that all the websites owned by the Society are managed by Mike Lacelle who is listed as the web manager. So if you are looking for the specific man that actually publishes the articles after they are edited it would be him. Like I said the organization has 25 employees, there could be others involved. It's not just Steven Novella in his bedroom publishing this website. Novella is a very busy man, he wouldn't have time for that! ] (]) 15:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::No, Jay and Steve are brothers. --] (]) 16:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::Thanks for the correction. The dude looks young for his age, fooled me. ] (]) 16:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::So between Jay, Steve, and Robert Novella it seems that we have a lot of relatives here. ] (]) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::What is your source for the organization having 25 employees? ] (]) 02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::{{Ping|Psychologist Guy}} you've claimed three times that the organization currently has exactly 25 employees... It is the core of your argument, but I don't think its true and I can't find it anywhere online... So how are you getting that number? ] (]) 18:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::::::It's on a company check website that mentioned 25 employees, unfortunately such websites appear to be blacklisted on Misplaced Pages. However, another one less specific says 20-49 employees . I believe there are 4 full time employees - Jay Novella, Perry DeAngelis, Steven Novella, Evan Bertnstein and the rest are part timers. ] (]) 18:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::::::::Their website lists the full time employees, there are actually probably 6 full time including the web manager Mike Lacelle. ] (]) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::::::::::{{Reply|Psychologist Guy}} Those company check websites are hilariously bad, I don't know anyone who would actually take them at face value like that (we all had a good laugh when one listed the twenty odd person consulting group I was working for as "1,000-10,0000 employees"). The NESS website lists associated people but it doesn't appear to make any claim about their employment (volunteer vs paid or part vs full time). It also only lists six people total, a few of which we know have day jobs so they can't be full time employees and one (Perry DeAngelis) is almost two decades DEAD. Six doesn't seem to be any more legitimate a number than 25. ] (]) 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::::::::::I have contacted someone who should know about this; hopefully they get back to me and I can let you know what the current figure of their employees is with documentation if possible. ] (]) 19:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::::::::::::{{Reply|Psychologist Guy}} it has been a week, did you find out anything useful? ] (]) 17:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not SPS''' This isn't a self-published source, the articles are reviewed before being published by an editorial board. The four current editors are: Steven P. Novella, David H. Gorski, Kimball C. Atwood, Mark Crislip. Guest editors can submit articles to the website, all of which are reviewed before publication. Critics of SBM are jumping a single retracted article that this is an SPS. Seems like a bad case of cherry-picking. There is no good evidence this is an SPS. '''Update''' There are two editors not four my mistake. The publisher is the ]. ] (]) 13:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::That doesn't match what is currently on their website, they appear to only have two current editors who are also the main writers (thats where we get into SPS territory). One of those editors also appears to be the leader of the organization which publishes these two blogs, thats how we get even deeper into SPS territory. ] (]) 14:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for the update. So they have two editors currently. If they have two editors they are not self-published. ] (]) 14:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Who is Steven P. Novella's publisher if not Steven P. Novella? ] (]) 14:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The link you cited says Steven Novella, MD — Founder and Executive Editor and David H. Gorski, MD, PhD — Managing Editor. They clearly review each others articles, this means it isn't self-published by a single individual. There used to be more editors in the past but some of them died. ] (]) 14:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::In this case it does appear to be self-published by a single individual, hiring your friends as editors doesn't make your blog not your blog. Also just to be clear what SBM actually say is "we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" so they clearly don't review each other's articles as a matter of course. ] (]) 14:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's much more than a single man. The SBM website is published by ], it says at SBM that they are "entirely owned and operated" by the Society. They have 25 employees currently. At SBM it doesn't claim that Steven Novella is the publisher it just says he is the "Founder and Executive Editor". If you want the exact publisher, it would be the New England Skeptical Society. As stated above, I am not convinced this fits the definition of self-publishing. ] (]) 15:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The New England Skeptical Society, of which Novella is founder and president. ] (]) 21:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Their own statement was "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" Given that, it is clear that in at least some cases, people can publish directly on SBM without being reviewed before publication. - ] (]) 20:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SPS''', seems to be pretty cut and dried at least when it comes to Novella's pieces (remember SBM claims to be a blog, its generally presenting personal opinions... When its two expert editors want to publish their actual work they do not publish it there but in real journals). I would also note that this discussion should include the sister blog NeuroLogicaBlog. If anyone wants to disagree with me they can lay out what editorial checks and balances would apply to Novella. ] (]) 14:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Neurologica is an obvious self-published blog authored entirely by Novella such that I do not think further discussion on that issue is necessary. ] (]) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Science-Based Medicine and Neurologica have the exact same publisher. ] (]) 02:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Neurologica's writer is the same as the head of the New England Skeptical Society. It's obviously Steven Novella's personal blog, similar to Gorski's own . There's no reason to think it's not a self-published source, unlike SBM which has several editors and apparently does review of at least some of what it publishes (though apparently not all), which is why we are having this discussion. ] (]) 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Is it two or several? ] (]) 03:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:(How) does the following factor into your assessment that it's an SPS? In their of "Why Dr. Harriet Hall’s review of Abigail Shrier’s ''Irreversible Damage'' was retracted," they note that "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing," and that they "have mechanisms of quality control" for articles that are posted without prior review, including "clarification in the comments" and "corrections to the original text of the article." Their about outside submissions says in part "The volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using an informal peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a 'rough and ready' peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission." ] (]) 16:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella) this feels like inaccurate or outdated info and so high time for a review. GREL, sure, but as a group blog still an SPS, with seemingly no consistent publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. ] (]) 17:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I was asking ], in part because they wrote "at least when it comes to Novella's pieces" and "it does appear to be self-published by a single individual," which suggests that perhaps they don't consider it SPS for other authors. I'm wondering this for ] as well, as they'd previously said "I think guest authors can be assumed not to be self-published." ] (]) 21:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::With Quackwatch we came to a similar position - articles published by the editor are self published, but articles on the site by other authors are not. I'm ok with something similar here. The only problem is that all they say is "trusted authors" can post directly. I would read that as safe to assume people who do not regularly have articles posted on the site would not be trusted, but it doesn't say only the editors are trusted to publish without prior review. Thus there may be some gray area between the two. - ] (]) 21:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::The others are more a grey area for me, most of what we are currently using on wiki is pieces by Gorski and Novella... And we have discussions elsewhere about some guest authors like Harriet Hall not producing work of the same quality/rigor as Gorski and Novella. Its a bit of an odd situation, normally the editors are not also the authors and even when they are they're normally not the primary and most reliable authors. Its made extra odd because most of the editors/authors are subject matter experts so usable under EXPERTSPS no matter where we come down on general reliability. ] (]) 03:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SPS'''. It's a group blog with some guest authors. Having multiple contributors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Having guest authors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Retracting a post does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. This language in ] is particularly relevant: "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". As a pro-SBM editor argued in the aborted RfC, the need for SBM in Misplaced Pages is to enable wikivoice accusations of "grift, fraud and quackery" ''that cannot be sourced otherwise''. In other words, the reason this group blog has been elevated to a reliable source is to work around NPOV. - ] (]) 17:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I don't see any evidence presented to back up the claim that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." It's not even clear to me how someone would go about studying that. Do you have any evidence that it's true? (And FWIW, the question of whether something is an SPS is distinct from whether it is independent or reliable.) ] (]) 17:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::That is a direct quote from ]. - ] (]) 17:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yes, I'm aware of that. That someone added it to the WP:SPS text doesn't make it true, and since you're the one who chose to quote it, I'm asking you whether you have any evidence that it's true. For that matter, I'd be interested if you have thoughts about how one would go about studying it. ] (]) 21:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::If you have a problem with WP:SPS the appropriate venue is ] - ] (]) 21:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment'''. Do some people !voting here have a connection to the source? I see one editor referring to Steven Novella as "Steve" and another who may be affiliated with the New England Skeptical Society. I have seen some surprising interpretations of WP:COI in the past so I'm not sure if this is important, but thought it was worth noting. - ] (]) 18:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:That is also a great point and worth investigating as part of any close here. Looks sus at the very least... ] (]) 01:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS'''. I personally think this source is fine to use on BLPs, but there is no way to honestly read our (convoluted, strange) SPS guidelines and not come to the conclusion that it is one. It is a small group of people most of whom publish without prior review on a blog. That they make arguments we like does not make it not a blog. ] (]) 18:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS'''. It's a group blog, but still a blog. Group blogs are specifically called out on ]. As noted above, SBM "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness". The fact that they later retracted one article doesn't negate that the norm for "trusted authors" (probably including regulars, and definitely including the owners of the site such as Gorski and Novella) is to publish without any editorial review of the author's work. Hence, it is clearly by and large an SPS. | |||
| :The claim that we need this to not be an SPS to effectively fight fringe and quackery is often made but I've never seen it backed up with an example of a fringe topic whose Misplaced Pages article would become credulous to pseudoscience without it. There are plenty of published and even academic sources that stuff like homeopathy is pseudoscientific, quackery, etc.; we are perfectly capable of sourcing something like "John Smith is an advocate of homeopathy, a pseudoscientific practice" in just about any case it is needed. SBM being an SPS also doesn't preclude its use in cases of ], as pro-fringe sources themselves are often SPS or otherwise poor. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 23:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The ] article relies a decent amount on SBM. There are other sources, but until recently there wasn't much critical attention towards that strain of fringe, with SBM having been 10+ years ahead of the curve on describing the contours of its recent resurgence in alt-med communities. In the past few years others such as BBC News, Science Feedback, and Snopes discussed it, though often missing details such as its direct relation to the anti-vaccination movement. Don't know how much this as example changes the overall equation, but was the first to come to mind. ] (]) 14:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::There's no shortage of reliable sources establishing that the germ theory was a huge advance in medicine and that we have basically incontrovertible proof of it for maybe thousands of diseases. | |||
| ::: - ] (]) 19:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::But using any of those sources to draw conclusions about the specific claims of a particular germ theory denialist would be ]. ] (]) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Reliable SPS'''</s> - can be used to describe fringe theories proposed by people as discredited or as quackery, including on a bio... should not be used to describe people themselves as quacks. ] (]) 00:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Partial SPS''' - saw some of the info of arguments below from CoffeeCrumbs, and FactOrOpinon. I think the partial peer-review for some articles is... frustrating for a direct answer, but if there is peer-review on an article, it should stand as non-SPS material. ] (]) 01:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS''' - We see at ] that an SPS has clear rules and restrictions, such as not being used '''ever''' for a ], absolutely '''never'''. Some seem to be arguing that this obvious SPS should for some reason be granted an exception to the clear language of "'''never'''" and should be allowed on biographies of living persons in some cases (or in many). There are many reasons why that is not allowed generally, but we have now learned that this source is essentially the soapbox of primarily only ''two individuals'', and most importantly, is not part of a media outlet or organization or inclusive of any external (or even further internal vetting). No, rather, it is a '''blog'''. An SPS '''blog'''. One perhaps run by scientists, two scientists, but a blog, nonetheless. Again, quoting directly from WP:SPS, "{{tq|'''Never''' use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.}}" So here we have this source, which is obviously beyond ] a blog and a self-published source, we must then at the very least clarify that it absolutely must not be used in any circumstances for BLPs going forward, by the fact that it is so clearly a SPS.] (]) 00:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Partly SPS and partly non-SPS''' - The site makes it clear that some authors can publish without prior review. I consider their articles to be self-published; for example, I put Steven Novella's articles in this category. The site also says that other articles undergo prior review (e.g., "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing"). I consider the latter to be non-self-published. Examples of authors who clearly aren't regular article authors there and whose articles presumably underwent prior review: and . For some articles/authors, it's not clear to me whether they fall in the SPS category or instead in the non-SPS category. ] (]) 03:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * It seems that posts by some established contributors are self-published (as shown by links above), while guest contributors are not. So the answer to whether SBM is an SPS or not is 'yes'. '''SPS and not SPS'''. Certainly the idea that it's fully SPS has no basis. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS''': As noted by other contributors, SBM openly acknowledges that it often publishes content without prior peer review. Consequently, this makes it a self-published source (SPS), with the opinions expressed representing those of individual authors. Like any other SPS, its use requires caution, especially in articles about living people or controversial topics, where ensuring accuracy and neutrality is critical. ] (]) 17:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is considered unreliable in non-political matters also, as it publishes unreliable work, if it is paid.. But ] is clean there. So I would like to stress on the point that it should be politically shown as "Generally Unreliable", and non-politically as "Genrally Reliable." Thank You.--] (]) 05:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is there a specific article in which you want to use Republic TV? '']'' {{rspe|The Times of India}} is considered close to generally unreliable for much less. As for why "I can't accept that the channel is reliable in non-political matter" is because a network which deliberately engages in fabrications is not one that is reliable for statements of fact, there is no reason to reproduce material which is possibly misinformation from that channel. Its reputation doesn't satisfy ] and causes a whole lot of ] issues, if you want something like cricket scores or weather reporting, there are much better sources than this. | |||
| :::I have also cited two references for Covid-19 misinformation, the first of which is about ] and the second one is about ], both of which share the same editorial staff; Arnab Goswami is the editor-in-chief of both, Gaurav Arya is the defense consultant on both, Aishwarya Kapoor is the political editor on both, etc etc. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 06:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| This discussion leads us nowhere.Let me end it. Without any conflict, let's just state that Republic is 'Generally Unreliable'. Problem solved. Now the question is - how does that work.--] (]) 09:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :] explains how generally unreliable sources should be used. Although, I'd keep the discussion open for other editors (as in other than just us two) to comment on if they are interested, there's potential for more discussion. There's also barely been any time since the discussion was started. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 14:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not SPS for reviewed articles''' They directly state they have editorial peer review for a number, if not most, of their articles. And only a select few don't go through that process (though appear to have after the fact review, considering the retraction, so even that seems to be in question). I will note that this appears to be yet another attempt by ] pushing editors to try and remove skeptical debunking media from negatively covering their fringe topics. Par for the course attempt, honestly. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I request more editors to join the discussion.--] (]) 17:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:It's a day that ends in -Y.... ] (]) 01:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:If we can't tell what is and isn't peer-reviewed and what is SPS material, is that not a problem? ] (]) 11:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:And how we will determine which articles have been reviewed? Also note that editorial review and ] are different things and they do not appear to make a claim of peer review. ] (]) 13:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Right. These "Not SPS" !votes completely fail to respond to this criticism or address this perfectly valid and critically important counterpoint other than to say things along the lines of, "Come on man, THEY SAY that some stuff is reviewed! Let's take their word on it bro! Even if they are generally a '''blog''', they are a '''''trusted''''' blog." ] (]) 20:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Poor editorial control is a matter of reliability, but all matters of reliability don't have to be decided by classifying a source as self-published. It's accepted that other sources follow their stated editorial practices, and noone has shown why that shouldn't be the case here. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not SPS for reviewed articles''' They've got editors, which sets it apart from a standard SPS. Those articles that could be self published are still reliable for most purposes anyway, since they are from subject matter experts. It is also worth noting that while it should not be used for biographical details in general, even if this were to be considered a SPS that would not rule it out for comments on science, medicine, or the reception of fringe ideas, even when those ideas happen to appear on an article with a person's name at the top. - ] (]) 18:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * |
*'''Not SPS''' by virtue of having either pre-publication review or the possibility of editorially imposed retraction. A source that is truly ''self-published'' wouldn't have either of those. ] (]) 01:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Generally unreliable'''. Republic TV is comparable to ] {{rspe|One America News Network}}, in that it is a new television network (3.5 years old) that has a tendency to broadcast misinformation and conspiracy theories with a strong political bias. {{np|Tayi Arajakate}} provided a list above, and there's one more topic not in the list that I'd like to highlight: Republic TV has been one of the most prominent promoters of the ]. '''', published by ], includes a case study detailing how Republic TV (and ]) used {{xt|"sensational"}} and {{xt|"provocative"}} messaging to falsely portray the Love Jihad conspiracy theory as a real phenomenon. Examples include: | |||
| :* {{xt|"Both channels}} {{xt|harnessed the power of repetition by incessant tweeting of the words 'Love Jihad' along with some negative and/or leading words (e.g., 'forced conversion,' 'reality'). This constant repetition suggests that the channels aim to diffuse this idea to viewers that 'Love Jihad' is less of a myth and that Muslims are conspiring to annihilate the Hindu population and culture."}} | |||
| :* {{xt|"Both channels'}} {{xt|news anchors encourage viewers to tweet using hashtags like #HinduGirlsHunted, #HinduGirlsForISIS, #LoveJihadNailed. Persuading audiences to use hashtags in their messages may give a false impression to viewers to see 'this media-fed thought process as ... own' (Drabu, 2018, p.17)."}} | |||
| :* {{xt|"Deploying Twitter during its shows, ''Republic TV'' claims that it is 'the first ever TV' to 'expose' 'Love Jihad,' inviting audiences to watch 'The Debate' on its channel."}} | |||
| :* {{xt|"The prevalence of ] and the perceived threat of Muslims (Berlant & Greenwald, 2012) reproduced by media outlets like ''Republic TV'' and ''Times Now'' facilitate actions and policies that are otherwise unjustifiable. In other words, the assailant took the responsibility of 'saving' Hindu girls from Muslim men and he believed that it would only be possible by enacting violence against them."}} | |||
| : The above applies primarily to Republic TV's news reporting. Republic TV's talk shows, particularly ''The Debate with ]'', are highly exaggerated versions of ] talk shows {{rspe|Fox News (talk shows)}} that include an incredible amount of shouting. '']'' {{rspe|The New Yorker}} : {{xt|"Modi's supporters often get their news from Republic TV, which features shouting matches, public shamings, and scathing insults of all but the most slavish Modi partisans; next to it, Fox News resembles the ]'s '].'"}} Fox News talk shows are considered generally unreliable even without the additional shouting, so I can't see any reason to consider Republic TV talk shows any more reliable than that. Altogether, there are enough issues with both the news coverage and talk shows of Republic TV that the channel as a whole is generally unreliable. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 12:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment''': More reviews please. | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| The result till now is 'Generally Unreliable'. --] (]) 06:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Generally not SPS''', though additional scrutiny for articles by Gorski and Novella may be appropriate. Essentially per ]. I'm also frankly not impressed with this RFC, and the manner the proposer starts these discussions in general. Said discussions are not {{em|quite}} up to the point of disruption, but I would nonetheless heavily suggest that they seek advice as to the drafting of their statements and formatting of their proposals and whether adequate prior discussion has taken place, from one of the other editors supporting their point of view. ] (] • ]) 05:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SPS''' A group blog posting guest postings is still a group blog, and still self-published. Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella, whose blog it is), previous claims to having a robust editorial process seem unconvincing. There is no consistently documented publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and this source is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. ] (]) 16:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I can easily give examples of non-SPS that don't have a documented corrections or complaints procedure, such as , and whether they have a documented corrections or complaints procedure seems to be more a matter of whether they're an RS rather than whether they're an SPS. Are non-SPS generally reviewed by more than two editors? It seems to me that by your favored WP:USESPS definition for SPS, the guest articles aren't SPS, as author!=publisher. ] (]) 18:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I am responding to suggestions that some sort of allegedly robust editorial and accountability process makes it not an SPS, which I think is a nonsense. | |||
| *::My favoured definition of SPS is: if it isn't traditionally published (book, newspaper, journal) or something directly comparable structurally, it is an SPS. That is in line with USESPS since it considers virtually all websites to be self-published. It is narrow, yes, but it is also consistent across media. It is also not a reflection on reliability in other ways, as SPS vs GREL are two different concerns. | |||
| *::I think the "self" in "self-published" causes much confusion, as does the consideration that "publishing" is the mere act of putting information online. A publishing company is more than a person who vets content and presses a button to place material on a website. If we consider something not self published simply because the person who writes it has to go through another person before it is published, that means celebrity social media accounts where an intern reports to a manager aren't self published, which makes a nonsense of the whole thing (ie, virtually nothing is self-published by that standard). | |||
| *::I consider "science based medicine" to be a publication as a whole rather than something that can be approached article-by-article. There is no distinct, separate, traditional publishing entity, as with a newspaper, a book, or an academic journal. The owners and editors are all the same, and that they solicit other people's content to add to their own publication which they entirely control still makes it their own self-published publication, in exactly the same way as any blog with guest posts. | |||
| *::I know there are difficult edge cases to the whole "what is a traditional publisher" model, but I don't think a group blog like SBM is even close to that, and considering it to be one (because editors want to use it to make BLP claims about quacks) has turned into a slippery slope IMO. ] (]) 10:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Thanks for elaborating on why you consider the SBM guest articles to be SPS, even though they're not published by the authors. Re: the rest, as others have noted, USESPS is an essay, not a policy; it should be consistent with policy rather than vice versa. I think we need an RfC to clarify what the meaning of SPS is in the WP:SPS policy, and once the RfC about grey matter from advocacy orgs is closed, I'm going to try to create one for WP:SPS, though so far I've found it tremendously difficult to figure out how to word such an RfC. WP:PUBLISHED says "Published means, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form," so that's much broader than your use of it. ] (]) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::] is '''policy''', <u>not an essay</u>. It is clear '''policy''' that '''<u>blogs</u>''' like Science-Based Medicine not be used for BLPs <u>at a bare minimum</u>. ] (]) 19:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I said "'''USESPS''' is an essay, not a policy" (emphasis added). It seems that you're confusing ] (which as I noted is an essay) with ] (which is a policy). People clearly have different opinions about whether SBM is wholly SPS or only partially SPS, and if the consensus of this RfC is that it is only partially SPS, then the part that isn't SPS can be used for statements about living persons despite identifying itself as a blog. Also, the BLP policy is for statements about living persons, wherever they occur, but AFAIK, RS expert blogs can be used for DUE statements about non-persons, even if that statement appears in a biographical article. BLPSELFPUB is also an exception. ] (]) 21:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I'm aware. We have multiple highly debatable and contested terms, at the heart of a core policy, and radically different interpretation of them. When I raised this weeks ago I asked what I was missing, and it turned out I wasn't missing anything except a massive intractable tarpit. I think none of it is obvious. Your objection here is understandable depends very much how you interpret "author", "publisher" and the work being published, and a narrow definition restricted to natural persons means any source with two people can be argued to be not self published. But to me it remains obvious that for a self published book in which my friend writes the foreword, their content is still self published even though I acted as "editor", and I don't see a difference between a self published book with multiple contributors and a group blog with multiple contributors. And the trouble is a lot of the discussions about how we classify X or Y revolve not around what they are, but about how we want to use them, which makes it ever more messy. Personally I would like to see clarity on *why* BLPSPS exists, and define the standard clearly there, because that would inform what sort of sources are acceptable in BLPs, which is really the nub of the matter. BLPSPS feels like it might once have been shorthand for "a source who's probably had the lawyers look it over before publishing it", but that's just my impression/speculation. Absent BLPSPS, the question of whether sources like grey literature or SBM are SPS or not is largely moot. ] (]) 11:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::@] makes a great point. Literally any propaganda shop could just have TWO people and then instantly always not be SPS according to this B.S. argument being pushed for why this source is allegedly "not SPS".............. ] (]) 14:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::So basically most local news is self-published as well then. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Yes, most local and hyper local news outlets are in fact self-published. ] (]) 17:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Not SPS for reviewed content. Where content is clearly reviewed, definitely not SPS. Where we’re not certain, treat it with extra caution. By the way “blog” and “SPS” are not synonyms. Blog is a format that can be edited and published by reputable organisations, as with eg The Conversation or perhaps the SPLC’s Hatewatch. ] (]) 20:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I would agree with you that your two examples are not SPS, however I have seen people argue the contrary in both cases. ] (]) 00:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Everything in ] is effectively an opinion piece and as such is actually treated like a SPS per ]. I also don't believe that '''any''' of the content in SBM is "clearly reviewed." ] (]) 00:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] makes probably the most important point of this entire discussion, which is effectively "How can we determine clearly which articles by this '''<u>blog</u>''' are considered '''reviewed''', and which are not?" many, at least all published by Gorski and Novella are unquestionably 100% SPS and therefore should not touch any BLP. This excellent point has been largely or entirely ignored by the minority "Not SPS" camp which really doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on other than "If this was considered SPS then articles on XYZ subjects would get worse." Sorry. That is not an argument supported by WP policy. ] (]) 01:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That argument is ]. To be clear, I don't think it's an argument that anyone ''needs'' to make, but ] overrides ]. The only policy-based concern, even granting the application of the SPS label despite the fact that it doesn't really fit, would be about biographies of living people, but an article on a topic like germ-theory denialism isn't a biography of a living person. ] (]) 02:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Both of those links are to IAR, if thats the policy you're claiming trumps the relevant guidelines I would question your competence (especially as you appear to be calling ] a guideline). ] (]) 13:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Both of those links were deliberate. Like I said, the only part of ] that could be pertinent here is the prohibition against using {{tq|self-published sources as third-party sources about living people}}, but that fails to apply in two different ways. ] (]) 23:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::How does "fail to apply in two different ways"? ] (]) 01:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::There seems to be a lot more than that which is pertinent, that whole section for example is pertinent not just that one sentence. Many of the "not SPS" arguments also seem to be based on ]. As for it somehow not applying you've lost me, gonna have to explain. ] (]) 07:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''', several editors seem to claim something along the lines of "since Science-Based Medicine is 'reviewed' it cannot be a SPS". This claim would benefit from some proof, ideally other secondary sources validating this claim, and not just the very same source saying that it does so. Alex Jones might claim that he is reviewed and reliable etc. That claim by itself does not make it so. Also, I am not saying that Science-Based Medicine is anything like AJ in terms of reliability etc., and to be clear, this RfC is not about reliability, it is just on whether or not the SBM source is an SPS, which I think it pretty obviously is. ] (]) 01:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:When we're looking at obviously non-self-published sources, they usually fit into one of these three models: | |||
| *:# Book publisher: External authors submit book outlines and sample chapters; if selected, the publisher contributes substantially towards editing (including ] if necessary), designing, and marketing the book. The author pays for none of this and expects to get paid (at least if sales exceed a minimum threshold). If the publisher rejects the book, then the author is free to sell it to a different publisher. | |||
| *:# Newspaper: The publisher/publication hires editors and journalists. The editor assigns stories (to internal staff) or commissions them (among freelancers; alternatively, editors may accept external pitches, in the book-publisher model). The journalists write the stories; the editor and publisher/publication representatives decide whether to publish what the journalists wrote. If an employee instead of a freelancer, the journalist expects to get paid the same even if the article is ] (not published). If a freelancer, and the piece doesn't run, the freelancer is free to sell it to a different publication. | |||
| *:# Peer-reviewed journal: The (usually for-profit) publisher or (usually academic) sponsoring body creates the publication and hire editors. External authors submit whole papers; editors send the papers for external review and use that information to decide which ones to publish. The authors usually pay for publication, but this is understood to be akin to volunteer work on all sides, with the money usually coming from a third-party grant rather than the author's own funds. If the journal rejects the article, the author is free to submit it to another journal. | |||
| *:I wonder if any of these models feel similar to how you imagine SBM to work. ] (]) 04:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I have in a sandbox. I wonder whether people would find that comparison useful in, say, ]. ] (]) 04:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I do not think any of the above apply to SBM, but I'd like to see you perhaps write up a few methods for what clearly SPS look like, and then we could compare to the above, and determine which SBM most closely resembles. Again, if you write stuff, then you are the publisher, that is by definition "self-published", which is very often the case even if not always for Science-Based Medicine...even by their own admission! ] (]) 14:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I don't think defining none self-published sources are the ones we give a free pass because of our social-culture background is a good way to define them. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS'''. The website describes itself as a blog. According to ] blogs are considered SPS. In addition, SBM publishes unknown proportions of articles without prior editorial review. Therefore, SBM could only be used with attribution, because it is impossible to tell which articles passed editorial review and which did not. ] (]) 17:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:@], WP:SPS says {{xt|"...self-published material such as...personal or ] blogs (as distinguished from ], above)...are largely not acceptable as sources"}}. Are you sure that this isn't a ]? They have an ] and a ], which are positions that we expect to find in news organizations. Someone in the prior discussion says they sometimes "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness", which is something that sometimes happens with ], too. ] (]) 03:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Still only a "may", not "is", acceptable, and even then we would need to proceed with extreme caution, and almost certainly exclude BLPs from being acceptable for use by the source, see the rest of the quote you left off, "{{tq|These '''may''' be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, '''but use them with caution''' because '''blogs''' may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.}}" ] (]) 04:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I think by this point, we all know that you really, really, really don't want ] to be considered an acceptable source. You don't need to keep pushing for your desired outcome. ] (]) 04:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Normally newsblogs are run by news outlets and SBM is not an established news organization. Even if it was, per ] we are advised to {{xt|use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process}}. So I don't think SBM should be used for factual statements, it can only be used for statements of opinions. ] (]) 10:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Exactly. ] (]) 14:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Use with caution and statements of opinion are covered by other parts of the guidelines, separate from SPS. Whether a source is self-published or not doesn't mean it's reliable or unreliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Mostly SPS'''. It seems to be the Novella and Gorski show. That doesn’t make it unreliable for topics in which they are recognised experts - neurology for Novella and oncology for Gorski, apparently. That would make them reliable reviewers of any guest content on those topics too. But outside their domains of expertise, they are just blogging. Expertise in one domain does not imply expertise in another - and sometimes it’s quite the opposite, in that smart people who are accomplished in their niche start to think their opinions on everything else are equally robust (looking at you, Elon). ] (]) 00:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS'''. Editorial oversight is insufficiently verifiable nor independent enough to call this something other than self-published. ] (]) 19:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS''' It seems their peer-review is only for new contributers, the staff is volunteer and they explicitly say that they like to avoid as much editing as possible. There also doesn't seem to be much of editorial indepencence from the owner (New England Skeptical Society) which is an advocacy group. Especially troubling is that the Executive Editor is also the President of NESS. NESS also has two other members of the Novella family on the board. That makes three of the five board members from the same family. This is no what oversight should look like. The group of writers is also small and probably know each other well and are of course, ideologically similar. ] (]) 11:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>Partial SPS</s> '''Partly unclear, partly not SPS''' As discussed above, it isn't clear which articles by Gorski and Novella have been reviewed and we should probably lean towards treating those ones like ] just to be safe. They do, however, have a very clear review policy on guest articles (see ) which states {{tq|volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using a peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a peer review step in which '''at least three of our editors evaluate the submission'''}} (emphasis added). That's pretty obviously not self-publishing. I do want to note though that this type of discussion would really benefit from more consensus on what an SPS is. Maybe some more experienced editors should consider drafting a big RfC to revise SPS with more detail on what it means in practice (probably after ARBPIA5 is over so admins have more time to focus on it)? ] (]) 00:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Reply|CambrianCrab}}The main problem is that they currently only have two editors (one being the managing editor), so we can be relatively sure that they do not follow that policy becuase it requires a minimum of four editors to follow (the managing editor and at least three others). ] (]) 17:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Exactly. ] (]) 17:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Good catch on the number of editors, I missed that the other ones had retired/passed, but I don't really think that makes it SPS since articles are still getting reviewed. Imo, it's a red flag in terms of ''reliability'' that either the list of editors and/or review policy is out of date, but no impact towards whether or not it's ''SPS''. ] (]) 02:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::See and that is interesting because I draw the exact opposite conclusion. I think that it could be reasonably argued that SBM is reliable, but that there is no case at all that it is somehow not SPS. When there is <u>one</u> person in most cases writing something and then just directly launching it to the internet on a blog, that is self-published. Which we have no way of knowing if these <u>two</u> editors even check one another, so it is very possible that frequently this is exactly what is happening. However, how different is it really when there are only <u>two</u> editors from one checking on anything. That is practically and definitionally a self-published source by every possible measure for evaluating whether or not a source as SPS or not. We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed? And again, even if that is true, if there are only two editors doing the "reviewing", that is not due diligence, that is back scratching and ]. ] (]) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::To be clear, I don't think SBM is unreliable, just that outdated pages would be a red mark towards reliability. Whether or not pages or up-to-date has nothing to do with if something is self-published. | |||
| :::::I don't really follow the rest of your argument. {{tq|We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed?}} Yeah we generally take sources at their word on their own policies unless we have reason to question it. SBM is a relatively long-running and well-known outlet run by experts in the topic area. I don't see any reason we should think they're lying about their policy. ] (]) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Those are fair point, review is review and it seems that at least some are seemingly getting reviewed. ] (]) 19:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not SPS'''. What someone means by "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" is "these writers aren't dumbasses and we trust them" with an implied "if an issue is found after the piece is out, we'll put out a correction", not "these people are infallible and we will never correct them because reasons".  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 21:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:So they are essentially "Not SPS" because they claim to sometimes not be SPS. Got it. ] (]) 01:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:The purpose of oversight is due diligence, not dumbass detection. ] (]) 06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Partly SPS and generally unsuitable for contentious topics on Misplaced Pages.''' While SBM is valuable for some scientic topics, it self-described as blog with inconsistent editorial oversight, allowing authors like Novella and Gorski to pubish without review. Gorski, who often takes strong positions, is a polarizing figure, and his articles often reflect a bias and lack of nuance. For controversial topics or biographies, more neutral and independently vetted sources would better meet Misplaced Pages standards. ] (]) 22:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SPS''' As I've said before on previous RfCs, this is explicitly a self-published source. ] (]) 22:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Not SPS unless Gorski and Novella wrote the piece''': SBM is one of the best sources for coveraging ] and ] activism we have <small> and I'll note ''some'', certainly not all, wanting to make it a SPS tend to have, at best, a ] attitude </small>. Simply put, there is editorial oversight of contributors. We don't know if there is for Gorski and Novella, and should act accordingly and treat them as subject matter experts outside BLPs, but we do know that there is for other contributors. I'm somewhat concerned with the shape of this RFC - we have longstanding consensus that SBM is a reliable source and not an SPS. Instead of challenging that, this RFC was opened to challenge specifically the SPS designation in a seemingly roundabout way to question it's reliability. | |||
| : I also want to note that per ] {{tq|In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed.}} - so while I still maintain it's not an SPS, the standards for ] allow non-peer reviewed sources on fringe topics as long as they're reliable, so an SPS designation should not, unless we ''also'' agree it's not reliable, be used to go a purge of its use. ] (]) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''No''' due to editorial oversight. ] <small>(])</small> 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Given that the editors have stated that they do not provide oversight on all contributers prior to publication, this does not seem to be universally true. - ] (]) 09:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SPS''' I think it's important that the arguments about whether Science Based Medicine is SPS or not are removed from our own assessment of the topics they’ve covered, otherwise we infuse topic bias on a process matter and risk floating away from the core question of this RfC. SBM is SPS simply because of the lack of editorial oversight and independence needed for subject matter of medicine.--] (]) 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I have seen Republic Bharat through my TV and found that the news reporters are enthusiastic supporters of BJP and Hinduism. They criticise the Muslims for almost anything. So, I can say that Republic Bharat is a right-wing pro-BJP pro-Hindu anti-Muslim news channel. But I don't disgrace the reliability of the news channel in non-sociopolitical topics. So I can rate the sociopolitical portion '''generally unreliable''' and non-sociopolitical portion '''generally reliable'''. --] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 07:01, 18 November 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) | |||
| '''Comment:''' I thank ] for her review, even though it is about ] and not ]. Yet as ] stated that they republish each other's work and have almost the same editorial staff, the point is valid. She and myself have shared the same opinion on the matter. I look forward to more views as the present situation is still- "Generally Unreliable" in both political and non-political NEWS. The non-political reliability margins are narrow, so a result can't deduced. More comments needed.--] (]) 16:46, 18 November 2020 (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) | |||
| : {{ping|Atlantis77177}} I am a male person, not female. Please use "he" to refer to me. --] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 18:26, 18 November 2020 (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) | |||
| : I meant sociopolitical, not political. See ] if you're unfamiliar with the term. --] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 18:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:::@] If it was published without review? Yes. A website that published unreviewed content is not a publisher, it's a self-publishing platform. ] (]) 03:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Are you suggesting that the editors of the local newspaper basically do nothing? ] (]) 03:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I think you are using the wrong analogy. If you can publish directly, based on your own decision to publish, without anyone else reading or vetting your writing before it appears, you are self publishing. If an editor checks the material and approves it before publication, it is not self publishing. SBM allow some editors to publish without checking or vetting the material before it is published, as you akcnowledged, so in those cases it is an SPS. - ] (]) 05:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::At the very least anything written by Gorski and Novella there seems to be strong consensus that at minimum those articles are very clearly SPS. In other cases, I think it is dubious at best, since Gorski and Novella run the show and whether or not any real "editorial review" is happening on this blog appears to be very, very much in doubt. The analogy of a "local newspaper" and a ] is not actually analogous, and it is weird that an exception was ever carved out for this blog for it to somehow not be considered SPS. Thankfully it appears as if a new consensus has emerged as a result of this RfC in favor of SBM now being considered SPS, or at minimum, anything published by Gorski or Novella absolutely is without a shadow of a doubt SPS. ] (]) 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::{{reply|Bilby}} That's where we disagree. By letting you publish directly, the editor is saying they trust you to write content that doesn't need to be edited - and that means it's not SPS. In fact, one could argue it's a higher bar than having to read and vet the writing. ] (]) 09:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::By publishing directly, it is by definition self publishing. By being trusted to publish directly, it means you are seen as reliable. The two are not mutally exclusive. - ] (]) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:We are all making assumptions about "what it means" because SBM is not transparent enough about its editorial policies. It pales in comparison to journals that tackle many of the same topics. This is precisely why it's SPS. ] (]) 16:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Thats right. This "Not SPS" argument is without merit. SBM is not a journal, it is a blog and is 100% SPS. ] (]) 17:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind. ] (]) 03:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks. ] (]) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Are you suggesting that they post "bogus content"? If not, how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote? ] (]) 00:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::"Bogus content" is related to an argument about reliability. Which some contributors to this RfC have mistakenly believed is part of this discussion, it is not. This RfC is on the question of whether or not SBM is SPS, which it so obviously is. Therefore, my response was simply reframing that we are not arguing about whether or not the content is "bogus" at all, instead, we are simply discussing whether or not the "editorial review" which some allege occurs at SBM (with scant evidence), is done by the very same people who publish content (Gorski and Novella). | |||
| *::::::Given the self-publication by Gorski/Novella, which evidently is what happens, then the source is a self-published source, and "bogus" doesn't even enter into the conversation. Or at the very minimum, any article published by SBM by Gorski/Novella ought to 100% be considered SPS. ] (]) 00:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Banedon wrote: "If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind," and you responded "If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks." | |||
| *:::::::As best I can tell, you did not respond to my second question, so I'll ask it again: If , how is your comment at all '''''responsive''' to what Banedon wrote''? | |||
| *:::::::Just so you're clear, the current ] "self-published" explicitly refers to reliability. When you say "we are not arguing about whether or not the content is "bogus" at all," that's not entirely true. It's relevant to whether some of the content on the site is '''not''' self-published. ] (]) 01:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::You've moved the goal posts, Banedon is arguing that none of the content on the site is self-published. ] (]) 01:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::I know that Banedon's !vote was "Not SPS," but I interpreted Banedon's comment to Iljhgtn (who claimed that SBM is "100% SPS") as a point about outside contributors to SBM (outdated description ). Maybe I misinterpreted. ] (]) 01:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::I think in the case of Gorski and Novella there is absolutely no question that it is SPS, but I am more and more wondering how much "editorial review" actually happens even in other cases. From the link you provided if we review, "{{tq|How to submit a guest article: '''Anyone is welcome to submit content to ScienceBasedMedicine.org, regardless of credentials'''. We’ll publish anything '''we think is interesting''', relevant, well-written, and, above all, scientifically sound. ('''The less editing we need to do, the better.''') The '''volunteer editorial staff''' looks at all promising submissions using a peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission. Please embed citations as weblinks rather than footnotes or endnotes, it saves us a lot of time. How to submit a guest article for publication on SBM Submit your article by email directly to Dr. Gorski (SBMeditor@icloud.com), the managing editor . If he thinks it has potential, he will distribute it to the editorial staff for further consideration. '''Please note that none of the editors are paid for our work on SBM''', '''and most of us have demanding day jobs.''' That means that, '''more frequently than we would like, the process is less than optimal''' and not as fast as writers (or we) would like. (For instance, if Dr. Gorski is working against a grant application deadline, you might not hear for a while, '''because trying to keep his lab afloat trumps his extracurricular activities on SBM.''')}}" There are claims that "at least three of our editors evaluate the submission", but again, I don't trust this, but beyond that, this only applies (if they even do it) to guest submissions, which can be Gorski may post even if he just thinks its "interesting" and "The less editing we need to do, the better" (all well and good, but again, doesn't sound like much "editorial review" is happening even in the case of guest submissions... But again, that is only part of the discussion. The other part that has overwhelming consensus at this point is that anything from SBM authored by Gorski or Novella is SPS. ] (]) 03:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::No offense, but you just posted a bunch of text that once again didn't answer my question. Here it is again: If , how is your comment at all ''responsive to what Banedon wrote''? | |||
| *:::::::::::I'm not looking for your personal opinion about SBM, as you've already made that clear in your many comments. I'm not looking for your opinion about the RfC consensus. I'm trying to understand ''your response to Banedon''. ] (]) 04:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::His comment was, "{{tq|'''If you can write in your own article''' with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind.}}". I was not in any way focused at all on the "bogus content" aspect that you are laser focused on, I was refuting the fact that obviously I, Iljhgtn, cannot get stuff published on their page, but that if I could sure, it would not be a self-published source perhaps. Though it is a ridiculous point he made and that is why I am citing the direct text, instead of offering opinion. If that does not answer your query then I am exasperated and we can both just move on from this odd reading comprehension and/or semantics confused discourse we've been having. ] (]) 04:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::Yes, I think we're talking past each other, and it's fine with me for both of us to step away from it. ] (]) 14:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::But you're not Gorski or Novella, are you? That kind of renders the entire point moot. Obviously ''you'' can't publish bogus content, because you're not trusted, ergo, there is editorial control and it is not SPS. ] (]) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Contributions by the editors are SPS'''. Definitely contributions by Gorkski, Novella, and the other listed editors are clearly ] by both the letter and spirit of ]. By the letter of ] I don't think contributions by other people are SPS but I do have serious doubts about the editorial policy, and thus the overall reliability, of SBM if they're allowing the editors to regularly publish articles without fact-checking. ] (]) 02:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Not SPS'''. This is a web publication of the ], not the personal vlog of ]. ]. The premise that organizations publishing stuff written by members of their organizations amounts to self-publishing seems like it can't help but lead to something like, "the LA Times publishes stuff written and reviewed by members of the LA Times so the LA Times self publishes itself". ] (] | ] | ]) 08:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society whose leadership overlaps with that of the blog and is largely restricted to a single family, the Novellas. The same man, Steven Novella, is in charge of both so there is no independence here that would make it not self published. I would also note that if the Washington Post ever fired all its professional staff and started hosting stuff by Jeff Bezos and his buddies we would treat it as a SPS. ] (]) 17:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Did you consider the editorial that Bezos wrote in the Post (re: his decision to block the Post's endorsement of Harris) to be SPS? ] (]) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yes, but note that we already treat editorials and opinion pieces as SPS so its a bit of a moot point. ] (]) 17:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::That's news to me. Are you saying that an editorial or opinion piece cannot be used unless it either falls under EXPERTSPS or BLPSELFPUB? ] (]) 18:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Its a bit (some would say a lot) wider than that because ] also applies. ] (]) 18:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I don't understand how ABOUTSELF comes into play, since an editorial / opinion piece is typically representing the view of a single person, though I guess it's occasionally written by more than one, as with something from an editorial board. But even assuming that ABOUTSELF is in play, that says "'''Never''' use self-published sources as ] about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that we cannot use an opinion piece or editorial in the NYT to make a statement —attributed to the author(s) — about a living person whose relationship to the author(s) is third-party. If that's the case, I think there's a lot of WP content that's in breach of this. ] (]) 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::There might be some (wikipedia is full of violations of any rule you care to name), but most of those uses are as primary (under aboutself) not as third-party sources. ] (]) 22:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Whether it's primary is distinct from whether it's self-published. Many opinion pieces are used as third-party sources for attributed opinions about living people. Here's an example: in the ] article, the text "Following the January 6 Capitol attack, ], who had initially resisted calling Trump a fascist, announced that the label now seemed necessary," sourced to opinion piece by Paxton, which is a third-party source for a statement about Trump. Are you saying that you think that text must be removed because the source is SPS? ] certainly doesn't say that all opinion pieces should be treated as SPS. ] (]) 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::You argue they're amateurs and unqualified to write the coverage that they do; that doesn't on its own bear on whether they're self-published or not. I've limited the scope of my !vote here to concluding they aren't self-published. Whether they are a reliable publication that isn't self-published or an unreliable publication that isn't self-published is a different question. As for Novella heading NESS and ''Science-based Medicine''—um, well, yeah, duh. The latter is an organ of the former. I'm not aghast that the editor in chief of the LA times runs the LA Times, or that ] ran ]. ] (] | ] | ]) 19:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::No, I'm arguing that The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society. The LA Times is owned by ], the editor in chief of the LA times is Terry Tang. A book by Alfred A. Knopf Sr. or ] published by Alfred A. Knopf would be considered SPS for wikipedia purposes, that isn't groundbreaking thats totally normal. ] (]) 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::To add to this, being an editor and running an interest organization are (and should be) two very different roles. I can't imagine the director of the National Association for People that Can't Edit and Hate Editorial Integrity (NAPCEHEI) would make a good editor in chief for the org's publication. ] (]) 22:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I said, {{Tq|You argue they're '''amateurs'''}}; you said, {{Tq|'''No''', I'm arguing that The New England Skeptical Society is an '''amateur''' society}} (emphasis added). I'm not seeing how I've mischaracterized what you believe about their qualifications when you immediately repeated it. ] (] | ] | ]) 02:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:There is a distinct difference between the ''LA Times'' and SBM in that it would appear as if at SBM just Gorski can write something or just Novella and then publish it. That is different that the LA Times or other non-SPS in that those have editorial review by other staff. These staff are known and are publicly verifiable as they have | |||
| *:At minimum, it must be acknowledged that material written by Gorski and Novella is SPS. For the record, that is also not saying it is not reliable (as several commenters above continue to be confusing), <u>just that Gorski and Novella work from SBM is SPS.</u> ] (]) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Forbes.com is owned by Forbes Media LLC. Because it is owned by a company, does that mean we should not regard it as self published? In the case of Forbes.com it is not the ownership that matters, but the ability of people to publish directly as contributors without editorial review. With SBM, I would argue that it is also not the ownership that matters, but whether or not people can publish directly without editorial review. - ] (]) 22:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Forbes.com includes content both from Forbes staff and from Forbes contributors. So some of the Forbes.com content is SPS and some isn't. ] (]) 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Presumably, that is because the Forbes staff material is published under editorial control. It is not the ownership that decides if something is an SPS, but the process by which material becomes available after it has been written. - ] (]) 22:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::That was my point, as it seemed you were claiming that we should regard all of Forbes.com as self-published. Why did you conclude that the subset of SBM material that does undergo prepublication editorial review is nonetheless SPS? ] (]) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I've never assumed that material on SBM that undergoes editorial review is SPS. My only concern is that the argument that the publication belongs to the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not SPS, is not sound. I think you can reasonably argue that some material published by SBM does not under go editorial review prior to publication, and that some material is therefore self published, or you can argue that all material undergoes pre-publication editorial review, and therefore SBM is not an SPS at all. But I don't think you can argue that SBM is owned by the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not an SPS. - ] (]) 23:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I should have been clearer. I was asking because in your Dec.6 !vote, you said that you consider SBM to be wholly SPS (or at least, you didn't qualify your SPS response). ] (]) 23:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::I think I have been fairly consistent, but to explain my reasoning: it is clear that trusted authors are allowed to self publish on the site, but what is not clear is who these authors are. We khave been assuming that this means the editors can publish directly, and we have assumed that guest contributors probably can not, but we do not know if all guest editors are not trusted enough, nor do we know where the authors that sit between those two come. Given that, rather than say "partial SPS" but not know who is self publishing, I think it is safer to say "SPS" but realise that there may be exceptions. From a BLP perspective I prefer to errr on the side of caution. - ] (]) 07:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SPS''' A group blog where the participants can publish without review is a SPS, even if it calls certain people editors and sometimes deletes things (if that were the standard, even much of ''social media'' wouldn't be a SPS, because sometimes those sites have deleted stuff like COVID misinformation). I also do not think accepting occasional outside submissions consistutes "review" to the degree those posts become not-SPS. Nor do I think being "published" by an organization the blog authors *also* control consititutes sufficient independence, as some have claimed. I think sometimes the authors can be cited under the WP:SPS subject-mattere expert exception, but only in the ''specific'' area of their academic speciality (e.g. neurology, surgery and oncology, family practice medicine) but not in other areas. - ] (]) 15:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{discussion bottom}} | |||
| == RfC: Bild == | |||
| {{ping|Soumya-8974}}I apologize for my confusion with the name, but in the end our points are the same. Please continue editting.--] (]) 03:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1736895671}} | |||
| *'''Unreliable''' '''{{green|for KPop and Kdrama related news}}''': Republic TV's website –republicworld.com reports about Korean dramas and Korean pop based on the information given by ] and ], which is considered unreliable by Wikiproject Korea (Link: ]). Hence, Republic TV's websites are unreliable for K-dramas and K-pop related news. Examples include: | |||
| What is the reliability of the German tabloid ], including its website Bild.de? | |||
| ::1) "as detailed by All Kpop" "translated by Soompi" | |||
| # Generally reliable | |||
| ::2) "as per reports in Soompi" | |||
| # Additional considerations apply | |||
| ::3) "According to a report by Soompi" | |||
| # Generally unreliable | |||
| # Deprecated | |||
| ] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Responses (Bild) === | |||
| *'''Option 3/4''' Bild is a sensational tabloid, that according to Foreign Policy magazine, , routinely violates basic journalistic ethics and is regularly sanctioned for it by German Press Council, being sanctioned by them 26 times in 2021 alone. As evidenced by this piece in Deutsche Welle their process of verification and fact checking is below the standard expected for a reliable source. For those looking for a more comprehensive account of the newspaper and its ethics, I've found this freely accessible short book (less than 100 pages, including references) in German from 2023 on the topic (which can translated using google translate's PDF translate feature) Some quotes from the book (in translation) {{tq|Driven by a special editorial culture ("We are tabloids after all") and driven by editorial decisions in which sales interests take precedence over media ethics, articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers.}} ... {{tq|The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary}}... EDIT: another quote {{tq|BILD's journalism does not focus on the task of providing information, but rather on examining a suitable fact for its emotionality and framing it with commentary.}}} ] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:As an addendum: here are some other examples, including a fake story about migrants committing sexual assault in 2017 , as well as taking scientists quotes out of context to further an agenda regarding COVID during the pandemic ] (]) 14:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' - per Hemiauchenia. I'll add an argument that's weaker but nevertheless entertaining and somewhat indicative, which is that Bild's infamy is so well-established that ] is a common inclusion of university German language, German literature and media studies courses. There hasn't been any argument made, however, that our current usage of Bild is so pervasive a problem that deprecation is necessary. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3/4'''. I don't think we should cite Bild anywhere on Misplaced Pages. It's a sensationalist tabloid like the Daily Mail or National Enquirer.--] (]) 23:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''3''' at least, and I wouldn't say no to '''4'''. This is one of the weakest sources in the region, though I could see it being cited for special purposes, like examples of "headlinese" that aren't in English, etc. But at this point I don't think it's even usable for ] material; if they claimed something as simple as {{var|X}} number of employees, I would strongly suspect it of being an exaggeration. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 23:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''3''' I honestly have no idea how one could even come to approach the idea that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but if previous discussions haven't been enough, I suppose it's worth piling on. Sources should not be considered reliable until they prove themselves to be. ] (] • ]) 05:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''3/4''' Bild is a tabloid and well known for its lack of fact checking and heavy bias. The closest english speaking equivalent would be things like the Daily Mail. In my opinion broadly unusable. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''bad 2 for miscellaneous or political content, unusable for the private lives of BLP and particularly recently deceased people''' it's rather rare that they publish straightforward misinformation, particularly when considering the volume of content published. Having said that, they have a nasty habit of violating both journalistic and actual ethics (and ''allegedly'' breaking the law), so using them is probably broadly unwise. There are some rare cases where they can be useful, but as far as usable sources go, they are on the very lowest end IMO, being a tabloid in an area with an otherwise strong media environment. In addition, there doesn't seem to be a significant issue to justify depreciation. <small> Note: this applies to Bild only, other sources owned by that publisher are usually a lot more reliable, even if I personally consider much of what they believe to be rather questionable </small> ] (]) 10:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2, provisionally''', since no examples of publishing falsehoods and misinformation have been provided so far in this thread and I couldn't find them in the article. See my comments in the discussion section. ]<sub>]</sub> 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''', I don't see the need for deprecation. Bild is tabloid journalism, and falls far short of the high quality sources that BLP calls for. It shouldn't be anywhere near anything contentious to do with a living, or recently deceased, person. When it comes to it reliability in other areas how other reliable sources view Bild is important, I suggest reading the work by Prof Lilienthal posted by Hemiauchenia. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' Tabloid journalism is generally incompatible with the Misplaced Pages project. ] (]) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''', there even exist a German blog whose aim is mainly to publicize errors of Bild – . But see my comment in the discussion section below. --] (]) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' per ActivelyDisinterested. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 05:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' so no change. Most of our current usage of it seem to be interviews which per ] would be fine. I see no evidence they’re fabricating interviews. Probably usable for mundane things like sports (they seem to cover that a lot). For any contentious anything should not be cited - but they seem to get a lot of interviews with notable people, so we can keep using that. ] (]) 20:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3/4''' per Hemiauchenia... tabloids in general post sensational info that is poorly fact-checked and rife with errors. ] (]) 20:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:it's ''snowing 3'' ] (]) 21:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3/4'''. Academic coverage frequently treats it as an archetypal example of a publisher of misinformation. See eg. --] (]) 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3/4''': Tabloids usually fail reliability. It seems this one is no different. ] (]) 17:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 3/4 (depending on whether anyone can make a case that there's some e.g. ABOUTSELF use we would still want them for — but I doubt we should be using them 1,800 times, as Hemiauchenia says we are at present) per Aquillion and Hemiauchenia; as RSP says, a reliable source "has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction"; ''BILD'' has the opposite reputation. ] (]) 04:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (Bild) === | |||
| :''Closure: I was informed about this discussion on my talk page by {{u|Atlantis77177}}. | |||
| 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) | |||
| :] ] 11:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|-ink&fables}} Thank you for giving your opinion. The result at present is unreliable, please continue editing. We need more opinions.--] (]) 10:54, 23 November 2020 (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: | |||
| The present result is 'Generally Unreliable'. Need more comments.--] (]) 09:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * {{tquote|articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers." ... "The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary"}} - this should have no bearing on reliability, unless they actually published falsehoods about said celebrities | |||
| *'''Reliable''' For non-socio political content. But can be '''used with attribution''' for socio-political content. ] (]) 08:51, 26 November 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) | |||
| *Non-socio political content is by Republic TV is generally reliable. Socio-political content could be '''used with attribution'''. Having political bias cannot disqualify a news channel as fake. NDTV has also been caught for peddling fake news , . Similarly, Al Jazeera was exposed for peddling fake news about popular Palestinian-Israeli video blogger Nuseir Yassin and Al Jazeera journalists too have engaged in spreading fake news . However, these are largely considered as Reliable for socio-political content. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)</span> | |||
| ::{{u|TheMoonShadow}}, if you want to discuss the reliability of NDTV or ''Al Jazeera'', you should open a new discussions about them. Republic TV outright fabricates stories and quotations, without corrections and retractions and pushes fringe conspiracy theories which is much worse than simple bias in source. Most other equivalent sources are usually subjected to '''deprecation''', and I don't see a reason why this should be exempt from it. | |||
| ::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 was looking at their "science news", since even entertainment and sports news have socio-political context. And even that's a bunch of nonsense ] pieces. For instance, see the following: | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::* According to Republic TV, apparently a "wearable Covid-19 killing device" has been developed. | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::* Apparently, ageing reversal has been discovered as well! | |||
| ::::The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. ] (]) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Earth is having a "laser battle with a nubela" because a telescope uses lasers. | |||
| :::::@], I've managed to translate it using Google Translate, thanks! | |||
| ::* We are also apparently teleporting brains, this is cited to the ], a deprecated source. | |||
| :::::These are the key points from the foreword | |||
| ::* What if a chicken nugget Is sent into space? | |||
| :::::# articles are published that hurt those affected and (can) irritate readers | |||
| ::<span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 02:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::# BILD is running campaigns against political opponents – against Angela Merkel, Karl Lauterbach, Annalena Baerbock, to name just three examples | |||
| ::: I agree with ]. Republic TV publishes thousands of articles everyday. If there are few fake news articles referenced then those specific articles must be weeded out. Every news portal has some fake news/biased news today. Fact checking websites like AltNews, BoomLive and Poynter have brought up these articles to public. It is much easier to remove the specific article rather than blacklisting the entire domain. ] (]) 09:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::# 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 | |||
| ::::{{u|Tessaracter}}, if they publish thousands of articles everyday, it is unlikely that any organisation would be able to keep track of all their falsifications. We can't presume that a source which demonstrably pushes conspiracy theories and fabricates stories, is a reliable one. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 10:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::# 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 | |||
| :'''Absolutely unreliable for politics, celebrities, science and religion (alternate news sources can be used)''' but '''may be used strictly with attribution for other topics (if any do exist)'''- clearly Republic is too bad to be used for the four aforementioned topics, but I still haven't seen any clear evidence that the news company is completely bonkers for everything. IMO, the assessment should apply to the entire "Republic TV" group (including Republic Bharat) since I can tell from experience that Hindi news channels and websites tend to be less reliable here in India than English ones. By the way, can someone give an example of an article that doesn't touch on the four aforementioned topics? ] (]) 09:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC) <small>Last rephrased at 10:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::# 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 == | |||
| * '''Unreliable''' : Republic Network is highly unreliable and propaganda driven. Here is a compilation from fake news checking website Altnews | |||
| ] 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 , , , , ... | |||
| We had similar issues with e.g. ], ], and probably many others which I can't find as easily. | |||
| * Related to serious matter: India-China Ladakh standoff | |||
| * Related to Corona | |||
| * Related to Election Manifesto of parties | |||
| * Related to Political Leaders | |||
| 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) | |||
| : The problem is that if you deprecated these newspapers, there'd be basically no usable Nigerian sources left, which hardly seems good in terms of attempting to fix Misplaced Pages's coverage biases. I do agree that it is standard practice at a lot of Nigerian newspapers to run effectively undisclosed promotional material, and it seems good to note this somewhere on RSP, but I think deprecating them outright would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. ] (]) 17:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: Here's a relevant BBC News story about the issue from 2015 . Apparently Nigerian newspapers also regularly suppress stories due to advertisier pressure. Another interesting story from 2020 which says {{tq| realised that their top quality journalism or influential columnists alone weren’t going to win the battle for eyeballs. Enter “viral content” and clickbait headlines. Press releases were repackaged as news stories, fact-checking and verification became redundant. Aanu Adeoye says, “the traditional gatekeepers of journalism (newspapers) in this country don’t give a hoot about the quality of what they’re churning out daily.” In a few years, stories from Nigeria’s top newspapers looked as hurriedly written as stories from blogs. It had become a game of who could break the news the fastest and who could churn out the most news. Nigerian traditional media beat the upstarts at their own game and occupied spots at the top of Nigeria’s most visited websites. But the true cost of this pyrrhic victory was quality control.}} If even mainstream Nigerian newspapers can't be trusted as factual sources then it's not clear what Nigerian sources can be trusted. ] (]) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I really don’t get arguments like this one. How does it help Misplaced Pages to use unreliable sources from countries with more limited media landscapes? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::One of Misplaced Pages and the WMF's goals is to be "diverse" and to lessen systemic bias to western nations. Limiting coverage to Western liberal democracies will obviously prevent that. ] (]) 11:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::How does it help the English Misplaced Pages to eliminate practically all English-language sources for about 1 billion English-speakers? There's not an easy answer, here.--] (] | ]) 14:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Much of the editor population vastly underestimates how much of our reader base comes from these regions of the globe. | |||
| :::Formally deprecating sources is a last resort for widely misused stuff like the ''Daily Mail'' (arguably part of the issue there was the perceived credibility of a mainstream Western paper subject to strict British libel laws). Simply following and enforcing existing P&G should address the issues adequately. | |||
| :::Furthermore, if one of these Nigerian papers were to come under new and improved management or ownership, I doubt WP would take notice with any real celerity. | |||
| :::] (]) 00:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a problem with virtually every newspaper published in Nigeria and India. We cannot simply deprecate all news from two of the largest English speaking countries in the world. Or, we could, but we would get called very racist for doing so. ] (]) 17:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is nothing racist about applying basic standards of reliability to sources. If there are newspapers from Nigeria, or India, or the US, or ... which ''don't'' have these issues, then they will be treated as reliable sources. But we shouldn't be afraid to label a source as being unreliable just because someone might shout "racism" without good reason. Allowing unreliable sources just because we want to have more articles about a country is probably the worst thing we could do. ] (]) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think the damage to the encyclopedia that comes from effectively banning most coverage of two of the most populous countries in the world outweighs the benefit here. We are biased enough towards the West as is. I do not think there are major newspapers in either country without these practices. ] (]) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Its not bias to refuse to allow falsehoods, it is racist (to my mind) to give them exceptional status. ] (]) 13:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If it results in a racially biased coverage how is that not racist? ] (]) 11:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Becasue we allow other African news media, its just that we do not allow, falsehoods. ] (]) 11:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It still has a disparate impact in a racially biased manner. ] (]) 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No its not, it is based upon lack of truth, no one here has raised race once apart from you. ] (]) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Whatever the ''intention'' banning the entire media ecosystem of a developing country of 230 million people (plus India's 1.43 billion because we would ban them for the same reason) and making our encyclopedia irrelevant to large swathes of the non western world would have a biased ''outcome'' - doesn't matter the intention if it gets you the same result. Is that a sacrifice we are willing to accept? Because if so we need to stop pretending we have any interest in "combatting systemic bias". ] (]) 11:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, in my opinion it hasn’t been shown that reliability issues already aren’t being handled at in a nationally disparate manner. ] (]) 00:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::if these sources want to be accepted as reliable on Misplaced Pages, they should give up their practice of publishing paid news and writing puff pieces for anyone willing to pay. - ] (]) 07:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::If we are going to be banning every single news source of a country of 230 million, then we should be very aware we are doing it. And possibly throw out all the project's virtue signaling over countering systemic bias along with it, if we decide to go that route. ] (]) 10:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::We should allow perpetuation of misinformation on Misplaced Pages because it would be racist not to? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It would disproportionately affect the writing and sourcing on articles and topics on highly populated non-Western formerly colonized countries. That’s pretty obviously racist whether it is the right or wrong thing to do (] or something analogous). If we do it, we will get called racist for it. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it but it is reality. ] (]) 21:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It would affect them by prohibiting bad information from bad sources to be included. Sounds good. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Should we do the same and ban all news from India? ] (]) 11:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::We should ban all shitty sources. If that wipes out all of India’s news (I’d sure be surprised) then yes. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I can't see how it would be preferable to have our coverage of non-Western developing countries be dominated by propaganda, paid-promotion, tabloids, and un-fact-checked reports... ] (]) 20:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No one is suggesting an either-or dichotomy. We should start by enforcing existing policies with regard to usage of these sources on a case by case basis. Mass deprecation was merely an impulsive suggestion someone made somewhere above, and would self-evidently be overkill unless all other options had been exhausted, which they haven’t. Cheers, ] (]) 00:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I think this claim should be presumed true but not notable. The PVSA award is given out annually by any number of authorized NGOs to their own volunteers without any US government involvement, and it does come with a form letter in the president's name. Ononiwu apparently received hers from Innovate Africa Corp. There's no reason any US press to write up such a thing, and there doesn't seem to be a public database of honorees. Note however that Ononiwu should not have been eligible for the award because she's not a US citizen or permanent resident. I guess these newspapers went along with exaggerating the award's prestige, but I don't see it as a major problem for reliability on facts. ] (]) 19:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it could be worth writing some guidance along the same lines as ], though I'm not sure it rises to the point of a general deprecation yet. ] report might also be helpful in developing such guidance. ] (] • ]) 20:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As with WP:NEWSORGINDIA Nigerian news sources are full of undisclosed advertorials. It's a common practice, so editors need to be cautious with anything that uses promotional language. Their use for establishing notability needs to be seen in a similar light. | |||
| :Formally deprecating all Nigerian news media just isn't an option, in the same way deprecating all India news media with the same issue isn't an option. I would support changing the language of WP:NEWSORGINDIA, so it highlights the same issue in other countries not just India. I doubt this is an issue limited to those markets, and one that will likely become more of an issue everywhere with the difficulties newsedia currently face. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I recall at least one instance of them churning out AI generated puff pieces e.i and . Oddly enough Daily Times NG is listed as a "generally reliable" source for Nigerian topics at ].- ] (]) 07:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| How can you challenge a claim with articles from other unreliable sources like altnews ? Because Republic has exposed a lot of scams made by political parties in India.It is under attack by those parties to discredit republic TV.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)</span> | |||
| :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) | |||
| : Allow me to ask these questions: | |||
| :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) | |||
| :# Did you click on ''any'' of the Republic TV website links given as evidence of Republic TV's unreliability? | |||
| :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. | |||
| :# Are you aware that ] is a fact-checking website certified by the ]? | |||
| :"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. | |||
| :# Can you name at least ''one'' scam that has been exposed by Republic TV as you claim? | |||
| :"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) | |||
| :# Can you explain how a "news" source that peddles ] can be reliable? | |||
| : ] (]) 11:14, 30 November 2020 (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) | |||
| == The Canary == | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| Would editors mind having a look at the designation of ''The Canary'' as 'generally unreliable' after the most recent discussion in April 2020? The summary says "Most editors criticize the accuracy of The Canary". I counted 6 editors voting for GU and 4 editors for GR with appropriate attribution. As far as I can tell the editors who considered Canary as GU didn’t raise any significant specific examples of how it was unreliable. My feeling is that the GU tag does not adequately represent the views of the editors who participated in the discussion. I would suggest 'no consensus' would be a closer summary. What do other editors think? ] (]) 16:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ===Arbitrary break (Nigerian newspapers)=== | |||
| *'''Always unreliable except as a primary source'''. For anyone who's unaware, '']'' is the house journal of the British lunatic fringe. I can see no circumstances in which they'd ever be a reliable source for anything other than as a primary source for their own writers' opinions; on those occasions where they're correct then a legitimate source will have published the same story and we can use that instead; if no legitimate source has covered the story, it's a good indication that either the story isn't notable in Misplaced Pages terms or that ''The Canary'' has made it up. ‑ ] 16:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I've gone ahead and created a new section covering Nigerian news organisations at RSP ]. It's a bit stubby at the moment but it's at least a start. ] (]) 00:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: I wasn't asking for a rerun of the discussion about the reliability of ''The Canary''. I was asking editors to look at the previous discussion and determine whether GU accurately reflects the content of that discussion. ] (]) 17:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: All discussions on this noticeboard are open to new arguments, which will be factored into a source's entry on ] after the discussion is archived or closed. To call for a reassessment of previous discussions on a source without new arguments, the correct venue would be ]. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 18:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :See ]. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 20:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * A mere difference of 2 participating editors + '''zero clear examples provided''' of unreliability ~ hardly seems = justify the current GU tag. Just because you do not like a source's political stance is entirely irrelevant. The only relevant question here on this board is the source reliable. Basic Stuff. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">]<sup>]</sup></span> 16:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, but this is by Nigerian editors who ranking Nigerian sources relative to each other. This is different from the standards that non-Nigerian Misplaced Pages editors have for sources. There are serious issues with quality of Nigerian media across the board, as elaborated on in this article: . It's definitely useful to tell the relative quality of Nigerian sources though. ] (]) 20:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Doesn't look like the 'generally unreliable' statements provided significant proof (though perhaps they were based on consensus from the two previous discussions that were linked). Mostly GU arguments came from bias/POV, rather than reliability--not a valid argument in this venue. Supporters of 'reliable' put forward a couple of points that didn't land, including some statements about audience size or audience trust. They did describe indicators of a stable editorial staff and editorial policy, which is good for their position. The arguments in general were not very convincing either way, and I'd probably discuss the results only of that conversation as 'no consensus' based on the existence of basic editorial processes. ] (]) 23:33, 18 November 2020 (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) | |||
| **Before we run away with effusions over the wrong done ''The Canary'' by prejudice, let's peruse: | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| ***{{Cite news|last=|first=|date=2 August 2019|title=Pro-Corbyn website The Canary denies it is antisemitic, then blames 'political Zionists' for forcing it to downsize|url=https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/pro-corbyn-website-the-canary-blames-political-zionists-for-forcing-it-to-downsize-1.487095|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-11-19|website=Jewish Chronicle}} | |||
| :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) | |||
| ***{{Cite news|last=Topple|first=Steve|date=27 September 2017|title=We need to talk about Laura Kuenssberg. She's listed as an 'invited' speaker at the Tory Party conference|url=https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2017/09/27/need-talk-laura-kuenssberg-shes-listed-speaker-tory-party-conference/|access-date=2020-11-19|website=The Canary|language=en-GB}} | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ***{{Cite news|last=Lewis|first=Helen|date=27 September 2017|title=The Canary is running a sexist hate campaign against Laura Kuenssberg for clicks|url=https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2017/09/canary-running-sexist-hate-campaign-against-laura-kuenssberg-clicks|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-11-19|website=New Statesman|language=en}} | |||
| ***{{Cite news|last=Collins|first=John|last2=Mills|first2=Tom|date=29 September 2017|title=The BBC versus ''The Canary'': two experts have their say|url=http://theconversation.com/the-bbc-versus-the-canary-two-experts-have-their-say-84861|access-date=2020-11-19|website=The Conversation|language=en}} | |||
| ***{{Cite news|date=20 December 2017|title=Canary's story about Laura Kuenssberg 'breached press code'|language=en-GB|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42430083|access-date=2020-11-19}} | |||
| ::Another complaint in 2018 was also upheld. See . Now that their darling ] has been deposed and ostracized, they've gone completely off the rails, and continue to be wholly partisan. See, for recent example, . ] (]) 00:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I wasn't asking for a rerun of the discussion about the reliability of ''The Canary''. I was asking editors to look at the previous discussion and determine whether GU accurately reflects the content of that discussion. ] (]) 03:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please stop writing the words "I wasn't asking for a rerun of the discussion...". You were answered the first time: "All discussions on this noticeboard are open to new arguments". We are going to discuss the reliability of The Canary whether you like it or not. --] (]) 19:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The Kunesburg article 1. never claimed that she would be speaking, 2. was updated 5 hours later to be clear that she wouldn't be speaking, and 3. was only ruled in need of correction because of a lack of 'due prominence' of the previous update. The only problem was the headline and as per ] {{tq|headlines are not a reliable source}} from any source regardless of reliability. Bad headline writing? yes; reason against being a RS? no. ] (]) 11:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :The were a rough consensus that the source in unreliable and the examples brought by GPinkerton is only make it clear.The ] for these source was never met so it cannot be used in WP --] (]) 05:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: Your wording is a bit odd but I think I know what you are trying to say. ] talks about when a specific item of information can be added to an article. That isn't relevant to the determination of a source's general reliability. Pink didn't take part in the discussion on ''The Canary'''s reliability but the Laura K. incident, which Pink provides '''four''' links to, was mentioned in the discussion. In regards to achievement of a "rough consensus", if you referring to the 6-4 vote, my question was in part whether the 6-4 vote did indicate that "Most editors criticize the accuracy of The Canary" or whether 'no consensus' is a more accurate description of the discussion. ] (]) 06:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I participated and said attribute and use with caution. The discussion got a bit mixed I thought, with evolve and squawkbox, 2 other left leaning sites. I think generally unreliable is not really an accurate reflection of the convo. No con would be better, maybe rerun it by itself?] (]) 16:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * Unreliable due to bias and free mixing of opinion and fact. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 00:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| : I wasn't asking for a rerun of the discussion about the reliability of The Canary. I was asking editors to look at the previous discussion and determine whether GU accurately reflects the content of that discussion. ] (]) 11:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please stop writing the words "I wasn't asking for a rerun of the discussion...". You were answered the first time: "All discussions on this noticeboard are open to new arguments". We are going to discuss the reliability of The Canary whether you like it or not. --] (]) 19:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm skeptical that it really has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:RS. What's the evidence that such reputation exists? (] · ]) ''']''' 04:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| : I wasn't asking for a rerun of the discussion about the reliability of The Canary. I was asking editors to look at the previous discussion and determine whether GU accurately reflects the content of that discussion. ] (]) 11:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please stop writing the words "I wasn't asking for a rerun of the discussion...". You were answered the first time: "All discussions on this noticeboard are open to new arguments". We are going to discuss the reliability of The Canary whether you like it or not. --] (]) 19:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I read the first three examples posted by {{u|GPinkerton}}, and I frankly don't see how they support the "generally unreliable" label. The first example is a criticism of The Canary's criticism of Israel. The second is a Canary article criticizing a BBC journalist for agreeing to speak at a Tory conference fringe event. This article was corrected after publication (to make clear that it was a fringe event), which is exactly what we want to see reliable sources doing. The third example is an opinion piece in the New Statesman that criticizes The Canary's criticism of the BBC journalist. The author in the New Statesman claims The Canary's criticism was sexist (the only ground given by the author for this accusation is that the BBC journalist is a woman - make of that what you will). This looks like completely normal back-and-forth between publications with different political leanings: a publication that supports Israel criticizes a publication that supports the Palestinians, a publication that opposes Corbyn criticizes a publication that supports Corbyn, etc. | |||
| :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) | |||
| A determination of "generally unreliable" has to be based on stronger stuff than that. There has to be actual unreliability, not just differences of political opinion with other magazines. -] (]) 10:03, 21 November 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) | |||
| : It appears that the discussion has petered out. There are some editors who have reiterated their previous position that The Canary is GU. However, of those who commented on the previous discussion, most seem to believe that 'no consensus' is a more accurate description of that discussion. Does anyone have any objections to me updating the list to reflect this? ] (]) 15:32, 24 November 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) | |||
| ::Yes, I object. The discussion has only been open a few days and there are contributions here dated yesterday. The last discussion referenced two or more previous discussions and taken together these three discussions indicate a strong consensus that it should not be considered generally reliable. Give me a few minutes and I'll try to show that more clearly. ] (]) 16:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Judging articles on a case-by-case basis is something we (Nigerian editors) are already doing and believe it or not, we’re doing a damn good job at it. Deprecating these sources means that articles on Nigerian topics would be deleted in batches——thousands, if I might add——and this doesn’t necessarily reflect the systemic bias we are supposed to be fighting. | |||
| :There are tells that give off a sponsored/paid article and every Nigerian editor in good standing already knows this and by this, I vehemently disagree with Hemiauchenia that Nigerian editors are not able to distinguish a reliable source from an unreliable source. | |||
| :Also, I think sometimes, what we consider as “poor journalism” (in the Western standard) are just Nigerian journalist (correctly) using ] to write articles that it seems like it is promo. This does not mean that undisclosed paid journalism does not happen but sometimes, we confuse the two. So, this is me opposing any form deprecations as this will have unintended consequences. Best, ] 12:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If this is something Nigerian editors are already doing then what's wrong in codifying this on RSP? Indian sources engage in same practice and we have ] that tells users what to look for in order to discount press releases and undisclosed sponsored content when evaluating notability, nothing wrong with having one for the Nigerian media. - ] (]) 12:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@], uhm, if Indian editors did so, someone took the liberty of doing it for us (]): ]; no one is opposing it. Best, ] 16:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| It is true that Nigerian news outlet like their Western counterparts (RSBIAS?) do publish opinions, promotional and advertorials like reliable news without explicitly marking them as much. In fact, this has long history in and it is mostly associated with UPE editors who want to create contents for their gain. | |||
| ::The April 2020 discussion included 6 editors who argued that it is generally unreliable or has been deemed such in prevous discussions ({{u|Buidhe}}, {{u|Shrike}}, myself, {{u|Hippeus}}, {{u|JzG}}, {{u|Iridescent}}) (plus arguments against the policy basis of the reliability case put forward by and {{u|Hemiauchenia}} & {{u|JungerMan Chips Ahoy!}} who didn't themselves express a position), vs 3 editors who argued it was generally reliable ({{u|Burrobert}}, {{u|Bodney}}, {{u|Jontel}}), plus 1 editors who argued for a "use with caution" approach ({{u|Selfstudier}}). | |||
| ::The April discussion in turn referenced two earlier discussions. In September 2019, a question about The Canary ''and other similar sources'' elicited responses from 9 editors for unreliability ({{u|The_Land}}, {{u| Bondegezou}}, {{u|Bangalamania}}, {{u|Icewhiz}}, {{u|Sitush}}, {{u| Kirbanzo}}, {{u|Sceptre}} + JzG, Shrike, already mentioned) vs 2 editors for reliability ({{u|ZScarpia}}, + Jontel, already mentioned), plus ambivalent or "use with caution" responses from {{u|David Gerard}}, {{u|Newslinger}}, {{u|Bellowhead678}}, Selfstudier. | |||
| ::In July 2018, 2 editors argued for unreliability ({{u|Ritchie333}}, + Icewhiz) and 0 for reliability. | |||
| ::The September 2019 in turn referenced two more local discussions on the ] talk page. In February 2019, the debate was more about due weight and included The Canary along with other sources but 5 editors specifically commented on the unreliability of the Canary ({{u| Alssa1}}, + Icewhiz, Bondegezou, Bangalamania,me) although 2 arguing for inclusion who seemed didn't express doubts about reliability could be counted on the reliability side ({{u|RevertBob}} and {{u|Deb}}. | |||
| ::In July 2018, 5 editors argued for unreliability ({{u|Absolutelypuremilk}}, {{u|Dweller}}, {{u|ThatMove}} + Icewhiz, Bangalamania) vs 2 for reliability ({{u|Jonjonjohny}}, {{u|G-13114}}). | |||
| ::Removing duplications from those who expressed an opinion more than once, that's 17-19 arguing for general unreliability vs 8 for general reliability, plus 4 ambivalent or "use with caution". The discussion above has brought 1 additional unreliability advocate ({{u|GPinkerton}}) and 1 additional reliability advocate ({{u|Thucydides411}}). This seems to me like a fairly strong consensus for unreliability generated over multiple discussions. If this isn't enough, I think there are further examples of unreliability not mentioned yet which I can outline. ] (]) 17:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::While I was unaware of this particular discussion, I can stand by position regarding the Canary and its reliability as a source. The Canary is repeatedly criticised by prominent figures across the political spectrum as being other the 'purveyor of fake news'; and is recognised as such by organisations like ] (which is itself a project of the ]). I know we don't make a habit of using twitter as a source, but as of 18 August 2020, the Canary (as well as another organisation that will remain nameless) was still referred to as a "fake news site" (source: ). ] (]) 18:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Alssa1}}, Stop Funding Fake News is, however, a fake group set up by people criticised by The Canary specifically in order to attack it. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 18:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{reply to|JzG}} do you have a source for that? Because the evidence actually is that "Stop Funding Fake News" is a project by ], which in itself is supported by a number of celebrity figures (though I know they're not particularly relevant) as well as Sadiq Khan and former Home Secretary Alan Johnson. As well as this, the CEO of the Center, Imran Ahmed sits on the steering committee of the ] (source: ). So frankly I don't really buy the suggestion that this is somehow a 'fake group' that purely exists to attack The Canary. When can I expect you to provide some evidence backed up by ] to support what you've said? ] (]) 18:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{u|Alssa1}}, SFFN have never, so far as I'm aware disclosed their criteria for declaring ''The Canary'' as "fake news", so we are in the dark as to how or why they may have reached that conclusion, it may be that they simply dislike it. Given that ''The Canary'' is fully regulated by ] and has been given a pass rating by ]. One could well regard the claims of it being a "fake news" website as being at best completely baseless, and at worst an open ] by political opponents. ] (]) 20:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{reply to|G-13114}} Firstly, simply being a regulated publication on IMPRESS does not '''in itself''' make it a reliable source. It was during its of membership of IMPRESS that it broke the rules. As well as this it was during this time that it made the claims about "political Zionists", which is not a statement made by a reliable source on Misplaced Pages. As for ], I inform you that ] passed all the conditions of NewsGuard's assessments (The Canary failed one on “Handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly”) and yet according to many, including our very own ] (among others), "Paul Staines is not a reliable source." (source: ). So I ask again, where is the evidence of a "smear campaign" and/or why are the claims "baseless"? ] (]) 21:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{re|Alssa1}} ] is a political organization, which took a clear stance against Corbyn. The fact that an anti-Corbyn group campaigns against a publication seen as friendly to Corbyn is not surprising. It doesn't tell us anything about the reliability of The Canary, unless Stop Funding Fake News actually gave concrete examples of The Canary publishing fake news. -] (]) 00:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{re|Thucydides411}} is not a political organisation, it is a campaign/project conducted by ] this is a fact that is . As for the claims about Corbyn and SFFN, please provide evidence of this. ] (]) 00:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The difference between what constitutes an "organization" and what constitutes a "campaign/project" is not really important. According to our own Wiki article about the campaign, it's led by ] and ], both of whom have publicly campaigned against Corbyn and the Labour Party over the issue of alleged antisemitism. ] and ] are engaged in political advocacy. We can't take their criticism of The Canary as evidence that The Canary is unreliable - it's just evidence that there are people who don't like the publication for political reasons. -] (]) 08:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}}{{re|Thucydides411}} I don't know which article you're referring to, because neither the Wiki pages on Stop Funding Fake News or Center for Countering Digital Hate say that they are "led" by Riley or Oberman, nor does their website. All it says is that Riley and Oberman are supporters of the organisation, supporting an organisation is not the same as leading it. You keep saying it's engaged in 'political advocacy', but where's the evidence for this? ] (]) 10:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :The body of the article begins, {{tq|The campaign began in March 2019, and was backed by Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman.}} The website for "Stop Funding Fake News" gives no information about who is actually behind it, so the only people I'm aware of that are involved in it are Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman. Both of them are known for opposing Corbyn and criticizing Labour for alleged antisemitism. -] (]) 11:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::This might be moving too far into a tangent but {{u|hucydides411}}} your suggestion that the SFFN website gives no information about who is behind it is incorrect. The front page of the site states: {{tq|Stop Funding Fake News has been a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate. Company Number: 11633127. Registered Address: Langley House, Park Road, East Finchley, London, United Kingdom, N2 8EY}}. That Centre names people involved online here: https://www.counterhate.co.uk/our-people The campaign primarily targets right-wing websites as well as a couple of alt-left ones so is certainly not primarily anti-Corbyn. ] (]) 17:35, 26 November 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. | |||
| *'''Comment.''' I don't actually recall participating in any discussion on this topic; if I did, it would have been without any in-depth knowledge of this website. If you look at it in the context of the general right-wing bias of the British press, I think it would be hard to demonstrate that it's any more unreliable than, say, the ''Express'' or even the ''Telegraph''. We accept citations from those papers for items such as obituaries and the reporting of non-political events such as disasters, murders, etc. Where we are generally more careful is in accepting their political reporting as impartial, because we know it's not. I don't think any of the evidence produced above is conclusive, but it does not preclude further discussion of the topic. Unfortunately, ], it is normal on Talk pages for any attempt to revert a decision to be met with reiterations of previous arguments by the same people whose opinions contributed to that initial decision, regardless of how many or how few participated first time round. I think you will have to wait a little longer if you are hoping that people will be ready to take a fresh view of the topic. ] (]) 18:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::: It seems to me that there is confusion between reliability and a strong political opinion. It is partisan, but so is much of the UK quality press. The Canary article references two inaccuracies, one minor (the headline on Kuenssberg, which was soon corrected and where the article text was correct) and another adverse adjudication has been mentioned whereas, for example, the article on the Jewish Chronicle, widely quoted on Misplaced Pages, lists a dozen adverse adjudications and law suits. In the previous discussion on The Canary, I did not see examples of inaccuracies, but expressions of dislike for its political line. I think I am right in thinking that we should go on the evidence rather than have a simple vote. There is a campaign to shut down The Canary and some editors may be influenced by that. Moreover, it has a distinct political viewpoint so is likely to provide information for articles not available from the generally conservative mainstream press. I agree that No consensus is the best description of the outcome. ] (]) 18:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"There is a campaign to shut down The Canary and some editors may be influenced by that." Where is the evidence to back up this claim? ] (]) 18:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: The "" for SFFN makes it clear that it attempts to shut down ''The Canary''. In , the organization even gloated about ''The Canary'' having to downsize. Given that so little is known about SFFN, such as who runs it and who funds it, I think its credibility is close to zero. In the UK, there has been a long-running incredibly infected debate about Jeremy Corbyn which the British press has eagerly fanned the flames on. ''The Canary'' is in the "Corbynista" camp and SFFN and a whole host of other media orgs (''The Jewish Chronicle'' f.e.) is in the anti-Corbynista camp and you can't trust their opinions about each other. ] (]) 00:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This supposed "Hit List" gives some pretty good examples of fake news, such as "promoting conspiracy theories about the Syrian civil war" and includes writers who seem to believe the ECHR is controlled by "pro-Israel political agents" (among other stories). I'm not sure how it's controversial for an organisation that puts things out like this to be considered a 'purveyor of fake news', perhaps you'll explain? As for the credibility of the organisation, why is it "close to zero"? We actually know a fair amount about the organisation, the SFFN is a campaign/project conducted by ] and is lead by Imran Ahmed and includes among its supporters Sadiq Khan and former Home Secretary Alan Johnson. Its board members are available and we know that Mr Ahmed sits on the steering committee of the government's ] (source: ). Can you please provide some evidence of the of the SFFN and The Canary being in some political war between pro-Corbyn and anti-Corbyn groups? ] (]) 00:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} In looking at previous discussions about ''The Canary'', we should restrict ourselves to discussions which occurred on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The guide says: "For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions that mention the source's reliability, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard". So we should not include discussions which occurred on an antisemitism talk page for example. Contributions by Junger in the April 2020 discussion should be ignored as Junger was blocked as a sock. The discussion that occurred in September 2019 was affected by considering three sources in the one discussion (The Canary, Evolve Politics and Skwawkbox). The verdicts of editors in that discussion rarely discriminated between the three sources. Overall, it is clear that more than half of editors who have expressed an opinion on ''The Canary'' have considered it GU. However, there is a significant minority of editors who either consider it GR or who believe that context matters or that it can be used with caution. ] (]) 03:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :If we don't consider the RfCs at the Labour page "significant discussions" (although that's a page where we might expect those with knowledge of the Canary to be editing) then I think my numbers above would be amended to 14-16 generally unreliable, 4 generally reliable, 4 use with caution, rising to 16-18 generally unreliable vs 5 generally reliable to include those who have weighed in in the current discussion. I'm not sure about the perennial sources criteria, but I don't think there's any way to argue that more than a small minority think it is reliable. ] (]) 15:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Also, there is currently a section at ] tagged ] notifying reviewers and editors of caution in dealing with Nigeria sources. This alongside thorough analysis of Nigerian sources should drastically reduce the promotional articles and create a better future for Nigerian contents on the English Misplaced Pages.] (]) 14:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * There's no justification for a label of "generally unreliable". In order to establish unreliability, there have to be actual examples of unreliability, which nobody here has yet provided. The only thing approaching an example that's been presented is a case in which The Canary said that someone had been invited to speak at a Tory conference, and it turned out they had been invited to speak at a ''fringe event'' at a Tory conference. The Canary subsequently corrected this fairly minor error. However, reading more about The Canary, it's become clear to me that this publication has come under significant ''political'' attack because it has generally favored Corbyn and been critical of accusations of antisemitism in the Labour Party. That is no reason, however, to label a publication "generally unreliable". I also see no evidence that The Canary represents the {{tq|lunatic fringe}} of British politics. It appears to represent a position similar to Jeremy Corbyn, who was, until recently, the leader of the second largest political party in the UK. In any case, the objections to The Canary appear to be almost entirely political, and I strongly object to it being labeled "generally unreliable". -] (]) 11:20, 26 November 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) | |||
| ::Re {{tq|there have to be actual examples of unreliability, which nobody here has yet provided}}. There have been examples provided here, but at any rate here are some: as well as the misleading story about Laura Keunssberg, and conspiracy theories about Portland Communications, it published articles by Max Blumenthal (editor of Grayzone, a deprecated source) on a Nicaraguan-based journalist that were described by the ] as a “targeted online harassment campaign” after which the journalist was detained, interrogated and deported, leading to the ] protesting against The Canary's editor.; as well as Grayzone it has contributors who write for outlets like MintPress and American Herald Tribune; it published deceptive claims about Labour Party funding that promote antisemitic conspiracy theories; it publishes conspiracy theories about Syrian chemical warfare; one of its regular contributors (best known for his antisemitic tweets) was recruited to write for a fake news site set up by the Russian government; it published a Daily Mail style misleading story about story about a junior doctor's suicide; it took 3 years to update a fake story about ISIS; it published Russian government sponsored fake news about the Salisbury chemical attack; before setting upt the Canary its editor promoted the Zeitgeist conspiracy theory movement and worked with Davide Icke on his People's Voice;and I think it published Pizzagate style fake news about Seth Rich's murder and later deleted the article without correction. While comments above suggest that it is being criticied because it is anti-Corbyn, it has been criticised by several Corbyn supporters such as Corbyn biographer Richard Seymour, or ] (Note: I appreciate that not all my sources here are RSs by WP article standards, but should give enough information for un-involved editors to come to a view.) ] (]) 16:54, 26 November 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) | |||
| :::Could you actually break down exactly what was false about these stories? In your first example, "{{tq|the misleading story about Laura Keunssberg}}", we're talking about an extremely minor inaccuracy (she was invited to speak at a ''fringe event'' at a Tory conference, instead of the main conference itself), and The Canary corrected it. So when you claim that The Canary published other false claims, without further elaboration, I'm skeptical. Please explain a) exactly what The Canary claimed, b) how those claims were false and c) how The Canary failed to retract or correct those claims. The problem is that your list does not explain any of this. Did the Canary make false claims about the Nicaraguan journalist? What false claims? When you write that, {{tq|it published deceptive claims about Labour Party funding that promote antisemitic conspiracy theories}}, what deceptive claims did it make, and what antisemitic conspiracy theories did they serve? Your source for this is a Medium blog post that admits that The Canary's claim is true - it just argues that its antisemitic to point out that a pro-Israeli lobbyist gave a large donation to a politician (judge that argument how you will, but it's irrelevant at ], which is concerned with accuracy). Be specific. -] (]) 17:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Just a few points. Whether something is a conspiracy theory or just a non-mainstream point of view is often in the eye of the beholder, and irrelevant from a RSN standpoint so long as there are no obvious factual errors. From what I remember the details of the Portland Communications story were correct, whether the story could be interpreted as a 'conspiracy theory' or not is a matter of opinion. And the Sailsbury poisoning thing was before any firm facts were known about the case, and there were still reasonable grounds to question it, so it can't be described as 'fake news' because the facts weren't known. You're repeating the Steve Topple tweets controversy, but conveniently leaving out that he had publicly repudiated and apologised for his views before he became involved with The Canary. The rest of your blurb seems to consist of guilt by association type arguments, which have little bearing on The Canary and its accuracy. From what I'm aware, when they have made mistakes (which every publication has) they have always gone on to correct them and apologise. ] (]) 18:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| As I've been pinged here. Short of time, so I'll just reiterate my opinion that The Canary is generally unreliable. ] --] (]) <small>Become ]</small> 16:10, 26 November 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) | |||
| :From ]: | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| :* {{tq|IMPRESS upheld two of the 58 complaints they received during 2017/18 about The Canary's news reporting.}} | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :* {{tq|The Canary was given an overall pass rating and a pass on eight out of nine factors (it failed on 'handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly') by NewsGuard, an organisation which evaluates news outlets for trustworthiness.}} | |||
| :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) | |||
| :* {{tq|A 2018 study by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism described The Canary as "a left-wing partisan site" and an example of "alternative and partisan brands" which have "a political or ideological agenda and their user base tends to passionately share these views". Its trust rating was given as 4.69 where 10 is fully trusted, making it more trusted than the Daily Mail, Buzzfeed News and The Sun, but less than The Daily Mirror, the regional press or any broadsheet newspaper, although its trust level among its own users was at 6.65 (a similar level to The Independent, The Daily Telegraph and the regional press).}} | |||
| :], 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) | |||
| :The rest of that section is an interview with the editor-in-chief of The Canary and criticisms from people who dislike The Canary's pro-Corbyn / pro-Palestinian stances. I don't see anything in that section that would justify the label "generally unreliable". I hadn't looked into The Canary much before it came up on RSN, but the more I read about it, the more it appears that the criticisms are almost all about the political direction of The Canary, and not about actual concrete falsehoods. -] (]) 17:49, 26 November 2020 (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) | |||
| ::Indeed, I think a strong precedent here was set by the ] which some people argued shouldn't be used as source because of its political bias. However a ] as there was no evidence of general inaccuracy. Unless it can be shown that The Canary is generally inaccurate, then its political stance shouldn't be an issue about whether it is RS or not. ] (]) 18:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry, but I'm not sure what the referent of "them" is in "Im assume its an accepted problem with them." | |||
| ::::Thinking about the Morning Star precedent, I would emphasise the contrast between it and The Canary: it is deemed highly partisan like The Canary but nonetheless reliable because it has editorial oversight, including an editor who had prior editorial and journalist experience (albeit less than previous editors) and a team of sub-editors; it has reporters who have serious journalistic experience; it is a print newspaper with a long reputation and also assets to protect; it attracts serious figures on the left and trade union movement as opinion contributors making its opinion pieces noteworthy in many contexts - in all of these ways it contrasts to The Canary, which has minimal editorial oversight, an editor whose previous journalist experience was a writing a pro-Zeitgeist blog, does not really have reporters or journalists in any meaningful sense, and has a business model based on clickbait. (Incidentally, if a local consensus at the Jeremy Corbyn talk page counts as significant discussion for the purposes of defining a source as reliable, then that might contradict {{u|Burrobert}}'s reading of the perennial sources policy above?) ] (]) 12:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :::] you are again repeating your assertions that the criticism of The Canary is politically-motivated without a single shred of evidence to support that claim. You keep asserting a lack of evidence of general unreliability when it has been repeatedly presented to you. In our little tangent earlier on about SFFN/CCDH, you made a series of demonstrably false statements about its leadership, organisational structure and aims and even continued them even if when the evidence was copied to you and the links given. I don't understand how you can keep making these claims... ] (]) 10:00, 27 November 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) | |||
| ::::{{tq|You keep asserting a lack of evidence of general unreliability when it has been repeatedly presented to you.}} I've asked for specific false claims that The Canary has made and failed to correct/retract. Anyone is free to look at the above thread and verify that nobody has yet provided a clear case of that sort of behavior. | |||
| **There has been no proposal to blanket ban all Nigerian Newspapers, so you are bold opposing a strawman. ] (]) 10:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{tq|earlier on about SFFN/CCDH, you made a series of demonstrably false statements about its leadership}} What false statements? You're staking your claim that The Canary is unreliable on the say-so of ] (CCDH), without giving any reason why we should treat CCDH as credible. It looks like a small political group aimed at lobbying American tech firms (hence the use of the American spelling "Center" by a British organization) and advertisers to dump certain outlets. Why should Misplaced Pages trust CCDH's judgment? -] (]) 10:32, 27 November 2020 (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) | |||
| :::::{{tq|I've asked for specific false claims that The Canary has made and failed to correct/retract. Anyone is free to look at the above thread and verify that nobody has yet provided a clear case of that sort of behavior.}} You've had the examples from myself, from ] and others. No other potential reliable source used on Misplaced Pages has claims against them of the nature that the Canary has.<br> | |||
| *** 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) | |||
| :::::{{tq|What false statements?}} '''I'll list them''': "<i>The website for "Stop Funding Fake News" gives no information about who is actually behind it</i>" '''This was false.''' "<i>According to our own Wiki article about the campaign, it's led by Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman...</i>" '''This was false.''' In addition you made a number of assertions about the organisation without providing a shred of evidence to support your claims: "<i>Stop Funding Fake News and Center for Countering Digital Hate are engaged in political advocacy.</i>" '''Evidence please''' "<i>Stop Funding Fake News is a political organization, which took a clear stance against Corbyn.</i>" '''Evidence please''' Also you said "<i>Stop Funding Fake News actually gave concrete examples of The Canary publishing fake news.</i>" '''This was posted to you as well'''. | |||
| :::::{{tq|You're staking your claim that The Canary is unreliable on the say-so of Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), without giving any reason why we should treat CCDH as credible.}} I'm not staking my claim on what the CCDH/SFFN at all, my position towards The Canary is based on its activities which have already been stated by others. By mentioning the CCDH, I'm simply providing a prominent organisation that takes a similar attitude to the reliability of the Canary. In regards to the credibility of the CCDH, I've given information about them multiple times in discussions which you have been privy to. However for the benefit of those reading: The CCDH is supported Sadiq Khan and former Home Secretary Alan Johnson. As well as this, the CEO of the Center, Imran Ahmed sits on the steering committee of the ] (source: ). The CCDH is not some fringe organisation but a prominent organisation that has a role in advising the British government. To give a bit of information of the support the British government has for the CCDH, I quote from Steering Committee website (previously cited): "CCDH have run a number of innovative campaigns, the most recent being the #DontSpreadtheVirus campaign, endorsed by the government, which aims to counter misinformation around the coronavirus." ] (]) 11:33, 27 November 2020 (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) | |||
| :::::::{{tq|"The website for "Stop Funding Fake News" gives no information about who is actually behind it" This was false.}} If you go to their website and click on , there is nothing about who "we" are. I can't find a single name anywhere on their website of who runs the campaign. The only thing they say is, {{tq|From 4th May 2020, Stop Funding Fake News has been a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate.}} That implies that a year after they were founded, they somehow became connected to the "]". Who at the CCDH runs SSFN? Or is SSFN still run by the people who founded it (whoever they are)? | |||
| :::::::{{tq|"According to our own Wiki article about the campaign, it's led by Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman..." This was false.}} Literally the first sentence of the body of the Misplaced Pages article on ] reads, {{tq|The campaign began in March 2019, and was backed by Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman.}} Those are the only two people I've seen be associated by any publication with SSFN. Maybe there are other people involved with SSFN, but it's not immediately apparent, either from their website or the Misplaced Pages article. | |||
| :::::::{{tq|"Stop Funding Fake News and Center for Countering Digital Hate are engaged in political advocacy." Evidence please}} The only people that I've seen connected with SSFN, Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman, have campaigned against Corbyn and ]. | |||
| :::::::{{tq|The CCDH is supported Sadiq Khan and former Home Secretary Alan Johnson.}} {{tq|The CCDH is not some fringe organisation but a prominent organisation that has a role in advising the British government.}} Those facts doesn't help to convince me that the organization is anything other than political. You've just written that CCDH is supported by a Tory government and prominent figures in the anti-Corbyn wing of the Labour Party. -] (]) 22:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ===Brainstorming RfCs=== | |||
| :::::: What frustrates me is that it is incredibly easy to throw out allegations but it takes an enormous amount of effort to debunk them. I've spent the whole day going through yours and BobFromBrockley's allegations (will write about my findings later). While I haven't even gotten halfway, none of those I've investigated have had any substance. Here is some evidence that SFFN is indeed engaged in political advocacy: | |||
| 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) | |||
| :::::: '''1.''' Mendoza tweets that someone of colour serving in a far-right government is a "turncoat of colour". SFFN replies that . Did SFFN also criticize Joe Biden's "You ain't black"? '''2.''' Mendoza tweets that she is "done being lectured on racism by wealthy white centrists." SFFN replies that she denies . '''3.''' Mendoza states that it is "not anti-semitic to compare Israel to Nazi Germany". SFFN replies that SFFN is referring to the contentious ] and is in effect calling Mendoza an antisemite. '''4.''' Tweet by SFFN accusing the Canary of . '''5.''' SFFN that Mendoza's comparision of Israel with Nazi Germany is antisemitism. '''6.''' SFFN complains that . Quite hypocritical coming from an organization trying to ruin their business model! '''7.''' SFFN doesn't like that ]'s infamous relocate-Israel-to-the-U.S. Facebook post. | |||
| :::::: The above tweets have absolutely ''nothing'' to do with fake news and one would be forgiven for assuming that SFFN's campaign against the Canary is not primarily driven by a desire for stopping fake news. ] (]) 19:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: {{tq|The CCDH is supported Sadiq Khan and former Home Secretary Alan Johnson}}. They're both establishment figures though. How surprising is it that they would oppose an anti-establishment left-wing publication? ] (]) 19:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{tq|They're both establishment figures though. How surprising is it that they would oppose an anti-establishment left-wing publication?}} I wondered how long it would take before someone made the supposed 'anti-establishment' argument... Tell me, what's the difference between the 'anti-establishment' and ]? ] (]) 19:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Focusing exclusively on SFFN is a bit of a red herring given that criticisms of The Canary come from many others, including Corbyn supporters Owen Jones, Richard Seymour and David Osler, but just a comment on the above: Khan is a Muslim former human rights lawyer, Johnson a working class man who entered politics late after years of trade union activism, both member of Corbyn's party, but OK whatever, "establishment". SFFN has never criticised Corbyn, and at the majority of the websites it targets are on the far right. Among the advertisers that took action on the basis of their work are The World Transformed (a pro-Corbyn group), Oxford and Bath Universities, and the Law Society. Of course it is fine to question the basis of their designation but it is clear that they are a serious organisation. I'm not sure if their briefing on the Canary has been linked here yet: https://www.stopfundingfakenews.com/the-briefing (also follow the link from there to their Twitter content on The Canary which has a lot more detail) ] (]) 10:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Re {{u|ImTheIP}} the seven SFFN tweets you mention (which I don't think are among those which anyone arguing for "generally unreliable" has posted on this board?) are part of longer threads, and don't themselves make the case that The Canary publish fake news but give context for the claims in the threads. For example, you don't link to the tweet where they link to this left-wing feminist describing The Canary's Kuenssberg campaign as a "sexist hate campaign" or the tweet where they point out the Canary editor's closeness to David Icke. The point about the paying peanuts is that the business model creates a style of journalism that favours sensationalist clickbait over accuracy (a bit like some of the tabloids deprecated by Misplaced Pages). You didn't take on the fact that The Canary published the Trump machine's Seth Rich fantasies or the issues about the smear on Goette-Luciak. To be clear: my own position is not that The Canary regularly deliberately publishes fake news such that it should be deprecated, but simply that a large enought number of reliable sources have raised alarm bells such that we should designate it as generally unreliable. ] (]) 10:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: {{ping|Bobfrombrockley}} I linked to the tweets to demonstrate that SFFN engages in political advocacy. Alleging that The Canary's editor-in-chief, Kerry-Anne Mendoza, is an antisemite for comparing Israel with Nazi Germany is, given the brohauha about pro-Corbynite antisemitism, to engage in political advocacy. SFFN's tweet about The Canary paying peanuts is innuendo irrelevant to its reliability. It's not like Mendoza invented clickbait journalism and there is no basis for the claim that its compensation model affects its journalistic qualities. ''All'' journalists are living with tight deadlines, X-hundred words thresholds, and are measured by the advertising revenue (i.e clicks) they generate. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::::::::: As I wrote in my previous comment, it takes an enormous amount of time to research and respond to each and every allegations and my gut feeling is that most just scroll past it anyway so that's why I didn't bother. | |||
| ::What to include or not include on the RSP (outside of the results of discussions at RSN) are probably best discussed at the RSP talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::It was ]ly added without discussion, though, so I've removed it for now as a first step. --] (]) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would suggest that editing the section be done this way. RSP is no different from any other page, edit, discuss on talk page, then third opinion or noticeboard. Exact wording in the section doesn't immediately necessitate an RFC unless there is unresolvable differences of opinion. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I would suggest against one RFC to cover all the sources, unless there is a very specific question about the sources (more specific than 'are they reliable?'), as it will likely result in a train wreck. | |||
| :If the issue is just to add 'and verifiability', or removing the project link, I would suggest ]. Consensus is first built through editing, and the RSP is no different in that matter. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Whatever way the discussion goes it, I suggest an RFC should be in a completely new section. RSN gets overloaded, and this section is already very large. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Absolutely. ] (]) 08:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I have been reading old RfCs about unreliable medias to reference. Many of these discussions start with a blanket question. For example: "Is ] | |||
| :# Generally reliable | |||
| :# Additional considerations apply | |||
| :# Generally unreliable | |||
| :# Deprecated" | |||
| :From there, editors can make their own arguments so if there should be a cut-off date for reliability. I think we can start with the more egregious media with examples and those who do not view them as unreliable should make the argument for why and when they should be considered reliable. ]] 19:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::If the TechCabal article is correct, then Nigerian newspapers were better before the internet. This might not apply to ], which began publication in 2001. One of the earliest accounts of "brown envelopes" dates to the ] (1979 to 1983): . On a search of Google Books, I found no references to "brown envelopes" in Nigeria in any book published before 1983. I found no more than 8 such references in books published before 1990, and 5 of those were from 1989: . In the absence of further evidence, I think we could take 1979 as a complete cut off point. Even after that, the evidence is not unequivocal. The study from 1984 says that ] journalists may not be as corrupt as journalists are depicted: . And the claims of bribery during the Republic seem to relate more to government journalists, than to independent newspapers. The sources also suggest that ] was more reliable. ] (]) 19:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] / ] == | |||
| ::::::::: The Canary published two articles by ] about Carl David Goette-Luciak in 2018. The first one on and the second one on . The backstory is that since April 2018 there had been violent clashes between supporters of President ] and supporters of the opposition party, the ] (MRS). Blumenthal alleges that Goette-Luciak was a "novice reporter" who published {{tq|pieces littered with falsehoods that reinforce the opposition’s narrative promoting regime}}. That's a smear if it isn't true. However, Blumenthal presents much evidence demonstrating that Goette-Luciak indeed promoted MRS's narrative. | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::::::::: For example, Goette-Luciak cited an MRS leader saying: {{tq|With 200 political prisoners and murders every day}}. But according to Blumenthal, most murder victims were Ortega supporters. He reported on violence committed by Ortega's police forces but not on violence committed by MRS supporters. Blumenthal writes: {{tq|In a separate incident this June, Goette-Luciak appeared momentarily in a highly disturbing video filmed by 100% Noticias. He could be seen taking photos of a mob of opposition thugs in the act of kidnapping and beating an ageing Sandinista member they had found squatting on a local oligarch’s abandoned property. Oddly, Goette-Luciak published no photos of the incident and did not report on it.}} Blumenthal also links to photos showing Goette-Luciak speaking to MRS leaders. | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::::::::: Days after Blumenthal published his article, Goette-Luciak was deported. A reporter at BuzzFeed News claimed that Blumenthal's article the Nicaraguan government to deport Goette-Luciak. A laughable and unsubstantiated claim. In the follow-up article, The Canary included a letter written by Goette-Luciak's former colleague in Nicaragua stating that their work was not very objective: {{tq|I must be extremely clear: in the six months we lived and worked together in Nicaragua we were both very open about our plan to use our friendships with Nicaraguan opposition figures to push for the end of the Sandinista government and create careers for ourselves as journalists or consultants in the process.}} | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::::::::: It should be emphasized that this not a left vs. right kind of thing; both Blumenthal and Goette-Luciak are left-wing voices. Goette-Luciak has, as far as I can tell, not responded to Blumenthal's allegations. ] (]) 07:47, 1 December 2020 (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. ] (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) | |||
| '''Comment''' I just want to make it clear that although I said "use with caution", by that I did not mean that I thought Canary to be unreliable, merely that they might overegg the pudding on occasion, nothing more. For what it is worth, my impression is that the majority of attacks on Canary are politically motivated.] (]) 22:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I have notified editors at ], ], ], ], and ]. I think that should cover all the articles impacted so far by this discussion. - ] (]) 09:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Generally unreliable'''. As Iridescent points out, this website houses the lunatic fringe of British politics. It has a downright awful reputation. ] (]) 06:55, 28 November 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> | |||
| :: Misplaced Pages is ]. This is about factual reliability, not politics. Whether anyone considers the left wing of the Labour Party to be the "lunatic fringe" is irrelevant here, and no basis for a determination of "generally unreliable". -] (]) 09:38, 28 November 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 went through all the Canary articles that have been mentioned by editors in the discussion. I found three articles where an identified error had been made by The Canary. They were the Laura K and fracking stories that went to IMPRESS and the story that was described as "it took 3 years to update a fake story about ISIS". The Canary acknowledged the error in the first 2 cases and took appropriate action. It appears that The Canary itself identified the third error and made the correction which related to The Canary's description of a pilgrimage as a march. The other stories involve innuendo, opinion, guilt by association and other diversions that don't impact on reliability. The story titled "The Canary Deleted A False Viral Story About The Sun's Coverage Of The Manchester Attack" was discussed by Press Gazette which stated: "The Canary story remains live on its website with an update at the foot of the article that reads: "The Sun contacted The Canary to request that we update the piece to reflect that The Sun went to print prior to the concert bombing. The paper issued an updated front page subsequently. We’re happy to do so" ". ] (]) 11:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :*'']'', including and | |||
| :''Forbes'' describes him as, "Jeff Sneider, an industry insider and reporter", and covers his reporting, even providing a link to another site he contributes to, ''Above the Line''. | |||
| :https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-canary-uk/ I'm not saying that we should necessarily accept this as some kind of gold standard but nor do I think we should ignore it. Their list of questionable sources seems not so bad either.] (]) 14:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: Yes that is an interesting assessment. We seem to have ruled MBFC as an unreliable source mainly on the basis that it is self-published. Anyway, we can toss its opinion into the pot and stir to see what comes out. Is it too early in the discussion to ask an uninvolved editor to look at what has been said and decide what effect it should have on our rating of The Canary? ] (]) 15:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::That and ], so that's two independent fact check sites that have said it's reliable. ] (]) 19:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Reliable''' - per MB/FC and Newsguard. Also per IMPRESS regulation. And per everything else in the lengthy 'why you can trust us' section. ] (]) 11:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: I will further note that Stop Funding Fake News is a liberal/centrist organisation that seems to be focused on driving independent internet news sites that are outside of the traditional political spectrum out of business. I think that literally any other critic of The Canary is a better source to make a judgement on. Ideally we'd look at specific articles/instances as some have posted above. ] (]) 12:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Generally reliable''' per my previous comments. Objections seem to stem from from opposition to The Canaries political stance and innuendo, rather than any clear demonstration of unreliability. The fact that The Canary has voluntarily signed up to be regulated shows that they take accuracy seriously, as any breaches could have a serious financial cost which could be crippling to a small publication. And as noted, where there have been inaccurate stories, they have generally been corrected quite swiftly. As stated earlier. I think a precedent was set ] which is a publication of similar political leanings. ] (]) 16:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :* '']'' covers his reporting | |||
| :::True or false? :) https://www.thecanary.co/exclusive/2020/12/01/exclusive-labour-right-linked-to-campaign-to-shut-down-the-canary/ ] (]) 16:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::: There's also from ]. So it appears that CCDH and SFFN are run by people linked to the anti-Corbyn faction of the Labour Party. Who would have guessed! ] (]) 17:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|G-13114}}, at this point {{tq|the anti-Corbyn faction of the Labour Party}} consists of basically everyone in the Labour Party minus whoever lost their job with the change in leadership and Corbyn himself. ] (]) 20:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually this is a good example of why The Canary is not a generally reliable source. Article is billed as an "Exclusive" and opens with "The Canary can now reveal that" but the information they are "exclusively" "revealing" is the SFFN's own publicly available Companies House listing, plus a listing of the "associations" Imran Ahmed, plus a mention of the fact that Rachel Reeves is connected to it (a fact already in our Misplaced Pages article as it's "revealed" in previous, reliable reports), a nudge-nudge-wink-wink dressing up of the fact they know nothing about SFFN's funding to make it seem suspicious (now why on earth would donors to a campaign against fake news suppliers such as Westmonster and Tommy Robinson not want their names to be in public?). The "associations" they "reveal" are essentially that some of the people involved are also connected to Labour Party organisations, which is not really shocking. They note the fact that "CCDH also shares its address with “Blue Labour” campaign group Labour Together", not mentioning that 116 businesses on Companies House share this address. (And in fact Labour Together is not a "'Blue Labour' campaign group"; it involves some people who are in Blue Labour, but others (e.g. David Lammy) who aren't.) In short, the mix of innuendo, guilt by association and sensationalism in this article show why most people consider it generally unreliable. ] (]) 13:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{re|BobFromBrockley}} Hang on a second: you've just listed a set of ''true statements'' made in The Canary. Whether or not you like the tone of the article ("The Canary can now reveal that") or think that the facts are unsurprising ({{tq|some of the people invovled are also connected to Labour Party organisations, which is not really shocking}}) has nothing to do with whether or not The Canary is reliable. If anything, what you've illustrated above is that The Canary's articles are generally factually sound, and that The Canary has a generally left-Labour point of view. ] policy doesn't prohibit the use of left-Labour sources (just as it doesn't prohibit the use of right-Labour sources). It's concerned with accuracy, which appears to be fulfilled here. On political issues, we should, of course, keep in mind the political leanings of the sources and present a range of views. But ''generally unreliable'' means that a source publishes false or fabricated information, not that it tends to lean left or right. -] (]) 10:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{re|Thucydides411}} No, I think what I've shown is that even where it's content isn't actually untrue, it is misleading and sensationalist and inappropriate for an encyclopedia (although even here there was one factual error, about Labour Together). It is not quite right that ''generally unreliable'' means that a source publishes (only) false or fabricated information: we define GU as "{{tq|Editors show consensus that the source is 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, or present user-generated content.}}" I'm not arguing for deprecation, but simply that the clickbait model, lack of editorial oversight, Daily Mail style sensationalism, conspiracy theories, poor grasp of facts and frequent inacccuracies leaves it insufficently reliable for non-exceptional use. ] (]) 15:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :* '']'' covers his reporting | |||
| * '''Generally unreliable'''. I would go into details but Dweller and others have covered the reasons. --] (]) 19:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Generally reliable''' per Thucydides and G-13114. --] (]) 21:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * I would also ask certain editors (you know who you are) to read ]. I'm just saying. --] (]) 22:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Generally unreliable'''. Known for being '''hyper-partisan''' and pushing '''conspiracy theories'''. An alt-left website closely associated with the Corbyn campaign (an "outrider" according to Corbyn, to the point that a '''Corbyn aide''' said that they were '''providing scripts''' for it. Compared to ''']''' in terms of promoting conspiracy theories. ] (]) 07:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is InfoWars independently regulated and given a rating as reliable by two independent media fact checking sites? No thought not. A ridiculous comparison. ] (]) 16:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Generally reliable''' - we like "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" here at wikipedia and having gone through this discussion and checked the Canary's , I'm satisfied it's a reliable left-wing source ] (]) 17:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Generally unreliable'''. While it's obviously okay for its own views (if this is ever ]), this is a rather silly partisan source and miles away from the kind of respectable mature ones Misplaced Pages wants to be using. ] (]) 17:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Partisanship does not necessarily mean unreliability. A classification of "generally unreliable" requires an established pattern of publishing false information, which is not the case here. -] (]) 00:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| : and here's him reporting that ] was chosen to play ] in ] of '']'', which ended up being '''spot-on correct''', via '']'': | |||
| == Red flag traffic laws == | |||
| :* per a ] publication, '']''{{'}}s own '']'', covers one of his reports | |||
| In 2019, on the article ], I tagged the section "Red flag laws in the United States" as a hoax because it made claims which seem quite doubtful in my opinion. The tag was later removed by another editor who claimed that the citations (citing books) did indeed verify the contents of the section. I am not sure if this is the case, so I would like to request here that a neutral party verify the claims, if possible. The citations are and . Please be warned that these are Google links. | |||
| :* '']'', (] 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> | |||
| The claim has existed since the article's creation: | |||
| : 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. | |||
| Thank you. | |||
| :* '']'' - 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!''' | |||
| ] (]) 07:22, 29 November 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) | |||
| :The sources in question may be reliable for some purposes, but ] and I see no evidence that they were written or edited by anyone familiar with verifying statutory law. For the second source you mention, Munger, which makes the more extended and more controversial claims, it appears that Munger’s own source, Karolevitz, does not support the claims made, at least from what I can tell from the Google snippet view, . The first source, Vesilind & DiStefano, does describe a real statute, but it has accuracy issues and misses the important point that the law in question applied only to steam-propelled vehicles, see . So I would not accept either of these sources. ] (]) 02:55, 30 November 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) | |||
| ::Hello John, thanks for your response. Just to make sure we're on the same page, this means that it would probably be best if the section were removed? ] (]) 03:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are situations where DUEWEIGHT allows a mention even if there is no wider coverage, which is the case here where useful context is being provided. Regardless, I still think the vague wording at BLPSPS is being used to inappropriately prevent additions that should not be covered by it. A subject-matter expert on the entertainment industry is providing noteworthy context on the development process for high-profile film and television articles, we are not talking about unreliable sources making exceptional or contentious claims about individuals and their personal lives. - ] (]) 22:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The ] policy, {{xt|"'''Never''' use self-published sources as ] about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer"}}, is as explicit as can be. That longstanding requirement has been part of the ] since ], and part of the ] when it ]. (It was added to the latter page as a guideline requirement ].) If you would like to contest these policies, you are free to do so on their respective talk pages. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 23:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was going to mention the wording in ], as it's more explicit, but Newslinger beat me to it. I've found this annoying in the past, where the project of a living person is detailed in a otherwise reliable third party self-published source. However that exact situation is meant to be covered (and excluded) by it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I and others have said, the policies against self-published sources used for anything about living people is a bright line rule. And as for ] and ignoring the self-published/BLP issue, if the only source that mentions an aspect of an article subject is a self-published newsletter, then it would more likely to be undue to include based on the proportion of RS coverage. Misplaced Pages is not the great place to ] about what reliable sources should be covering. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 06:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am not denying what BLPSPS says or how long it has said it, I am taking issue with the way it is being applied. I do not agree that we are violating BLPSPS by sourcing film production and development information to a self-published SME. I also do not agree that it is UNDUE to include information that only a single self-published SME has provided, particularly when it aligns with other details from other reliable sources. I'm not advocating for building an entire article based on such a source or for prioritising it over contradictory reliable sources. - ] (]) 11:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::When I went through and removed most of the mainspace uses of InSneider, the overwhelming majority were reports of people being cast, people being considered for a acting/directing role, when an already cast role was going to make a secret appearance in a film, or creative decisions that can only be made by a very small number of people at a studio (i.e. director, producer, executives) that the guidance at ] leans towards applying the policy. | |||
| :::::If something aligns with what other reliable sources have said, then it would be best to use what those sources have said instead of a SPS. But in any case, UNDUE is not an avenue to bring in content that doesn't meet our verifiability/sourcing policies. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Again, we are not writing a biography about James Gunn or Peter Safran and using Sneider to source claims about their person. Sneider is used to write about the particulars of film production. | |||
| ::::::One side of this discussion is looking at the forest, while the other side is focused on the trees. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::BLPGROUP doesn't seem to be relevant to this discussion, it is talking about "corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons" and specifically refers to harmful claims, neither of which apply here. - ] (]) 11:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The subsection is about when BLP applies to "legal persons" AND "groups". It does not displace ] and in no way limits the applicability of BLP to groups to instances of potentially harmful material. | |||
| :::::::The first part of the paragraph is a clarification about how ] existing as a term of art in law doesn't mean that they are always covered by BLP, which is meant to protect natural persons. The second half of the paragraph applies to all groups and tells us to look at each group on a case by case basis to see where it fits on the spectrum between groups that are small enough that BLP should apply and ones where they are too large. The part about harm is simply noting it is part of the analysis. For creative decisions on films, the people actually making that decision would be very small, so it should attract BLP protections, which means BLPSPS applies. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 03:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The fact that people make creative decisions on films does not mean we cannot use self-published sources to support those creative decisions, that is such a ridiculous stretch of what the policies say and mean. - ] (]) 09:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Besides the stories involving named people where BLP would obviously apply, the level of creative decisions that InSneider reports on and that Misplaced Pages uses him for are those that would clearly be attributable to a very small number of people (5-10 max). They're typically stuff such as what projects a studio is considering, what characters will be cast, and what the plot of film will be about. | |||
| :::::::::We're not using InSneider for lower-level stuff like what belt buckle was used on a particular costume, what brand of communication devices the PAs use, or what shade of a color was used in a particular CGI shot. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 15:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'm going to leave this discussion with two absolutes. #1: Sneider is a dude who knows the industry of which he speaks about, and so long as we consider in-text attribution and consideration of ], we are fine. #2: ]. if BLPSPS or otherwise are keeping us from something helpful and insightful to the subjects of articles, it's within our power to ignore it. These policies don't exist to keep us from expanding the encyclopedia with expertise, especially from sources who don't have to worry about holding back information from seeing publication because of ulterior motives. That is where self-published sources are at an advantage ahead of traditional media. If you wish to hear tales of another subject-matter expert journalist putting a major media organisation on blast for withholding information for ulterior motives, see ] on this very page. '']'' censored CEO killer ]'s face for shady purposes. Not saying all legacy media is compromised, but I'm saying I enjoy seeing self-published journalists actually giving uncompromised coverage of their subjects that is made possible by self-published status. Just like Sneider. If ''general association'', not even ''direct'', with living people makes these sources unusable despite clear merits, then ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::The one policy that ] does not bypass is ]. From this discussion, there is no consensus on ignoring the ] and the ] policies to use Sneider's self-published claims about living persons. That type of content would be permissible on a wiki hosting site like ] {{ndash}} which typically uses minimal reliability requirements for the sake of completionism, but Misplaced Pages's sourcing standards are higher than that of most Fandom wikis. Per ], {{xt|"Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful"}}, particularly if it does not meet Misplaced Pages's reliability requirements. — ''''']''' <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) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ::<s>Addendum: Or at least to remove everything except "In the United States, the state of Vermont passed a similar Red Flag Law in 1894, only to repeal it two years later."? ] (]) 03:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)</s> ''I have struck this addendum because upon re-reading your comment I only just noticed you say not to accept either source.'' ] (]) 06:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Hatnote|Once Telegram gets mentioned on ], its shortcuts would be ] and ].}} | |||
| :::I would revise the Vermont law discussion to use the authoritative language of the statute itself, linked above. You could still use Vesilind & DiStefano for the noncontroversial claim that the statute was repealed two years later. Since you don't have a reliable source for the Pennsylvania proposed legislation, I think that discussion needs to go. ] (]) 15:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Telegram is unreliable because: | |||
| *Telegram is an ] platform, which means that it is highly unreliable as a source because it is used by the alt-right to evade censorship and publish far-right opinions and pseudoscientific conspiracy theories. | |||
| *Telegram is a ] because it is a social networking service. | |||
| *Most far-right things (such as ], ], and ]) have escaped to Telegram after getting suspended on several mainstream social networking services. | |||
| *Telegram has been described as a "safe haven for spammers and crypto scams" because of how most Telegram groups are flooded with cryptocurrency scammers and other types of spammers. However, t.me links are barely seen on Misplaced Pages (or i just don't see them often). | |||
| *]. | |||
| Telegram would either be ] (like all other self-published sources) or ] (because it is alt-tech). However, if t.me links are commonly used to violate ], it would be ]. | |||
| ] (]) 16:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry for being stupid, but I don't understand what you mean by "use the authoritative language of the statute itself". Also, due to the fact that I wish to avoid the large-scale surveillance of many computer technology sector-related companies, I'm unable to view the link that you provided. Can you advise on what I should be writing in the article? Thank you, and sorry for the inconvenience. ] (]) 04:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I wasn't aware there was anyone suggesting that it might be reliable. ] (] • ]) 10:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::], I mean that you can just summarize what the statute said. It was pretty short. For a non-Google link, . ] (]) 05:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Telegram doesn't need to be on the RSP, it's obviously unreliable and I don't see anyone arguing that it is reliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed, it's just a user-generated source (]). Reliable for ] claims and posts by respectable experts/journalists/reliable sources, unreliable generally. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 16:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Aside from the fact that the ] i.e. '''''literal''' neo-Nazis'' use it (which is ]), Telegram, as a platform where ] with no clear editorial oversight, is a ] and unreliable, except in cases such as ]. I thought this was pretty obvious. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 00:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson == | |||
| ::::::], I feel uncomfortable visiting the link you have provided because I unfortunately suffer from paranoia regarding visiting websites I've never visited before. I know it's silly, but I can't seem to get over this fear. Perhaps you could contact me on IRC, or some other non-Wikimedia channel, and provide a copy of the text in the link(s) so I can attempt to write a summary? I apologise for the inconvenience. ] (]) 13:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ] is cited in the''' Media outlets''' section of ]. He's an independent journalist who self-publishes and doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist. Reliable or not? I say no. Some other editors from that article might come here with more context. ] (]) 02:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::], I will just give you the information here, so you won't need to worry about accepting an email from me (I don't use IRC). The text of the statute was as follows: | |||
| :. Mr. Klippenstein is being used to cite: | |||
| :::::::"The owner or person in charge of a carriage, vehicle or engine propelled by steam, except road rollers, shall not cause or permit the same to pass over, through, or upon any public street or highway, except upon railroad tracks, unless he sends, at least one-eighth of a mile in advance of the same, a person of mature age to notify and warn all persons traveling upon or using the street or highway with horses or other domestic animals; and at night such person shall, except in an incorporated village or city, carry a red light. A person violating the provisions of this act shall be fined not more than ten dollars for each offense." | |||
| :# {{tqq|Klippenstein also alleged that '']'' directed their staff to "dial back" on showing photographs containing Mangione's face.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Klippenstein |first1=Ken |date=December 11, 2024 |title=NY Times Doesn't Want You to See Shooter's Face |url=https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/ny-times-doesnt-want-you-to-see-mangiones |access-date=December 15, 2024 |website=kenklippenstein.com |language=en}}</ref>}} | |||
| :# {{tqq|A report on the killing by the ] was obtained by independent journalist Dan Boguslaw, and published by Klippenstein on December 26. The report focused on Mangione's motive and people who express sympathy for him, whom they labeled as "extremists". Klippenstein alleged that multiple media outlets had access to the report, but selectively quoted it in a way that focused on Mangione. He said that "By withholding documents and unilaterally deciding which portions merit public disclosure, the media is playing god."<ref>{{cite web |title=Read the NYPD’s Mangione report the media won't publish |url=https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/post-luigi-the-extremist-threat-is |publisher=Ken Klippenstein |access-date=28 December 2024}}</ref>}} {{reflist}} | |||
| :] (]) 03:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It's crap. "Media reactions" or "in the media" sections in Misplaced Pages articles too often, like this article, become dumpsters where Wikipedians simply like to show off how good they are at finding random sources and shoehorning them into an article, for reasons. ] (]) 04:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. ] (]) 04:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Right, but the focus here is on the reliability of Ken Klippenstein and whether or not his statements (sourced to his own website and attributed) are usable in the article. ] (]) 12:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tq|doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist}} That's not accurate, as you could have confirmed by checking out the references in the Klippenstein WP article that note that he's been a journalist for outlets like The Nation and The Intercept. Both of those are generally reliable on the RSP. He's also seen as serious by other journalists (e.g., in Columbia Journalism Review interview, which describes him "as one of the most fearless reporters of the Trump era"). | |||
| :His self-published work cannot be used as a source for WP content about living or recently dead people (e.g., about Mangione's letter), per ]. He could be used as a source on a BLP if the WP text sourced to him is not itself about a person (e.g., if it's about mainstream media). But in this case, I don't see how to disentangle his statements about the press from content about Mangione. Some other news outlets have reported a bit about the content currently sourced to Klippenstein, such as this , noting Klippenstein's apparent publication of Mangione's letter. ] (]) 15:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was just going to say something similar - it's definitely inaccurate to say he hasn't written for other reliable sources in the past. It's true that his own stuff would fall foul of ], but his stuff picked up by other reliable sources is usable, conceptually, with proper context and attribution. ] ] ] ] 15:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Hell no, get rid of this Kenny guy now. ]: this content directly involves a living person (Luigi), and to make self-published claims about info regarding these living persons is against policy. And, Kenny boy over here is using his blog to write ] things about an American newspaper of record. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{U|BarntToust}} - Dial it back a bit. ] applies to all BLP is all Misplaced Pages spaces. You calling him weird names like "Kenny Boy" probably doesn't constitute "written with the greatest care and attention". ] ] 16:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::If this was like '']'' or '']'' writing this about ''NYT'' then yes I would support inclusion. This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here. "Ken" should be more concerned that he is writing damning blog posts accusing a reputable newspaper of compromised journalistic integrity. Who else will pick this up? Who else will corroborate this bold as all hell claim with trusted journalistic process? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here" is false, as is "he is writing damning blog posts." More than one person here has noted that he's a reliable journalist. Unbandito explained why he chose to start his own journalism Substack (not a blog). There are a number of established writers using Substack to host their reporting; here's ]. It's bizarre that you put his name in quotation marks, especially after calling him "this Kenny guy" and "Kenny boy." Nothing is stopping you from answering your own questions. I already noted a couple of sources that had picked it up; here's . ] (]) 18:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I personally believe that bold claims against these news organisations need other comparable news organisations to corroborate them, to establish ]. the spreading of claims by sources who are especially biased and opinionated means nothing. "Ken" can make a bombshell accusation against NYT for spineless reporting but can we get ''The Guardian'' or some other prestigious institutions to back these claims? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::A reminder that WP:RS states "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject," so I don't agree that his reporting "means nothing." This thread started off with the false claim that he "doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist" and the question "Reliable or not?" The false claim has been addressed. The question shows that people have different opinions. Whether some mention of Klippenstein is DUE is not a matter of reliability and belongs on the Talk page. ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Having been employed by two ultra-partisan outlets for some short period, and then by "The Young Turks" which is marginally better than InfoWars, does not indicate this individual's self-published works meet the encyclopedia's reliability standards. And it has not been shown that I made a false claim, only if you think these ultra-partisan sources are "mainstream". Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent, which is laughable. ] (]) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::He was employed by The Young Turks ''before'' he worked for The Nation and The Intercept, not ''after'', and those aren't the only other media for which he's written. Partisanship doesn't determine whether a given media outlet is/isn't mainstream media. They're both listed on Harvard's . {{tq|Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent}} Please quote whomever you're referring to, because I don't see any comment suggesting that. I'd be happy to be corrected, but otherwise, it's counterproductive to characterize people's comments as more extreme than they actually are. Again: people clearly have different opinions about whether he's "Reliable or not?" You have your opinion, and I have mine. Personally, I consider the ] interview as evidence of his reliability; if they happen to focus on someone who's unreliable, I think they say so, as . ] (]) 22:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Funny, Misplaced Pages lists The Federalist as "generally unreliable due to its partisan nature" yet they're listed as mainstream on Harvard's index. Seems like some kinds of partisanship are more acceptable than others. ] (]) 23:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I didn't claim or imply that all MSM on Harvard's list are ''reliable''. Reliability, partisanship, and mainstream media status are all distinct dimensions. A source can fall into any one of their 8 combinations. The full RSP sentence is "The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature''' and its promotion of conspiracy theories'''." Maybe you think a source that promotes conspiracy theories is reliable, but I don't. ] (]) 23:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don't think a source promoting conspiracies is reliable, and I'm not disputing the decision against The Federalist. I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here. Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview, and I disagree. Even the content in question isn't just a professional critique of editorial decisions, but it's couched in nefarious undertones, even going so far as to accuse MSM of "playing god." ] (]) 00:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::{{tq|I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here.}} That's a very general claim for which you've provided no evidence and that also seems way beyond the scope of this particular thread. {{tq|Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview...}} Another very general claim, though this one at least touches on the thread's topic. Focusing just on Klippenstein, if you have evidence that he "''frequently'' write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a ] worldview" and not reliable, you should present it. If you do have that evidence, then you really should have presented it when you first asked "Reliable or not?" ] (]) 00:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I would just refer you over to the article's talk page where discussion of this issue has continued, and a resolution has been reached. As to Klipp's conspiratorial worldview, see his latest media rant which I also submitted in talk.. ] (]) 18:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I don't see how anything on the talk page provides evidence for your claim that he "'''frequently''' write of large corporations as dark plotters," and either you have evidence of that or you don't. So far, it looks like you don't. The only thing I see in your link relative to a "conspiratorial worldview" is his claim that "every self-appointed moral arbiter from politicians to major media outlets conspired to forbid the public from engaging in debate about how inhumane our healthcare system is," which hardly rises to the level of "frequently." ] (]) 19:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::is that a conspiracy or is that just actually saying a ]? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::It's a BLP violation to keep calling him a conspiracy theorist is what it is. One that Jonathan f1 seems quite committed to. ] (]) 19:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::Like I explained to you on the talk page, I'm using his own words. He's alleging that politicians and major media outlets "conspired" against the public. ] (]) 19:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::Him using a turn of phrase one time doesn't give us cause to start throwing insults at him on Misplaced Pages talk pages. Please provide a couple of reliable sources calling Klippenstein a conspiracy theorist or desist immediately. ] (]) 20:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::], do we need reliable sources? I don't think we should explicitly be throwing around the ]-word, but rather ]. Keeps BLP vio away. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::I'm not putting him in the same bucket with Alex Jones, but his repeated attacks on major media followed by a remark about them "conspiring" with each other is what it is. But okay, to move past all this pointless tone policing, I'll find a new phrase. ] (]) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::I'm not going to rehash his entire career as a journalist here, and particularly his time with The Young Turks which will certainly provide you with ample evidence of this. It isn't even relevant here -the articles in question are attack pieces where he is either implicating major media outlets in a plot or calling their journalistic ethics into question. That we are even debating inclusion with no corroboration from high-grade sources is remarkable. ] (]) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Again, I said {{tq|if you have evidence that he "'''frequently''' write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a conspiratorial worldview" and not reliable, you should present it.}} You're the one who made the claim, and you're the one with the burden of proof for it. Don't try to shift the burden onto me. I'm not "debating inclusion" of any specific edit right now. I'm telling you that if you can't or won't substantiate your claim, then you should retract it, as it's an unsubstantiated contentious claim and a BLP violation. The BLP policy applies to any statements about living persons on all WP pages, including this one. ] (]) 20:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::I'll retract it just to move on from this. My objection to Klippenstein in this particular case does not hinge on this little side issue. ] (]) 23:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why did you put his real name in quotes like that? ] ] 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As an indicator that I generally distrust Substack reporters and their methods. I can't believe that anything will pass as qualified journalism nowadays 😐 <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :In this case, I'd say keep it. Klippenstein obtained and published the manifesto, which mainstream sources begrudgingly admitted was the same one they refused to publish. It appears that the citations in this article are of secondary coverage of his work, which makes them even more admissible. Klip is not just some guy, he has journalistic credentials and a past of reliable reporting for multiple reliable orgs. He's one of a number of journalists who was laid off from major outlets in the last year or so as part of a broader trend of restructuring in media that is ongoing. He and others like Ryan Grim and Jeremy Scahill have moved on to independent work, but despite the loss of their association with an established organization, their reporting remains influential and they've made a number of valuable contributions to our knowledge of and discourse on current events. I worry that Misplaced Pages policy, which assumes that mainstream media has a static financial and ethical position in perpetuity, is not adequately nuanced to accommodate major shake-ups in the press such as what we're seeing today. I think it's also worth noting that while Ken publishes on substack, at least in some other articles he's written (such as his publication of a US intelligence report on Israeli preparations to strike Iran) he employs an editor to review his work. This is the same sort of self-publishing that mainstream RS do, and another argument in favor of his reliability. ] (]) 16:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::"multiple reliable orgs." | |||
| ::Really, like what? The Young Turks? I'm aware that Nation and Intercept are considered generally reliable, but there's also consensus that they're opinionated, biased and partisan, and should be used with caution. Klipp doesn't work for any of these publications anymore; he self-publishes on substack and has made a career for himself publishing MSM polemic. That's what this section includes currently -Klipp's self-published polemic directed at NY Times, CNN etc. Even if this appeared in The Nation, there'd be weight issues. ] (]) 17:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, The Nation and The Intercept. All media has bias, and any media-literate person should understand this. I think weight arguments are a lot stronger regarding content that is more than a few sentences or a short paragraph long. I don't think the due weight for this content is zero, and therefore I think the material is appropriate. If there is a significant view in opposition to Klippenstein, I think the page would be better improved by expanding it. ] (]) 17:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Of course all media, and all humans, are biased, but when a consensus on here comes with that caveat, you know you're not dealing with a gold standard RS. And this is only relevant here if you think his past employment with these outlets, however brief, in some way lends credibility to his self-published substacks. ] (]) 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think what his past employment in media shows is that he has the training and follows the same standards of verifiability as prestige media organizations. I think it's worth noting that when a fake version of the manifesto was making the rounds, Klippenstein declined to publish it and called it out as misleading because he couldn't verify its authenticity. Regardless of where he's publishing them, I think his publication of several leaked documents ahead of the mainstream press as well as his history as a FOIA journalist shows that he is well connected to valuable sources of information and is engaged in "real" investigative journalism of the sort that prestige outlets are increasingly unwilling to pay for when opinion pieces get them just as many clicks. | |||
| :::::His perspective on the unwillingness of the media to publish a document which they had verified is true is granted some additional relevance by the fact that he is the one who published the document and inquired to these organizations as to why they hadn't, as well as by the fact that journalists from those legacy organizations leaked internal communications to him which showed the decision those organizations had made. | |||
| :::::I think that this is frankly a strong example of the way that Misplaced Pages's current RS policies are inadequate to handle the reality that with the traditional media in financial and organizational crisis, sometimes breaking news is going to be published by small independent outlets or individuals. Any conception of reliability that uniformly dismisses sources like Klippenstein as if they're some random blog post by John Q. Public while reifying legacy media despite the history of its errors and shortcomings and the media studies scholarship that problematizes a simplistic conception of source reliability, is sure to exclude some valuable material and include a lot of junk. Without getting too far off topic, I think the solution to this is to emphasize verifiability and source consensus over things like editorial process and organizational prestige, and to attribute wherever there is controversy or disagreement. ] (]) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Anyone using phrases like "MSM polemic" ought to be stepping well away from deciding the reliability of ''any'' sources, to be honest. ] 19:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::NY Times and CNN are mainstream media, a polemic is "a piece of writing expressing a strongly critical view of someone or something." Thus, Klippenstein's hit pieces on MSM are polemics. I don't see why me knowing what these words mean implies I need to "step well away" from assessing reliability. ] (]) 19:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::if someone else reports on it, its not sps, its secondary coverage of SPS, which should be admissible in BLP, right? I think we can't directly use any details in his blog that aren't vetted and cited by another non-SPS news source ] (]) 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, secondary sources can be used for a BLP, if they are RSs. For example, this article confirms that Klippenstein published Mangione full "manifesto." And this article could be used re: his criticism of other media for not releasing the whole thing, though RSP says "There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement." Perhaps there are other reliable non-SPSs that are better sources for the content about Klippenstein's criticism of other media; I'm not going to take time right now to search further. There may still be questions about due weight, whether a claim needs to be attributed, etc., but those are distinct from the question of reliability and what can be used for BLP material. ] (]) 17:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::See, this is the thing, we've got LA Times, a high quality RS for news, so there's no reason to cite Klippenstein. But that covers the manifesto issue, which I wouldn't object to including. But the hit piece on those MSMs? Yeah, that's not found in LA Times or any other source on that level, only a "marginally reliable" source. I do not think Klipp is any position to critique editorial decisions at these publications, and do not see how that's due weight anyway. ] (]) 18:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I had to read the section again (didn't remember it from memory) so let me rephrase this: | |||
| :::::* I don't object to the bit about media not publishing the manifesto, and this could be sourced to the LA Times (the secondary source referencing Klippenstein). | |||
| :::::* The next line about the NY Times not showing the suspect's face -no RS is talking about this and I personally find it irrelevant. | |||
| :::::*The last part about media outlets selectively quoting from the NYPD report -this exceeds weight limits and makes the section read like a hit piece against MSM, all sourced to one man. Klippenstein objects to the NYPD using the term "extremists" to describe the suspect's supporters, and cites a report by security firm Dragonfly to argue that the risk of violent attacks on corporate leaders will likely remain low. If you read his source, they, too, use the word "extremists" to describe people who support the killing. | |||
| :::::] (]) 19:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I read his work and personally trust Klippenstein. However, his substack is clearly a self-published source. Unbandito's comments on broader issues with Misplaced Pages, while interesting, don't address the ] issue. Ultimately, Klippenstein is the person with final approval on what he wrote. | |||
| :I would consider Klippenstein's views ] if they are reported on by reliable sources. Based on what I know and see here, I can't consider him to meet the ] criteria in this topic area. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 07:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with Chess here - ] is appropriate here. Klippenstein is a respected journalist. He's also self-publishing. But, in this case, he's an expert who is self-publishing. ] (]) 14:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::See talk page (article linked up top). ] (]) 18:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll endorse this as position as well. Klippenstein has a good track record with reputable outlets and hasn't had issues so far on his own, but is ultimately a ] that should only be included when corroborated and/or discussed by non-SPS RSs. That appears to be the case with the manifesto itself, but not the other reports. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 01:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Pretty much yes. There's no issue with the manifesto content, but the other reports are not mentioned in any secondary RS of any quality (ignoring Washington Times and the art website). There's also the fact that he's mentioned 3 separate times in a section of only 8 lines, which is hard to defend. ] (]) 01:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I merged the 'Media outlets' section with the 'Other' section. An editor made a ] on the talk page that according to Klippenstein's article, he's a FOIA document expert, and that {{tq|much of his journalism draws on information he has uncovered from records requested at state and national levels of the US government}}, which {{tq|also frequently include information from leaked documents}}. ] (]) 02:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Regardless of expert status, BLPSPS applies and would bar the use when it's not corroborated. It seems the new combined section has some sources that discussion Klippenstein's work in and of itself, which partially solves that issue. The issue then is if the amount of coverage is DUE. Klippenstein is an established journalist and some inclusion is probably due given the coverage, but a lot of the paragraph is repetitive, so I would probably cut it down by half. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 19:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Could you comment in the ], because despite what is being said here in this thread, certain editors still think he's a ], ], and unreliable ], ], ]. ] (]) 19:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :From what I can tell, a consensus has not yet been achieved here. I don't wish to step on anybody's toes, but I have reverted ]'s blanking of a large portion of the disputed section . ] (]) 10:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please see ]: {{tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} You should self-revert your reversion until consensus has been reached in one way or another. ] (]) 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::But ] is also relevant: {{tq|When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.}} ] (]) 17:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The discussion is still ongoing, so I don't see that as relevant yet. ] (]) 19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The material that User:Toa Nidhiki05 removed had been in the article since December 13 without any dispute (until now). ] (]) 19:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Ken Klippenstein is a bit of a weird special case because he's an experienced reporter whose Substack is nevertheless still clearly an ] but because he has very different views on the direct publication of source documents (like manifestos) than much of the rest of the media, he is reasonably often the main source of the full text of a document that the rest of the media acknowledges exists, is real, and that Klippenstein's version of the text is correct, but refuses to actually publish the text themselves. A sort of one-man Wikileaks situation. | |||
| :I honestly think that since he is clearly reliable in these situations he is actually a fine source for these sorts of documents, presuming we bear in mind that: | |||
| :a) Documents published by him should be clearly acknowledged in the text to be sourced to him alone. | |||
| :b) Just because Klippenstein is reliable for the text of the documents he publishes doesn't mean that the documents themselves are reliable for facts or that Klippenstein is endorsing or even has checked their factual claims. | |||
| :c) Klippenstein doesn't have to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines and so it's very possible that documents he publishes don't follow BLP guidelines for some reason. AFAICT usually what he publishes is about public figures but that doesn't ''have'' to be the case, and in cases where a document has private information about a private figure we shouldn't repeat it. ] (]) 21:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==RfC: NewsNation== | |||
| :::::::The citation for this source is Vt. Stat. tit. 21, § 3526 (1894) (citing 1894 Vt. Acts & Resolves ch. 85). I don't have a good citation for the repeal of this statute, but it is not to be found in , and I have no reason to doubt that it was repealed in 1896 as Vesilind & DiStefano indicates. ] (]) 16:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 02:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739068436}} | |||
| What is the reliability of ]? | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| ::::::::Thank you. I was concerned about it being posted verbatim here due to the copyright violation policy, which is why I suggested it being sent to me elsewhere. Presumably that isn't a problem on a page like this? ] (]) 17:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| :::::::::{{u|DesertPipeline}}, It could be in other circumstances, but official texts such as statues aren't protected by copyright in the US. ] (]) 17:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Survey (NewsNation)=== | |||
| :Not a comment on the validity of these specific sources(so possibly irrelevant), but there ''do'' laws requiring red/orange fluorescent flags to be displayed ''behind'' vehicles carrying oversize loads: {{tq|Per CVC Section 24604, whenever the load upon any vehicle extends, or whenever any integral part of any vehicle projects, to the rear four feet or more beyond the rear of the vehicle, as measured from the taillamps, '''there shall be displayed at the extreme end of the load or projecting part of the vehicle: a single solid red or fluorescent orange flag or cloth''' not less than 18 inches square if the projecting load is two feet wide or less. Two warning flags or cloths are required if the projecting load is wider than two feet. Flags or cloths shall be located to indicate maximum width of loads that extend beyond the sides or rear of the vehicle}} (emphasis mine). ''']'''×''']''' 19:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light). | |||
| ::With the article in question, the issue is that part of it suggests that in <s>Vermont, in the United States, a law was passed, then repealed two years later,</s> which required vehicles (unspecified type) to be disassembled on encountering livestock or cattle, then hidden from sight until the livestock/cattle was pacified. ] (]) 13:52, 7 December 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. | |||
| ::My previous comment was incorrect. It was in Pennsylvania, not Vermont. My apologies. ] (]) 14:01, 7 December 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. | |||
| ::It also never took effect, according to the article. ] (]) 14:05, 7 December 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’."}} | |||
| ***He wrote a UFO book titled ''Plain Sight'' which ] described as a {{xT|"conspiracy narrative"}} and a {{xt|"slipshod summary"}}. | |||
| ***The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for {{Xt|“espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”}} | |||
| ***The ] did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking {{xt|"Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary?}} while strongly implying the former. | |||
| ***The '']'' has described him as a {{Xt|"UFO truther"}} with {{xt|"little appetite for scrutiny"}}. | |||
| ***Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked ] investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians. | |||
| **Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs: | |||
| ***In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the ''Washington Post'': ), the channel {{xt|"was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health"}}. | |||
| ***In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said {{xt|"... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing"}}. The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to ]'s analysis, a Boeing 737 . | |||
| :] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage ] (]) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. ] (]) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' per Chetsford. – ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative.] (]) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. Compare ]. ] (]) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' why are we putting ''any'' stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “]” syndrome. ] (]) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (NewsNation)=== | |||
| == ] == | |||
| *For purposes of clarification, the reliability of NewsNation has previously come up in two different RSN discussions and two different article Talk page discussions. Beyond that, however, it's repeatedly invoked to source UFO articles to the point that constant re-litigation of its reliability via edit summaries is becoming a massive time sink. ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Is this article declaring the ] a 12th c. baptistry a reliable source for the tower?? == | |||
| Despite its popularity among professionals, I've noticed that Medscape is, as of now, still not listed on ]. Its historical precedent, ], was only briefly mentioned in ] as {{tq|usually acceptable source for uncontroversial information}}. Also, a ] was started here 11 years ago, but didn't gain enough traction to build consensus. To the best of my knowledge, drugs and diseases articles on Medscape are peer-reviewed and compatible with ]. Even though an RfC would be more appropriate to establish this sort of recognition for the source, I said I'd first collect some thoughts on its reliability. ] (]) 16:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| The autho rhas emailed me demanding it be added to the Newport Tower article as it has been peer reviewed.] press.... Other non-peer reviewed papers of his can be found here. ] ] 15:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''', pinging {{yo|Doc James|prefix=|p=}} for their input. ] (]) 16:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * Doc seems to be busy elsewhere ATM. Why should Medscape be considered MEDRS when it not a type of source we look for for ]? I'd have thought it would be okay for uncontroversial information but for anything at all weighty (e.g. harms and benefits of a drug) we'd need the usual high-quality ]. The current mention in MEDRS looks about right to me. ] (]) 08:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ** {{re|Alexbrn}} Would you please point me to the aspects where Medscape doesn't correspond to the characteristics of ]? ] (]) 11:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *** It's kind of in your face at ] - what we ideally want is: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Medscape is something else. What's it maybe good for, I already said. (Add: checking our Medscape article I see it's now owned by ], which is certainly not a good ] either.) ] (]) 12:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **** {{re|Alexbrn}} I see. What I was basically calling for is merely including Medscape (Drugs & Diseases) in ]. As you can notice, the list is nuanced enough that concerns and stipulations like yours can be addressed properly, especially the fact that it isn't a secondary source and that it isn't owned by a highly trusted scientific body, all of which we seem to agree on. ] (]) 18:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as a physician scientist who has nothing against Medscape (they've include content quoting/citing my work e.g. ) I oppose inclusion of Medscape as a MEDRS source generally - Medscape is a very heterogeneous platform with lots of sponsored content, republication of various sources, news, etc. Of course, any source can be a reliable source for some purpose, but appearance on Medscape doesn't consistently rise to the level of peer-reviewed publication (and certainly not a high-quality secondary source). When Medscape republishes from a reliable peer-reviewed publication, it's the latter (not Medscape) that is the basis of credibility. — ] (]) 15:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ** {{re|soupvector}} I do agree with the question of heterogeneity, especially that I spoke of the site as a whole. Medscape Drugs & Diseases, however, is, afaic, standardized in terms of article structure and methodology as well as peer-reviewed and conforming to general academic conventions. With its compendial hierarchy, it surely isn't a secondary source, but I think it might be recognized and utilized as indicated in ]: {{tq|Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.}} ] (]) 18:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Why bother?''' ], ] is supposed to be about sources that are regularly disputed on this noticeboard, not for every single source that might get used more than a few times. That's why the title says "]", not "popular" or "comprehensive". There is absolutely no need to have this discussion at all. ] (]) 18:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ** {{re|WhatamIdoing}} Well, judging by my own experience as a pharmacy grad and by the concerns raised above by a practicing physician and a member of WikiProject Medicine, the site's scope of reliability is likely to be disputed. It's also rich enough in content that adopting a formal position on its reliability might reduce the formal barriers against users to develop a lot of stubs and start-level articles out there. I'm wondering, what harm could be incurred by simply probing the community's stance of a notable source? If anything, it would render the list more informative and help newbies be aware of consensus. ] (]) 18:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **:Please see ]. This doesn't qualify. | |||
| **:As to harms: | |||
| **:* Unnecessary discussions waste people's time. | |||
| **:* Putting sources on this list results in editors thinking in ] terms: yes/no, good/bad, reliable/unreliable. It teaches editors to ignore ] and to believe that if a source is on the list as "generally reliable", then it's okay for ''any'' claim. | |||
| **:** This problem is especially relevant here, because the best practice for Medscape is to use it only uncontroversial and unchanging basic content (e.g., anatomy, whether a heart attack is a medical emergency), and never for controversial content or most ], especially content that can be expected to change as more research is done. | |||
| **:** On the other side, if we say it's generally not reliable, then some editors just go blank it, even when the source actually is reliable for the specific statement being made. | |||
| **:* When we're talking about "ongoing" sources (like magazines or websites that get updated, as opposed to books that get printed once), our perception of their reliability changes over time. Sometimes that reflects our changing standards, and sometimes it reflects changes to the sources. For example, ] was a great source... 20 years ago. That magazine is a lousy source now. So if we write down "Sure, ____ is okay now" and the actual facts on the grounds change, or if our standards change, then the virtues of that source will be recorded in the list for posterity, and it will be very hard to change it. | |||
| **:* The larger the page gets, the less useful it is. A list focused on important disputes is better than a list of every possible source. | |||
| **:* The larger the page gets, the harder it is to edit and maintain the page. | |||
| **:* The larger the page gets, the more inexperienced editors start thinking that this is the entire list of approved sources, and that they should only use the "GREL" sources, or that any source is acceptable unless and until it's listed at "GUNREL". | |||
| **:RSP is not a good model for "medium-quality" sources, and we do not need Medscape listed in it. ] (]) 19:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **:: {{re|WhatamIdoing}} Thanks for taking time to expand on your position. I'd like to re-iterate that I'm not here to argue that Medscape is all-set to be included in WP:RSPSOURCES. That would've been absurd. In fact, I've already said that such claim would need an RfC, exactly like the criteria you referred to. Again, I stated the purpose of this section as the {{tq|collection of thoughts}} from interested users. It certainly isn't compulsory. What I'm getting from the rest of the points is subjective perceived inherent limitations of WP:RSPSOURCES in particular and policy documentation in general. I don't think such view reflects consensus in the project, especially when the current list is already not anywhere near binary and when matters of contextualization and exahustiveness are showcased in the lede and frequently cited in relevant discussions. IMHO, this sort of preventionist deletionism might hinder the evolution of the encyclopedia. ] (]) 21:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **:::The inclusion criteria specify that you're not supposed to start RFCs to add anything to that list unless there have already been multiple significant disputes at RSN about this source. Medscape has not been the subject of multiple significant disputes here. Therefore it does not qualify for an RFC or for inclusion anywhere in RSP. ] (]) 22:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''oppose''' agree w/ soupvector rationale--] (]) 15:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ===Background discussions=== | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| ] (]) 03:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :For reference the tower is ] The answer is no. The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming. Even academic presses slip up sometimes and Istanbul University Press is frankly quite a bit distant from Rhode Island such that I would be cautious about the level of rigour of its fact checking (if any) on the topic. ] (]) 15:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * So, four mild discussions and nothing in the last seven years: this does not amount to "multiple significant disputes". ] (]) 05:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::In addition to this, the author is retired from the U.S. Navy and a student of aeronautics, while this paper involves a great deal of cartography, religious history, etc. In other worlds, far outside of the author's field, even if there was some question about its reliability. Looking at the non-peer reviewed papers, I see that the author also believes the ] is legit. ] (]) 15:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** Agreed, but please note this is {{u|WhatamIdoing}}'s own wording. The policy literally reads: {{bulletedlist|{{tq|Editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, '''or''' an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard.}}|Contrarily, she said {{tq|you're '''not supposed to start RFCs''' to add anything to that list unless there have already been multiple significant disputes at RSN.}}, even though no conditions were given to start an RfC.|If we pay more attention, some items on the list only cited a single brief discussion for inclusion (e.g. Debrett's). This is not to sound ], but to emphasize the distortive interpretation of policy.}} Further, the definition of ''significant'' wasn't left for editors' appraisal. It is clearly put as having {{tq|two or three editors commenting on the source's reliability}}. #3 above, for example, would definitely amount to this. In short, the wording you cited is more of a personal reflection on policy than an accurate paraphrase. ] (]) 14:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::], that WP article has an entire section on ], so it's not clear to me that "The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming" is a reason to exclude this hypothesis. Given that context, what does it means to be a RS for a fringe theory? A source may be reliable for the existence of the fringe theory but unreliable otherwise. | |||
| **:The rules have changed over time, and people starting needless RFCs just to expand the list when there is no actual dispute involving a real article is one of the reasons that's happened. ] (]) 17:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::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 == | ||
| ] 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) | |||
| What is the reliability of '']'' ({{duses|dailysabah.com}})? | |||
| *'''Option 1:''' Generally ] for factual reporting | |||
| *'''Option 2:''' Unclear or additional considerations apply | |||
| *'''Option 3:''' Generally ] for factual reporting | |||
| *'''Option 4:''' Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be ] as in the ] of the '']''? | |||
| :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) | |||
| ===Survey (Daily Sabah)=== | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| *'''Option 4'''. A states: "The new propaganda outlet’s purpose was to consolidate Erdoğan’s power, cultivate anti-Western sentiment in the population, and legitimize government’s policies." The same thesis compares Daily Sabah with RT, stating that they are both propaganda but Daily Sabah is more blatant about it. According to the thesis, Daily Sabah has made many false or unproven statements about the 2016 coup attempt and the post-coup purges, including the claim that ] "commanded the death of hundreds of people through a reactionary coup" (in fact, there is basically no evidence that Gülen was behind the coup), and that US taxpayer money is "funding Gülenist terror-cult FETÖ". | |||
| :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) | |||
| *According to ] "Turkey’s English-language media outlets, such as public broadcaster TRT World TV and the pro-government newspaper Daily Sabah pursue the same objective — improving Turkey’s image abroad— said Koray Kaplıca, also an editor at DogrulukPayi. But in the name of “national interest” these outlets can turn into pure propaganda tools for the ruling party." According to a 2014 article in '']'', Daily Sabah is "Essentially composed of thinly veiled government press releases". | |||
| *Daily Sabah refers to recognition of the Armenian genocide as a "defamation campaign" | |||
| *We deprecated RT and if Daily Sabah is like RT or worse, it should be deprecated as well. (] · ]) ''']''' 12:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3+''' I'm not sure it's ''absolutely'' unusable, but for just about anything touching Turkey's politics, its foreign relations, its wars, and its president ''Daily Sabah'' is worse than useless. Same for ''TRT''. Sometimes the "]" can be applied for non-controversial statements. ] (]) 13:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3+''' Yep pretty much agree with GPinkerton. Option 3 and always attribute.] (]) 13:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3+''' Seems to be generally unreliable, per GPinkerton. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3 to 4'''. Generally unreliable, only reliable for what Erdogan&friends have to say, really. ] (]) 07:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3+''' as per GPinkerton. For controversial topics not suitable.] (]) 18:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *It should be considered reliable for the POV of the Turkish government and used with attribution.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 19:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2+ or 3+''' as per above it should be never used on controversial topics. ] (]) 22:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2+''' wording similar to Anadolu Agency e.g. "Daily Sabah is frequently described as a mouthpiece of the Turkish government that engages in propaganda, it is not generally reliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. It should never be used on controversial topics. It should be considered reliable for the POV of the Turkish government." Also a note could be added that this should be reviewed if/when the government changes hands in future.] (]) 07:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2+ or 3+''' No strong preference between the two, but this source does not seem to be generally credible (especially about politics). ''']'''×''']''' 19:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' as per {{u|Chidgk1}}. While it is a mouthpiece for the AKP, it should be considered reliable as a source for government statements etc and for uncontroversial Turkey-related facts (e.g. the current front page article about a new Turkey-China freight rail line would probably be fine to use as a source on a relevant topic), while avoided for controversial topics where the Turkish government has an interest. I have found it generally reliable on Syrian matters. ] (]) 15:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' agree with Chidki's wording as concerns politics and controversial topics. It is preferable to use international media sources such as Reuters, AP, and AFP on such topics. The Daily Sabah can be useful for noncontroversial Turkish-related topics. For example from today's edition: , , , and . However, on political and controversial topics, it is important to remember that the ] is owned by ], which was founded by Ahmet Çalık, who is a . --] (]) 09:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu == | |||
| ===Discussion (Daily Sabah)=== | |||
| *I was prompted to ask this question because of this dubious edit on the ] article, in which, among other issues, another user cited the AK Party website for the assertion that the party is responsible for "ending the century-long censorship on Armenian genocide in Turkey" There are 1,200 citations to this government propaganda outlet currently cited in mainspace articles. (] · ]) ''']''' 12:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **The source has come up in prior discussions, for example {{u|Spudlace}} stated that "Daily Sabah or Kathimerini are not the best sources for the Greek-Turkish relations page." and in ] where both {{u|Slatersteven}} and Icewhiz express doubts about its reliability. (] · ]) ''']''' 12:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|buidhe}} I am also of '''Option 3''', which has been summarized well by ]. I don't know if the claim is dubious - the government's local supporters, mostly Muslim, seem to reward them more for religious actions, like praying in hagia Sophia, that support their narrative of being free in ''their'' homeland. But, I don't think Daily Sabah is an independent ] for this claim. With Daily Sabah and Kathimerini, it's common sense to not attempt balancing biased sources against each other in contradistinction without a secondary source, and accordingly, I would not give this claim from a political party more weight than independent sources have. because politically biased primary sources like political parties are selective in their claims and analysis, it should be on the list with all the other similar sources. ] (]) 05:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *There are few instances where ''Anadolu Agency'' is not a better substitute. It's less lurid and more official. I used it for ] this year for the thinly-spaced positive reaction to developments there. (Jubilation in Mauretania etc.) ] (]) 13:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * In ] about Turkish greenhouse gas emissions, {{u|Chidgk1}} and I agreed that DS could be used for attributed statements. For these articles, DS tended to support their statements by references to international media or official reports, providing some assurance regarding their claims. ] (]) 13:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Jlevi}} Looking over the website, the first article I clicked Macron to making "remarks characterizing Islam as a problematic religion that needs to be contained," which didn't seem to be backed up by any reliable sources and other reliable sources such as say the complete opposite. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't say any more than that DS would reliably report the AKP government's views or selected Turkstat statistics. So pretty similar to "Anadolu Agency" in my opinion.] (]) 14:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sounds good! Just figured I'd bring up our use case for discussion, and I defer entirely to Chidgk1 based on their higher level of familiarity. ] (]) 21:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|Chidgk1}} So you propose similar to An Phoblacht it should only be used in cases like ]? ]<sup>]</sup> 03:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I don't have very strong views but I see Anadolu Agency is listed in as both yellow and red. So perhaps something like that. But on the other hand readers tend just to see the first color so that is not user-friendly. Sorry to be wishy-washy - maybe red/yellow stripes?! ] (]) 07:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Flalf}} DS's claim that Macron made "remarks characterizing Islam as a problematic religion" is probably a reference to Macron "Islam is a religion that is in crisis all over the world today", which is a fact.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 19:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Vice regent}} That's still bending the quote, he said that it is IN crisis not that is causes crisis as well as he said nothing about 'containing' Islam. The DS article is written in a way that is POV pushing. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|Flalf}}, I quite agree. Moreover, the Turkish president is heavily involved in a battle over militant Islamism in France and is taking up the ISIS campaign to shut down ''Charlie Hebdo'' (either because they published cartoons mocking that megalomaniac believes to be God's greatest prophet, or because they mocked the 7th-century preacher Muhammad ...) ] (]) 22:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Vice regent}}, I'm glad you agree it's a fact; you seemed to suggest otherwise in discussions of those remarks elsewhere. ] (]) 23:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I'll admit that I long thought this were just an English-language news publication based in ]. I didn't realize its Turkish ties the few times I clicked to it through Google. feminist ] 13:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *None of the editors arguing that it can be used for some topics have cited any sources indicating that it has a "reputation for fact-checking or accuracy", per WP:RS. I cited multiple sources to show the opposite. I hope that the closer takes that into account when weighing comments. (] · ]) ''']''' 11:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (B and C): | |||
| == The Daily Dot, what qualifies as internet culture, and whether it's only reliable for that. == | |||
| * '''A: Geni.com''' | |||
| * '''B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley''' | |||
| * '''C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav''' | |||
| :Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles. | |||
| :They should be: | |||
| * '''Option 1: listed as ]''' (change nothing to A; add B and C at ] as such) | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' (list them as such at ]) | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2) | |||
| ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu) === | |||
| There has been disagreement over whether and how to use source on ], as well as, to a lesser extent, and . The basic dispute has been over whether those fall under "internet culture", what internet culture means in an era where everything is online, and so on; but I wanted to ask a more general question of whether the ] statement that {{tq|The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture}} is meant to be exclusive or whether it merely means they are ''particularly'' reliable for internet culture but still reliable in general and, if the latter is the case, whether the RSP entry should be edited to indicate that they are generally reliable. --] (]) 21:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * A: See "Geni.com" at ]. | |||
| * B: See ], in particular ], where this RfC for the 3 sources in question was prepared together with @]. The other sources discussed there fall outside the scope of this RfC. | |||
| * C: See ] (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Preliminaries === | |||
| * What defines internet culture is a good question. Perhaps we need to ping some of the editors who were involved in the previous discussions that resulted in the RSP summary. Perhaps we should also ask if this is a good source for making a controversial claim about a BLP. In this case DD is being used to make/support two claims in the article. One is that Ngo issued a misleading tweet because, according to the source, he didn't provide the full background regarding violence he witnessed.] So part of this claim is the source's opinion that Ngo witnessed yet decided not to report the background to the event. The second article effectively re-reports the claims of the Portland Mercury Blogtown report (PM is a local, alternative paper) ]. The article strongly implies Ngo was aware of plans to attack a bar yet chose not to mention this. Both articles make controversial claims about a BLP subject. Do we consider the DD both reliable for such claims and to have sufficient weight to establish those claims as due? Note that much of this overlaps with an above Andy Ngo discussion. ] (]) 22:17, 1 December 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) | |||
| * Being "brutally assaulted" ( wording) on the streets is not internet culture. Something like that needs very careful scrutiny for blp reasons and now low-tier sources. Although Ngo was not on the streets, the source is making a judgment who was the instigator in an alleged assault. --] (]) 22:47, 1 December 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) | |||
| :::That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. ] (]) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. ] (]) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. ] (]) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC?  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * My interpretation of that RSP entry combined with some of the other entries on RSP and what I know about the Daily Dot is not so much that the Daily Dot is reliable when they report on internet culture but not when they report on other things, but that the Daily Dot only reports on internet culture, and so while their reporting is reliable it should be interpreted in the context of internet culture even if it doesn't seem like it at first. (It's much like other sources marked as "reliable for" a particular topic like ] or ] in this way.) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| : So for example, take . This seems in principle like it could be written about any administration official, but the fact that the source is the Daily Dot means it couldn't have: they're writing about Pai because he's the guy in charge of the organization that regulates the internet, not just as a government official. ] (]) 03:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Read Background: B. ] (]) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::<strike>I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc.</strike> --] (]) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey A: Geni.com === | |||
| * What ] says in the comment above generally aligns with my read of the earlier discussions and what I know of the ''Daily Dot'': their reporting is generally reliable within the niche where they operate, though we shouldn't forget that they are niche rather than wide-interest. ] (]) 20:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. ] (]) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **So the question here is where is the limit of that niche. The question related to the FCC and say net neutrality, are very net specific. A discussion related to the rise of a new social media platform, a new web centric trend (planking), the way the web is shifting as people move from computers to smart phones as their primary interface with the web, etc seems like something that would be internet culture. However, would we accept it as a source if they ran an article claiming "Mr A has a long history of doxing critics in hopes they get attacked by the mob. Mr A doxxed Ms B because she said X"? I would argue that is no longer internet culture (even if doxxing is largely, but not exclusively, a web based thing) and instead is something about people. Or would we consider the DD reliable if they ran a story about how X Motor Company tried to hide a safety defect? How does it impact our opinion of the source if they are the originator of the story vs if they simply re-report what another source found ("Car Motor News reported that X Motor Company..."). ] (]) 20:28, 3 December 2020 (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 === | |||
| * They are reliable for internet culture, which in the situation around Ngo would include right-leaning extremism but they should be recognized as a biased source as they are very much liberal leaning (this established well before considering these Ngo events). So where they talk about Internet things in general where there's no political slant ("hey cute cat videos are popular!") they're reliable, but when that wades into the online culture war, we should be a bit careful on their coverage and likely make sure any material is attributed to them and not said in wikivoice. --] (]) 20:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate''', per background discussion. ] (]) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment'''. I think this source has been often discussed in a superficial way, together with other sources, which does not always lead to a clear perspective. This is not like the other two. It collects a lot of useful extracts from primary sources than can be helpful for getting a grip on a topic. Although it is basically the work of one editor, this editor was assigned to do this for an organization which does make some efforts to maintain a reputation for quality. (The FMG publishes a journal, and it posts some online corrections to Keats-Rohan's reference works for the 11th and 12th century, and she has noted those helpful efforts in print.) On the other hand, Medlands does not use secondary material very much, so it is normally not going to the type of source we would use on WP on its own for anything non-obvious. I note these complications because I see that sources like Ancestry.com and Findmypast also have special notes about how they can sometimes have useful primary materials. To give a practical example of what might go wrong, what I saw in the past whenever this source was discussed, is that it was even deleted from external links sections and so on. I think this is a source that can be used for external links at the very least. I feel hesitant to say that it should NEVER EVER be used even in the main body to be honest, although I don't use it on WP.--] (]) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate''' Crawley has no academic background in history and MedLands is self-published. It is not published by FMG only hosted by them. That it contains a lot of useful information is not the same as it having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, something it doesn't have. Deprecation isn't blacklisting, editors are warned against adding it not blocked. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "'''the source is generally prohibited'''". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) ] (]) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Editors who know the fine print will be the ones using the source correctly, and will know how to handle the situation. The issue is that editors who don't know keep adding this as a reference to support content, and the many discussions on the source show they isn't support for that. Adding a warning when editors post will at least get editors to ask why they are getting the warning, and help them understand the situation. | |||
| :::Deprecation of this source will ''reduce'' the pointless pseudo-legal debates, by reducing the problem of the source being repeatedly readded. Editors should use their own good judgement, but as repeated discussion about this source have shown that isn't happening. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--] (]) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--] (]) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes the cost of not having to continuously patrol for this source and have the same discussion about it's reliability again and again. | |||
| :::::::Separately before the two of us fill the survey section with our disagreement (mea culpa), should we move this discussion to the Discussion section? -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Generally unreliable'''. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) ''Generally unreliable'' is the one which says this: {{tq|"questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published"}} I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would ''only'' allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be ''prohibited''. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--] (]) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at ] shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he ''knows'' {{xt!|may be of little factual significance}} at face value just because he finds them "]" ({{xt!|but is reproduced by way of interest}}), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't ]. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. ] (]) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the '''Generally unreliable''' category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then ''only as far as we have to''. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --] (]) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Generally reliable''', in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav === | |||
| == Fox News on ] == | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. ] (]) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--] (]) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as {{xt|genealogy.eu}} and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). ] (]) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :'''Comment'''. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the ], Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". ] (]) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate'''. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; . --] 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site . And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. ] (]) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)=== | |||
| Does this , which states "Her goals include outlawing abortion, protecting gun rights and fighting "big tech censorship" of conservative viewpoints.", support the statement "Greene supports criminalizing abortion." for the ] article? Fox News is yellow for politics, and Greene is a living person, but if Fox is simply repeating what Greene told them, it's probably accurate, right? feminist ] 04:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} my apologies also. To be clear, I respect your concern, and I think I understand it. I think we've conveyed our concerns, and laid out some pros and cons, and background principles. I'm not stressed about that. I think its a point of getting the balance right. In practical reality the three sources should not normally be used, and I see no big disagreements. I just think the difference between the two categories offered is (or should be) meaningful, and I wanted to make that clear. I am not really disagreeing with any other specific point.--] (]) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Outlawing and criminalizing are synonyms so I don’t see an issue with accuracy... I’d say that BLP wise this is on the edge, abortion is both a social and political issue although it seems that Greene focuses on it as a political rather than a social issue so I would say this falls under politics and I would look for a stronger source for the statement. ] (]) 15:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: https://www.marjorietaylorgreene.com/why-marjorie/ "DEFEND THE UNBORN Every life is precious — period. Unborn children should not be condemned to a painful death for the mere crime of being “inconvenient.” Marjorie will fight to end abortion-on-demand by co-sponsoring the Life at Conception Act and stop taxpayer funding of abortion." Primary source to verify plus Fox to show that an important independent source cares about it.--] (]) 00:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks, I'll restore this to the article. "Supports outlawing abortion" is much stronger than "opposing abortion" and should be mentioned to give it adequate weight. feminist ] 13:13, 3 December 2020 (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) | |||
| == Circumcision Information and Resource Page == | |||
| :I previously commented that a seperate warning for generally unreliable sources would be helpful, for ones that are problematicly readded on a regular basis would be useful. That way a warning would appear but wouldn't come with the baggage of deprecation. At the moment deprecation is the only resource available, but it is a somewhat blunt hammer. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Franklin Open == | |||
| The "Circumcision Information and Resource Page" (cirp.org) has a "reference library" (cirp.org/library/) which is linked 750 times from the English wikipedia. It hosts third-party publications such as book extracts and journal articles on the topic of circumcision.{{pb}} | |||
| Some issues: | |||
| * The third-pary material seems to be re-presented to conform to cirp.org's look & feel, which raises the question of whether it's a correct copy. As a self-published site, cirp.org is itself not ], but are re-purposed articles reliable copies? | |||
| * Probably more importantly, there is no sign the site has permission to reproduce the copyrighted materials of third-parties, which it carries. So for example seems to be a clone of the paywalled article , with the activist talking points usefully highlighted in the cirp.org re-presentation.{{pb}} | |||
| Thought on what to do about this? An entry in ] and/or blacklisting? Whatever, it seems like some cleanup is needed. ] (]) 08:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *NOPE, do not use. There's no way this site is MEDRS compliant. Always cite the published final version of papers whenever possible. (] · ]) ''']''' 12:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * Looks like a fringe advocacy group pushing some questionable science. I would say thats a hard no, they appear to be highly unreliable. We’ve had this issue with similar fringe groups like the anti-vaxxers and the race-human intelligence folks. In general the sources they gather are on the outermost edge of mainstream academia, an attempt to build an article using primarily sources they’ve cherrypicked (as appears to have happened at ]) will always lead to serious ] and ] issues. ] (]) 14:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * It appears to me that the right course of action is to redirect references from cirp.org to the scientific publishers' own websites. For example, all the content in the article was recently deleted and the article made into a redirect. But it would have been trivial to just change the urls in the references to the publishers' websites. ] (]) 15:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ** There were other problems at ] (namely that it's a borderline fringe concept rather dismissed in the ] I could find, although it had been woven into many Misplaced Pages article as though it was an accepted anatomical fact). Most of the material copied at the cirp.org site is not ] - but that is a separate problem. ] (]) 15:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *** Really? A "borderline fringe concept" I can easily verify the existence of at my own leisure (and pleasure)? In this , the claim "The prepuce, including the ridged band, is a specific erogenous zone." was deleted because its www.cirp.org was not WP:MEDRS-compliant. But the is also published on the ]'s website and it would have been trivial to update the link. ] (]) 16:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***:{{u|ImTheIP}}, Even if the link were updated, that is still using a source from 1959 for biomed content. ] (]) 16:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Which is WP:MEDRS-compliant. A more industrious editor could, of course, have spent some time and found a more recent source attesting to the fact that the "ridged band" indeed is an erogenous zone. For example , , or . ] (]) 17:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{od|5}} | |||
| {{u|ImTheIP}}. ] sources generally need to be secondary and recent. This is getting off-topic but yes, the term "ridged band" seems to have been taken up by John Taylor in the 1990s and became part of the circumcision activist lore (another vital anatomical structure that circumcision destroys!). Indeed on the front page of cirp.org viewers are encouraged to visit the "Ridged Band" web site. Yet, if we get up-to-date, the term seems to have no lasting mainstream currency and the only recent ] secondary independent source I can find (Cox ''et al''. 2015. PMID 26185672) had this to say: | |||
| {{talkquote|The “ridged band” seems to be a name used for the concertinaed distal skin that becomes stretched for retraction over the glans. We consider that such a conformation is merely a matter of individual idiosyncrasy and not a universal feature. Furthermore, different illustrations of the so-called “ridged band” do not appear to show the same structure ...}} | |||
| So presenting it as a fact in Misplaced Pages, even identifying it (as something different even from the sources) on the opening image caption of our ] article (before I zapped it) was, to put it mildly, problematic. ] (]) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I would like to know what is known about "Franklin Open" (). It claims to be peer-reviewed but charges $1900 to publish an article. Should we count this as an RS, or should its articles be treated as self-published? (Apologies if it's already dealt with somewhere — I searched and couldn't find it.) --] (]) 22:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{Reply|ImTheIP}} are you really suggesting we use "Bodily Integrity and the Politics of Circumcision” or did you not do any due diligence on those sources? ] (]) 17:31, 2 December 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) | |||
| * Anyway, this is getting way off-topic. While I'm sure something brief and ] could be said in ] about the "ridged band" (aka "Taylor's Band") both from Taylors' and other sources, this does not answer the question about what we do about cirp.org, and the evident crapload of ] we've got. ] (]) 17:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::But the question is, is the stuff peer-reviewed in any meaningful sense? --] (]) 05:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Like any other Elsevier/Franklin Institute journals. Reliable in its area of expertise, which is mostly engineering and applied mathematics.  <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 == | |||
| There is nothing in the WP:MEDRS guidelines that prohibits using a source published in 1959. And as demonstrated, finding more recent sources for the statement in question was trivial. It took me 15 minutes but I'm sure an expert could have gotten it done even quicker. Here are three more sources that reference the ridged band: | |||
| 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. | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| P.S: I added a discussion just in case some reviewers have a disagreement on citing a tweet. ] ] 01:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The three pro-circumcision authors Alexbrn cites, Guy Cox, Brian J. Morris, and John N. Krieger, who denies its existence, appears to be in the minority. Regardless, the correct course of action is to "upgrade" links to cirp.org to links to publishers' websites. Perhaps some would instead prefer to delete every statement sourced to cirp.org. I strenuously object. ] (]) 18:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|ImTheIP}}: you're wrong about source age; see ]. I'm not sure quite how you decided that the authors of PMID 26185672 were "pro-circumcision"; generally we reflect sources rather than carry out amateur peer-review to try and undercut them. But in any case, to repeat: this does not answer the question about what we do about cirp.org, and the evident crapload of ] we've got. ] (]) 19:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: No, I'm not. WP:MEDDATE refers to surveys and similar in areas where scientific consensus changes rapidly. It is not applicable in this situation. With the risk of running afoul of ]: "Regardless, the correct course of action is to "upgrade" links to cirp.org to links to publishers' websites." Is that solution unsatisfying? ] (]) 19:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Now you're making it up. ] is not about "surveys", but says "In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those ...". We want up-to-date reviews, such as PMID 26185672. We don't sources from 1959, or - what you listed - old letters, which are never ]. When a hosted source on cirp.org is not ] is needs to go and/or be updated. But this ''still'' does not answer the question. Do the ] links need to be ]'d for instance? ] (]) 19:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Speaking of amateur peer-review with reference to at least ]: he very much is an advocate of circumcision. His , as is the fact he has published pretty much nothing but a . His personal testimony . He is also the founder of which is (to quote) "The Only Australian Medical Organisation Devoted to Male Circumcision". Cox is in the same boat. No idea about Krieger, but at least he has credentials in the right subject matter. In short, reliance on B J Morris articles would be a concern just because he effectively runs a paper-mill of self referential articles and mates of his. ] (]) 19:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That was a topic of much discussion at the ] article, not least on its progress to ] and the general consensus was, per policy, that Misplaced Pages follows sources and does not allow editors to think they know better than reputable journals how to cope with any ] of academics (that way madness lies). And in any case in science terms the framing of "pro-circumcision" is somewhat skin to "pro-vaccine" in that the science seems clear and the controversy (such as it is, since RS is generally never absolutely "pro" circumcision) in enacted mostly within a cranky unscientific milieu, rather than in the ]. But this is all wildly off-topic for this noticeboard question. ] (]) 20:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Penis vaccination? That's a patently absurd comparison. Morris's positions are extensively out of line with the consensus of Western medical organizations. Not even the American AAP — by far the most positive of any on the issue — does not recommend routine neonatal circumcision of newborn males. I know about the ridged band. I personally have one. It's personally very sensitive. It's indisputable that this erogenous area is removed in pretty much any form of circumcision. How does this impact sexual pleasure? The impact probably varies pretty significantly. Some men may have extremely sensitive bands. Some men may have pretty dull ones. But the fact that it's generally an erogenous zone for most men (like the frenulum) is out of the question. As for the science? It can not give a position on circumcision. It may show there is erogenous tissue (and zone) loss. It may show that it prevents against certain diseases. But "science" can not give an ethical framework on whether it is ethical to routinely deploy on newborns. It seems pretty clear that the position of medical organizations are influenced significantly by their circumcision status. But European medical organizations (or even American ones) generally don't refer to circumcision as an overwhelmingly effective vaccine against UTI's, penile cancer, and most sexually transmitted diseases. The only current promotion has been for HIV prevention in Sub-Saharan Africa: which has little relevance for a developed country such as the United States, Spain, United Kingdom, et al. Is every medical organization in the world except the United States wrong? Opposition to routine neonatal circumcision in the developed world is a pretty clear majority among Western medical organizations. So the comparison to vaccines (which are known to be extremely effective in the prevention of disease) is absurdly ridiculous. ] (]) 20:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::So far as I know we don't use Morris's web site (it would be as problematic - in the other direction - as cirp.org), but try to stick to ]. Personal opinions are similarly irrelevant. This still does not answer the question of what happens to this stack of copyright-violating links we seem to have accumulated. ] (]) 20:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yeah, I don't really have a strong opinion on CIRP. But I think there's a good argument for keeping the frenular/ridged band page. It's indisputably a highly erogenous area of the penis. And it's been referenced in multiple pieces of scientific literature. Morris's position on it is extremely, extremely fringe. ] (]) 20:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I'm not suggesting we don't follow sources. I am suggesting the denial of Morris (and others) as being "circumcision advocates" if we don't like "pro" is kinda misleading. And by "kinda" I of course mean entirely. I don't deny the other named authors work that he cites (and would advocate using), usually in their very specific analysis of a specific question, but I also see ] as definitely a factor with Morris presentation of such work as a cohesive argument to circumcise every male at the optimum time. And there is criticism of and and there's (albeit quoting someone else) which make quite charged allegations. ] (]) 20:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::There's no denying it's a bitter and fraught area, that researchers take different positions, and that Morris is a bogey man for some. However, once we start setting aside peer review and replacing it with what Misplaced Pages editors believe they can tell about the reliability of published science through their investigations into the views of the authors, we are lost. ] (]) 04:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Bitter and fraught is irrelevant; I am not making any emotional appeal, however ] is clear. It's not a case of reliability of published science (the underlying sources he routinely uses are sound, though of limited utility). It is his advocacy in writing his own papers and association (and founding membership) of groups with the intent of milling his own papers theough the peer review process routinely taking other peoples science to create a new synthetic conclusion (even down to re-citing himself). But I digress as that isn't even my point. | |||
| :::::::::::All I am making clear is that in the end you said he isn't a pro-circumsion advocate. This is incorrect even by his own Primary Source statements of fact, and then his entire body of work and own advocacy group. Using Morris as exemplary recent science is at best questionable. ] (]) 13:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Except I didn't say that, but I do question how a three-author paper is written off on the basis that the three authors are labelled "pro-circumcision". Nor did I invoke "exemplary" science. We are bound to use high-quality sources and not do opposition research to try and supplant the peer-review process or the publisher's decision to publish. Going down that rabbit hole could then lead to deciding Taylor's work was a ruse to back his own anti-circumcision advocacy, or that the people criticising Morris are maligning him as he thwarts their agenda. We are not here to ], all we can do in such cases is to cite what Misplaced Pages considers to be RS, and hope that adequately presents the state of knowledge on the matter. ] (]) 14:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{u|Alexbrn}}, This reminds me of lenr-canr.org, which is a site advocating for the existence of cold fusion and which was hosting a lot of copyright-violating copies of papers. If memory serves it was blacklisted for a while and the links purged, and after some time was removed from the blacklist again. ] (]) 20:42, 2 December 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. | |||
| == CNBC / Cryptocurrency == | |||
| :If I've misunderstood your question, can you give us some examples of the tweets and how they would be used? ] (]) 01:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] one of their post is here , they recognized the awards for the Best Inspirational Secular Song at the 46th Catholic Mass Media Awards, and this is only the piece of sources i searched. ] ] 02:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::the ] a Featured list was cited from a Facebook too cause they considered it. and ] cited this on ref 28. So, I think needed to be considered to since it was awarded. ] ] 02:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The problem isn't really Twitter/X or Facebook, it's that you want to use a post by the record label about an award they received. That's inherently self-serving, which means we should avoid using it. | |||
| ::::The Facebook sources at ] were posted by Awit Awards (still a primary source, but not the recipient) and the Philippine Movie Press Club (a secondary source, though I wonder how reliable they are), so I'm assuming that's why they were included. Personally, I think both of those should be removed until they can be supported by better sources, but that's just me. ] (]) 02:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|Woodroar}} I think it can be considered? because {{tq|The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.}} The claim made in the post is specifically about ] under the record label Star Music, which is not considered a third party in this context. | |||
| :::::{{tq|The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim}} | |||
| :::::The award mentioned is neither excessively self-serving nor extraordinary (such as a prestigious recognition like the Grammys). Instead, it is a straightforward of Bini achievements. ] ] 05:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Of course it's self-serving, it's about an award that one of their bands received. As far as the claim about third parties, I hadn't considered that. But Star Music's tweet ''does'' involve claims about third parties, both the group Bini ''and'' the organization Catholic Mass Media Awards. | |||
| ::::::As others have pointed out, there are also NPOV concerns. Alongside reports from reliable, secondary, independent sources, it's ] to include an award sourced only to a self-published, primary tweet from the record label. ] (]) 15:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*I would say that coverage of winning an award is obviously {{tq|unduly self-serving}}. As I said below, we're not just relying on the source for the statement that the award was given but for the implication that it is worth noting; we can't rely on the recipient for that! --] (]) 21:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :If an award isn't covered by secondary independent sources, how is it BALASP on the page? ] (]) 02:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::exactly. Had it recieved media coverage, it would've been notable and due for inclusion. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 03:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with the sentiment overall for due weight in articles, but this is a list after all. Per ], a high-quality list would; {{tq|"comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items"}}, suggesting that all items would ideally be included in the list, even if not a requirement. I'm inclined to agree with opinions above that documenting an award you have received is not ''unduly'' self-serving, even if publishing such information is entirely self-serving. I otherwise don't agree with the argument that publishing an award won is effectively unwarranted. The question should be more about the awards themselves, for example if the awards were meaningless or irrelevant then sure it would be unwarranted. Give the awards referenced above, the ''Catholic Mass Media Award'' by the ], I'd say it's questionable, but otherwise there are enough secondary sources reporting on them even if not widespread, even if not those in question it seems. ] (]) 13:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Twitter, when cited that way, is ], which carries several restrictions; it's also obviously ]. One key thing is to avoid such about-self cites for anything self-serving - things companies post on Twitter are often promotional in nature and therefore potentially self-serving. "We intend to release this at date XYZ" would be something we could cite to Twitter. Winning an award, unfortunately, is almost certainly self-serving and therefore is probably something we can't. Note that even if you're absolutely certain they're not making it up, you're still relying on them for the implicit statement that this award is ''worth noting'', which they are obviously not a good source for. And similarly, even beyond that, it raises ] issues - if there is no coverage of the award anywhere except by the recipient (who is obviously not a neutral party and could therefore be expected to highlight even exceptionally marginal things, providing little weight to them), this makes it hard to justify as worth including. --] (]) 21:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Far Out Magazine == | |||
| I raised this briefly on the talk page, but it does not look like a determination has been made regarding the reliability of ]. More specifically, I'd like to cite an article covering cryptocurrency such as the following: | |||
| Would ] be considered a reliable source for music and the arts? ] (]) 23:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Related sources ] and ] have been determined to be reliable. ] raised concerns because it is cryptocurrency coverage. There are currently community wide sanctions on all cryptocurrency-related sources under ] that were put in place in 2018. However, nearly three years later, ] seems to be in a different place (less mania now and more institutional and regulatory buy-in). I can understand keeping these sanctions in place for a majority of smaller cryptocurrencies, but well known ones such as ] and ] are receiving consistent coverage in perennial reliable sources such as Bloomberg<ref>{{cite web |title=Billionaires and Arya Stark Are Buying Bitcoin. Should You? |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-02/how-to-buy-bitcoin-btc-beginners-guide-to-investing-in-the-cryptocurrency |website=Bloomberg.com |language=en |date=2 December 2020}}</ref>, the NY Times<ref>{{cite web |last1=Popper |first1=Nathaniel |title=Bitcoin Hits New Record, This Time With Less Talk of a Bubble |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/30/technology/bitcoin-record-price.html |website=The New York Times |date=30 November 2020}}</ref> and Forbes<ref>{{cite web |last1=Castillo |first1=Michael del |title=Visa Partners With Ethereum Digital Dollar Startup That Raised $271 Million |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2020/12/02/visa-partners-with-ethereum-digital-dollar-startup-that-raised-271-million/?sh=5d7086464b1f |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref>. | |||
| :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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :I treat CNBC as equivalent in reliability to its sister channels ] and ]. I am not well-versed enough in the topic of cryptocurrency to comment on that, but I don't see why CNBC would be inferior to any other reputable general news source in the US. feminist ] 15:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::They ran a lot of blatant and terrible shilling for cryptocurrencies through 2017 and 2018, particularly courtesy Ran Neuner telling people to buy the shitcoin of the week on his segment. It was so bad that every crypto advocates made fun of it, and when they featured Bitcoin's recent price rise the joke was "oh no, guess it's gonna crash now." So yeah, I'd normally say it's a normal ], but on that topic I'd advise caution - ] (]) 15:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay, so I think the concern regarding reliability comes in when they seemed to have been shilling cryptos in the past as opposed to covering just the news regarding them. I understand this concern. I've seen them do this with stocks also, and I think it's mostly present on their television shows like ]. Regardless, it sounds like we are all in agreement that their ''news'' coverage overall is reliable. I think the articles like the one in my original post are fine, but let me know if anyone has any concerns. ] (]) 14:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist talk}} | |||
| :TL;DR, no, ''Far Out'' is unreliable; it's a website that engages in churnalism. See ] at ]. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 14:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: we had the host stating "You’re not going to get fired anymore if you had some Bitcoin, but you might get fired if you didn’t." Echoing what the bitcoin-shilling guest "expert" was saying, but phrasing it better for him in her own words. Goodness me - ] (]) 19:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Minimally reliable, there may be some use but in general I don't think they're reliable for the reasons that have been mentioned (especially the churnalism/CIRCULAR concerns). I don't think that this is suprising, they are what it says on the label... "Far Out" ] (]) 23:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Seems like generic commentary from the host and something you'd see most reporters from ] do while conducting interviews. Regardless, I don't intend to cite to videos/shows like the above but rather their published news articles. ] (]) 23:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{reply|HocusPocus00}} I just read the article from start to finish twice. There are still things in it that make no sense to me, like the "sharded blockchain" quote. Overall, the entire article seems like either summations of press release material, or quotations from various Etherium or cryptocoin evangelists. My main question or concern on the particular article is that the list of interviewees or mentions is: | |||
| # "proponents of Ethereum 2.0" | |||
| # "Some crypto evangelists" | |||
| # Konstantin Richter, CEO of blockchain software firm Blockdaemon | |||
| # Jerome de Tychey, co-founder and president of Ethereum France | |||
| I don't know that it's crossing into the realm of unreliable, but I definitely feel after reading the article as if "Tech Reporter for @CNBCi" (per his Twitter self-description) Ryan Browne didn't give the reader a full or well-balanced view of the subject? ] (]) 23:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{reply|IHateAccounts}} I agree with all of your points. The quotes in the article to explain ] were terribly confusing. I think this is a result of the reporter speaking with folks who couldn't articulate complicated subjects in an easy to understand way. I think the reporter did a good job throughout the rest of the article explaining fairly difficult subject-matter however. ] (]) 23:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is it possibly a wider problem of what happens when serious reporters try to cover what is historically a ] topic in general? The last I really saw of cryptocurrencies was John Oliver's segment . ] (]) 04:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{reply|IHateAccounts}}No, it's not ], just new and esoteric. Other news outlets don't have issues.<ref>{{cite web |title=Beyond Bitcoin: These Cryptocurrencies Are Doing Even Better |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-03/ethereum-xet-xrp-litecoin-xlc-cryptocurrency-alternative-to-bitcoin-btc |website=Bloomberg.com |language=en |date=3 December 2020}}</ref> I don't even think the CNBC article above is that bad- the analogies they just used in the article were confusing. ] (]) 05:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Are the sources in these articles primary or secondary? == | |||
| == Crunchbase News == | |||
| 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) | |||
| I've seen ongoing discussions about using ] as a source, because it is a popular industry investor site for funding info. But none of the archived discussions distinguish between Crunchbase's user generated content, particularly their company databases and funding news collections, and their independent news reporting group, Crunchbase News.] I'd like to add a new entry at ] for Crunchbase News, just below Crunchbase, to distinguish the two, and would like to generate a consensus before choosing a status. While I've found their news reporting to be reliable, it would be fine to even start with a no consensus, similar to how ] is treated. This would at least keep the news sources from being dismissed outright, if they are considered guilty by association with Crunchbase's deprecated status, which also seems to have impacted the AfD perception of TechCrunch, due to the similar names. ] ] ] 23:13, 2 December 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) | |||
| : {{duses|news.crunchbase.com}} is only used around 80 times, no opinion on content. 23:39, 3 December 2020 (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 == | |||
| == Reliable sources for unrecognised states == | |||
| Would ] be considered a reliable source in terms of advertising campaigns? ] (]) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| There is now a ] on whether ] and ] should appear in the list of unrecognised states. Several users provides multiple examples of these entities being referenced as de facto states and unrecognised states in scholarly articles and this what is written in the book ''Unrecognized States and Secession in the 21st Century'' by Riegl and Bobos: | |||
| * AdWeek is a perfectly reliable advertising trade magazine. ] (]) 21:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{cquote|However, it has become clear that de facto states are not simply ephemeral phenomena that will collapse on their own (Broers 2013); they have demonstrated their longevity. The four de facto states in the former Soviet space have all existed for more than two decades, as has Somaliland, while Northern Cyprus has been a de facto state for four decades. Moreover, new contested territories that could be described as de facto states have emerged, most notably the '''Donetsk People’s Republic''' and the '''Luhansk People’s Republic''' in Ukraine. These two newest additions to the universe of de facto states have started to create some of the trappings of statehood, although the extent of ‘indigenous roots’ is still debatable}} | |||
| *:The thing is public relations notices aren’t usually considered reliable for companies. ] (]) 22:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I think this is quite sufficient to include them in the list, noting differing opinions. I would love to hear outside feedback on this, along with suggestions of reliable sources which can through additional light on this. ]<sub>]</sub> 09:10, 3 December 2020 (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 == | |||
| :To be clear, the question here is, does this source demonstrate that the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic are widely considered in the academic or legal community to meet the requirements of the ] (possibly as articulated by ])? | |||
| I came across being used in the ] article to support this claim: | |||
| :This is a fairly strict standard, but it's there for a reason. Misplaced Pages should not be the first independent source to declare that a state exists. In cases where the international diplomatic community universally holds that no state exists, we need good evidence to the contrary from the academic or legal community or else we fail the standard of ]. | |||
| {{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) | |||
| :Editors at ] and ] have traditionally rejected sources such as that cited above. The problem is not that the source is unreliable for what it says. The problem is that it doesn't support the claim that Alaexis wishes to make by including Donetsk and Luhansk on the list. ''''']''''' <small>'']''</small> 22:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::I wasn’t aware that WP endorsed the declarative theory of statehood or any other Political Science theory for that matter. Where in our policy or guidelines does it say thats our standard? ] (]) 15:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] == | |||
| :::We don't. If Donetsk or Luhansk were recognised by a UN member state (per the other theory, the ]) then that would be fine. But the source doesn't say that either. ''''']''''' <small>'']''</small> 16:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] on the multiple issues regarding that article. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:<br> | |||
| Is ] reliable? It is supporting the following statement on ]: | |||
| 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> | |||
| :In 2015, Blinken said judging between Turkey and the ] ] was "not even a matter of discussion" since Turkey is "an important U.S. ally".<ref>{{cite news |title=How would Blinken impact U.S.-Turkey relations as secretary of state? |url=https://ahvalnews.com/turkey-us/how-would-blinken-impact-us-turkey-relations-secretary-state |work=] |date=November 23, 2020}}</ref> | |||
| 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") | |||
| Thanks, all, for any input. ] (]) (]) 13:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :This seems to be only reported in media directly or indirectly controlled by Turkish government, so I question whether it is WP:DUE. (] · ]) ''']''' 06:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ahval is not directly or indirectly controlled by the Turkish government, but is in fact censored in Turkey for its anti-government stance. It has been linked by various critics to the UAE, the Gulen movement and the Muslim Brotherhood. I don't know it well enough to know how reliable/unreliable it is though, or on which topics. My hunch, from looking at it now, is that it is probably reliable on Turkish politics where it might be a good corrective to some Turkish-based state-controlled media, but perhaps less so on geopolitical issues related to the UAE. ] (]) 15:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| ]: 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> | |||
| == Daily Mail part 874 == | |||
| ]: 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): | |||
| Could someone clarify the extent to which {{tq|Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context}} applies? Specifically, roughly how far back do "historically" and "old" mean? ] (]) 14:53, 3 December 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) | |||
| :It's never been defined. The examples in ] are ] (which it's used in) and the ] (which it isn't). There were a couple of claims of historical usefulness in ], from people who wanted the present-day version un-deprecated, so I'd question the usefulness of said claims for clarifying a consensus they were expressly opposed to. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :Even then, in ], arguably that's an ], as much as the big front-page picture on ]. | |||
| :::{{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) | |||
| :The era when it was supposedly good has never been defined in the three years since. I'd question whether it should have been included in the original RFC finding. Someone recently tried applying it as of 2013, which lol no - but DM advocates have tried it on with every applicable excuse, and inapplicable ones. | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| :Some eras were arguably ''even worse'' than others, but that doesn't necessarily make the case that the other eras were actually ''good''. Like the editors who made out that the Mail on Sunday was not the Daily Mail, therefore was a first-class generally reliable paper - when no it isn't, it's also a trashy lying tabloid and is now firmly deprecated also. | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| :So I'd still apply the utmost of caution. 'Cos you know that the very first thing that will happen is a DM advocate trying to get the paper back into Misplaced Pages as broadly as possible through the hole in question, whether it's applicable or not - ] (]) 16:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--] (]) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?''']]''' 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. ''The Independent'' is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. ] (]) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the ] was a thing according to a Facebook post made by a high school that he attended).{{efn|Machine translation: Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamusa, a native of Al-Shahr and a graduate of the third class of Al-Mukalla High School for Boys (now Bin Shihab High School for Boys)<br>High School Flags<br>Tuesday, September 17, 2024<br>After years of parting, Abu Bakr Bin Shihab High School for Boys in Mukalla embraced Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamoussa, who graduated on the educational ladder for years and is now at the age of retirement. He visited the high school and in his gaze with passion and love for the past years, he climbed the stairs of the high school to the second floor to the office of the principal Mr. Saeed Ahmed Al-Amari, who welcomed him warmly and said that this visit gave us a boost and moral support, and the visit for Mr. Bamoussa was to ask about the old administrators, services and guards who were who were in the period of the sixties and seventies, but unfortunately the administration could not answer this and invites everyone who has information about them to raise it quickly, as Mr. Bamoussa has been working for years on writing a book about the beginning of education in Hadramawt since the time of the Qaitian Sultanate in the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, and he made a very important statement that the first principal of the high school is Mr. Karama Bammin from Tarim and then came after him Mr. Al-Sudani Al-Taloudi and this was a surprise for us and he confirmed this in his book that will see the light after completion of it.<br>May God prolong his life and give him health and wellness to provide us with important information about the history of education in Hadramawt.<br>The high school administration thanks Mr. Mohammed Bamoussi for this visit and this effort exerted by him for this wonderful work, and wishes the officials in the Ministry of Education, the governorate office and the local authority to adopt such people who raise the slogan of education and the slogan of Hadramawt, the land of science, knowledge and culture.}} He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others . He also published a book about the city of Shihr . He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023 {{pb}}{{talkreflist|group=lower-alpha}} ''']]''' 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.] (]) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the ] ] and ] sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) ''']]''' 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. ] (]) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. ] (]) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in , which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! ] (]) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hi, @]. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this: | |||
| ::::::"Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India , his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." ] (]) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{tq|1=capturing Al-Shihr}}<br>hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? ''']]''' 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder. | |||
| ::::::::I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. ] (]) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city ''']]''' 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. ] (]) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{outdent|8}} {{tq|1="Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, '''capturing Al-Shihr''',}} (Never happened btw) {{tq|1= and how important it would be to conquer Diu."}}<br> ''']]''' 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? ''']]''' 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned ''']]''' 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::capturing a city != sacking it <br>your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here ''']]''' 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. ] (]) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Now show me where in your sources does it say that ''']]''' 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You were just denying that this happened after I showed you the sources, why are you asking this now? Didn't I just give them above? ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{outdent|7}} What sources about capturing a city did you show me? Those letters clearly show that the portuguese wanted to capture the city and they failed as we have no proof of them being there after the battle was over. But did they lie to whoever they sent this letter to? ''']]''' 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Bossip == | |||
| ::First, please note that we cannot trust any statements in the Daily Mail about the content of previous editions of the Daily Mail. They are known to lie about the contents of their own publications, even going so far as to photoshop real-looking pages with the old dates. | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::In my opinion, the unreliability goes back at least as far as 1970, when ] relaunched the Daily Mail as a tabloid. Not sure about pre-1970. --] (]) 16:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks marginally reliable to me. Like it's not great. But by the standards of pop culture media it's not as bad as it might be. ] (]) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please compare these headlines: | |||
| ::Thank you for the response. That is fair. I had a similar opinion about to be honest. If I do decide to work on this article in the future, I may use other sources first and then see if this one would even be necessary in the end or not. For the purposes of a FAC, which has stricter requirements for sources, it may not be the best option for that context. ] (]) 19:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :What exactly would 'Before she was the illest female in her Dillard’s department, Amil was the illest in all of Hip-Hop, making $40K/guest verse as the Roc’s first lady? Riiiiiiiight.' be used to source? ] (]) 20:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: It would be used as a negative review for the song as it is criticizing Amil's lyrics. ] (]) 20:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah. The use of slang isn't the issue here. Reliability isn't a register of specific vocabulary. I suppose the question would be whether, Amil was, in fact, making $40,000 per guest verse previously. Should they be reporting that factual statement accurately and should they have a decent history of accuracy in reporting and clarity in corrections when they make an error then the rest is just aesthetics. ] (]) 20:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: It wouldn't be reported in the article as a factual statement. The "$40,000 per guest verse" bit is part of the song's lyrics and would be addressed in that context, not as an absolute fact. ] (]) 21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Seems pretty odd if not outright illogical to use a gossip website if you're going to bring this to FAC. The typical reviewer there expects the '''''cream of the crop''''' of sources, not tabloid gossip. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 00:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Read some of the articles on the site and it's overly unserious and pretentious BS; my advice is to not use this source. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 00:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Okay. Thank you for the response. I agree with your assessment. I have removed it from the article. I am honestly not sure why I used it in the first place. I just thought that it would be beneficial to open a discussion about it here to get further feedback. I believe my question has been answered, and hopefully this can be used to help any other editors in the future. ] (]) 02:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Science-fiction fanzines == | |||
| ::::'''"Titanic Sunk. No Lives Lost. Collision with an Iceberg. Largest Ship in the World. 2,358 Lives in Peril. Rush of Liners to the Rescue. All Passengers Taken Off."''' | |||
| :::: -- ''The Daily Mail'', 16 April 1912 | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::::'''"The Titanic Sinks with 1,800 on Board; Only 675, Mostly Woman and Children, Saved."''' | |||
| :::: --''The New York Herald'', 15 April, 1912 | |||
| :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) | |||
| :::Source: www.paperlessarchives.com/titanic_newspaper_archive.html | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| :::If Misplaced Pages had been around in 1912, which of the above sources would you prefer that we had used? --] (]) 16:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There is a reasonable issue of doubt here due to the communications level between US + UK, though, as pointed out that page: "Though not an uncommon mistake, the London Daily Mail ran the unfortunate headline on April 16, 1912, "Titanic Sunk. No Lives Lost. Collision with an Iceberg. Largest Ship in the World. 2,358 Lives in Peril. Rush of Liners to the Rescue. All Passengers Taken Off." Compare this to the New York Herald April 15, 1912 headline, "The Titanic Sinks with 1,800 on Board; Only 675, Mostly Woman and Children, Saved". Did the DM later correct that error? (Which we know today's DM does not do). We're talking print so obviously the time factor has to be considered here that the correction may have been in the 17 April paper. --] (]) 17:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That said, if we were writing the Titanic article on 16 April and had ''all'' the sources that that archive gives, clearly the DM would be an outlier compared to the NYTimes and several of the other papers that page presents, and we'd simply use the majority "facts". We're still in the area of question of older information sources only to the DM well prior to 1970 (and affirming all future corrections/etc.) This is an interesting pre-1940 history that points out, broadly it has had a conservative bent through that part of history and engage in political attacks, but nothing necessarily saying its factual reporting was false or made up, as compared to today. I fully agree that the 1970 conversion to tabloid format is at the bare minimum the point where post-1970 we should consider the work tainted. --] (]) 17:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The first transatlantic telegraph cable was laid in 1858. ''The Daily Mail'' could have checked and seen what the New Your papers published the previous day. That being said, I agree that the Titanic report is not the smoking gun that shows them making things up before 1970 It was simply sloppy reporting, which we see in many sources. Given the information I have seen so far, I would classify the pre-1970 DM as ''biased'' but not ''unreliable''. We use biased sources all of the time. --] (]) 17:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, definitely at least biased in the area of British and European politics in late 19th-early 20th century period, that should be a careful warning to use without attribution. But there's still a post-1940, pre-1970 period I'm not clear on yet. --] (]) 17:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::FWIW, Erik Larsen's latest ] documents how the British government controlled the press and how the US had to break negative stories during Churchill's early years as PM. ] ] ] 18:20, 3 December 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 ]. | |||
| {{outdent}} On the specific question of ''Titanic'' reporting, see . Any number of newspapers besides the ''Daily Mail'' got it wrong at first. ] ] 01:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not familiar enough with Beebom to know their overall reporting but I've come across issues. | |||
| == User-generated content website, which explicitly asks for user contributions == | |||
| * 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. | |||
| "Iran Chamber Society" (http://www.iranchamber.com/) is a user-generated content blog-style site with a number of pages relating to Iranian culture and history managed by anonymous individual(s) calling themselves the Iran Chamber Society. Many of the pages within are unattributed or (this particular page is frequently used on Misplaced Pages, and lacks any attribution, references, etc.). Those pages that actually have attribution simply include a name and appear to been copy-pasted from existing works which copies from a book called ''The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East'' by Charles Horne. However, I've only seen the unattributed, unreferenced pages get used on Misplaced Pages articles . | |||
| * Their are limited and don't disclose important information. For example, they don't state a separation of ads from editorial. They don't mention here the affiliate programs they're in or the sponsorship deals they do. They don't mention their Beebom Gadgets storefront where they sell phones and make videos on them. However, they disclose having an Amazon affiliate program in their . But they don't disclose the other "affiliate partners" they use. These issues brings into question conflicts of interest which they don't have a policy on. Alongside other basic guidelines like a corrections policy or how they handle accepting samples (if they do). | |||
| **A 2016 interview explains that they make money from sponsored posts and partnerships. This isn't included in their editorial guidelines. I bring it up since they feature this interview on their About Us page, but Misplaced Pages blocks links to the interviewer's site, YourStory. | |||
| **They as "#sponsored" 5 years ago but stopped. It seems they now use a byline named "Partner Content" for those articles. But they don't mention anything about a sponsorship or partnership in their latest article under this byline. Nor is there anything about this in their policies. So I can't confirm if they do this for all paid content or not. | |||
| *I tried looking into their gaming coverage after seeing them on the ] page and found a where they deliberately lie. The headline is, "Black Myth: Wukong Is Now the Most Played Steam Game of All Time", which they almost immediately state isn't true. While also stating "Yes, Black Myth Wukong is now the most-played Steam game of all time!" This makes me question their overall fact checking and reliability when they lie in a news headline. | |||
| I can't find much mention of Beebom aside from their own social media on google. Even after removing their social media, I can't find anything. ] (]) 02:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The "About Us" page (http://www.iranchamber.com/about_us/about_us.php) is very revealing, as they specifically ask for user contributions. | |||
| {{Quote | |||
| |text=Since our resources are limited we need your support, feedback and advice not only to maintain the content of this site on the net but also to help it grow. All suggestions and corrections are deeply appreciated and will go under the thoughtful consideration. Our achievement up to now is relied on the generosity and commitment of our contributors. | |||
| :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) | |||
| Herewith, Iran Chamber Society sincerely invites all Iranian and non-Iranian scholars and researchers to become contributing members and publish their articles and research papers on this platform and share them with the rest of the world. | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| From looking through most of the website, the articles appear to be either non-attributed user contribution, copy-pasted from someone else's published work, or in several cases an attributed user contribution. | |||
| For reference, the user-generated content section of ] states: ''"Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, video and image hosting services, most wikis, and other collaboratively created websites."'' | |||
| Jacobin is currently listed as "generally reliable" under ]. ] (]) 08:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Saucysalsa30}}, Has anyone claimed the source is RS? If not you can just axe it, without a discussion. (] · ]) ''']''' 04:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{u|Buidhe}} Not really, only 1 user claiming that it's not my place to decide if it's RS or not, hence why I'm here. Thanks for your response. ] (]) 08:26, 4 December 2020 (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. ] (]) 08:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :By itself, "publishes user-submitted content" isn't terribly informative. What's really important is what happens with the submitted content i.e., what are their editorial practices? Peer-reviewed journals, for example, publish content submitted by "users" but their high quality editorial and review practices (generally) make them reliable. If this particular source does little or no review and editing of submitted content then of course that is a huge red flag. ] (]) 04:21, 4 December 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) | |||
| :: {{u|ElKevbo}} Thanks for your input. There isn't evidence of an editorial review process, nor is this a peer-reviewed journal or periodic. They overstate themselves in their "About Us" page, as the majority of pages are unattributed and likely self-written, which I would assume the individual(s) who manage the site wrote themselves. | |||
| ::That would indicate, notwithstanding snark on Twitter, the website for snark, Jacobin actually did the thing we expect of a reliable source and made a correction to an article with a factual error, identifying with a correction notice that a correction had been made. ] (]) 14:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I think this justifies a significant increase in caution towards the author at the very least. In general, an in-depth look at it's reliability is probably due, even though a Reddit discussion isn't evidence. ] (]) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It's strange that it was closed as 'generally reliable' in the first place, when most respondents voted either 'no consensus' or 'generally unreliable' in the last RFC. ] (]) 10:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Had a quick perusal of the r/neoliberal subreddit. It appears to be discussing one sentence in one (possibly opinion) article in Jacobin. Are you asking whether that particular article is a reliable source for that one sentence? ] (]) 10:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just as an aside, RFCs are ] (if they were then reliability would be based on the personal opinions of those taking part). I can't speak for the closer of that RFC, but it appears those saying that Jacobin is 'general reliable' had better policy based reasons. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Sources making corrections, as has happened in this case, is a sign of reliability. Things that happen on social media, and reactions on social media, are mostly irrelevant. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The ] that supposedly found ''Jacobin'' to be reliable really is a bit of a tenuous close. A simple beancount in that RfC would lean against treating it as ], and I'm not really able to discern ''why'' the arguments for reliability were so much stronger than those in opposition that an affirmative Option 1 consensus was declared instead of a no-consensus close (at minimum). I do think that it's ripe for re-evaluation. — ] <sub>]</sub> 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The author's behavior would be annoying if we were chatting at lunch and I personally dislike the smugness, but reliability isn't a personality contest, and as Simonm223 points out the article itself was corrected and the erroneous information removed. That's basically what we expect a reliable source to do—fix itself when an error gets pointed out. So long as the actual content produced is dependable or gets fixed to become dependable, that's reliability. Anonymous Reddit complaints trying to score Internet points aren't a compelling reason for overturning the prior RfC. Evidence of a pattern of unreliable reporting and ''failures'' to make corrections would be more persuasive. ] (] | ] | ]) 03:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I don't think reviewing this again is going to change anything much, the "worst" outcome is likely a 2, but because it often mixes news and opinion, even a 1 is going to be caveated with caution or attribute, so absent falsehoods, etc might as well let sleeping dogs lie. ] (]) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I think it is time for a review of the past discussion and time to bring up Jacobin for a reliability check. ] (]) 03:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I don't hold Jacobin in any particular high regard but, as I mentioned above, publicly issuing a statement of correction when a factual inaccuracy is identified is the standard Misplaced Pages expects from reliable news media. So I guess my question is, aside from it having a bias that is different from the NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus, what, precisely, is it that makes Jacobin less reliable? What is the basis for an RfC? ] (]) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::What does "NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus" mean? ] (]) 21:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * It looks like they handled this appropriately, can you explain what the issue would be? Your comment is a little light on details, its basically just spamming a reddit discussion... Maybe tell us what you think? ] (]) 17:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| A new discussion on Jacobin is long overdue, particularly per ]. It's clear that Jacobin is not reliable on all topics, and at the very least additional considerations should apply in these cases. --] (]) 23:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: As far as "attributed" pages go, each one I've looked at are copy-pasted from an existing published work, meaning it wasn't submitted to the website. For example, the Charles Horne book in my opening comment. , and Horne died in 1942. Evidently he couldn't have submitted something to a website. Or for example the text is a direct copy-paste from a short post called "A Brief History of Iranian Jews" by Massoume Price, which I was able to find as early as Jan 2001 via Wayback Machine . The copyright at the bottom of that page is 1996. | |||
| :Agreed. ] (]) 23:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: These are just 2 of several Iran Chamber pages with a name I looked into, but from what I'm seeing, 1) the Iran Chamber site manager(s) self-published many of their own pages, and 2) for pages with attribution, they copy-pasted existing published material from books, other websites, etc. to their website. Basically it looks like someone's hobby website on which they created most of the content themselves and copy-pasted the rest from existing writings, but misleadingly make the site sound like a bigger deal than it actually is in their "About Us" page. There is nothing to indicate it is like any actual academic resource or journal. ] (]) 08:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::An RfC next would be worthwhile. ] (]) 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ultimately the WP:ONUS to prove RS is on the party seeking to use the source, and there's zero evidence that this really is a RS (and plenty to the contrary). (] · ]) ''']''' 08:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::: {{ping|buidhe}} Thanks for your feedback. I think that settles this matter then. ] (]) 01:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Iran Chamber Society seems to be widely used on Misplaced Pages articles related to Iran and its history; for example, I count at least six references to Iran Chamber on the main article ]. It would appear that most of us here are, to be blunt, not familiar with this source, its editorial policies, or its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; I see only one previous RSN discussion of Iran Chamber, which I have to WikiProject Iran for any insights that its members might have, although I do not know how active the project is.] (]) 22:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors == | |||
| == Self-contradicting or falsified source. == | |||
| {{Archive top|status=|result=The discussion is partially non-topical for this forum. The discussion about the issues that belong here continues below in {{slink||The Heritage Foundation}}.—] 19:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Taking this here based on a recommendation from {{U|Aquillion}}. The conversation began where a report from forward was shared . According to this report, the Heritage Foundation {{tq|plan to use facial recognition software and a database of hacked usernames and passwords in order to identify contributors to the online encyclopedia}}. A copy of the Heritage Foundation proposal deck is available . This Heritage Foundation plan to dox wikipedia editors also {{tq|would include creating fake Misplaced Pages user accounts to try to trick editors into identifying themselves by sharing personal information or clicking on malicious tracking links that can identify people who click on them. It is unclear whether this has begun.}} | |||
| Clearly this situation is alarming in the extreme and the discussion at the arbitration case brought forward the very reasonable suggestion of a project-wide block of all Heritage Foundation domains. So why here? Well Aquillion suggested a reasonable first-step toward this would be to get the site deprecated and blacklisted via RS/N. So that's what I'm here to do. ] (]) 14:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I am unsure about a retalitory deprecation (or whatever). ] (]) 14:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::No this would be a preventative deprecation. The idea, to my understanding, is to remove the ability of Heritage Foundation domains to interact with en.wp as much as possible. ] (]) 14:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is that not best done with range blocks, to prevent them from setting up accounts? ] (]) 14:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think this is a discussion to be had at the Village Pump, as it's not a matter of reliability. Deprecation wouldn't have the effect that your looking for, you would need blacklisting and I don't think this would fall within the normal process of blacklisting. So a discussion at VP seems more appropriate as it's something outside of prior policy or guidelines. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::A village pump discussion was created and the suggestion to bring the conversation here actually arose from discussion of that conversation at the arbitration page. Honestly I'm pretty nervous about a pseudo-governmental organization trying to interfere with individual Misplaced Pages editors in this way so I'll happily take the conversation to whatever board we think is most appropriate. But right now we've got a whole lot of conversations pointing to different places as a precis to discussing the actual problem. ] (]) 14:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hostile actions by a third party against Misplaced Pages or it's editors isn't a reliability issue, and this isn't a forum for anything but reliability issues. If anything it sounds more like safe guarding, a much bigger issue that should probably involve the WMF. However if editors want to start a discussion about it's reliability, per the sources below, that would be a seperate matter. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I will point out that part of what I said there was that they're already used on some , and are probably ''already'' depracable for publishing obvious disinformation (especially since the 2020 election.) I wouldn't have suggested going through RSN to deprecate them if I didn't think they were ''also'' worthy of deprecating on their own merits, entirely separately from the threats to use their websites to dox Misplaced Pages editors; but deprecating them would make it easier to add them to the spam blacklist and would help avoid situations where editors are forced into a situation where they have to consider whether to click a link to an obviously Heritage Foundation-controlled site in order to verify a presented source. I suppose we could just move ahead with trying to get those sites added to the spam blacklist ''without'' deprecation, but for a site that also publishes disinformation, it seems easier to get it deprecated first, since it ought to be an easy call. --] (]) 14:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Apologies if I misinterpreted. I'll admit that reading the thread at the arbitration case upset me rather considerably. ] (]) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is a more valid reason, there do seem to be issues with the recent work. ] (]) 14:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This discussion should be closed and a proper thread should be opened with substantiated concrete claims about problems with this source. —] 15:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The thread itself is the precursor to an RFC. That said, they've published misinformation or disinformation about climate change,<ref name="Washington_2011">{{Cite book |last1=Washington |first1=Haydn |title=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |title-link=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |last2=Cook |first2=John |publisher=Earthscan |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-84971-335-1 |location=London |page=75,77 |oclc=682903020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Fisher |first=Michael |title=Heritage Foundation |url=https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210808183550/https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |archive-date=August 8, 2021 |access-date=September 1, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first1=Ruth E.|last1=McKie|title=The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America|url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|publisher=Springer International Publishing|date=2023 |location=Cham|isbn=978-3-031-33592-1|pages=19–50|via=Springer Link|doi=10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|quote=Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...}}</ref> the FDA<ref>{{cite book|first1=Zane C.|last1=Wubbena|first2=Derek R.|last2=Ford|first3=Brad J.|last3=Porfilio|title=News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XAcoDwAAQBAJ|publisher=Routledge|date=1 March 2016|isbn=978-1-68123-401-4|via=Google Books|pp=49|quote=For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.’s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...}}</ref> elections and politics,<ref name="Kessler_2021">{{Cite web |last=Kessler |first=Glenn |date=March 31, 2021 |title=The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511214334/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |archive-date=May 11, 2021 |access-date=April 2, 2021 |newspaper=]}}</ref><ref name="NYT-GAvideo-2024-09-07">{{Cite news |last1=Bensinger |first1=Ken |last2=Fausset |first2=Richard |date=September 7, 2024 |title=Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |work=The New York Times |access-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240907203454/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Fields |first1=Gary |last2=Swenson |first2=Ali |title=Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force |url=https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |publisher=Associated Press |date=July 12, 2024 |access-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713110730/https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |url-status=live }}</ref> and more. --] (]) 16:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's enough to open an RFC. ] (]) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Can I suggest closing this section and starting another, to afford accusations that questions of reliability are based on animosity to the source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{+1}} I think it's time we started a RfC (perhaps in a new section, as suggested by AD). ] (]) 17:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, new section. —] 18:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::An RFC is in a new section already? You mean a new RFCbefore section? Titled Heritage Foundation? (ie without the dox part) ] (]) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::New level 2 section. —] 19:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I certainly have no objection to closing this discussion and opening a new one to host an RfC / RfC Before.] (]) 19:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| At ], this source is used to source the following text: <blockquote> Appian was the only ancient author that refers to them as Atintani (not Atintanes) with the ethnonym "Illyrian". Šašel Kos considered that Appian specifically referred to the Atintani as an Illyrian tribe. She argued that it may be in agreement with the informations provided by Pseudo-Scylax, who included the Atintanes among the Illyrian peoples, barbarians, located to the north of Chaonia.</blockquote> | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Could someone who can read Bengali take a look at ]? == | |||
| In this edit , Sasel Kos clearly states that {{tq|Appian is the only ancient author to refer to the Atintani as Illyrian people."}}. In this edit , it is stated that {{tq|Sasel Kos considered that Appian specifically referred to the Atintani as an Illyrian tribe. She argued that it may be in agreement with the informations provided by Pseudo-Scylax, who included the Atintanes among the Illyrian peoples}}. Sasel Kos thus contradicts herself. If Appian is the only ancient author to refer to the Atintanians as Illyrian, it can't be that Pseudo-Scylax (another ancient author) included them among the Illyrians. Even worse, '''the translation of Pseudo-Scylax does not include the Atintanes among the Illyrians. It only mentions them once, and says nothing about Illyrians in that passage.''' This can clearly be seen on p. 62 of the translation here . There are only two possibilities: Sasel Kos contradicts herself and contains glaring factual errors regarding Pseudo-Scylax, and is thus not reliable. Or else Sasel Kos falsified/mistranslated. Any help would be greatly appreciated. ] (]) 02:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, if you look hard enough you can find errors and contradictions, even in peer-reviewed academic books. Overall, ] is highly cited for her field and I would say the publisher (]) is reliable. (] · ]) ''']''' 02:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::The question is then what to do. It clearly contradicts itself and contains a factual error. Assuming it's not outright falsified, which could be the case. ] (]) 03:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::There's nothing to do because there's no factual error. One of the two editors used a bad, half cropped, one-sentence quote. Both actual quotes: | |||
| *::{{tquote|Appian specifically referred to the Atintani as an Illyrian people , which may be in accordance with the data in Pseudo - Scylax ( c . 22 – 27 ) . The author of the Periplus distinguished between the Illyrian peoples , barbarians , to the north of Chaonia , i . e . the Bulini , Nesti , Manii , Autariatae , Encheleis , Taulantii , Atintanes , and Amantini , while others , i . e . the Chaones , Thesproti, Cassopaei, and Molossi, whom he did not identify in terms of their ethnicity inhabited the regions to the south. All of these peoples, those to the north and to the south of Chaonia, were living in villages, while Greece began at the Greek polis of Ambracia ( c . 33 ).}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| *::{{tquote| Appian is also the only one to mention the Illyrian Atintani ( sic , not Atintanes ) who , on Demetrius ' instigation , ceased to acknowledge the authority of the Romans and defected to the Illyrian kingdom . Interestingly , Appian never mentioned the Parthini ( settled in the Genusus ( Shkumbini ] valley ) , who had , according to Polybius , surrendered to the Romans together with the Atintanes. The Atintanes , who were the northeastern neighbours of the Chaones , inhabited , according to P . Cabanes , who collected all the relevant literary and epigraphic sources , the hilly region on the right bank of the Aous River ( Vjosa ) in the far hinterland to the southeast of Apollonia , in the vicinity , immediately to the east , of Byllis , between the plain of Myzeqeja and Tepelena.}} Now, if that is compared to how it was transferred to wikipedia: , it's obvious that the problem was related to the quote, not what Šašel Kos put forward.--] (]) 03:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :You may have more luck asking at ] or ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What's "wrong" is that the Periplus doesn't include the Atintani among the Illyrians. The only mention of the Atintani is on p. 62 . All it says is {{tq|Sharing a border with the Amantes in the interior are the Atintani above Orikos.}} That's it. No mention of "Illyrians". Clear-cut factual error. ] (]) 03:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, will repost there (West Bengal, since it's the Wikiproject whose scope covers the article's subject). --] (]) 22:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The Periplous is ] and its interpretation is the work of historians and archaeologists. A discussion about what the Periplous means to say is something out of the scope of wikipedia. Now, {{tquote|Appian specifically referred to the Atintani as an Illyrian people , which may be in accordance with the data in Pseudo - Scylax ( c . 22 – 27 ) . The author of the Periplus distinguished between the Illyrian peoples , barbarians , to the north of Chaonia , i . e . the Bulini , Nesti , Manii , Autariatae , Encheleis , Taulantii , Atintanes , and Amantini , while others , i . e . the Chaones , Thesproti, Cassopaei, and Molossi, whom he did not identify in terms of their ethnicity inhabited the regions to the south.}} can't even be read as "According to Šašel Kos the Periplous of Pseudo-Skylax says that the Atintani were Illyrians" in a straightforward way. What she says is that the fact that Appian calls them Illyrians is "in accordance with the data in the Periplous" which includes the Atintani with the "barbarians" north of the Chaones. To recap, sources should be read and quoted carefully, otherwise it's easy to make mistakes. Thank you.--] (]) 04:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::As Buidhe said, even reliable sources may contain contradictions and factual inaccuracies, which clearly is the case here. ] (]) 04:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::There's no contradiction - Šašel Kos puts forward something very nuanced and certainly not "that the Periplous of Pseudo-Skylax says that the Atintani were Illyrians". The problem is that it was half quoted and ] should be discussed by ]. Every study of WP:PRIMARY is basically a master's degree in itself. We should be more careful in such discussions. I'm off to finish some work.--] (]) 04:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Šašel Kos is not contradicting herself, she firstly reports Appian's information, then she compares this information with the data from Pseudo-Scylax, because she considers that they may be in accordance with each other, since Pseudo-Scylax lists the specific tribe among other Illyrian peoples, distinguishing them from the Epirotes or Hellenes. Many ] sources interpret Pseudo-Scylax (a ]) as considering Illyrian the peoples listed to the north of Chaones (Pseudo-Scylax: "Epeiros. And after the Illyrioi are the Chaones"). Best regards. – ] (]) 13:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Indeed there are some obvious discrepancies such as the following translation: "Idonia" (Scylax)-> "Dodona" in order to present an Illyrian domination scenario in the area.] (]) 17:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== The Heritage Foundation == | ||
| ] has published misinformation or disinformation about climate change,<ref name="Washington_2011">{{Cite book |last1=Washington |first1=Haydn |title=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |title-link=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |last2=Cook |first2=John |publisher=Earthscan |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-84971-335-1 |location=London |page=75,77 |oclc=682903020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Fisher |first=Michael |title=Heritage Foundation |url=https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210808183550/https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |archive-date=August 8, 2021 |access-date=September 1, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first1=Ruth E.|last1=McKie|title=The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America|url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|publisher=Springer International Publishing|date=2023 |location=Cham|isbn=978-3-031-33592-1|pages=19–50|via=Springer Link|doi=10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|quote=Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...}}</ref> the FDA<ref>{{cite book|first1=Zane C.|last1=Wubbena|first2=Derek R.|last2=Ford|first3=Brad J.|last3=Porfilio|title=News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XAcoDwAAQBAJ|publisher=Routledge|date=1 March 2016|isbn=978-1-68123-401-4|via=Google Books|pp=49|quote=For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.’s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...}}</ref> elections and politics,<ref name="Kessler_2021">{{Cite web |last=Kessler |first=Glenn |date=March 31, 2021 |title=The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511214334/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |archive-date=May 11, 2021 |access-date=April 2, 2021 |newspaper=]}}</ref><ref name="NYT-GAvideo-2024-09-07">{{Cite news |last1=Bensinger |first1=Ken |last2=Fausset |first2=Richard |date=September 7, 2024 |title=Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |work=The New York Times |access-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240907203454/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Fields |first1=Gary |last2=Swenson |first2=Ali |title=Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force |url=https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |publisher=Associated Press |date=July 12, 2024 |access-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713110730/https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |url-status=live }}</ref> and more. It has been publishing obvious disinformation especially since the 2020 election. Its website heritage.org is used as a source on some <s></s> (<u>correction</u>: I copied "5000" with this search link from another editor uncritically. "heritage.org" includes all of "english-heritage.org" links; the real count is —00:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)). I'm inviting editors to consider whether this source should be deprecated. Another thing to consider are possible other sources such as websites and publications operated by or published by the Heritage Foundation.—] 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :We should definitely be avoiding using sources that intentionally put forward disinformation. ] (]) 19:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hello all. I'd be interested in getting ], added to ], just to make it easier when it comes up in the future. | |||
| ::What about the ]? —] 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nothing of value would be lost if we had to do away with that one. ] (]) 19:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I like how the United States is 0.6 points away from not being green in that index. ] (]) 20:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::What about the books published by the Heritage Foundation? | |||
| ::What about https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future as a source in ]? —] 19:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Not sure I would want to go direct to deprecation unless they are demonstrably churning out falsehoods. | |||
| :On a quick search, I only found in the archives, about the Daily Signal, which looks like a pretty partisan affair. ] (]) 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :A lot of these are country rankings on the foundation's ]. Not sure if we want this used or not. ] ] 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was a bit flip above with my comment regarding that index but I guess my question would be what value it is? I mean, let's be honest, the methodological claim in our own article on the index {{tq|The creators of the index assert that they take an approach inspired by Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations}} suggests they've derived their index from theories in an outdated treatise on economics from 1776. Furthermore we could probably reproduce the index just by measuring how deregulated any given economy is. I'm not sure what neutral value there is to Misplaced Pages giving breathing space to an index that equates economic deregulation with freedom on the basis of a 250 year old book. ] (]) 20:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I mean, just as an example, their benchmark for Government spending is $0. IE: The ideal case, for this index, is that there is no government at all. ] (]) 20:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That just means you personally disagree with them. I could turn it around on you by asking what value there is to the contributions of editors who describe themselves as socialists in their userboxes. | |||
| ::::Obviously the index in question is from a particular point of view, but I don't see any evidence adduced that it's not reliable for descriptions of countries according to that POV, which is something that can be of interest. --] (]) 21:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh do stop. I've heard that particular ] violation a thousand times. My argument is that they have no valid methodology and a ] ] perspective, it is not that they are an extreme right-wing group. ] (]) 22:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I don't know much about their methodology; that's something that could be explored. As to the perspective, I think the reference to Smith is more normative than descriptive. I don't think you can apply AGEMATTERS to moral propositions. --] (]) 22:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's a moral proposition tp build your economic worldview on a text that predates electricity? ] (]) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It's a moral proposition to value lesser regulation per se (as opposed to achieve some other goal). --] (]) 23:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Their index is pseudoscience. We aren't supposed to use that in Misplaced Pages except to critique it. ] (]) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::That's a bold claim. Evidence? --] (]) 04:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don’t really care about whatever their wacky economic index dealio is, we just flat-out shouldn’t trust an organization that wants to systematically attack our userbase and will most likely harvest any data it finds for that purpose. It’s like reaching for a source in a bear trap. ] (]) 11:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::What about https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB850689110237569500 (). We are not worried that the Wall Street Journal will systematically attack our userbase etc. —] 11:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It appears that the use in these pages are not problematic and supported by ], replacing sources in 5000 pages would be a ton of work. I would like to first know in which pages did the actual use of this source appear unreliable, such as promoting ]. ] (]) 20:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think they can be counted as a reliable source but I see no objection to saying what they think since they are important if it is obvious they are being quoted as a heavily biased party. They make it fairly clear what they are rather than trying to be deceptive about their aims which at least is a mercy. Really most of these 'think tanks' and 'foundations' and 'institutes' and even 'research organizations' are like that and we'd be well off if they were specially marked as such instead of being mixed up with reliable sources. ] (]) 20:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I would consider it ] since it’s self published and openly partisan. ] (]) 21:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not self-published in the sense we use that term. Lots of reliable sources publish their own materials, including e.g. serious thinktanks. It may be GUNREL, but SPS is not a valid policy-based argument in this case. ] (]) 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::There was recently (may still be going on) a very extensive discussion about whether ] applies to "gray" sources such as think tanks and advocacy groups. This line of reasoning probably is coming out of that discussion. ] (]) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There was an ] as well, there wasn't a consensus on how to define such sources but there was consensus against ''always'' considering them to be self-published. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it can be used, but like with most such sources attribution is appropriate. ] (]) 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Please review reference no. 6 in ] ({{tq|Additionally, each state is entitled to select a number of electors to vote in the Electoral College, the body that elects the president of the United States, equal to the total of representatives and senators in Congress from that state}}). Is the source adequate? Would we want to replace it? —] 23:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah thats somewhere where I just don't see using Heritage (or any other think tank) being due. That seems like a place where academic sourcing should be pretty easy to find. ] (]) 23:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks. What do you think about the following paragraph found in ], supported by the Project 2025 publication, ''with attribution'': {{tqq|], a conservative think tank, dubbed the Space Development Agency "a model for the military". In their ''2025 Mandate for Leadership'', they call to develop new offensive space capabilities to "impose will if necessary". They further claim the Biden administration "has eliminated almost all offensive deterrence capabilities" in space that were planned under the Trump administration.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf|title=Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise|first=Heritage|last=Foundation|date=1 February 2023|website=]|access-date=1 September 2023|archive-date=16 November 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231116113522/https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>}} Is this where "attribution is appropriate", or should this entire paragraph simply be removed unless there's a secondary source on the fact that the Heritage Foundation has said so and so. —] 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Given what we now know, this can be cited as another example of their modus operandi: do what they say, or else. ] (]) 11:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It could go either way, I'm not familiar enough with the topic area. ] (]) 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It might be 'reliable' that the HF said what they said they said, but is it relevant? This is getting into questions about whether the content is even ]. Lots of people say lots of things about lots of stuff, but Misplaced Pages doesn't quote it all. ] (] | ] | ]) 07:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There's the reputed ], for one. ] (]) 12:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think the issue is them being unreliable. I think the issue is them tracking the IP of anyone who visits their sites and trying to doxx editors with that info. There might be a way to just archive all the links and then replace the links with links to the wayback machine or something to avoid sending people directly to their site. ] (]) 23:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's not a topical matter on this noticeboard. —] 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't know about that. If a source is willing to go to such extent to silence people, then I don't see how it can possibly be considered reliable. ] (]) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, if a source is operating in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, that is ''directly'' relevant to an evaluation of whether they are a reliable source; namely, it's (additional) direct evidence that they do dishonest and untrustworthy things and are unreliable. Together with the other evidence of unreliability presented in OP's first post, I think they have gone beyond unreliability, into territory where deprecation and blacklisting is in order. ] (]) 05:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support ''' blacklisting ''']]''' 07:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Minor point but it's used on not 5000. The search caught false positives such as english-heritage.org. ] (]) 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' blacklisting. I don't wanna get doxxed.. ] ] 21:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Serious, non-sarcastic question... Does blacklisting actually ''prevent'' and/or ''stop ''any alleged doxxing? Or is it merely a retaliatory action and !vote I am seeing? ] (]) 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::They have threatened to start doxxing people on Misplaced Pages. ] ] 22:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::And also have said they will do it with links. ] ] 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's unlikely that any professional phishing campaign by HF would use heritage.org, and if their home website were blacklisted, they would proceed to ''use other websites'' ] (]) 22:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Should just be considered unreliable for unreliability in general, but the implications they would go to doxxing is icing on the cake to suggest blacklisting at this point. ] (]) 04:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I searched the archives and found an extensive discussion . It got 22 replies. My attempt to tally the results is 9 generally reliable, 9 "attribute" (marginally reliable I guess), and 3 generally unreliable. | |||
| 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 notice that another left leaning news site, ], is green in the table, and I consider Jacobin similar to them. A google search for turns up the usual media bias fact check type sites. I know you guys don't like those sites, but one rates them "high" accuracy, another rates them 32, which is a "good" rating. | |||
| 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) | |||
| What are your thoughts on adding Jacobin to WP:RSP, and what is your takeaway from the archived discussion on what classification it should receive? It might be more productive to focus on evaluating the consensus of the archived discussion rather than starting all over. Thanks. –] <small>(])</small> 08:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Meh, I would consider them more similar to '']'' which is rated yellow. As Neutrality said in the last discussion, {{tq|I would not rely on this for statements of fact (even when attributed) because it's an opinion journal, and for factual statements there will nearly always be a better source. For statements of opinion, "Jane Doe wrote X in Jacobin" is fine, but agree with the due weight concerns.}} (] · ]) ''']''' 08:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: Yes Jacobin is a good source. Generally reliable, attribute opinion. I haven’t had any problems using it as a source. Editors generally accept it in my experience. The quote I used in the previous discussion still holds: “bracingly rigorous and polemical in a really thought-provoking way”. ] (]) 10:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :As for your other question, based on the discussion, I would say there's no consensus that it's generally reliable. (] · ]) ''']''' 11:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{u|Buidhe}}, yeah, I'd say the consensus of the old discussion was probably yellow, "marginally reliable", often opinion, should attribute. In the interest of keeping this discussion focused, I'd like to state a new question. | |||
| :: Whilst Jacobin is without a doubt a primarily a political commentary source, it's factually rigorous. Its pieces are fact-checked, well cited, and well researched. I notice {{re|Buidhe}} compares it to ]. Which, mind you, is also generally factually reliable though far more heavily opinion based. The thing is, unlike CounterPunch Jacobin also does long-form investigative journalism which puts it closer to ]. {{re|Novem_Linguae}} why is it "marginally reliable"? Whilst it is doubtlessly a partisan on-line magazine, it's factually accurate, the quality of writing is generally quite high, and professional. CNN and MSNBC in today's world are both typically highly biased and increasingly lean toward "Infotainment" style opinion instead of hard reporting. I fail to see why either should be considerably more reliable. Until there's actual evidence of mendacity on the part of the journal it should be regarded as a highly left-biased but factually accurate reliable source. ] (]) 02:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Re the comparisons here: Intercept trades on its reputation for long-term fact-based investigative journalism, and has an editorial team of seasoned investigators too, whereas the Jacobin is primarily an opinion outlet with editors who have no grounding in the world of reporting. I don't see any evidence of professionalism in this area or much investigative work, so I would place it much nearer than Counterpunch, although less prone to conspiracy theories than the latter. ] (]) 11:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| : expose in ], a respected progressive Jewish outlet, is the main source of information on this scheme. ] (]) 11:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Should we add Jacobin to ] with an assessment of yellow, "marginally reliable"? –] <small>(])</small> 11:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :The consensus in the ] appears predominantly to be "partisan magazine, generally reliable for facts, attribute opinion, check for due weight", in other words similar to ]. If you want its addition on RSP, it would require either a RfC or at least two significant discussions (see ]). There is at present one significant discussion, RSP shouldn't be used as an indiscriminate listing of sources. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 12:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: I agree with this description and this summary of the discussion. In a lot of ways I think a comparison to '']'' might be even stronger than the comparison to the SPLC. And yes, I agree that it is premature to list ''Jacobin''. ] (]) 03:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with the yellow classification. While the source is somewhat similar to Reason in that it has a lot of commentary from a given POV, there is a difference in quality. Ad Fontes rates both reliability and bias. Reason is 38.3, 4.1 (reliability, bias)]. Jacobian is 32.3, -19.9 ]. That puts Reason solidly in the second tier of sources while Jacobian is straddling the fence between second and third tier ]. ] (]) 13:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The comparison to Reason is apt. I'd hesitate to use either as sources for factual claims about anything political. If it is used, statements should be attributed in text to the author and Jacobin. There was a Columbia School of Journalism article on Jacobin , but unfortunately it's entirely about the business aspect and the novelty of a successful socialist magazine, and has absolutely nothing to say on its accuracy or fact-checking, which is what we care about. Jacobin is very open about their POV, and while bias in sources isn't a deal-breaker, it does raise some red flags. I haven't seen any evidence they're regularly making stuff up, but this is a fairly young publication with an unproven track record and a clear political agenda. It should be used with caution, especially when it comes to political BLPs. ] (]) 14:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would also compare with Reason, but I also argued that it was a mistake to rate Reason as generally reliable, for similar reasons. (] · ]) ''']''' 22:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Left like Reason is right ie not really that partisan. I think Jacobin is fine. ] (]) 10:26, 6 December 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) | |||
| ::I also agree with the yellow classification and the sort of language {{u|Tayi Arajakate}} suggests, although it lacks the specialist knowledge and specialist investigative rigour of SPLC. I would say it is most reliable for niche areas that mainstream media might miss (e.g. trade union disputes, left history) and least reliable for controversial US and geopolitical political topics where it should be seen mainly as a source of less noteworthy opinions. As a UK reader, I would add that its UK/Europe articles tend to be ill-informed and fringey. ] (]) 11:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support''' blacklisting. ] am I right in thinking your script marks this as unreliable? ] ] 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This discussion is quickly moving from a review/closing statement of the previous thread into another discussion in its own right. A few questions: 1) Should we open an actual discussion again on Jacobin? It seems some people may have additional thoughts. 2) Should we ask for a formal close of the previous discussion? ] (]) 21:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Heritage.org is marked as unreliable, yes.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 11:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{archive top|There was already a RfC on this with over 100 participants this year, see ] ] (]) 18:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)}} | |||
| I am not aware of any current citations for ]. However, there has never been an extensive discussion on this noticeboard that focused exclusively on Fox News. Fox News should be deprecated. ] (]) 17:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{block indent|em=1.6|{{small|Notified: ]] (]) 17:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)}}}} | |||
| :If you go over the RSN archives you will see this is not gona happen.] (]) 17:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ec}} Have you never been here before? We generally have a discussion about Fox News every week or so for the past 10 years. ] cites at least 39 discussions on the topic; it's the second most discussed source here after the Daily Mail. Seriously. We've had the discussions. I'm not sure what you think the 40th such discussion is going to accomplish, but okay... Carry on, I guess. Have fun. --]] 17:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| '''Support''' blacklisting of this Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". ] (]) 12:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == tanks-encyclopedia.com == | |||
| '''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) | |||
| Is a reliable reference? The "Powered by WordPress" means it's a blog with a domain name. They have authors such as and who don't appear to have any degreee of expertise in the subject area. ] (]) 19:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Definitely not a source Misplaced Pages should use, having none of the attributes we look for in a ]. The only thing I think that could somewhat redeem it is if multiple other RS's referred to it in glowing terms. Do they? ] (]) 20:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support blacklisting'''. The site is published by an ideologically-motivated group which is well-documented for making false claims of fact, using dubious methodologies in their work, and is now engaged in efforts to damage this very project. There's absolutely no use, and much potential harm to come from using them. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Oh, boy == | |||
| === RFC: The Heritage Foundation === | |||
| <!-- ] 16:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739462471}} | |||
| {{rfc|pol|rfcid=08190DC}} | |||
| What is the reliability of ] and should it be blacklisted? ] (]) 15:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| This could lead to some interesting ] situations, or it may turn out mostly ok. Anyway, for RS-interested editors. ] (]) 10:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| :I don't think so. We use Twitter only to source uncontroversial facts provided by a subject who is already notable due to non-Twitter sources, so the presence of a blue check does not affect whether a subject has a Misplaced Pages article. -- ]]]] 00:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| ::No, it's that Twitter (and other social networks) are asking users to have a Misplaced Pages article in order to get verification. Once you get verified, your content gets elevated & promoted, you get more followers and that can lead to sponsorships, money, fame, etc. I've already run into an editor earlier this year stating that they needed their draft autobiography moved into main space so they could get verified. But I don't see how social networks putting that additional pressure on Misplaced Pages NPP reviewers would affect our policy on reliable sourcing. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| :::The WMF should make it clear to Twitter that if they're going to put this into their standards they should support the Foundation monetarily. It's rather disgusting to take advantage of volunteer work without supporting it in some way. [[User:Eggishorn|<span style="background-color: | |||
| * '''Option 5: ]''' | |||
| #FF7400; color: | |||
| ==== Poll: The Heritage Foundation ==== | |||
| #FFFFFF;">Eggishorn</span>]] ] ] 01:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * <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) | |||
| ::::Well, part of the point of this volunteer project is to give folks something they can take advantage of without paying. However, in this case, they're putting additional weight on our effort, due to those who will likely campaign for a page in quest of a blue checkmark. Some support would be nice. --] (]) 01:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:Pinging @]@]@]@]@], they voted above before I made this RFC. ] (]) 15:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Barnards.tar seems correct... We need to be able to cite some of their opinions, and pure blacklist would harm our mission... but i'm not certain its worth using their material if this is the new world we are in. | |||
| *:is there a way to place warnings on links when you click on them that would warn users about this scenario though? that would be a good compromise.. otherwise keeping vote for 5] (]) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I honestly don't see how blacklisting such a garbage source would harm this project. ] (]) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::@]: There is a way to warn users attempting to ''add these links'' (filter {{edit filter|869}}), but warning users who click on them would likely require some JavaScript magic that's above my pay grade. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support option 5''' - Allowing this website to exist on wikipedia is a danger to editors' privacy and safety. The Heritage Foundation needs to be blacklisted ASAP ''']]''' 15:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The Heritage Foundation is not a website. It's an organization. You can treat the website as one of its publications. There may be other websites. There are further publications, such as the paperback yearly Indices of Economic Freedom: https://isbndb.com/book/9780891952930. We can't blacklist paperback sources. What's the status of that going to be? How does your recommendation answer this question? —] 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Not our problem. We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization. ''']]''' 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::They are works published by the organization. If an organization is such an unreliable source (in the conception of an organization as a source as per {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Definition of a source}}; that's point no. 3), which is the framing of this RfC, as to be "blacklisted", should we really retain the status quo wrt its printed works? —] 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Do paperbacks get special dispensation in policy from reliability requirements? If (say) David Irving published a paperback would it magically become reliable? ] (]) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yes, according to Abo Yemen. He said: {{tqq|We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization}}—] 16:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Ay dont be quoting me on that. I didn't give a complete answer. I have no idea how unreliable this source is but according to other editors, it is not reliable. But if the paperback was reliable enough compared to stuff they publish on their website then i dont see why it shouldn't be used. All i did was try to give an answer to your question ig ''']]''' 17:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::They don't. ] (]) 17:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::What is the status of (a printed work) going to be then, according to you: perhaps a deprecated source? —] 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Whatever we decide, but (again) it being a paperback has no relevance. ] (]) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::This is an RfC, Slatersteven, it's the time when things are decided. Saying "Whatever we decide" is clearly not moving things forward. —] 17:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Its status now is that is is an RS, its status when this is over will be determined by this RFC. ] (]) 17:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Please start engaging more meaningfully. It doesn't appear that you're getting it. How do you blacklist a printed work? Only web domains can be blacklisted. What is the consequence for the printed work as the outcome of this RfC if the consensus is to "blacklist the Heritage Foundation"? —] 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::We do it all the time, we have plenty of blacklisted printed works (the Daily Mail for one). Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? So it would not, in fact, be covered by any ban on the heritage foundation. ] (]) 17:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::If ''Daily Mail'' is blacklisted, how is this possible (edit: I intentionally broke the link later after a complaint that a source highlighter script is painting too much red):{{blist| | |||
| <nowiki>{{cite web |last1=Earle |first1=Geoff |title=Justin Trudeau glares at Trump amid his threat to absorb country |url=https://www.d ailymail.co.uk/news/article-14267497/justin-trudeau-glares-trump-jimmy-carter-funeral-canada-threats.html |website=Mail Online |access-date=9 January 2025 |date=9 January 2025}} | |||
| </nowiki>}}...?{{br}}I'll help you: ''Daily Mail'' is not blacklisted.—] 17:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::]. ] (]) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::That's not an entry marked as blacklisted. Please find me an entry which is in fact blacklisted, for me to believe that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking when discussing specifically blacklisting something. —] 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::Ahh I see, well yes we cannot blacklist spam if is hardcopy, but we can depreciate it, and it can be assumed that if you choose 5, you are choosing to also depreciate it. Are you you arguing that if you vote 5 it will not cover hard copy? ] (]) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::I think there is a misunderstanding of what is meant "blacklisting the source". Please see ] below. ] (]) 17:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::Ok, I'll give more responses to your slightly earlier comment: {{tqq|Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing).}} Yes, nothing says so; I wasn't arguing otherwise. {{tqq|But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal?}} Does not appear to be. The sole publisher of this paperback edition is The Heritage Foundation.{{pb}}Going onward... You said that this country ranking, which is a primary source and an unscientific publication from a think tank, is a RS. On no day would that simply be a reliable source. So I'm going to circle back to my original question, to which you replied with the rhetorical question of {{tqq|Do paperbacks get special dispensation ...}}. That original question, mildly rephrased, is:{{pb}}''How does the recommendation to blacklist heritage.org the website for safety reasons answer the question of how to treat the reliability of The Heritage Foundation as a source, whereby "source" means publisher, consistent with ], which is how this RfC's question is also formulated ({{tqq|'''What is the reliability of <u>The Heritage Foundation</u> ...'''}})''?{{pb}}Your answer to this question is that blacklisting an organization's website creates an assumption that all publications from that organization which can not be blacklisted are treated as deprecated sources. This answer is ''possible'', but it is not what, say, ] thinks. He wrote: {{tqq|... we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question ...}}. —] 18:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::Hey Alalch can you change the source you change this to a normal link because the entire section is now colored red because of the source reliability gadget thing ''']]''' 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::Yes, I'll break the link. My highlighter doesn't work like that. It only colors the link red, not the whole section. —] 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::Ultimately I think this is somewhat moot as, notwithstanding the safety concern, they're also a deeply unreliable fringe source that has been spammed all over our project. As such I do sincerely think there is a justification for options 4 and 5 even if this group wasn't trying to target Misplaced Pages editors. That they're also doing this is, in my view, an inflaming element but I think that getting this pervasive fringe source out of our project is a good for the project on its own merits. ] (]) 18:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Also this is an online source, so may be a security risk. ] (]) 17:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::You are mistaken. The link I posted is a link to a database entry on the website isbndb.com. It contains information about a printed work published by The Heritage Foundation. —] 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' already said why, garbage source that’s a threat to user safety. ] (]) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support option 5 and option 4''' per my statements above. ] (]) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *: I added option 4 to my support message to clarify I support both blacklisting and deprecating this source. ] (]) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3,''' with '''Option 5''' post 2016 and '''Option 4''' for any hard copy after 2016. ] (]) 15:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Only blacklisting/deprecating content from a certain time period is not possible unless the domains are different. ] (]) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::@] You're correct separately about blacklisting but you're not correct separately about deprecating, but maybe (probably) that's not what you meant specifically ("blacklisting/deprecating" was probably not separately addressing deprecating)—see Lenta.ru at ]; deprecated status only extends to content published from March 2014 onward. I.e., it's possible to deprecate content from a certain time period. —] 00:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::@] Interesting, it looks like it's possible ]. Heritage does not include article dates in their URLs, though. Not even their static content includes them (unless you can somehow decipher "824-MHT-304". ] (]) 02:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Yeah, that is interesting. In the present case, if blacklisting for ostensible security reasons, the date isn't a factor. —] 03:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3: generally unreliable'''. Too many examples of them publishing bunk. However, blacklisting would also be wrong, because they seem to have a deep archive of relevant material, such as by ] which we link to on his article. For readers who want to read the subject's writings, that is a useful link. Putting the heritage.org domain on the spam blacklist would prevent this. This is far from the only example. Furthermore, the call to blacklist seems to be a misguided attempt to prevent the doxxing op that they have planned. Blacklisting will not prevent any of that plan being executed. It's just the wrong tool. By all means aggressively block accounts and IP addresses implicated in doxxing, but blacklisting their domain is a completely unrelated action. ] (]) 15:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::According to the link, it's not specifically having a Misplaced Pages article - {{tq|an account may be verified if the subject has a Misplaced Pages page about them with three “external references to distinct, unaffiliated sources.”}} It's described as basically adopting a version of ]. ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 03:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' and '''Option 4'''. this is literally a Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". ] (]) 15:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Sunrise}} Not really. It does not need to verify whether the sources are reliable or have significant coverage. ''''']]''''' 05:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' maybe the doxing threat would be a good enough reason, but the fact it publishes misinformation is an overwhelming reason. ] ] 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2 for pre-2016''' (meaning: same status as the Cato Institute and the other "]" think tanks) and '''Option 4 for 2016 and later'''. While spam websites can get spam-blacklisted if they're recognized as obvious spam in discussions held in this forum (happens rarely), I oppose the notion that this forum has an ability to decide to blacklist a non-spam source for computer security reasons, because the subset of editors at large interested in reliability of sources used on Misplaced Pages, who are predominantly the editors commenting here, here do not have the competence to make an informed decision on matters of user safety. Facts and arguments should be collected in a discussion devoted to that specifically, which discussion has a chance of attracting editors with suitable knowledge and skill, and decisions should be made going forward from that (i.e., ''']''' (])), not from value judgements.—] 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Actually, we do have the competence and the right to decide whether a source should be blacklisted in this appropriate venue. ] (]) 16:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Disagreed. I.e., agreed for spam, disagreed for safety.—] 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I'm noting that multiple other editors also disagree in a discussion a bit further below, or state that blacklisting is pragmatically poor on its own merits as a protective measure. —] 00:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' We can't control what they do with their site, and they've indicated their willingness to use malicious applications and methods to harm Misplaced Pages. Allowing links from our site to theirs is a fundamental cybersecurity concern, given their announced intention to target our editors. And given their use of misinformation, their all but explicitly stated goal of engaged in broad political activity to undermine the constitution of their home nation, which is also the host nation of this project and whose constitution outlines fundamental principles of this project, there will be no appreciable loss to the project from doing so. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' - blacklist website for cybersecurity reasons. Not sure about non-website references. --] 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' blacklist for security reasons, noting that they have brought this on themselves - I would otherwise oppose blacklisting, as they sometimes carry content from individuals whose opinions we would give weight to. ] (]) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' Blacklist -- ''but this does not mean removing the reference''. Rather, we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question, but with their announced intent to use links to try to break Misplaced Pages privacy, they are a malware site and should be treated as such. This needs to be done to all links to their websites, regardless of date. -- ] (]) 17:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' They are often publishing pure opinion, and what they publish is definitely the opinion of the people writing. Where these opinions might be due is to be discussed on the relevant talkpages. Their editorial content (i.e. anything published by them without a name attached) is generally unreliable ('''option 3''') as they are into ] conspiracy theories and disinformation. I don't get how anybody is voting 4 or 5 on merit here though, and this board no jurisdiction over their alleged cyber-stalking attempt.] (]) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' per Vanamonde93, the known security risks make this an exception to past precedent, basically they have now entered "]." I would guess anything notable published there would be picked up by on other news outlets and/or scholarly sources that can be cited instead. The Clarence Thomas article mentioned above, for instance, is widely cited and also has a Google Books entry which at least is not a technological risk. ] (]) 17:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' per Vanamonde93. If necessary to use, we can use other sources that refer to the organization, to an offline publication, or use an archival link (which I think would resolve security issues). Perhaps archiving all existing links might be an option as well? -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Since it's relevant apparently, 5 & 4, with older links being converted to archival links if they fall within the allowed uses of deprecated sources. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 08:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3 + Blacklist ''' 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) <small>Amended to include Blacklisting ] (]) 15:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *:They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. ] (]) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? ] (]) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{re|JoJo Anthrax|Bluethricecreamman|Abo Yemen|Dronebogus|Doug Weller|MjolnirPants|SarekOfVulcan|Vanamonde93|NatGertler|Boynamedsue|Gnomingstuff|Patar knight|1AmNobody24|Tryptofish|Chaotic Enby|Horse Eye's Back}} | |||
| *:::While it's reasonable to assume that "option 5" would automatically include "option 4", some editors seem to think that it doesn't. Please ignore this request if you agree with them, otherwise, you might want to adjust your !vote (i.e., also comment on the reliability) to alleviate any confusion. Thanks. ] (]) 19:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::My comment is only on security grounds. I don't believe that in the current context it is possible to evaluate their reliability independent of those security concerns and so will not be attempting to do so. ] (]) 19:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I did already comment on the reliability in my !vote, but thanks for the reminder! ] (] · ]) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I don't have a strong opinion on this - if it weren't for the security risk I'd be somewhere between options 3 and 4. ] (]) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I do have a strong opinion on this, but am backing it down to 3+5 for NPOV reasons. As said elsewhere, named op-eds might be legitimate references. --] 20:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::If it wasn’t security related I wouldn’t have voted. But I would still allow older cites under a 3 ''if and only if'' they were replaced by wayback machine links. ] (]) 08:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' Don't think this needs any explanation anymore. ] (]) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 6''', ]. We're trying to solve a very real issue of not giving out personal information, but blacklisting isn't really a way to do this. The risk by clicking on the link is something like the risk of clicking on a link to a state-owned media site, or frankly any potentially hostile website. This is because there's no malware required to be installed to get one's IP; the execution is extremely simple because you ''give out your IP when you visit any website'' and, if you allow cookies to be downloaded generally, ''this is the exact way that advertisers track your browsing''.{{pb}}The way that spearphishing to get one's IP address works is that you have to click on a ''very specific link'', and they have to be fairly certain that ''only you'' could have clicked on that link (or that a very small number of people could have done so). Blacklisting one domain name is sufficient to start a game of Whac-A-Mole, but it doesn't really protect us against this sort of thing; all they have to do is register a new domain name that ''outwardly looks like'' something benign and send it to you in an email (or even posting it on a rarely-viewed talk page). And, if they're already engaging sockpuppet burner accounts to do this, we're going to see this often and possibly without even knowing it.{{pb}}If the concern is spearphishing, blacklisting a public website that has some legitimate uses is the wrong approach. In fact, it would wind up making the spearphishing be ''more effective'' by necessity, since people who are alert to Heritage urls would be directed to click on something that doesn't look like one. And perhaps it would even lull people into letting down their guard in this respect.{{pb}}The is used in >5000 articles often as a supplementary/] source. And that's because it's influential in the course of AmPol and it's often useful to include those links in a reference work. This sort of spearphishing would appear to be a new low.{{pb}}What I really don't want is for editors to have a false sense of security here; blacklisting is not going to stop this sort of activity, and it's somewhat trivial to get around this. The proposal would give us as much extra security as blacklisting state-owned media/government-controlled websites from countries known to try to de-anonymize and harass Wikipedians. We don't generally do that, and we really don't need to; it would be ineffective in achieving its goals of protecting our users. (Perhaps I'm off-base here, and the community would want to blacklist those too.) But it really is a bit of a feel-good measure more than an effective one for privacy from a sophisticated actor.{{pb}}The technical solutions offered at ] are in some ways more robust than a blacklist. What the technical solutions ''would'' do is make it harder to trace back traffic to ordinary (i.e. non-spearphishing) links on the website to Misplaced Pages, and it would reduce the risk associated with existing citations. They're not perfect; ultimately nothing can prevent you from clicking the outlink to a burner website, but those solutions don't lull users into the false sense of security that blacklisting the Heritage website would. — ] <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) | |||
| ::Basically agree with Red-tailed hawk on everything here. Reliability is always dependent on the statement a source is being used to support, and The Heritage Foundation's website is reliable for statements about what The Heritage Foundation believes in. Blocking them would undermine our ability to write about what The Heritage Foundation believes, while not really addressing their spear phishing efforts. ] (]) 05:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| So, in fact it IS being argued that 5 does not also include 4, so if you also think derpication as well you need to (explicitly) say it, as I now do. ] (]) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5: Blacklist''' (along with '''4: Deprecate'''). For our security as editors, and for the security of our readers – and yes, they brought this on themselves. --] (]) 18:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I want to add: it seems to me that any organization that says that it will do what is described in the ''Forward'' piece, is not a source that we can trust to be reliable. It would be a disservice to our readers to use such a source. --] (]) 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{+1}} ] (]) 23:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I've been continuing to think about this, and I've also been reading the subsequent RfC comments by editors who argue that we should still consider that it's a think tank that can provide citable source material. Some editors have also said that we should not let our emotional reaction against the doxing issue influence how we evaluate Heritage as a reliable or unreliable source. In some ways, I agree that we should not make sourcing decisions based upon emotion. However, we should also not be naive about what a ''legitimate'' think tank does. Think tanks take advocacy positions, but they also are populated by ''thinkers'', people with expertise who think carefully about issues, and seek to publish well-reasoned analyses of issues. But it's frankly laughable to characterize Heritage that way. An organization that says, publicly, that they are going to go after Misplaced Pages editors, as persons, in order to enforce their preferred view of what information Misplaced Pages readers will find, is not an organization that is producing scholarly analyses of information that Misplaced Pages might want to cite. If it's a legitimate think tank, then ] is a think tank, too. Even if they also purport to produce thoughtful position papers, those publications simply ''have'' to be recognized by us as tainted by intellectual dishonesty. There is no passing that off as reliable sourcing. --] (]) 22:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Is threatening WP editors a problem because it indicates the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE? Are such threats in a broader category of "horrible things to say"? Should all sources that say horrible things be deprecated and blacklisted even if they do produce some valuable work, because it indicates intellectual dishonesty? ] (]) 02:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yes, especially if the said valuable information is extremely low and under debate. (Though blacklisting I disagree with.) ] (]) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::There's a wide range, in both directions, of how much valuable information a source can offer. On WP:RSP the only sources deprecated with antisemitism as part of the justification are Press TV, an Iranian propaganda outlet; The Unz Review, with justification mentioning "racist, antisemitic, pseudoscientific and fringe content" and "many apparent copyright violations"; and Veterans Today, which was blacklisted for abuse and deprecated for "unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and antisemitic conspiracy theories." Unz Review is the only deprecation citing racism. Searching for a few other "horrible things" keywords, I don't immediately see anything else. | |||
| *::::With Press TV and Veterans Today it seems there are, I would say, much clearer underlying problems with the sources than is the case with HF. Unz Review seems to have been a clear-cut case — the only such case I see — of cancelling an outlet primarily for being unusably (i.e questionably) rabid, and it being an outlet that no one would miss because it doesn't seem (per its RfC) to provide useful info. HF may be unhelpful to an extent, but not ''that'' unhelpful. Apart from that, sources are flagged for their information being inappropriate for the encyclopedia, not for saying horrible things. | |||
| *::::It's also worth looking at Asian News International. They're another organization hostile to Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages's mission, but despite ''that whole situation'', they're only MREL, and the description of why gives no mention to ''that situation.'' That's the most important precedent in this comment. | |||
| *::::If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those ] (]) 02:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Well said @], "{{tq|If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those...}}" ] (]) 02:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Because never has a reliable source planned on coordinating a massive attack on what is essentially information itself. If they do that, then I seriously doubt their informational integrity, and that's just in addition to the opening statement above. Deprecation means there's a warning when you try to add a new usage, and that is appropriate here. ] (]) 13:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5: Blacklist''', primarily for editor safety reasons. While I agree with Red-tailed hawk that blacklisting this specific source will not be a perfect solution, editors posting unknown websites for spearfishing purposes can be dealt with individually (in fact, I don't think they would wait for heritage.org to be blacklisted to do so, and blacklisting the main site keeps us more alert on that fact). If the Heritage Foundation intends to directly endanger Misplaced Pages editors, blacklisting their website and treating it as potential malware is the minimum we should do. In terms of accuracy, '''generally unreliable''' at least, and neutral on deprecation, although NatGertler's approach (removing the links in existing citations) can also be up for consideration. ] (] · ]) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| NO security is perfect, and if its not they even black list spam (they will find a way). it is about not making is casual. So easy that it just means copying and pasting nickyouriddotcom into a cite. Making it even slightly harder might be enough to prevent its casual use. ] (]) 18:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't like this idea at all. I can see the pitfalls, and they do not look good for us. <span style="font-family: serif; letter-spacing: 0.1em"> — ] (]|])</span> 01:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * I've got a multi-stage vote of sorts, if that makes sense: | |||
| :This seems like more of a future ]/] problem than a ] problem. The only thing that they're relying on us for is whether someone gets a blue check, which is a rather trivial point for any article (Even ]) unless the PAID/COI problem or something related starts getting RS coverage (someone gaming Twitter's system with paid articles). This does increase the likelihood of paid editors trying to claim legitimacy with an article (they can get the check), which is why I think this is more suited as a message for New Page Patrollers/AfC reviewers. ''''']]''''' 01:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :*In general, '''Option 5''' for editor security reasons, as per all above. | |||
| :Looks like we need to raise the notability bar higher and/or easier to evaluate for us. ] 11:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :*With specific regard to HF-authored pieces/editorials, '''Option 4''' as they repeatedly publish dis/misinformation intended solely to serve ] theories. | |||
| :*With specific regard to op-eds that have an actual name attached to them, '''somewhere between option 2 and option 3''' - ] would typically lean toward the former, but even the op-ed pieces veer into FRINGE often enough that I'm not comfortable with an outright 2. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 18:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' Because as Bernards points out, there are still some good links, particularly in archives. And as Red-tailed explains, Blacklisting creates its own set of problems that won't solve what many think it will ie. it's a dangerous solution because it puts a veneer on the problem that looks like solid wood underneath that is not. -- ]] 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Reliability of Arcadia publishing == | |||
| *'''Option 5''' on security grounds, this is a bit atypical but we don't have a large history of sources purposefully turning their links into honeypots with the explicit intent of harming wikipedia editors and readers. ] (]) 18:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' for any web-based source connected to the organisation on grounds of cybersecurity. No comment as to reliability. ] (]) 19:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' This foundation knowingly and intentionally publishes disinformation, and it has self-identified as a threat to Misplaced Pages and its editors. ] (]) 19:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Um why does anybody think the links they would use would be to a heritage foundation url? Also, this isn’t a social media site, this isn’t some place where the interests of the users are supposed to trump the interests of the product, that being our articles. If there is some evidence that an actual heritage.org link has been used for some nefarious purpose then you can talk about blacklisting, but other than that this is supposed to be judged based on what’s best for our articles, not our editors. ''']''' - 19:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yeah, this is the main problem with blacklisting. It’s ], which generally does more harm than good, as I think Red-tailed hawk articulated well. Using heritage.org as the actual spearphishing domain doesn’t line up to the MO given in the leaked slides, which talk about using redirects. It would also be weirdly amateurish to create that kind of paper trail leading directly to the perps, especially now that they (presumably) know we’re onto them and any of their agents caught in such an obvious blunder could be subject to countermeasures. ] (]) 20:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yes. Their is no reason not to place fingerprint gathering html5 snippets as widely as possible if you want as much tracking as possible. ] (]) 20:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::And consider, Misplaced Pages editors will only be one target. A large tracking network can be a used to doxx other people they dislike (advocates of racial equality, LGBT people, non-capitalists). Its pretty safe to assume they will have middleware somewhere in their webstack to affect fingerprinting. I'd be mad at my cyberattack consultant if they missed the obvious. ] (]) 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5: blacklist any and all known Heritage Foundation websites''' as soon as possible, past and present links included. The organization has made its malicious intentions clear. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' this is purely retaliatory behaviour based on an alleged document. The usage of this source hasn't been shown to be problematic and a few bad articles doesn't inherently make a source unreliable. If you're worried about your safety then block the links yourself, but Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to serve you and your paranoia. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --] (]) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::The document mentions nothing about using phishing links nor would their references serve as a useful phishing link. ] (]) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The document explicitly calls for using redirects from their web technologies to collect edior fingerprints via html5. ] (]) 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::There's no way for existing URLs to fingerprint Wikipedians without fingerprinting everyone. ] (]) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::They don't mind fingerprinting everyone, and it only makes their campaign stronger. ] (]) 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Fingerprinting everyone is useless for purposes of following and tracking Wikipedians. ] (]) 01:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' (like all think tanks). This seems purely retaliatory. I mean sure, they want to spy on us, but famously so did the NSA, for which we sued the NSA and lost. And it’s not like we are banned from citing US websites. This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity, do you think an FBI agent led attempt to steal our information would use their basic domain? They have millions of dollars they will just buy more or use connections to do it to other sites. This does nothing and is performative. And I don’t find the evidence above convincing, it’s a think tank, producing think tank type fare. ] (]) 21:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:"This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity." This is really badly incorrect. Someone publicly saying they were going to add malicious links to our site to track and doxx our editors is a huge threat. ] (]) 00:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' per {{u|PARAKANYAA}}. Well said. - ] (]) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' There is absolutely no downside to blacklisting this source. Nothing of value is lost, and unreliable information is kept out - it's a win-win situation. ] 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' Those sites are not reliable enough. Privacy wise, those sites are dangerous for editors and readers to visit. ] (]) 21:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' and in case it's considered seperate '''Option 4''' as well. THF are not only publishers of ] but are posing an active threat to ] ] (]) 22:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5:''' While blacklisting does not preclude HF from using any number of other domains for various malicious schemes, it's the least we can and should do. Any source that seeks to subvert the encyclopedia and harm its editors thereby confirms it is inherently unreliable. HF now demonstrates it is barely this side of a criminal organization. ] (]) 23:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Barely this side of a criminal organization? I would ask if you are serious but you probably are. ] (]) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::They are a criminal operation in many jurisdictions. Running an identity theft ring with a promise of blackmail is a stack of felonies. ] (]) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2-3''' There are a lot of problems with this RfC. First, like them or not, the Heritage Foundation is a widely cited think tank. As a think tank, and like basically all activist type organizations, we should be very careful about directly citing them for anything. However, if they release a report or study that is widely reported on or if they release a metric which is quoted by many source then we are doing our readers a disservice by deciding the source must be avoided. This would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge. As for the idea that the source is a danger, what evidence do we have? A single source has made claims. Do we have any corroboration? Absent concrete evidence the idea that we would blacklist the site is a very bad precedent. ] (]) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Why wouldn't we rely on secondary sources? ] (]) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Think tanks are widely cited as secondary sources ] (]) 21:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] makes the most well articulated point of anyone in this RfC. This would indeed be "very bad precedent" and we should not also retaliate based on the claims of a single source in such bad form. ] (]) 21:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''', at the very least. Heritage Foundation has long since departed from typical think tank-ery into axe-grinding, conspiracy theories, disinformation, and artificially stoking culture wars. Reliable sources from journalism (, '''' and academica ( and ) have identified Heritage Foundation as a publisher of disinformation, falsehoods, and exaggerations. It is unreliable as a source. Obviously, the news from '''', a reliable and reputed journalism outlet, that the Heritage Foundation plans to doxx Wikipedians who contribute content with which they disagree—something that would basically amount to a campaign of ideologically motivated harassment—is also chilling and troubling. It suggests the Foundation, unable to win in the marketplace of ideas, is trying to impose itself by force. This is not the behavior of trustworthy coverage or analysis. ] (] | ] | ]) 00:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''', per PARAKANYAA and Springee. Their threat is repellent, and whatever can be done to prevent them making good about it should be done (and is being discussed elsewhere), but that has nothing to do with their reliability as a source. They're a think tank, and are a reliable source for at least ''some'' things. ] (] - ] - ]) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Adding that I agree with restricting links to archive.org versions if it seems that direct links may lead to identification of editors. ] (] - ] - ]) 16:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1''', though heavily biased to the right and certain qualifications on some subjects may need to be stated if there are any COI concerns related to funding and topics they write about where such funding is directly involved. The alleged "misinformation" appears to mostly just be right wing bias to a very pure degree. However, that has never been reason to question reliability by itself. The same goes for a high amount of left wing bias in any given source. So called "bias" alone is just bias, it does not introduce reliability concerns. Full deprecation does seem to be more of a knee jerk action and not a real and careful evaluation of the numerous citations where alleged reliability may be called into question. ] (]) 03:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:What do you think of the incidents described in the opening statement? ] (]) 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I answered that and offered a !vote accordingly based in policy and not in retaliation for an alleged proposal from the ''Forward'' source. Heritage is biased, though reliable. So '''Option 1: Generally reliable'''. ] (]) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Could you point me to where you answered that? ] (]) 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Couldn't most misinformation be described as bias to a very pure degree? That to me seems like a distinction without a real difference, bias which is so pure as to abandon a factual basis isn't distinguishable from mis/disinformation. ] (]) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Maybe, but then that sure would alter probably hundreds or thousands of these discussions. So if we want to define it one way or the other, that should be baked in to the P&G. ] (]) 02:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' as their own communications indicate that they are a security risk, that they intend of publishing malicious web content in order to identify people who click on their links.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rosenfeld |first=Arno |date=2025-01-07 |title=Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to 'identify and target' Misplaced Pages editors |url=https://forward.com/news/686797/heritage-foundation-wikipedia-antisemitism/ |access-date=2025-01-10 |website=The Forward |language=en}}</ref> '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4 and maybe 5'''. Based on their (lack of) quality as a source this is an ''extremely'' obvious 4 but their recent outrageous threats were making me think that 5 was also justified, comparable to how we would treat a terrorist organisation. After seeing Red-tailed hawk's comment, among others, I am now less sure about that. What I am sure of is that they publish deliberate ] in intentional bad faith and that makes them utterly untrustworthy and unreliable (with both an upper and lower case "u") as a source for anything at all except for their own claims. Literally nothing that they say can be relied upon unless independently corroborated by actual Reliable Sources, in which case we should just use those Reliable Sources instead. If they say that the sky is blue then a Reliable Source needs to open a window and check before we can say that it is. I see people saying that they may have been more reliable in the past. I have my doubts about that. Sure, they are probably ''even worse'' now than they were before but were they ''ever'' really anything better than a 3 or 4? That said, if that does turn out to be true, and we do decide to blacklist, then I guess we could use Archive.org to refer to contemporaneous copies of their content which we know not to have been subsequently tampered with. --] (]) 04:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' because they have announced they are a security risk, and '''Option 4''' because they have announced they are seeking to undermine collaborative consensus-reaching among editors. ] (]) 04:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4''' as they routinely publish material chock full of conspiracy theories and outright fabrications.--] (]) 05:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5, regrettably'''. I would normally have suggested '''option 2'''. But given they are actively trying to dox editors on Misplaced Pages and contributors to other internet sources, that is absurd and is not something that can result in them being tolerated as a source on Misplaced Pages. They do good work - they produce things that, while biased, are reliable, generally speaking. But their efforts have extended to doxxing contributors, and that is unacceptable. Misplaced Pages has an obligation to make ''reasonable attempts to protect'' its users - whether editors or readers - from having their information harvested through links. And since the Heritage Foundation has admitted they intend to engage in information harvesting based on links... nope. Not permissible. '''To clarify''' - my !vote here is '''not''' a comment on their reliability overall. If they cease their information harvesting, I support a further discussion on this topic. But if they intend to (and per reliable sources, may have already begun) use their links to harvest editor/reader information, '''absolutely not acceptable''', and they should be blacklisted until they cease engaging in such behavior. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 05:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' to anyone voting “1”: do you seriously believe that or is it just a protest vote, because I’d say objectively an ideological think-tank should be ''at minimum'' a 2. An activist organization simply isn’t at the same level of trustworthiness as, say ]. ] (]) 08:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tbf, only one person has !voted option 1 so far, and they then listed a couple of additional considerations.] (]) 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I counted two ] (]) 10:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Irrelevant, it would be for the closer to access the strength of any arguments. If they are weak that will be noticed, it is thus up to the poster to decide if their argument is good enough. ] (]) 11:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''option 2/3''' - Heritage is a very influential think tank. What they publish matters in political discourse. We can not ignore them. | |||
| :That said, what they publish is ''opinion'' and there are limited circumstances when it is DUE to mention opinion. So… when discussing what they publish we should be careful to use in-text attribution - to present what they say AS opinion and not as fact. We can and should allow ABOUTSELF, primary source, citations when these are DUE. | |||
| :If you need an extreme analogy… we allow citations to ''Mein Kamph'' as an ABOUTSELF primary source for Hitler’s opinion. There are very few situations where it is appropriate or DUE to mention Hitler’s views… but IN those limited situations we allow it. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ])</small> 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mein Kampf is a book and Hitler is dead. We can reference it without any risk that doing so might leak information about our editors and readers back to Hitler. The more comparable situation would be if we allowed links to an online copy of Mein Kampf which was hosted on a neo-Nazi website operated by an organisation that had previously threatened our editors and readers. --] (]) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' On any other occasion I would have gone for "generally unreliable" and suggest citations to it require attribution, as it's a politically partisan think tank which publishes fringe views and has been known to publish misinformation. But in this case, I think such an extraordinary situation requires us to take extraordinary measures. This goes beyond the question of reliability, as the Heritage Foundation has signalled its intentions to "target and identify" our colleagues on this platform; this represents a clear and actionable ] and it demands a response. Preventing them from using links to their website to carry out their attack campaign is just a reasonable act of self-defence. --] (]) 13:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' for the relibility of what they say as it often conflicts with scientific evidence or facts. They have in effect declared war on Misplaced Pages editors but are an important site so if there is a way of automatically warning readers if they click on a link that they are doing it at their own risk I think that would cover the business of the doxxing. I think that could be a useful facility if it looks like a link should be included in the encyclopaedia but there is evidence it may be malicious in some way. ] (]) 14:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3/Option 6/BAD RFC''' per Red-tailed hawk, Springee, GreenC. The Heritage Foundation is an important think-tank source for representing the views of its faction, and should not be deprecated or blacklisted for that reason. Also 1) WP:RSN is not the right venue for deciding on how to deal with the alleged browser fingerprinting, 2) fingerprinting can be addressed through much less drastic means than blacklisting (e.g. the idea of only allowing archive links), 3) the fingerprinting honestly sounds like fluff to me, and text analysis/facial recognition seems more likely to be the thing that can actually identify editors, and there's little we can do about that besides taking down pictures from profiles. ] (]) 15:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The planned attack includes fingerprinting users coming from Misplaced Pages, adding tracking cookies, identifying who they are on other sites based on the extensive fingerprinting capable with html5, and using off-wiki data to complete the doxx. So any information connecting IPs to Misplaced Pages is the foot in the door to check say, the fingerprints from html5 being run on a malicious ad campaign via Twitter aimed at people who are interested in some tv show that an ARBPIA area editor also edits about. ] (]) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::All of these techniques are things advertisers like Google Ads already do. You can't connect any particular fingerprint to "edits Misplaced Pages" unless you send out a specific phishing link only Wikipedians would click on, which is something we might want to look out for. However, there's no reason to think blacklisting Heritage will rid us of this threat any more than the US TSA prevents bombings, as they're unlikely to not use another domain. ] (]) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I agree with the '''BADRFC''' !vote as well. A !vote made as retaliation (even pre-emptive retaliation) is not supported in policy or guidelines of any kind that I know of. ] (]) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Very poor option 2 or option 3''' gunrel for a significant number of facts per the arguments above, including some fringe (for now, and will hopefully remain so) views, with particular caution regarding gensex and similar strongly recommended. They are often due either for their opinion, that index mentioned (?), or expert opinions published by them. Regarding the source quality (as in, the jurisdiction of this board), I see no policy-based reason for depreciation or blacklists. Having said that, if it can be plausibly shown that they intend to use their own domains to harm editors (which I consider unlikely because domains are easy to get and unwise to link to yourself), I would support any technical measure, preferably a warning for editors clicking on links (if technically possible). If that can’t be shown, I believe that a ‘punitive’ blacklist is understandable from a human level, but not beneficial to the encyclopaedia. ] (]) 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' - I think that categorizing sources as "reliable" and "unreliable" is an idiotic parlor game. Life is not 1/0 on such matters. It is ahistorical and leads to cultish thinking. That said, I consider the Heritage threat, ''if accurately recounted in the media,'' to be akin to a violation of the NOLEGALTHREATS rule; worse, actually, as it is arguably a call to terrorist vigilantism. I can see banning links to that site on that basis. I question whether this is the proper venue for that determination, however. ] (]) 18:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Being GUNREL or deprecated just means that their publications aren't good for determining when it's due to include their viewpoints in an article. —] 19:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' Short answer: 1. Security is irrelevant to this RfC; 2. WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican; 3. HF should be treated the same as other well-established but POV think tanks like Cato, which is to be MREL. {{pb}}For point 1, apart from this RfC being about reliability and not security, it's hard to believe that any professional phishing attacks would use "heritage.org". Blacklisting their website won't accomplish anything for internet security. As explained by others, it would also be undue to blacklist HF when there are plenty of other organizations and governments hostile to Misplaced Pages. {{pb}} For point 2, I think saying HF is GUNREL for being WP:FRINGE is to lose the meaning of WP:FRINGE. What is fringe? Funky low-traffic websites saying hurricanes are controlled by lizard people. What is not fringe? Possibly the most policy-influential conservative think tank in the US, where half of people are Republicans. There are other arguments that HF could be considered GUNREL (which I disagree with so far), but I think WP:FRINGE is the wrong argument to take. {{pb}} For point 3, while I acknowledge in particular the sources provided by @Hydrangeans (is it appropriate for me to ping here? sorry if not), which I'll put here for convenience, and I admit I can't access the full 3rd and 4th source, I think the concerns highlighted by these sources are best addressed with MREL/additional considerations. HF is an advocacy group, and should be treated like an advocacy group in that not everything it says should be taken at face value — that's what "additional considerations" is for. Cato (MREL source), for example, gets criticized for its potential Big Oil conflict of interest, but they have lots of great work on, for instance, the economic benefits of immigration. I'm less familiar with HF, and though I know they've gotten lots of press for saying wacky things recently (though, again, security concerns irrelevant to this discussion), I do know they've had a long and recognized history of Republican policy work. Of course they'd get press for the wacky stuff, but a big part of the think tank industry is boring statistics and information gathering. If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference. If people don't like the ] because it's "pseudoscientific", they should think hard about the value of the index industry in general ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:As I'm a person who has explicitly called out the Index of Economic Freedom as pseudoscientific let me say that the majority of think-tank indices are crap that is unworthy of including in any respectable encyclopedia. This one is just particularly bad, derived from an outmoded economic treatise penned before the advent of the carbon arc lamp and then not even doing a very good job of cleaving to that in favour of the unproven, unscientific and entirely ideological claim that deregulation is equivalent to freedom. This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. This piece of pseudoscience is also being published by people who have openly declared themselves as enemies of this project. That leaves me feeling... substantially uncharitable. ] (]) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{Tq|This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular.}} {{+1}} 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) ] (] | ] | ]) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::What about the democracy indices from ], or ], or ]? Or the ]? The Index of Economic Freedom is not indicative of GUNREL ] (]) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Unrelated, please start a new RFC about those. ] (]) 21:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::This isn't an RfC about the Index of Economic Freedom. This is an RfC about The Heritage Foundation (HF), where the Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) is being given as an example of HF being a bad source. I am comparing HF to other think tanks, and IEF to other indices/indexes, because it is relevant to this RfC ] (]) 21:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::] is in no sense "outmoded". That's like calling the ] outmoded. ] (]) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Because both are. They're classic works, sure, but they aren't ''current'' and ''reliable'' scholarship. If I want to know the sun's mass, I'm not going to look for ''Principia''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s estimate. I'm going to read ''current'' scholarship making those kinds of estimates that have the benefit of an additional three centuries of research and knowledge with which to work.{{pb}}The comparison in any case is still pretty apples to oranges. ''Wealth of Nations'' lies in the social sciences while ''Principia'' deals with hard sciences, and social ideas about how humans function—and, for that matter, the societies within which said humans function—have changed a lot more than, say, the hard facts of gravity and the sun. For example, the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's ''Wealth of Nations'' in its original context referred not to market competition but rather to the , not exactly a prevailing academic interpretation for how economics work. ] (] | ] | ]) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Instead of us in this discussion deciding the academic or economic value of Adam Smith, I'll ask for RS that the IEF is unscholarly ''because'' it is ''inspired by'' The Wealth of Nations. | |||
| *::::The IEF is not a problem with this organization ] (]) 03:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tq|If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference}}: No, it wouldn't make sense to reference the Heritage Foundation directly. If what we want to cover is the criticism, we want secondary source coverage ''of'' such criticism; citing such criticisms ''directly'' and just deciding to put them in an article is ] in the pursuit of a ]. Criticism of vaccination is an influential element of American culture, but we don't go out of our way to cite anti-vaxxers; we instead cite reliable sources that independently document and analyze such. The Confederate secession was a major part of American history, but we ought not write Civil War articles by citing 1860s South Carolina newspapers for information about anti-abolitionism; we cite historians and how they have documented and analyzed what's relevant, what's meaningful, what was disinformation, etc. Likewise, if what we want is coverage of the Heritage Foundation and its role as an agitation engine against certain kinds of policies (in your example, education), then we cite journalists, historians, sociologists, education professors, etc. who study and write about organizations like the HF. ] (] | ] | ]) 19:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::This is entirely correct. ] (]) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The difference between anti-vaxxers and Heritage Foundation is that anti-vaxxers are a fringe perspective in the medical field, even if one of them is going to lead the NHS, and that Heritage Foundation is, like Cato, a well-established but POV/advocacy think tank. As for Civil War newspapers, the difference is timeliness: of course historical events have many better sources that are third-party analysis, but we do cite think tanks all over the place. I don't see why HF is substantially different from any other MREL <u>POV, advocacy</u> think tank whose work should be attributed. | |||
| *:::To source HF's ''own role'' in policy, of course it wouldn't be used as a source for itself. The same holds for any source, MREL or not ] (]) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Are you saying economics is not a science or social science? Because I am saying that their index is specifically pseudoscientific within the field of economics. No amount of "well its ideology" irons that out. ] (]) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::{{Strikethrough|What are you suggesting out of this, what we delete the ] page?}} ] (]) 21:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::If you mean to say that HF is GUNREL because the IEF is pseudoscientific, then I'd ask for RS that say the IEF is ''pseudoscientific'' (not that it's just ''flawed'', because of course any index is flawed) ] (]) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::What do you think about the second sentence of the Economy of the Republic of Ireland article as seen in ], which begins as follows, reference included (the reference is the Index of Economic Freedom on heritage.org): {{tqqi|] is an ] (3rd on the ]),<ref>{{Cite web|title=Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom|url=https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking|access-date=2022-11-12|website=www.heritage.org|language=en|archive-date=21 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200521231822/https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking|url-status=live}}</ref> ...}} —] 23:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::No matter what happens here that doesn't seem due... ] (]) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::To connect better to the preceding comments in this thread: Even if certain experts may be behind the Index of Economic Freedom, it is still a ''non-scientific'' source (which is different from pseudo-scientific), it can't be treated as a secondary source, and can't be used to directly support statements of fact, such as "X is Y". —] 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::To restate my own point, I don't think the IEF can at all be taken as a reason to call HF a GUNREL source. | |||
| *:::::::::I actually think Economy of Ireland is a great example of an article where the IEF (<u>and by extension HF work</u>) can be brought up, since Ireland's corporate economy is based around being a regulatory/tax haven, though I do think the current phrasing especially with parenthesis is weird so early in the article ] (]) 01:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::This exact phrasing, meaning this sentence supported with this citation, does not belong anywhere in the article. —] 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::I think "Ireland ranks 3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom" is perfectly reasonable to include in an article about the economy of a corporate tax haven ] (]) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tq|WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican}}: Reliable sources and the neutral point of view aren't determined by what is politically mainstream, whether Republican or Democrat in the United States, or Labour or Tory in the United Kingdom, or LDP in Japan, etc. The Taliban is a mainstream political faction in Afghanistan, insofar as it's the faction in power, but I don't think we would consider some kind of Taliban-aligned think tank to be a reliable source for Afghani society and politics. Mainstream reliability is determined not by the ideologies of politics but by the rigors and standards of academia and journalism. A , but that belief being 'mainstream' doesn't make it reliable, and we wouldn't treat a source attesting such as one that's reliable for biology or evolutionary anthropology. ] (] | ] | ]) 02:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::To clarify, I don't mean to assert that HF is reliable because of being mainstream Republican. I mean to say that WP:FRINGE, specifically, doesn't make much sense to use against what is, in the US, a political and academic giant. They might have some specific views that are fringe, but that shouldn't necessarily disqualify the source — The Economist has called for the legalization of cocaine, which is a fringe position, but The Economist is (rightfully) a well-respected source. | |||
| *::TLDR I complain about specifically WP:FRINGE being invoked against HF as reason to deprecate ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::] is a bogus charge with regards the IEF (which has plenty of uncritical ]), but they definitely push fringe positions on climate science. Their output is vast though, and one part of it advocating a fringe theory doesn't necessarily make the whole organisation fringe. ] (]) 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. Other sanctions may be appropriate for the privacy issues, but RSN is not an appropriate forum to pursue them. We cannot retaliate against sources for conduct which is not restricted by wiki accuracy and notability guidelines. And I'm leery of taking such wide action against an organization with a long and complicated history, comprising some intentional lying (especially the last 4 years) but also real and valuable research. Ideally we would give Heritage up to 2020 similar treatment to Cato {{tq|The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.}} (which I think is the only thinktank with an RSP listing) and minimally GUR it for 2020+, but with the RFC as-listed I think we have to err on the side of trusting editors to use their own judgement. This RFC did not arise from an editing dispute and I don't think Heritage is being regularly used inappropriately on wiki. If a dispute does arise, Option 2 will be enough to prefer other sources. ] (]) 20:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. It's a widely used source, not just on Misplaced Pages but also in other RS, including scholarly articles (, ), so ] applies. I'd support every effort to combat their scheme to influence Misplaced Pages but blacklisting them ''as a source'' is not going to help. Blacklisting them would make us look like vindictive amateurs rather than a serious encyclopedia. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| If its relevant would not other RS report it anyway? ] (]) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The Heritage Foundation is most cited through their ], which is a lot of data that's documented on that article in tables refreshed each year; no secondary source includes all the data included on that article. We could start a discussion on that article's talk page about removing the data under WP:Indiscriminate if we wish, but there does seem to be precedent with global indices to include all countries' rankings, indices, and historical rankings. ] (]) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Secondary sources may not list it because it's minutia from the pro-pollution lobby. ] (]) 21:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's exactly what I just meant with the ] part of my reply. ] (]) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah Misplaced Pages would be improved by removing their deregulation index in full. ] (]) 21:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yeah. It would be a bit hard, though, since other indices also list everything. I would support such rampant restructuring if I had a clear picture of where the removed data would go. I'd say Wikidata, but that doesn't seem to have such facilities/pages. And no, I don't think it's reputation is that much worse to warrant deletion. Alaexis lists two sources that cite IEF: one source from the unreliable MDPI, but also one source from Nature, which is like top-tier iirc. ] (]) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor. ] (]) 22:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:"{{tq|An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor.}}" How does this in any way comment on the RfC, "{{tq|What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation and should it be blacklisted?}}" | |||
| *:This is exactly the sort of comment that is not actually addressing the RfC, but is purely retaliatory and very angry (perhaps understandably, but that is besides the point). Nothing about this sort of comment is rooted in policy, and I hope any closer views such !votes with the correct and proper disregard that they deserve. ] (]) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Reliable sources don't need to resort to hostility to impose their POV. ] (]) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::So their reliability is called into question only due to alleged "hostility" of some kind reported in one source and which hasn't even occurred yet from what I can tell? ] (]) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::If they are unreliable on specific grounds, so be it, but so far mere retaliation is neither valid nor constructive. ] (]) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Nope. Their hostility is the icing on ]. ] (]) 23:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''', or at the very least options starting from 3, due to its publication of fabricated and/or misleading information and its widespread use in the project. --] (]) 23:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3 or 2'''. As far as I can tell, their internal memoranda are a wishlist and aspirational, and so far they haven't been successful in any of their reprehensible ideas. As far as the source itself, I tend to see it as verging into pretty unreliable territory similar to Fox News, but it's a think tank, so sometimes they might have some well-researched reports or attributable opinions, and they're one of the largest right-wing think tanks so they have a large body of usable attributed information, similar to other think tanks or advocacy groups, biased, but occasionally useful with real academics working there, so I think full deprecation or blacklisting seems excessive. The reality is, their desire to dox editors is easier wished for than done, and it doesn't expressly impugn the reliability of their past material. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *After some thinking, I'm leaning towards '''option 4''' per Tryptofish above. Besides the extensively documented lying, I (unfortunately?) don't trust a source that aspires to covertly attack and burn down us and our library, and there should be a pretty good reason for someone to click twice on the "publish" button. This won't stop any "link injection", and it shouldn't: Thinking blacklisting would diminish security problems is pure security theater, per RedTailedHawk; it is not something we should do. Deprecating informs newer editors of the situation, and that's something we should do. ] (]) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:We can do both (deprecate the source and blacklist its domain for good measure). ] (]) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I just said blacklisting would bad due to being security theater in my comment. You should read RedTailedHawk's comment for a slightly more in-depth layman's explanation on the technical-ish side. ] (]) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I know what you said and I have read RTH's comment. That doesn't change anything. ] (]) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Hmm, I thought your comment meant that blacklisting would constitute good measure. It'll only make stupid attempts at spearphishing less obvious. ] (]) 01:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::So you said. ] (]) 01:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::So you said. How about you cut it out, huh? —] 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::How about you stop asking me to read what I read and disagree with? ] (]) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::M.Bitton, you're wrong to insist on blacklisting based on this discussion. The real discussion about what to do technically, and blacklisting is a technical and not an editorial measure is had at ]. It is also had at other places, where discussions aren't public. —] 01:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' The sites are not reliable and the new information showing recently shows clear and obivous issues brought up by most here so far. ] (]) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4''' - Are there any indications at all that their statements are a reliable source about anything that is not embarrassing to themselves? ] (]) 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4+5''' per the sources above. They routinely publish misinformation, and make no particular claim that I can see towards doing any fact-checking or having any editorial controls in the first place, so they shouldn't have been used as a source to begin with; but the fact that they somehow ended up used in so many articles shows that deprecation is necessary. In the rare case where someone there says something significant, it will be reported in secondary sources and can be cited via those; there is no exception to ] for "they're really important, tho", precisely because unreliable-but-important sources can be cited via secondary coverage. Their threats to use domains they control to dox and out Misplaced Pages editors is just an additional reason on top of this and a reason to take the step of a formal blacklist. While blacklisting obviously won't ''solve'' the problem, it will avoid situations where editors feel they have to click their links in order to evaluate a potentially-viable source, and force them to use lesser-known (and, for most editors, more intrinsically suspicious) domains in order to do any sort of spear-phishing attack. Some editors seem to be saying "well let them use their own domain for those attacks, that'll make it more obvious" - but if we don't blacklist it then it ''won't'', because allowing it means it could also be used in good faith. --] (]) 03:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Routinely publishing misinformation would be a concern, but I haven't been convinced from the discussion so far that they do that. Could you elaborate? ] (]) 03:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Option 5:''' +1 (what Aquillion said) + Think tanks are rarely anything but a source of last resort on Misplaced Pages. We mostly use them when they have useful insight into niche security topics. If any primary research or opinion from the HF is particularly notable and due, it will be covered by reliable, secondary sources, and we can still cover it. We don't need to send users to a website with potentially malicious activity. ] (]) 04:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' This seems like a drastic overreaction. ] (]) 04:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''5, and 3/4'''. If this had been asked a month ago, I'd've said '''3''' because, as Alalch and others laid out in the RFCBEFORE, they have a reputation for letting politics trump accuracy, leading to mis- and dis-information; in any situation in which their views are DUE, those will (by ]!) have been covered by other, reliable sources; and any ABOUTSELF statements needed on their own article can be handled as exceptions/whitelisted. But '''5''' is also in order: for a source to operate in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, is not only additional evidence that they do dishonest/untrustworthy things and are unreliable, the misuse of their domains in particular merits blacklisting. ''Pace'' those who think blacklisting their main domain is "security theater" because they'll also use other domains, I think it's necessary, as I (a) see no reason to doubt they're using their main domain for the same thing, and (b) view blacklisting them (under their main domain) as a necessary first part of blacklisting them (under any other domains they're caught using). ] (]) 05:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' given the explicit details of the threat they pose to editors here. (same reason that a site like Conservipedia should be blacklisted too). The content they produce would already make them generally unreliable (and I don't know if we ever considered them reliable before so deprecation doesn't sound possible), but we should go the step further to protect WP editors here. I can see limited exemptions to use them as a primary source only on a page about the Herigate Foundation itself if that absolutely needed, but likely not. --] (]) 05:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' This feels cut-and-dry. They're a propaganda wing for a specific hardline ideology and have a long and storied history of simply disregarding factuality. Ignoring all the concerns with them outing editors, I'm amazed it wasn't already considered unreliable. | |||
| *'''Option 4, and blacklist''': clearly unreliable. The blacklisting decision should ideally not be here but a matter for the Spam Blacklist discussion pages, but as it ''is'' here, I support blacklisting for security purposes too. If the HF changes course and presents no further security considerations, the blacklisting can and should be revisited without prejudice to a RSN discussion. ''']''' (]) 14:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:+1 on the potential revisiting. Many editors have commented that blacklisting will only make them more determined, or something along those lines (though I think this is implausible given that they are already determined enough to consider what they are proposing). But fewer are considering the alternative: that being blacklisted may incentivize them to reconsider their course of action. No reputable think tank should want to be considered unreliable or be in the insalubrious company of deprecated /blacklisted sources. ] (]) 15:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Discussion: The Heritage Foundation === | |||
| Obviously, it's hard to lump books by a publisher as ''all'' reliable or ''all'' unreliable but I was wondering about the general quality of ]. I see the opinions that and , but I've been unable to either confirm or disprove those opinions. ] <small>''<sup> ]</sup> <sub>]</sub>'' </small> 14:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| What exactly happens to the 5000 links if we blacklist them? Does a bot go through and remove the https:// from them so they are unclickable? (Seems reasonable.) Or are the citations deleted? (Seems a bit damaging.) Or something else? This will affect how I opine in the above RFC. –] <small>(])</small> 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Eddie891}}, I would say '''use with caution''', and probably '''avoid'''. (Hypocritically, since I've used them a few times myself.) helpful article about their local history photo-album-style books says (referring to photo captions, but presumably generalizable): | |||
| ::The authors are highly respected and knowledgeable on the local lore and history, but the volumes rarely, if ever, provide a bibliography or suggested readings. So readers should always verify and corroborate the names, dates, and places described in the captions. All told, the volumes serve as carefully selected visual anthologies and starting points for further scholarship and investigation ] (]) (]) 16:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Generally, they are usable with caution and verification. If a controversial claim sourced solely to one of their local history books is challenged, it should probably be removed unless or until a better source is found. [[User:Eggishorn|<span style="background-color: | |||
| #FF7400; color: | |||
| #FFFFFF;">Eggishorn</span>]] ] ] 18:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I've used their Images of rail books a number of times but, like others, I would say that they shouldn't be used for controversial claims. I suspect in most cases they're being used for the kind of local minutiae where accuracy is somewhat beside the point, though it's better to get it right. ] ] 18:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I'm just noting that it isn't 5000 but cca 1750, please see ]. Sorry for propagating the incorrect number. —] 22:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == COURIER == | |||
| :It could either of those two options or it could be that the bot goes through and replaces the references with a <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki>. I guess that should be discussed. '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :] says "Ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting." —] 23:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Spam-blacklisting is not the same thing as a Reliable source/Noticeboard discussion around "blacklisting" a source per the ] list. No action should be taken pertaining to this discussion prior to the formation of a clear closing and consensus being reached. ] (]) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't know why you are making this comment here, and what it's supposed to accomplish, but you are incorrect. Spam-blacklisting is adding an entry to ]. The page ] (the same page I linked to in my previous comment you replied to) is a supplementary page explaining some principles and workings of the spam blacklist. ] is the (pretty basic) guideline about the spam blacklist. But the real instructions that are the most useful are actually in the header of ]. The "Legend" section of the Perennial sources information page (see ]) only explains ''what it means for a particular row in the table of perennial sources to have a grey background and that entry's status to have a particular icon''. RSP does not contain general advice about blacklisting pages. RSP only records when a page is blacklisted in addition to having a status describing the consensus around its reliability. The list of blacklisted domains is the spam blacklist itself. Sometimes, relatively rarely, when a source is discussed at RSN, an ''additional outcome'' may be to add the source to the blacklist; this generally happens when editors discover that the website is simply a spam website. The underlying discussion, the main thrust of the discussion, is a discussion around reliability, consistent with the name of this forum: The Reliable sources noticeboard.{{pb}}The problem with this RfC was that it erroneously began as a discussion around computer safety, which is out of scope. But it has somewhat, partially, corrected itself. —] 01:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think a malware website can not be used as a reliable source. The intent is to misinform and endanger. Nothing reliable about that. ] (]) 01:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I see arguments above that the Heritage Foundations declared hostility to Misplaced Pages's neutrality means we should treat them as a hostile organization. There are other entities hostile to our neutrality; Donald Trump and the Chinese government are two that come to mind. Neither is what I would call a reliable source, but we don't ban all links to them; they're treated as reliable for a very limited set of cases. What's the difference between these cases? There are governments who have imprisoned Misplaced Pages editors (so I gather; I don't have a reference but I've seen it said). Can those governments be cited for anything at all -- e.g. the names of their ministers? Option 5 seems inconsistent with the way we treat these other hostile entities. ] (] - ] - ]) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Apologies for the allcaps, but that's how they . Are they reliable? One of their articles is being used to support the following statement on ]. I don't subscribe to WaPo so can't verify whether it alone would be sufficient. ] (]) (]) 16:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Agents also used unmarked vehicles to detain and remove protesters, and the protesters later produced several videos showing that the agents did not identify themselves as law enforcement, although DHS said the agents identified themselves.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-07-17|title=Trump's Use of Federal Forces in Portland Draws Comparisons to Gestapo and Secret Police|url=https://couriernewsroom.com/2020/07/17/federal-police-portland-protests/|access-date=2020-11-20|website=COURIER|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Shepherd|first1=Katie|last2=Berman|first2=Mark|title='It was like being preyed upon': Portland protesters say federal officers in unmarked vans are detaining them|language=en-US|work=Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/17/portland-protests-federal-arrests/|access-date=2020-11-20|issn=0190-8286}}</ref> | |||
| :Donald Trump doesn't have a detailed cyberattack plan to doxx editors here. The heritage foundation does plan on using web technologies to harm editors. ] (]) 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, it's not that they're hostile, as lots of organizations are hostile; it's that they've identified themselves as having planned a specific, malicious digital attack vector against the community. ] (]) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, but that vector doesn't seem as hostile as imprisonment to me. Why does the fact that this attack is digital mean option 5 is appropriate (instead of e.g. just using archive.org to avoid direct links)? ] (] - ] - ]) 12:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''', a great many comments !voted purely out of retaliation to try and stop Heritage foundation from taking a certain action that some perceive to be "doxxing". I have a serious question though, "Does deprecating and removing any links to Heritage Foundation, IF the blacklist/deprecation retaliatory measure passes... does this actually stop them from initiating their plan, or parts of it? I am not familiar with all of the details, but with A.I. and other tools these days, couldn't they still try and do things to identify some editors with certain editing patterns or behavior completely independent of whatever happens with this discussion and then do the "doxxing" anyway? This seems to have larger legal implications, unless I misunderstand it, and if that is the case then this seems silly to try and solve with a angry RfC which might not have any real defensive benefit for the community. Has anyone taken this into consideration? Is anything being done about that? If not, why not? ] (]) 03:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. It seems like best course of action when someone or some group questions your intellectual independence is to ignore it and rise above it. Blacklisting and censoring a think tank over something like this would simply be more fuel for the fire. ] (]) 16:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Reference Subsection === | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | {{reflist-talk}} | ||
| == Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) == | |||
| ::I've never heard of it, but it puts itself forward as having the structure of what we accept as a ], FWIW. Is the claim likely true, not contradicted, etc? - ] (]) 20:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *] (PCORI) | |||
| == Yuva TV == | |||
| Are PCORI statements a ] for medical claims? Do PCORI statements pass ] as coming from a ]? | |||
| Is Yuva TV reliable for making claims in BLPs in Misplaced Pages's voice? Reliable for opinion if attributed and the opinion passes ]? Or generally unreliable? | |||
| 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. | |||
| * Edit where a YouTube video from "]" purporting to be from Yuva TV was used as a source in a BLP: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Akbaruddin_Owaisi&diff=prev&oldid=992384359 | |||
| * "The Bharatiya Janata Party has launched an internet television channel by the name of Yuva TV... BJP’s official website prominently links to Yuva TV." | |||
| * Related BLPNB thread: ] | |||
| --] (]) 16:28, 5 December 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. | |||
| == What qualifies someone to be a professional film or television critic? == | |||
| Here are the talk notices about reversion. The statements are | |||
| A fellow editor started a discussion not here but over at ]. I invite you to join that discussion. (Perhaps it should have been held here, not sure). Regards, ] (]) 00:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *] | |||
| == How to judge credible sources like The Lancet when they publish opinion pieces by non-experts about other fields of science? == | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| 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. | |||
| This is a general question but because it came up repeatedly during a heated debate on the Talk page of this article: I will use that example to illustrate my question. I hope that discussing this topic here will lead to a general guideline about this apparently difficult to grasp concept and perhaps even help towards resolving the discussion I'm highlighting. | |||
| *https://www.pcori.org/evidence-updates/comparing-treatments-multiple-sclerosis-related-fatigue | |||
| In the example two book reviews are used as major reliable sources to inform the article: and . However, the book's subject falls outside the expertise of the reviewers and of the journal editors who published the reviews so they should be read with caution. These authors are journalists who are notable for their work on specific health crises in Africa; Helen C. Epstein for HIV/AIDS and Laurie Garrett for Ebola whereas the book is about genocide and war crimes in Rwanda. Their reviews were subsequently criticized , . Because the book is controversial, reliability matters even more in my opinion. I would compare it with the hypothetical situation of journalists without any relevant competence in the field of medicine reviewing a contested book about immunology in a journal like ''Genocide Studies and Prevention'' . To demonstrate the confusion among editors and even administrators I will use a diff about quoting an expert scholar commenting on a reviewer "not having great credentials as a Rwanda expert" which was rejected as an offending remark . ] (]) 11:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I support using this source for this claim. | |||
| :Without looking at specifics yet, here is the general case. Opinion pieces are not ] (specifically ]) for stating or implying anything in the realm of ]. If the "view" is notable in itself (i.e. gets discussed in RS), then it could be included so long as there was qualifying context from a good source, per ], and that any fringe views were loudly identified as such per ]. ] (]) 11:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Anyone is advised to take a look at ] and ] before giving them any more oxygen. (] · ]) ''']''' 11:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am addressing a serious issue here. If you can't think of any solutions than at least don't swamp it again with your campaign to discredit me, please. ] (]) 15:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Thoughts from others about PCORI generally? Thanks. ]] 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Small, local news sources == | |||
| :{{u|Bluerasberry}} - in the case of my , the was just a summary of preliminary results (n=33, i.e., primary research) from the "Treatment of Fatigue with Methylphenidate, Modafinil and Amantadine in MS" (TRIUMPHANT-MS) trial, which had been funded by PCORI. | |||
| {{archivetop|1=Sa57arc has been ] See also ], which was about to lead to a local ban - ] (]) 10:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)}} | |||
| :At this early stage,TRIUMPHANT-MS was actually just a ] reported . That study is not a MEDRS source for the article statement, "modafinil has been shown to be effective in managing fatigue in people with MS" when other more substantial sources, including a meta-analysis, are used. | |||
| With the ] article, I am trying to assert that small, local news sources like ] and ] are just as ] as ]. All three are ongoing businesses that can be sued for libel and such. All three are highly motivated to be reliable. In particular, I have a contentious editor who is owning the GT article who is saying that Berkeleyside is a blog because it won an award as a blog and so we cannot refer to it by the more general term "website" in the ] article and has reverted me there. The contentious editor refuses to discuss the matter on the talk pages and is owning these articles. The relevant stories are https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/12/20/public-nudity-activist-from-berkeley-charged-with-attempted-abduction-stalking-of-teenage-boy | |||
| :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. | |||
| and | |||
| :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) | |||
| https://sfist.com/2020/06/19/noted-bay-area-activist-gypsy-taub-in-jail-for-six-months-on/ | |||
| ::Reviewing the PCORI website leads to the conclusion that their strength is the cross-sectional diversity in how they evaluate, monitor, then disseminate summaries of research projects, described They are <u>not</u> the publication venue for completed research - the ] sources of journals, books or clinical organizations - but rather their reports are summaries of the research project. For this reason, I would ask why would we cite a PCORI summary when a peer-reviewed publication is the main source? Is there an example of a PCORI final report that you feel is a good MEDRS example? | |||
| The sfist.com story was in the GT article for a long time but now the contentious editor has removed it and is reverting my attempts to restore it, threatening me with ] and such. We are having a related discussion over at ]. Please help.--] (]) 20:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::There was concern that funded research groups submitting final reports to PCORI had which was caught and adjusted by PCORI before publication. | |||
| : This is probably better addressed at ]. In general I think that we should use small, local news sources for small, local information. They are most likely going to be highly reliable when it comes to local weirdos/notables but much less so when it comes to say a political scandal half the world away. ] (]) 23:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::As of 2023, the with PCORI to improve the review process for evaluating research funding candidates. | |||
| ::I believe that SFist and Berkeleyside are reliable sources for local San Francisco Bay Area news. I used Berkeleyside as a reference in a biography recently. However, no reliable source can justify attempts to defame Taub in violation of BLP policy. ] ] 00:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
::The ] article needs updating. There are fewer than 30 watchers/editors of the article. ] (]) 03:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::{{ping|Zefr}} Two issues here: The extent to which PCORI publications meet MEDRS, and then presuming that PCORI is reliable, ] that Misplaced Pages reflects PCORI's claim in an appropriate context. Originally I think you were challenging PCORI, but here, I think you are challenging the claim. Do you agree with that distinction and separation, and if so, can you (or I) move your text discussing the claim to ]? | |||
| ::::The Taub BLP is being discussed at many places already, including ]. ] ] 00:34, 7 Deceme ber 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, so this is the place to discuss your comments about the organization and your question about why to cite PCORI's summaries instead of the original source. Briefly, there can be multiple approaches to healthcare. Most approaches originate in the ], and it is challenging to escape that. PCORI speaks for itself, but I would describe it as remaining in the healthcare industry (as opposed to exiting it to seek ]), and within that context, recommending ] which prioritizes ]. So for example, many medical recommendations from industry seek to maximize curing disease, but a patient-centered approach could emphasize managing side effects and planning the financial cost of treatment. Regardless of what kind of recommendations PCORI is making, I sustain the notion that per ], Misplaced Pages includes expert institutional claims which may not go through the peer review process of a journal. | |||
| :::::The contentious editor has created quite a distraction. Let us stick to the topic at hand. I find that we have consensus that the two sources at issue are ]. Thank you very much.--] (]) 00:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think the report we have been discussing is a good MEDRS example. It comes in different forms - | |||
| ::::::{{u|Sa57arc}}, if the behavior of any editor involved with the Taub BLP is "contentious", it is your behavior. ] ] 01:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::* (we were discussing citing this one) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| :::* | |||
| :::* | |||
| :::Misplaced Pages typically does not cite trials, but here, PCORI is elevating the results of this case study into a special report and expert recommendation. We can attribute this to the organization following ]/] guidelines, which was . | |||
| :::PCORI gets into cases like this which are fairly unusual. The situation is that there is an ] for a drug (so it is not indicated or approved, but there is evidence for it) and then PCORI is giving an alert about that off-label use. I am not a physician, and I do not know how to untangle expert institutional critiques of off-label drug use, but in general, I just trust PCORI's process and think Misplaced Pages can include PCORI recommendations attributed to them. I do not see this as the same as citing a case study without the backing of an expert org. | |||
| :::Base question back to you - how do you feel about including statements attributed to PCORI based on trials, when they conflict with other evidence? ]] 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If PCORI published a summary of results from a multinational Phase III trial or a systematic review that it had helped to fund, then perhaps that would meet ] (although still not a national clinical guideline that would better meet MEDASSESS). In the case of the reference for modafinil, PCORI is giving an update on a pilot study, which clearly isn't MEDRS. | |||
| ::::''"how do you feel about including statements attributed to PCORI based on trials, when they conflict with other evidence?"'' Defined on the PCORI website under ''Evidence Updates'': {{tq|''PCORI presents findings from systematic reviews and some of our funded research studies in concise, accessible formats called Evidence Updates. Most Evidence Updates are available in two versions: one for patients and caregivers and one for clinicians and other professionals. These updates, which capture the highlights and context for these new findings, are created and disseminated in collaboration with patients, health professionals, and other organizations."''}} | |||
| ::::Likely, the PCORI update for a systematic review would be more digestible for the common Misplaced Pages reader, but having the original journal publication would have to go with it as the more complete source. If there was a conflict with another source and both were MEDRS-qualified, ] would say discuss them both. | |||
| ::::It's ok to copy any of this to the modafinil talk page. ] (]) 03:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I wouldn't say its non-governmental... It seems to be more semi or quasi governmental (Interestingly enough a notable concept that we seem to lack a wiki page for) ] (]) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Horse Eye's Back}} I do not think there is a term for nonprofit organizations which have strong government ties, but yes, I understand what you mean. PCORI is a ] which receives government grants through the ]. | |||
| :I wouldn't say its non-governmental... It seems to be more semi or quasi governmental (Interestingly enough a notable concept that we seem to lack a wiki page for) ] (]) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Law&Crime Network == | |||
| == Several sentence opinion blog post on The Telegraph == | |||
| 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) | |||
| that adds no value except a writer calling for a deportation. It's not a published news article on The Telegraph, but the writer's personal opinion blog blurb. For example, it is being used as a source on ] for this sentence: ''"The most notable of such events was the Iranian Embassy siege in London, in which six armed Khuzestani Arab insurgents took the Iranian Embassy's staff as hostages,"''. It stands in stark juxtaposition to the other source cited, a published book on the embassy siege and British SAS operation. | |||
| :Youtube channels are generally not reliable sources. Please see ] for additional context. ] (]) 17:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I can't speak to their YouTube channel at all. Re: their website, ] used to be their managing editor (he's now a with ]), and I found him to be a very reliable reporter on legal issues. ] (]) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Their website is RS. However many of the sources there, you have to deal with BLPCRIME, for which you must be cautious anyway. But I have found them to be fine. ] (]) 01:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Catholic-Hierarchy.org == | |||
| :Broadly agree that this is not an ideal source but this should not be treated as akin a self-published opinion: it is the newspaper's own blog platform and the piece is by their Defence editor so it should be treated as broadly reliable, as well as perhaps of evidence of something being notable. ] (]) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| '']'' is a self-published source that has been featured in two prior discussions (2016 and 2020). Multiple editors appear to consider it a reliable source specifically because it is used in other independent publications. This is a noted exception for self-published sources that can be found in WP:RS/SPS. However, users also acknowledge that it should never be used in biographies of living people. | |||
| :: {{ping|Bobfrombrockley}} Thanks for the feedback. Could you please clarify how a very brief Twitter-style blurb that says nothing more than "My plan is to deport X", written in the first-person and second-person is not akin to a self-published opinion? There isn't editorial oversight on that as there is on the published articles. I think what you're getting at though is that it's one step better than using Twitter, for example. A personal appeal is not very fitting here either, especially since Con Coughlin is well-known for being controversial and for pushing already disproven/wrong claims on various matters. Arguably one of his more embarrassing examples: His articles are generally poor political opinion pieces rather than defense-related, e.g. and personal attacks . Broader, The Daily Telegraph tends to fare poorly in academic studies on media reliability, even worse than The Daily Mail surprisingly. | |||
| 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) | |||
| :: At best we can see it's an example of WP:RSOPINION, and should be attributed properly. As important, ] also warns about using such sources, in particular ''"use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process."'' Given the lack of fact-checking or editorial process on the blog, it directly falls under the purview on this warning. Furthermore, the Daily Telegraph did away with their blog altogether. While the reason was not publicized, it was likely due to problems posed by its writers using it as a freeform soapbox as in the case of the blog post in question. Overall, it's a questionable source to use when far better ones exist and are already cited on the Misplaced Pages article noted in the opening comment. ] (]) 20:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with the OP about ] being a polemical source and have actually been trying to cut down on references to Coughlin's work in Iraq-related articles in favor of academic sources, but I wouldn't expect RSN to reach a finding that Coughlin is generally unreliable. Determining how much weight to afford Coughlin's commentary is really a content dispute, which RSN cannot resolve.] (]) 22:10, 7 December 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) | |||
| == Our World in Data ( ourworldindata.org ): What do we do when a file is based upon an unreliable source? == | |||
| :{{Reply|OldPolandUpdates}} Where can that noted exception for self-published sources be found in WP:RS/SPS? ] (]) 19:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mid-paragraph ]. ] (]) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others, that isn't there. The self publisher here is an amateur, a self described "Random Catholic Dude" ] (]) 19:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What is WP:EXPERTSPS? It redirects to ]. Do we have standards on who is/is not an expert? If ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is not an expert source, then it is not a reliable self-published source, and this has implications for thousands of WP articles. | |||
| ::::] seems to imply that if one's material is used by reliable publications, then one might be considered an established expert. ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is used in peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and other types of articles. Some of the usage is described here: ]. Therefore, the discussion might revolve around whether ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is used ''enough'' by external publications. | |||
| ::::If you consider ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' not reliable, then would you also agree that it be depicted as such in the WP:RSPSOURCES table? ] (]) 20:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The standard is mid-paragraph ] "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." which does not appear to be the case here. ] (]) 22:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I would also note that there appears to be a consensus from 2020 that this is a SPS, see ] ] (]) 22:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have added the source to the WP:RSPSOURCES list. Please take a look. ] (]) 23:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::From the wording you've used there ("Other editors do not consider the website to be a ] in its field.") I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others... Its not the website which isn't a subject-matter expert, its the self publisher who isn't. The argument that "some editors have considered the website to be reliable because some of its content has been published in reliable, independent publications" is seperate from the argument about whether or not its a SPS... A SPS which is used by others still has to follow SPS rules. ] (]) 01:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Can you provide the standard that you are using to determine whether someone is an expert? ] (]) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The standard: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, '''whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications'''." ] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It is possible that I am misinterpreting that, and I did consider that bolded section to basically be similar to WP:USEBYOTHERS. If work that appears on ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is published in the form of a reference in reliable sources (books, peer-reviewed journal articles, dissertations, and reliable newspapers), then isn't this bolded section satisfied? What does the bolded section mean? ] (]) 22:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::No, there has to be works other than the self published ones and they have to predate the self published one. Generally only academics and journalists satisfy our requirements. ] (]) 01:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I have modified the WP:RSPSOURCES entry to better reflect this comment. ] (]) 04:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::It still feels off, you're giving wayyyyyy too much weight to the group that thinks its reliable when that view isn't supported by policy and guideline. You also make the consenus that it isn't an expert SPS look like just an opinion, but we clearly have consensus that the author isn't a subject matter expert by our standards. It also isn't a general opinion that SPS can't be used for BLP, thats solid policy. This comes off more as apologism than what consenus actually is. ] (]) 17:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * This is a non-expert self published source. We have established that no such "noted exception" exists. ] (]) 17:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *If it is used by reliable secondary sources then it shouldn't be difficult to find the information from the reliable source itself. ] (]) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: The '']'' == | |||
| * ] | |||
| {{Closed rfc top|'''Withdrawn''' by JJPMaster --] (], ], ]) 21:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| * https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/microprocessor-clock-speed | |||
| The ''London Standard'', formerly known as the '']'', has 18,703 links on the English Misplaced Pages. Its reliability has not been discussed since 2018, and there is currently no consensus on its reliability. Therefore, '''what is the reliability of the ''London Standard''?''' | |||
| I am about to remove this as a reference from ] because it is obviously wrong. Nobody has ever clocked a processor at 10Ghz or over, even with liquid nitrogen cooling. | |||
| * Option 1: ] | |||
| * Option 2: ] | |||
| * Option 3: ] | |||
| * Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be ] | |||
| ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I think you should also post some examples of the articles from this publication. People would then know why this outlet is now up for discussion. ] (]) 01:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Can we stop doing RfCs with no background? That is not what this is for. ] (]) 01:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@]: I brought it here (a) because of its recent change in format and (b) because it hasn't been discussed in seven years. I figured that the previous discussions would have been sufficient for ], so I didn't think to start a regular discussion beforehand. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 01:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I removed the image from the article, tagged the Commons file with {{tl2|sister=commons:|Factual accuracy}} and reported the issue to ]. Hopefully Our World in Data will correct the chart, and we can re-insert the new version, since the article really ought to have a chart, but missing information is better than wrong information. ] (]) 06:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::You don’t start off with the RfCs, for which you provided 0 context. ] (]) 02:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{summoned by bot}} I'm with Parakanyaa here. That it hasn't been discussed since 2018 is not sufficient reason for an RFC, in fact it's reason against one. I would have expected some recent discussion prior to an RFC, so that we have some context. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Bad RFC''' because of lack of ]. I have no context whatsoever here. Presumably if it's being brought up here, JJPMaster thinks there's some kind of problem with it, but if so it's not clear at all what problem(s) they think there is. ] (]) 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Bad RFC''' due to complete lack of ]. No discussion in any capacity since 2018. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 04:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Procedural Close'''. There is no mandatory periodical process for the reliability of specific sources. A source is brought here for discussion ''only'' after what the instructions demand, in large fonts, right at the header: {{tq|Please supply the article is used in, and the claim it supports. RFCs should only be started if there have been previous discussions .}} This is a bad RfC and should not be entertained nor continued. -] (]) 12:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Unless there's some new context in regard to it's reliability, disagreement between editors or discussion of London Standard's reliability in secondary sources, then there's no need for a new discussion let alone an RFC. Maybe the wording in header and edit warning needs to be stronger. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{Withdrawn}} per above. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 12:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable per ]. Since this newspaper is listed in RSP, we are within our rights to !vote on it. ] (]) 20:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{closed rfc bottom}} | |||
| == Checking a wikipedia source == | |||
| == Lead Stories fact checker - reliable? == | |||
| I'm curious as to whether in general I can copy an already existing citation from one Misplaced Pages article to another which says the same thing without having to check that citation. For example, on the page ] there's a citation which I haven't checked, but I'm assuming the person who added it did: <ref>Jacques Downs, ''The Golden Ghetto'' (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1997), 191.</ref>, and I want to use it to link his name on ]'s page. ''This example is the specific one and a little complicated (and I apologize for that), but the question also applies for other cases.'' Can Do I have to check the citation myself first to do this? ] (]) 06:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) ] (]) 06:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@] You ''should''. Noone can force you, but sadly often, WP-sourcing is not what it should be. Gbooks and archive.org is sometimes helpful. Note also that you are close to have access to the ]. ] is sometimes useful. ] (]) 09:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :You should be able to access page 190–191 via Google books here -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The advantage of checking sources yourself is that you're much less likely to see your edits reverted with a comment of ''failed verification, not in source'' later. ] (]) 17:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you guys very much, I added it. ] (]) 21:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| == RE: Lambgoat == | |||
| Hello everyone, could I get a weigh-in on the reliability of this source: https://leadstories.com | |||
| just got ], but I have a useage that hasn't come up yet in discussions that I want to get clarity on. Is an , about heavy metal genres, acceptable for use on the relevant Misplaced Pages genre articles, with the exclusion of any BLP claims or controversial statements? I'm pinging the other editors who were involved in that discussion. {{u|JeffSpaceman}}, {{u|Sergecross73}}, {{u|MFTP Dan}}.--] (] | ]) 17:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * They are a fact-checking website , and they focus on trending content on social media. | |||
| * They are to the ], and they have passed IFCN's external vetting in 2018, 2019, and 2020, with their most recent vetting being nearly flawless. | |||
| * Facebook uses them as a fact-checker, not sure if you can see , but the Related Articles below the post shows me a link to a Lead Stories fact-check. | |||
| * They have and their stories credit the authors. | |||
| * They explain their methodology . | |||
| * They have a , and a list of . | |||
| * They differentiate between false stories and . | |||
| * They are for rating appeals from original publishers. | |||
| :I have to say, I have ''never'' seen LG do something like this and would not be personally inclined to use it. It's only just over a year old, so maybe it's a new thing they're doing and I didn't keep up. ] <sup> ] </sup> 19:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hope to hear your input! ''']] (])''' 09:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::I found from 2024, so it looks like this might be a new addition to the type of coverage that they do.--] (] | ]) 02:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Appears to be reliable to me, did not see any red flags on the website. Note, there is a consensus that ] {{rspe|International Fact-Checking Network}} is reliable for accessing the reliability of fact checking organisations. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 10:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I suspected. I would be loath to use this, I always treated LG as a last resort for routine coverage of bands. To me, it's the lowest tier of source that's still acceptable for use especially on, you know, ] where there isn't surviving online coverage otherwise. They are impressive for cataloguing that far back. ] <sup> ] </sup> 14:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I would recommend verifying with other, more established reliable sources, and potentially citing those instead per ]. I think routine coverage (as you state, barring exceptional claims or third-party information about living people) is probably viable, but I'm not confident this source should be cited for what you are looking into it being used for. But I'll see what others think and where consensus goes. ] (]) 20:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :They don't mention editorial staff or fact checking on their about us. ] (]) 21:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::They do have an editor, per the , but the role is not explained.--] (] | ]) 02:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::To be fair, you don't see that explanation a lot these days. Especially in the content area LG serves. It's surprisingly slim pickens out there. ] <sup> ] </sup> 14:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Does this source even exists? == | |||
| == Discrediting Academic Source == | |||
| I would like to get opinion from the Admins about Academic Source, printed in 1968 in Macedonia. The book deals with a specific matter the Drama Uprising (not general World War II view). Since it is specific event there are not many academic sources outhere (only 3-4 Academic supported publications). One user is discrediting this source as beeing irrelevant dated from Communistic Era. Macedonia (therefore Yugoslavia), did their huge reforms and changes in early 60es and this book is printed in 1968, supported by the State Institute of National History. The user wants to misinterpret that Yugoslavia was under USSR pressure at that time (which is totally untrue) and therefore the discrediting the source. All the economical, political and social analyses and books are there to support that theory. So, can anyone assisst me what should I do when a user is constantly discrediting my Academic source and labeling it as unrelevant? Thanks. --] (]) 11:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I saw this ''{{code|ড. মুহম্মদ আব্দুল করিম. বাংলাদেশের ইতিহাস. মগ বিতাড়ন ও চট্টগ্রাম জয়.}}'' cited on an article (here ]) but I couldn't find any source with this name anywhere on the internet, can anyone confirm if it is real or not? ] (]) 16:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I would be very careful when using this source. WW2 was a highly politicized topic back then and Tito regime had really high stake here. It could be used for some basic facts, but there certainly are newer and better sources for this purpose. ] (]) 13:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:47, 11 January 2025
Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
List of archives , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 910, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460, 461, 462, 463
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
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- There is a general consensus that at least some articles on this site can be considered self-published, and substantial disagreement over whether the site's editorial control is adequate, with even some partial supports acknowledging that material on the site may not be substantially reviewed if reviewed at all. As such, material from this site should be used with caution, probably with attribution, and should not on its own be used to support negative or controversial content in BLPs. Particular articles from the site may still be reliable on the basis of self-published sources by experts; those should be considered on an individual basis. Seraphimblade 10:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
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: it has been a week, did you find out anything useful? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 10 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)
- @Bilby: That's where we disagree. By letting you publish directly, the editor is saying they trust you to write content that doesn't need to be edited - and that means it's not SPS. In fact, one could argue it's a higher bar than having to read and vet the writing. Banedon (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- By publishing directly, it is by definition self publishing. By being trusted to publish directly, it means you are seen as reliable. The two are not mutally exclusive. - Bilby (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Are you suggesting that they post "bogus content"? If not, how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Bogus content" is related to an argument about reliability. Which some contributors to this RfC have mistakenly believed is part of this discussion, it is not. This RfC is on the question of whether or not SBM is SPS, which it so obviously is. Therefore, my response was simply reframing that we are not arguing about whether or not the content is "bogus" at all, instead, we are simply discussing whether or not the "editorial review" which some allege occurs at SBM (with scant evidence), is done by the very same people who publish content (Gorski and Novella).
- Given the self-publication by Gorski/Novella, which evidently is what happens, then the source is a self-published source, and "bogus" doesn't even enter into the conversation. Or at the very minimum, any article published by SBM by Gorski/Novella ought to 100% be considered SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Banedon wrote: "If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind," and you responded "If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks."
- As best I can tell, you did not respond to my second question, so I'll ask it again: If , how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote?
- Just so you're clear, the current WP:SPS characterization "self-published" explicitly refers to reliability. When you say "we are not arguing about whether or not the content is "bogus" at all," that's not entirely true. It's relevant to whether some of the content on the site is not self-published. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You've moved the goal posts, Banedon is arguing that none of the content on the site is self-published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know that Banedon's !vote was "Not SPS," but I interpreted Banedon's comment to Iljhgtn (who claimed that SBM is "100% SPS") as a point about outside contributors to SBM (outdated description here). Maybe I misinterpreted. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think in the case of Gorski and Novella there is absolutely no question that it is SPS, but I am more and more wondering how much "editorial review" actually happens even in other cases. From the link you provided if we review, "
How to submit a guest article: Anyone is welcome to submit content to ScienceBasedMedicine.org, regardless of credentials. We’ll publish anything we think is interesting, relevant, well-written, and, above all, scientifically sound. (The less editing we need to do, the better.) The volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using a peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission. Please embed citations as weblinks rather than footnotes or endnotes, it saves us a lot of time. How to submit a guest article for publication on SBM Submit your article by email directly to Dr. Gorski (SBMeditor@icloud.com), the managing editor . If he thinks it has potential, he will distribute it to the editorial staff for further consideration. Please note that none of the editors are paid for our work on SBM, and most of us have demanding day jobs. That means that, more frequently than we would like, the process is less than optimal and not as fast as writers (or we) would like. (For instance, if Dr. Gorski is working against a grant application deadline, you might not hear for a while, because trying to keep his lab afloat trumps his extracurricular activities on SBM.)
" There are claims that "at least three of our editors evaluate the submission", but again, I don't trust this, but beyond that, this only applies (if they even do it) to guest submissions, which can be Gorski may post even if he just thinks its "interesting" and "The less editing we need to do, the better" (all well and good, but again, doesn't sound like much "editorial review" is happening even in the case of guest submissions... But again, that is only part of the discussion. The other part that has overwhelming consensus at this point is that anything from SBM authored by Gorski or Novella is SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- No offense, but you just posted a bunch of text that once again didn't answer my question. Here it is again: If , how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote?
- I'm not looking for your personal opinion about SBM, as you've already made that clear in your many comments. I'm not looking for your opinion about the RfC consensus. I'm trying to understand your response to Banedon. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- His comment was, "
If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind.
". I was not in any way focused at all on the "bogus content" aspect that you are laser focused on, I was refuting the fact that obviously I, Iljhgtn, cannot get stuff published on their page, but that if I could sure, it would not be a self-published source perhaps. Though it is a ridiculous point he made and that is why I am citing the direct text, instead of offering opinion. If that does not answer your query then I am exasperated and we can both just move on from this odd reading comprehension and/or semantics confused discourse we've been having. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- Yes, I think we're talking past each other, and it's fine with me for both of us to step away from it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- His comment was, "
- I think in the case of Gorski and Novella there is absolutely no question that it is SPS, but I am more and more wondering how much "editorial review" actually happens even in other cases. From the link you provided if we review, "
- I know that Banedon's !vote was "Not SPS," but I interpreted Banedon's comment to Iljhgtn (who claimed that SBM is "100% SPS") as a point about outside contributors to SBM (outdated description here). Maybe I misinterpreted. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You've moved the goal posts, Banedon is arguing that none of the content on the site is self-published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- But you're not Gorski or Novella, are you? That kind of renders the entire point moot. Obviously you can't publish bogus content, because you're not trusted, ergo, there is editorial control and it is not SPS. Banedon (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that they post "bogus content"? If not, how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Contributions by the editors are SPS. Definitely contributions by Gorkski, Novella, and the other listed editors are clearly WP:SPS by both the letter and spirit of WP:SPS. By the letter of WP:SPS I don't think contributions by other people are SPS but I do have serious doubts about the editorial policy, and thus the overall reliability, of SBM if they're allowing the editors to regularly publish articles without fact-checking. Loki (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not SPS. This is a web publication of the New England Skeptical Society, not the personal vlog of Randy from Boise. Just because it's called a blog doesn't mean it's a personal, self-published blog. The premise that organizations publishing stuff written by members of their organizations amounts to self-publishing seems like it can't help but lead to something like, "the LA Times publishes stuff written and reviewed by members of the LA Times so the LA Times self publishes itself". Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society whose leadership overlaps with that of the blog and is largely restricted to a single family, the Novellas. The same man, Steven Novella, is in charge of both so there is no independence here that would make it not self published. I would also note that if the Washington Post ever fired all its professional staff and started hosting stuff by Jeff Bezos and his buddies we would treat it as a SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did you consider the editorial that Bezos wrote in the Post (re: his decision to block the Post's endorsement of Harris) to be SPS? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but note that we already treat editorials and opinion pieces as SPS so its a bit of a moot point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's news to me. Are you saying that an editorial or opinion piece cannot be used unless it either falls under EXPERTSPS or BLPSELFPUB? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its a bit (some would say a lot) wider than that because WP:ABOUTSELF also applies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't understand how ABOUTSELF comes into play, since an editorial / opinion piece is typically representing the view of a single person, though I guess it's occasionally written by more than one, as with something from an editorial board. But even assuming that ABOUTSELF is in play, that says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that we cannot use an opinion piece or editorial in the NYT to make a statement —attributed to the author(s) — about a living person whose relationship to the author(s) is third-party. If that's the case, I think there's a lot of WP content that's in breach of this. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- There might be some (wikipedia is full of violations of any rule you care to name), but most of those uses are as primary (under aboutself) not as third-party sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whether it's primary is distinct from whether it's self-published. Many opinion pieces are used as third-party sources for attributed opinions about living people. Here's an example: in the Trump and fascism article, the text "Following the January 6 Capitol attack, Robert Paxton, who had initially resisted calling Trump a fascist, announced that the label now seemed necessary," sourced to this opinion piece by Paxton, which is a third-party source for a statement about Trump. Are you saying that you think that text must be removed because the source is SPS? WP:RSEDITORIAL certainly doesn't say that all opinion pieces should be treated as SPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- There might be some (wikipedia is full of violations of any rule you care to name), but most of those uses are as primary (under aboutself) not as third-party sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't understand how ABOUTSELF comes into play, since an editorial / opinion piece is typically representing the view of a single person, though I guess it's occasionally written by more than one, as with something from an editorial board. But even assuming that ABOUTSELF is in play, that says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that we cannot use an opinion piece or editorial in the NYT to make a statement —attributed to the author(s) — about a living person whose relationship to the author(s) is third-party. If that's the case, I think there's a lot of WP content that's in breach of this. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its a bit (some would say a lot) wider than that because WP:ABOUTSELF also applies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's news to me. Are you saying that an editorial or opinion piece cannot be used unless it either falls under EXPERTSPS or BLPSELFPUB? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but note that we already treat editorials and opinion pieces as SPS so its a bit of a moot point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You argue they're amateurs and unqualified to write the coverage that they do; that doesn't on its own bear on whether they're self-published or not. I've limited the scope of my !vote here to concluding they aren't self-published. Whether they are a reliable publication that isn't self-published or an unreliable publication that isn't self-published is a different question. As for Novella heading NESS and Science-based Medicine—um, well, yeah, duh. The latter is an organ of the former. I'm not aghast that the editor in chief of the LA times runs the LA Times, or that Alfred A. Knopf ran Alfred A. Knopf. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, I'm arguing that The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society. The LA Times is owned by Patrick Soon-Shiong, the editor in chief of the LA times is Terry Tang. A book by Alfred A. Knopf Sr. or Blanche Knopf published by Alfred A. Knopf would be considered SPS for wikipedia purposes, that isn't groundbreaking thats totally normal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- To add to this, being an editor and running an interest organization are (and should be) two very different roles. I can't imagine the director of the National Association for People that Can't Edit and Hate Editorial Integrity (NAPCEHEI) would make a good editor in chief for the org's publication. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I said,
You argue they're amateurs
; you said,No, I'm arguing that The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society
(emphasis added). I'm not seeing how I've mischaracterized what you believe about their qualifications when you immediately repeated it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, I'm arguing that The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society. The LA Times is owned by Patrick Soon-Shiong, the editor in chief of the LA times is Terry Tang. A book by Alfred A. Knopf Sr. or Blanche Knopf published by Alfred A. Knopf would be considered SPS for wikipedia purposes, that isn't groundbreaking thats totally normal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did you consider the editorial that Bezos wrote in the Post (re: his decision to block the Post's endorsement of Harris) to be SPS? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is a distinct difference between the LA Times and SBM in that it would appear as if at SBM just Gorski can write something or just Novella and then publish it. That is different that the LA Times or other non-SPS in that those have editorial review by other staff. These staff are known and are publicly verifiable as they have publicly findable jobs as seen here.
- At minimum, it must be acknowledged that material written by Gorski and Novella is SPS. For the record, that is also not saying it is not reliable (as several commenters above continue to be confusing), just that Gorski and Novella work from SBM is SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Forbes.com is owned by Forbes Media LLC. Because it is owned by a company, does that mean we should not regard it as self published? In the case of Forbes.com it is not the ownership that matters, but the ability of people to publish directly as contributors without editorial review. With SBM, I would argue that it is also not the ownership that matters, but whether or not people can publish directly without editorial review. - Bilby (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Forbes.com includes content both from Forbes staff and from Forbes contributors. So some of the Forbes.com content is SPS and some isn't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Presumably, that is because the Forbes staff material is published under editorial control. It is not the ownership that decides if something is an SPS, but the process by which material becomes available after it has been written. - Bilby (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That was my point, as it seemed you were claiming that we should regard all of Forbes.com as self-published. Why did you conclude that the subset of SBM material that does undergo prepublication editorial review is nonetheless SPS? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've never assumed that material on SBM that undergoes editorial review is SPS. My only concern is that the argument that the publication belongs to the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not SPS, is not sound. I think you can reasonably argue that some material published by SBM does not under go editorial review prior to publication, and that some material is therefore self published, or you can argue that all material undergoes pre-publication editorial review, and therefore SBM is not an SPS at all. But I don't think you can argue that SBM is owned by the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not an SPS. - Bilby (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I should have been clearer. I was asking because in your Dec.6 !vote, you said that you consider SBM to be wholly SPS (or at least, you didn't qualify your SPS response). FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think I have been fairly consistent, but to explain my reasoning: it is clear that trusted authors are allowed to self publish on the site, but what is not clear is who these authors are. We khave been assuming that this means the editors can publish directly, and we have assumed that guest contributors probably can not, but we do not know if all guest editors are not trusted enough, nor do we know where the authors that sit between those two come. Given that, rather than say "partial SPS" but not know who is self publishing, I think it is safer to say "SPS" but realise that there may be exceptions. From a BLP perspective I prefer to errr on the side of caution. - Bilby (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I should have been clearer. I was asking because in your Dec.6 !vote, you said that you consider SBM to be wholly SPS (or at least, you didn't qualify your SPS response). FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've never assumed that material on SBM that undergoes editorial review is SPS. My only concern is that the argument that the publication belongs to the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not SPS, is not sound. I think you can reasonably argue that some material published by SBM does not under go editorial review prior to publication, and that some material is therefore self published, or you can argue that all material undergoes pre-publication editorial review, and therefore SBM is not an SPS at all. But I don't think you can argue that SBM is owned by the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not an SPS. - Bilby (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That was my point, as it seemed you were claiming that we should regard all of Forbes.com as self-published. Why did you conclude that the subset of SBM material that does undergo prepublication editorial review is nonetheless SPS? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Presumably, that is because the Forbes staff material is published under editorial control. It is not the ownership that decides if something is an SPS, but the process by which material becomes available after it has been written. - Bilby (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Forbes.com includes content both from Forbes staff and from Forbes contributors. So some of the Forbes.com content is SPS and some isn't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society whose leadership overlaps with that of the blog and is largely restricted to a single family, the Novellas. The same man, Steven Novella, is in charge of both so there is no independence here that would make it not self published. I would also note that if the Washington Post ever fired all its professional staff and started hosting stuff by Jeff Bezos and his buddies we would treat it as a SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- SPS A group blog where the participants can publish without review is a SPS, even if it calls certain people editors and sometimes deletes things (if that were the standard, even much of social media wouldn't be a SPS, because sometimes those sites have deleted stuff like COVID misinformation). I also do not think accepting occasional outside submissions consistutes "review" to the degree those posts become not-SPS. Nor do I think being "published" by an organization the blog authors *also* control consititutes sufficient independence, as some have claimed. I think sometimes the authors can be cited under the WP:SPS subject-mattere expert exception, but only in the specific area of their academic speciality (e.g. neurology, surgery and oncology, family practice medicine) but not in other areas. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: Bild
What is the reliability of the German tabloid Bild, including its website Bild.de?
- 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)
- Option 3/4 (depending on whether anyone can make a case that there's some e.g. ABOUTSELF use we would still want them for — but I doubt we should be using them 1,800 times, as Hemiauchenia says we are at present) per Aquillion and Hemiauchenia; as RSP says, a reliable source "has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction"; BILD has the opposite reputation. -sche (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (Bild)
Bild is currently used over 1,800 times on the English Misplaced Pages per bild.de 
. It is already currently listed on RSP as "generally unreliable". This RfC was prompted by a discussion at WT:RSP, where a user questioned the lack of participation in previous discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I asked the initial question at WT:RSP since I don't like when we classify sources based on vibes. So I'll play the role of the devil's advocate. I have very little knowledge of the German media landscape and I'm open to arguments in both directions. The sources provided by u:Hemiauchenia make two claims:
articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers." ... "The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary"
- this should have no bearing on reliability, unless they actually published falsehoods about said celebrities- In 2018 Bild fell for a hoax. Someone leaked emails supposedly between a major political party in Germany and a made-up Russian online figure. Bild published an article based on it. This is definitely a failure of their editorial process but they definitely did not do it on purpose and when this became known clarified that the whole thing was a hoax. I don't think that one such issue that happened 6 years ago should automatically lead to GUNREL status. Many other RS fell for hoaxes . Alaexis¿question? 13:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a massive understatement of what Lilienthal 2023 cited by Hemiauchenia actually says. The better part of the text's 92 pages is a critique of Bild's practices in a systematic fashion, summarized in its introduction (translated):
From the perspective of critical readers, BILD is constantly chipping away at its own credibility.
- If that's not enough, the paper includes an 8-page bibliography of other extensive studies of der Bild. It's silly to act like what should decide this source's reliability is some "gotcha" wiki-sleuthing based on recent scandal--we have the verdict of mountains of peer-reviewed research. Make a case based on that, as others have. signed, Rosguill 14:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm just surprised that given the reputation of the source and all these analyses no one has come up with a examples of inaccuracies other than the 6-year old hoax. Unfortunately I don't speak German and so can't read Lilienthal's report. Alaexis¿question? 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Hemiauchenia, I've managed to translate it using Google Translate, thanks!
- These are the key points from the foreword
- 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:
- Ken Klippenstein is a bit of a weird special case because he's an experienced reporter whose Substack is nevertheless still clearly an WP:SPS but because he has very different views on the direct publication of source documents (like manifestos) than much of the rest of the media, he is reasonably often the main source of the full text of a document that the rest of the media acknowledges exists, is real, and that Klippenstein's version of the text is correct, but refuses to actually publish the text themselves. A sort of one-man Wikileaks situation.
- I honestly think that since he is clearly reliable in these situations he is actually a fine source for these sorts of documents, presuming we bear in mind that:
- a) Documents published by him should be clearly acknowledged in the text to be sourced to him alone.
- b) Just because Klippenstein is reliable for the text of the documents he publishes doesn't mean that the documents themselves are reliable for facts or that Klippenstein is endorsing or even has checked their factual claims.
- c) Klippenstein doesn't have to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines and so it's very possible that documents he publishes don't follow BLP guidelines for some reason. AFAICT usually what he publishes is about public figures but that doesn't have to be the case, and in cases where a document has private information about a private figure we shouldn't repeat it. Loki (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: NewsNation
What is the reliability of NewsNation?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Survey (NewsNation)
- Option 2: Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light).
- NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
- In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the 2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings, Coulthart said "... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"! . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including Jamey Jacob and Mick West, all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects.
- Writing in The Skeptic, Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: "Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."
- He wrote a UFO book titled Plain Sight which Jason Colavito described as a "conspiracy narrative" and a "slipshod summary".
- The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for “espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”
- The Australian Broadcasting Corporation did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking "Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary? while strongly implying the former.
- The Sydney Morning Herald has described him as a "UFO truther" with "little appetite for scrutiny".
- Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked 60 Minutes (Australian TV program) investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians.
- Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs:
- In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the Washington Post: ), the channel "was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health".
- In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said "... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing". The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to Mick West's analysis, a Boeing 737 .
- 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)
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)
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)
Far Out Magazine
Would Far Out Magazine be considered a reliable source for music and the arts? 2600:100C:A21D:971A:1418:AFA9:3465:D674 (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only RSN-comment I could find on it here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_458#Rockpasta.com. I can't find an "about"-page. Currently it's used on WP quite a bit, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comments at Talk:Far Out (website) indicate caution is called for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I make it a point to remove this source whenever I see it because of the fact that, beyond the WP:CIRCULAR concerns noted on the talk page linked above, many of their articles seem to republish content from years ago, while titling them to make it sound as if new insight has come out recently. For a few examples as of late, see , , and are all examples of this website recycling content from other, more reliable sources that can (and should) be cited instead. For all I know, there may be minor instances where this site can be used, but I'm familiar enough with Far Out Magazine to say that, for the most part, their content is clickbait churnalism, and in particular, should not be used for information about living persons. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Credit to User:Binksternet for explaining the unreliability of this source on this user talk page message. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- TL;DR, no, Far Out is unreliable; it's a website that engages in churnalism. See this discussion at WT:ALBUMS. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 14:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Minimally reliable, there may be some use but in general I don't think they're reliable for the reasons that have been mentioned (especially the churnalism/CIRCULAR concerns). I don't think that this is suprising, they are what it says on the label... "Far Out" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Are the sources in these articles primary or secondary?
Are the sources in these two articles primary or secondary? 1874 Waitemata by-elections and 1886 Waitemata by-election. The book provided is just a collection of parliamentary records, elections, terms served etc. an example is here: Traumnovelle (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Those articles are sourced to contemporary newspapers, which would be secondary sources; one of which, the New Zealand Herald, is included in the "perennial sources" page and categorised as "Generally reliable". Daveosaurus (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Newspapers are interesting to discuss because their classification evolves with time. Historians usually classify recent newspaper reports as being secondary, but old reports are classified as primary (this is because the sources used by the newspaper have been lost, and so the newspaper becomes the earliest available record of the events… with more modern sources based on that old newspaper). Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reliability isn't the issue here. It is if the sources are primary or secondary. Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, and Berkeley considers contemporary newspaper articles as primary sources: Traumnovelle (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
AdWeek
Would AdWeek be considered a reliable source in terms of advertising campaigns? 2600:100C:A21D:971A:19F4:96E7:9B0B:1686 (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- AdWeek is a perfectly reliable advertising trade magazine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- The thing is public relations notices aren’t usually considered reliable for companies. 2600:100C:A21D:971A:19F4:96E7:9B0B:1686 (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- As an established trade magazine, I consider AdWeek generally reliable for topics related to the advertising industry. AdWeek's own press releases, which consist of a small number of articles published under
adweek.com/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)- Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. Javext (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now show me where in your sources does it say that Abo Yemen✉ 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You were just denying that this happened after I showed you the sources, why are you asking this now? Didn't I just give them above? Javext (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now show me where in your sources does it say that Abo Yemen✉ 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. Javext (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- capturing a city != sacking it
- You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? Abo Yemen✉ 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What sources about capturing a city did you show me? Those letters clearly show that the portuguese wanted to capture the city and they failed as we have no proof of them being there after the battle was over. But did they lie to whoever they sent this letter to? Abo Yemen✉ 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
- The author's behavior would be annoying if we were chatting at lunch and I personally dislike the smugness, but reliability isn't a personality contest, and as Simonm223 points out the article itself was corrected and the erroneous information removed. That's basically what we expect a reliable source to do—fix itself when an error gets pointed out. So long as the actual content produced is dependable or gets fixed to become dependable, that's reliability. Anonymous Reddit complaints trying to score Internet points aren't a compelling reason for overturning the prior RfC. Evidence of a pattern of unreliable reporting and failures to make corrections would be more persuasive. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think reviewing this again is going to change anything much, the "worst" outcome is likely a 2, but because it often mixes news and opinion, even a 1 is going to be caveated with caution or attribute, so absent falsehoods, etc might as well let sleeping dogs lie. Selfstudier (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it is time for a review of the past discussion and time to bring up Jacobin for a reliability check. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't hold Jacobin in any particular high regard but, as I mentioned above, publicly issuing a statement of correction when a factual inaccuracy is identified is the standard Misplaced Pages expects from reliable news media. So I guess my question is, aside from it having a bias that is different from the NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus, what, precisely, is it that makes Jacobin less reliable? What is the basis for an RfC? Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What does "NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus" mean? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't hold Jacobin in any particular high regard but, as I mentioned above, publicly issuing a statement of correction when a factual inaccuracy is identified is the standard Misplaced Pages expects from reliable news media. So I guess my question is, aside from it having a bias that is different from the NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus, what, precisely, is it that makes Jacobin less reliable? What is the basis for an RfC? Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It looks like they handled this appropriately, can you explain what the issue would be? Your comment is a little light on details, its basically just spamming a reddit discussion... Maybe tell us what you think? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
A new discussion on Jacobin is long overdue, particularly per Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin. It's clear that Jacobin is not reliable on all topics, and at the very least additional considerations should apply in these cases. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- An RfC next would be worthwhile. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors
The discussion is partially non-topical for this forum. The discussion about the issues that belong here continues below in § The Heritage Foundation.—Alalch E. 19:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Taking this here based on a recommendation from Aquillion. The conversation began at the PIA arbitration evidence talk page where a report from forward was shared . According to this report, the Heritage Foundation plan to use facial recognition software and a database of hacked usernames and passwords in order to identify contributors to the online encyclopedia
. A copy of the Heritage Foundation proposal deck is available here. This Heritage Foundation plan to dox wikipedia editors also would include creating fake Misplaced Pages user accounts to try to trick editors into identifying themselves by sharing personal information or clicking on malicious tracking links that can identify people who click on them. It is unclear whether this has begun.
Clearly this situation is alarming in the extreme and the discussion at the arbitration case brought forward the very reasonable suggestion of a project-wide block of all Heritage Foundation domains. So why here? Well Aquillion suggested a reasonable first-step toward this would be to get the site deprecated and blacklisted via RS/N. So that's what I'm here to do. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am unsure about a retalitory deprecation (or whatever). Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- No this would be a preventative deprecation. The idea, to my understanding, is to remove the ability of Heritage Foundation domains to interact with en.wp as much as possible. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is that not best done with range blocks, to prevent them from setting up accounts? Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think this is a discussion to be had at the Village Pump, as it's not a matter of reliability. Deprecation wouldn't have the effect that your looking for, you would need blacklisting and I don't think this would fall within the normal process of blacklisting. So a discussion at VP seems more appropriate as it's something outside of prior policy or guidelines. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- A village pump discussion was created and the suggestion to bring the conversation here actually arose from discussion of that conversation at the arbitration page. Honestly I'm pretty nervous about a pseudo-governmental organization trying to interfere with individual Misplaced Pages editors in this way so I'll happily take the conversation to whatever board we think is most appropriate. But right now we've got a whole lot of conversations pointing to different places as a precis to discussing the actual problem. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hostile actions by a third party against Misplaced Pages or it's editors isn't a reliability issue, and this isn't a forum for anything but reliability issues. If anything it sounds more like safe guarding, a much bigger issue that should probably involve the WMF. However if editors want to start a discussion about it's reliability, per the sources below, that would be a seperate matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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 (correction: I copied "5000" with this search link from another editor uncritically. "heritage.org" includes all of "english-heritage.org" links; the real count is around 1750 —00:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)). I'm inviting editors to consider whether this source should be deprecated. Another thing to consider are possible other sources such as websites and publications operated by or published by the Heritage Foundation.—Alalch E. 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- We should definitely be avoiding using sources that intentionally put forward disinformation. Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the Index of Economic Freedom? —Alalch E. 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nothing of value would be lost if we had to do away with that one. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I like how the United States is 0.6 points away from not being green in that index. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the books published by the Heritage Foundation?
- What about https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future as a source in Laffer curve? —Alalch E. 19:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- It might be 'reliable' that the HF said what they said they said, but is it relevant? This is getting into questions about whether the content is even WP:DUE. Lots of people say lots of things about lots of stuff, but Misplaced Pages doesn't quote it all. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's the reputed Index of Economic Freedom, for one. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support blacklisting. I don't wanna get doxxed.. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 21:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Serious, non-sarcastic question... Does blacklisting actually prevent and/or stop any alleged doxxing? Or is it merely a retaliatory action and !vote I am seeing? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They have threatened to start doxxing people on Misplaced Pages. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 22:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- And also have said they will do it with links. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's unlikely that any professional phishing campaign by HF would use heritage.org, and if their home website were blacklisted, they would proceed to use other websites Placeholderer (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Serious, non-sarcastic question... Does blacklisting actually prevent and/or stop any alleged doxxing? Or is it merely a retaliatory action and !vote I am seeing? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
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: The Heritage Foundation
Option 5: Blacklist: Multiple examples of the foundation publishing complete misinformation. The use of links to try to determine and datamine user identity moves to a trust issue and indicates a need to blacklist links to protect users and editors. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Pinging @Dronebogus@Doug Weller@M.Bitton@Simonm223@MjolnirPants, they voted above before I made this RFC. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Barnards.tar seems correct... We need to be able to cite some of their opinions, and pure blacklist would harm our mission... but i'm not certain its worth using their material if this is the new world we are in.
- is there a way to place warnings on links when you click on them that would warn users about this scenario though? that would be a good compromise.. otherwise keeping vote for 5Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I honestly don't see how blacklisting such a garbage source would harm this project. M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bluethricecreamman: There is a way to warn users attempting to add these links (filter 869), but warning users who click on them would likely require some JavaScript magic that's above my pay grade. JJPMaster (she/they) 23:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support option 5 - Allowing this website to exist on wikipedia is a danger to editors' privacy and safety. The Heritage Foundation needs to be blacklisted ASAP Abo Yemen✉ 15:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Heritage Foundation is not a website. It's an organization. You can treat the website as one of its publications. There may be other websites. There are further publications, such as the paperback yearly Indices of Economic Freedom: https://isbndb.com/book/9780891952930. We can't blacklist paperback sources. What's the status of that going to be? How does your recommendation answer this question? —Alalch E. 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not our problem. We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization. Abo Yemen✉ 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are works published by the organization. If an organization is such an unreliable source (in the conception of an organization as a source as per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources § Definition of a source; that's point no. 3), which is the framing of this RfC, as to be "blacklisted", should we really retain the status quo wrt its printed works? —Alalch E. 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do paperbacks get special dispensation in policy from reliability requirements? If (say) David Irving published a paperback would it magically become reliable? Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, according to Abo Yemen. He said:
We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization
—Alalch E. 16:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Ay dont be quoting me on that. I didn't give a complete answer. I have no idea how unreliable this source is but according to other editors, it is not reliable. But if the paperback was reliable enough compared to stuff they publish on their website then i dont see why it shouldn't be used. All i did was try to give an answer to your question ig Abo Yemen✉ 17:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- They don't. M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is the status of 2017 Index of Economic Freedom, Institute for Economic Freedom (a printed work) going to be then, according to you: perhaps a deprecated source? —Alalch E. 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever we decide, but (again) it being a paperback has no relevance. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is an RfC, Slatersteven, it's the time when things are decided. Saying "Whatever we decide" is clearly not moving things forward. —Alalch E. 17:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its status now is that is is an RS, its status when this is over will be determined by this RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please start engaging more meaningfully. It doesn't appear that you're getting it. How do you blacklist a printed work? Only web domains can be blacklisted. What is the consequence for the printed work as the outcome of this RfC if the consensus is to "blacklist the Heritage Foundation"? —Alalch E. 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- We do it all the time, we have plenty of blacklisted printed works (the Daily Mail for one). Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? So it would not, in fact, be covered by any ban on the heritage foundation. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If Daily Mail is blacklisted, how is this possible (edit: I intentionally broke the link later after a complaint that a source highlighter script is painting too much red):
- {{cite web |last1=Earle |first1=Geoff |title=Justin Trudeau glares at Trump amid his threat to absorb country |url=https://www.d ailymail.co.uk/news/article-14267497/justin-trudeau-glares-trump-jimmy-carter-funeral-canada-threats.html |website=Mail Online |access-date=9 January 2025 |date=9 January 2025}}
I'll help you: Daily Mail is not blacklisted.—Alalch E. 17:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- ]. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not an entry marked as blacklisted. Please find me an entry which is in fact blacklisted, for me to believe that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking when discussing specifically blacklisting something. —Alalch E. 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ahh I see, well yes we cannot blacklist spam if is hardcopy, but we can depreciate it, and it can be assumed that if you choose 5, you are choosing to also depreciate it. Are you you arguing that if you vote 5 it will not cover hard copy? Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think there is a misunderstanding of what is meant "blacklisting the source". Please see this comment below. M.Bitton (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll give more responses to your slightly earlier comment:
Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing).
Yes, nothing says so; I wasn't arguing otherwise.But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal?
Does not appear to be. The sole publisher of this paperback edition is The Heritage Foundation.Going onward... You said that this country ranking, which is a primary source and an unscientific publication from a think tank, is a RS. On no day would that simply be a reliable source. So I'm going to circle back to my original question, to which you replied with the rhetorical question 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)
- @Aaron Liu You're correct separately about blacklisting but you're not correct separately about deprecating, but maybe (probably) that's not what you meant specifically ("blacklisting/deprecating" was probably not separately addressing deprecating)—see Lenta.ru at WP:RSP; deprecated status only extends to content published from March 2014 onward. I.e., it's possible to deprecate content from a certain time period. —Alalch E. 00:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Alalch E. Interesting, it looks like it's possible only if you can do some regex trickery. Heritage does not include article dates in their URLs, though. Not even their static content includes them (unless you can somehow decipher "824-MHT-304". Aaron Liu (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, that is interesting. In the present case, if blacklisting for ostensible security reasons, the date isn't a factor. —Alalch E. 03:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Alalch E. Interesting, it looks like it's possible only if you can do some regex trickery. Heritage does not include article dates in their URLs, though. Not even their static content includes them (unless you can somehow decipher "824-MHT-304". Aaron Liu (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aaron Liu You're correct separately about blacklisting but you're not correct separately about deprecating, but maybe (probably) that's not what you meant specifically ("blacklisting/deprecating" was probably not separately addressing deprecating)—see Lenta.ru at WP:RSP; deprecated status only extends to content published from March 2014 onward. I.e., it's possible to deprecate content from a certain time period. —Alalch E. 00:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- I'm noting that multiple other editors also disagree in a discussion a bit further below, or state that blacklisting is pragmatically poor on its own merits as a protective measure. —Alalch E. 00:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Since it's relevant apparently, 5 & 4, with older links being converted to archival links if they fall within the allowed uses of deprecated sources. -- Patar knight - /contributions 08:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 + Blacklist 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) Amended to include Blacklisting Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JoJo Anthrax, Bluethricecreamman, Abo Yemen, Dronebogus, Doug Weller, MjolnirPants, SarekOfVulcan, Vanamonde93, NatGertler, Boynamedsue, Gnomingstuff, Patar knight, 1AmNobody24, Tryptofish, Chaotic Enby, and Horse Eye's Back:
- While it's reasonable to assume that "option 5" would automatically include "option 4", some editors seem to think that it doesn't. Please ignore this request if you agree with them, otherwise, you might want to adjust your !vote (i.e., also comment on the reliability) to alleviate any confusion. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- My comment is only on security grounds. I don't believe that in the current context it is possible to evaluate their reliability independent of those security concerns and so will not be attempting to do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did already comment on the reliability in my !vote, but thanks for the reminder! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong opinion on this - if it weren't for the security risk I'd be somewhere between options 3 and 4. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do have a strong opinion on this, but am backing it down to 3+5 for NPOV reasons. As said elsewhere, named op-eds might be legitimate references. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If it wasn’t security related I wouldn’t have voted. But I would still allow older cites under a 3 if and only if they were replaced by wayback machine links. Dronebogus (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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-anonymize and harass Wikipedians. We don't generally do that, and we really don't need to; it would be ineffective in achieving its goals of protecting our users. (Perhaps I'm off-base here, and the community would want to blacklist those too.) But it really is a bit of a feel-good measure more than an effective one for privacy from a sophisticated actor.The technical solutions offered at the Village pump are in some ways more robust than a blacklist. What the technical solutions would do is make it harder to trace back traffic to ordinary (i.e. non-spearphishing) links on the website to Misplaced Pages, and it would reduce the risk associated with existing citations. They're not perfect; ultimately nothing can prevent you from clicking the outlink to a burner website, but those solutions don't lull users into the false sense of security that blacklisting the Heritage website would. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can do both. We can remove a WP:FRINGE source that is being far too pervasively used across Misplaced Pages and we can also pursue those technical solutions to protect privacy. And this would have a tertiary effect of pointing out that the Misplaced Pages community will vigorously protect itself from this sort of bad-faith interference.Simonm223 (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The issues outside of reliability or blacklisting is out of scope for this noticeboard. Discussion about protecting editors from hostile actions should continue on the village pump. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is very relevant. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah that isn't really a valid reason for blacklisting. The point of closing #Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors above, and starting a new section, was to focus on reliability issues. That they appear to be taking hostile actions against Misplaced Pages's editors isn't a V/RS policy reason for blacklisting.
- Blacklisting won't protect editors, which is something that will proby need WMF involvement, which is why I suggest the VP discussion continue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Basically agree with Red-tailed hawk on everything here. Reliability is always dependent on the statement a source is being used to support, and The Heritage Foundation's website is reliable for statements about what The Heritage Foundation believes in. Blocking them would undermine our ability to write about what The Heritage Foundation believes, while not really addressing their spear phishing efforts. Photos of Japan (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
So, in fact it IS being argued that 5 does not also include 4, so if you also think derpication as well you need to (explicitly) say it, as I now do. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: Blacklist (along with 4: Deprecate). For our security as editors, and for the security of our readers – and yes, they brought this on themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I want to add: it seems to me that any organization that says that it will do what is described in the Forward piece, is not a source that we can trust to be reliable. It would be a disservice to our readers to use such a source. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been continuing to think about this, and I've also been reading the subsequent RfC comments by editors who argue that we should still consider that it's a think tank that can provide citable source material. Some editors have also said that we should not let our emotional reaction against the doxing issue influence how we evaluate Heritage as a reliable or unreliable source. In some ways, I agree that we should not make sourcing decisions based upon emotion. However, we should also not be naive about what a legitimate think tank does. Think tanks take advocacy positions, but they also are populated by thinkers, people with expertise who think carefully about issues, and seek to publish well-reasoned analyses of issues. But it's frankly laughable to characterize Heritage that way. An organization that says, publicly, that they are going to go after Misplaced Pages editors, as persons, in order to enforce their preferred view of what information Misplaced Pages readers will find, is not an organization that is producing scholarly analyses of information that Misplaced Pages might want to cite. If it's a legitimate think tank, then Antifa is a think tank, too. Even if they also purport to produce thoughtful position papers, those publications simply have to be recognized by us as tainted by intellectual dishonesty. There is no passing that off as reliable sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is threatening WP editors a problem because it indicates the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE? Are such threats in a broader category of "horrible things to say"? Should all sources that say horrible things be deprecated and blacklisted even if they do produce some valuable work, because it indicates intellectual dishonesty? Placeholderer (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, especially if the said valuable information is extremely low and under debate. (Though blacklisting I disagree with.) Aaron Liu (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's a wide range, in both directions, of how much valuable information a source can offer. On WP:RSP the only sources deprecated with antisemitism as part of the justification are Press TV, an Iranian propaganda outlet; The Unz Review, with justification mentioning "racist, antisemitic, pseudoscientific and fringe content" and "many apparent copyright violations"; and Veterans Today, which was blacklisted for abuse and deprecated for "unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and antisemitic conspiracy theories." Unz Review is the only deprecation citing racism. Searching for a few other "horrible things" keywords, I don't immediately see anything else.
- With Press TV and Veterans Today it seems there are, I would say, much clearer underlying problems with the sources than is the case with HF. Unz Review seems to have been a clear-cut case — the only such case I see — of cancelling an outlet primarily for being unusably (i.e questionably) rabid, and it being an outlet that no one would miss because it doesn't seem (per its RfC) to provide useful info. HF may be unhelpful to an extent, but not that unhelpful. Apart from that, sources are flagged for their information being inappropriate for the encyclopedia, not for saying horrible things.
- It's also worth looking at Asian News International. They're another organization hostile to Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages's mission, but despite that whole situation, they're only MREL, and the description of why gives no mention to that situation. That's the most important precedent in this comment.
- If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those Placeholderer (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well said @Placeholderer, "
If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those...
" Iljhgtn (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- Because never has a reliable source planned on coordinating a massive attack on what is essentially information itself. If they do that, then I seriously doubt their informational integrity, and that's just in addition to the opening statement above. Deprecation means there's a warning when you try to add a new usage, and that is appropriate here. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well said @Placeholderer, "
- Yes, especially if the said valuable information is extremely low and under debate. (Though blacklisting I disagree with.) Aaron Liu (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is threatening WP editors a problem because it indicates the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE? Are such threats in a broader category of "horrible things to say"? Should all sources that say horrible things be deprecated and blacklisted even if they do produce some valuable work, because it indicates intellectual dishonesty? Placeholderer (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: Blacklist, primarily for editor safety reasons. While I agree with Red-tailed hawk that blacklisting this specific source will not be a perfect solution, editors posting unknown websites for spearfishing purposes can be dealt with individually (in fact, I don't think they would wait for heritage.org to be blacklisted to do so, and blacklisting the main site keeps us more alert on that fact). If the Heritage Foundation intends to directly endanger Misplaced Pages editors, blacklisting their website and treating it as potential malware is the minimum we should do. In terms of accuracy, generally unreliable at least, and neutral on deprecation, although NatGertler's approach (removing the links in existing citations) can also be up for consideration. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
NO security is perfect, and if its not they even black list spam (they will find a way). it is about not making is casual. So easy that it just means copying and pasting nickyouriddotcom into a cite. Making it even slightly harder might be enough to prevent its casual use. Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've got a multi-stage vote of sorts, if that makes sense:
- In general, Option 5 for editor security reasons, as per all above.
- With specific regard to HF-authored pieces/editorials, Option 4 as they repeatedly publish dis/misinformation intended solely to serve WP:FRINGE theories.
- With specific regard to op-eds that have an actual name attached to them, somewhere between option 2 and option 3 - WP:NEWSOPED would typically lean toward the former, but even the op-ed pieces veer into FRINGE often enough that I'm not comfortable with an outright 2. The Kip 18:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 Because as Bernards points out, there are still some good links, particularly in archives. And as Red-tailed explains, Blacklisting creates its own set of problems that won't solve what many think it will ie. it's a dangerous solution because it puts a veneer on the problem that looks like solid wood underneath that is not. -- GreenC 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 on security grounds, this is a bit atypical but we don't have a large history of sources purposefully turning their links into honeypots with the explicit intent of harming wikipedia editors and readers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 for any web-based source connected to the organisation on grounds of cybersecurity. No comment as to reliability. Daveosaurus (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 This foundation knowingly and intentionally publishes disinformation, and it has self-identified as a threat to Misplaced Pages and its editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Um why does anybody think the links they would use would be to a heritage foundation url? Also, this isn’t a social media site, this isn’t some place where the interests of the users are supposed to trump the interests of the product, that being our articles. If there is some evidence that an actual heritage.org link has been used for some nefarious purpose then you can talk about blacklisting, but other than that this is supposed to be judged based on what’s best for our articles, not our editors. nableezy - 19:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is the main problem with blacklisting. It’s security theater, which generally does more harm than good, as I think Red-tailed hawk articulated well. Using heritage.org as the actual spearphishing domain doesn’t line up to the MO given in the leaked slides, which talk about using redirects. It would also be weirdly amateurish to create that kind of paper trail leading directly to the perps, especially now that they (presumably) know we’re onto them and any of their agents caught in such an obvious blunder could be subject to countermeasures. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. Their is no reason not to place fingerprint gathering html5 snippets as widely as possible if you want as much tracking as possible. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- And consider, Misplaced Pages editors will only be one target. A large tracking network can be a used to doxx other people they dislike (advocates of racial equality, LGBT people, non-capitalists). Its pretty safe to assume they will have middleware somewhere in their webstack to affect fingerprinting. I'd be mad at my cyberattack consultant if they missed the obvious. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: blacklist any and all known Heritage Foundation websites as soon as possible, past and present links included. The organization has made its malicious intentions clear. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 this is purely retaliatory behaviour based on an alleged document. The usage of this source hasn't been shown to be problematic and a few bad articles doesn't inherently make a source unreliable. If you're worried about your safety then block the links yourself, but Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to serve you and your paranoia. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The document mentions nothing about using phishing links nor would their references serve as a useful phishing link. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The document explicitly calls for using redirects from their web technologies to collect edior fingerprints via html5. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's no way for existing URLs to fingerprint Wikipedians without fingerprinting everyone. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They don't mind fingerprinting everyone, and it only makes their campaign stronger. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fingerprinting everyone is useless for purposes of following and tracking Wikipedians. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- They don't mind fingerprinting everyone, and it only makes their campaign stronger. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's no way for existing URLs to fingerprint Wikipedians without fingerprinting everyone. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The document explicitly calls for using redirects from their web technologies to collect edior fingerprints via html5. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- "This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity." This is really badly incorrect. Someone publicly saying they were going to add malicious links to our site to track and doxx our editors is a huge threat. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 per PARAKANYAA. Well said. - Amigao (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 There is absolutely no downside to blacklisting this source. Nothing of value is lost, and unreliable information is kept out - it's a win-win situation. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 Those sites are not reliable enough. Privacy wise, those sites are dangerous for editors and readers to visit. Ahri Boy (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 and in case it's considered seperate Option 4 as well. THF are not only publishers of WP:Fringe but are posing an active threat to WP:NOTCENSORED Bejakyo (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: While blacklisting does not preclude HF from using any number of other domains for various malicious schemes, it's the least we can and should do. Any source that seeks to subvert the encyclopedia and harm its editors thereby confirms it is inherently unreliable. HF now demonstrates it is barely this side of a criminal organization. soibangla (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Barely this side of a criminal organization? I would ask if you are serious but you probably are. Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are a criminal operation in many jurisdictions. Running an identity theft ring with a promise of blackmail is a stack of felonies. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Barely this side of a criminal organization? I would ask if you are serious but you probably are. Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2-3 There are a lot of problems with this RfC. First, like them or not, the Heritage Foundation is a widely cited think tank. As a think tank, and like basically all activist type organizations, we should be very careful about directly citing them for anything. However, if they release a report or study that is widely reported on or if they release a metric which is quoted by many source then we are doing our readers a disservice by deciding the source must be avoided. This would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge. As for the idea that the source is a danger, what evidence do we have? A single source has made claims. Do we have any corroboration? Absent concrete evidence the idea that we would blacklist the site is a very bad precedent. Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't we rely on secondary sources? 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Think tanks are widely cited as secondary sources Placeholderer (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Springee makes the most well articulated point of anyone in this RfC. This would indeed be "very bad precedent" and we should not also retaliate based on the claims of a single source in such bad form. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't we rely on secondary sources? 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3, at the very least. Heritage Foundation has long since departed from typical think tank-ery into axe-grinding, conspiracy theories, disinformation, and artificially stoking culture wars. Reliable sources from journalism (Associated Press, New York Times and academica (Springer International and Routledge) have identified Heritage Foundation as a publisher of disinformation, falsehoods, and exaggerations. It is unreliable as a source. Obviously, the news from The Forward, a reliable and reputed journalism outlet, that the Heritage Foundation plans to doxx Wikipedians who contribute content with which they disagree—something that would basically amount to a campaign of ideologically motivated harassment—is also chilling and troubling. It suggests the Foundation, unable to win in the marketplace of ideas, is trying to impose itself by force. This is not the behavior of trustworthy coverage or analysis. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2, per PARAKANYAA and Springee. Their threat is repellent, and whatever can be done to prevent them making good about it should be done (and is being discussed elsewhere), but that has nothing to do with their reliability as a source. They're a think tank, and are a reliable source for at least some things. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Adding that I agree with restricting links to archive.org versions if it seems that direct links may lead to identification of editors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1, though heavily biased to the right and certain qualifications on some subjects may need to be stated if there are any COI concerns related to funding and topics they write about where such funding is directly involved. The alleged "misinformation" appears to mostly just be right wing bias to a very pure degree. However, that has never been reason to question reliability by itself. The same goes for a high amount of left wing bias in any given source. So called "bias" alone is just bias, it does not introduce reliability concerns. Full deprecation does seem to be more of a knee jerk action and not a real and careful evaluation of the numerous citations where alleged reliability may be called into question. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think of the incidents described in the opening statement? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I answered that and offered a !vote accordingly based in policy and not in retaliation for an alleged proposal from the Forward source. Heritage is biased, though reliable. So Option 1: Generally reliable. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could you point me to where you answered that? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I answered that and offered a !vote accordingly based in policy and not in retaliation for an alleged proposal from the Forward source. Heritage is biased, though reliable. So Option 1: Generally reliable. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Couldn't most misinformation be described as bias to a very pure degree? That to me seems like a distinction without a real difference, bias which is so pure as to abandon a factual basis isn't distinguishable from mis/disinformation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe, but then that sure would alter probably hundreds or thousands of these discussions. So if we want to define it one way or the other, that should be baked in to the P&G. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think of the incidents described in the opening statement? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 as their own communications indicate that they are a security risk, that they intend of publishing malicious web content in order to identify people who click on their links. TarnishedPath 03:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4 and maybe 5. Based on their (lack of) quality as a source this is an extremely obvious 4 but their recent outrageous threats were making me think that 5 was also justified, comparable to how we would treat a terrorist organisation. After seeing Red-tailed hawk's comment, among others, I am now less sure about that. What I am sure of is that they publish deliberate disinformation in intentional bad faith and that makes them utterly untrustworthy and unreliable (with both an upper and lower case "u") as a source for anything at all except for their own claims. Literally nothing that they say can be relied upon unless independently corroborated by actual Reliable Sources, in which case we should just use those Reliable Sources instead. If they say that the sky is blue then a Reliable Source needs to open a window and check before we can say that it is. I see people saying that they may have been more reliable in the past. I have my doubts about that. Sure, they are probably even worse now than they were before but were they ever really anything better than a 3 or 4? That said, if that does turn out to be true, and we do decide to blacklist, then I guess we could use Archive.org to refer to contemporaneous copies of their content which we know not to have been subsequently tampered with. --DanielRigal (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 because they have announced they are a security risk, and Option 4 because they have announced they are seeking to undermine collaborative consensus-reaching among editors. Sita Bose (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4 as they routinely publish material chock full of conspiracy theories and outright fabrications.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5, regrettably. I would normally have suggested option 2. But given they are actively trying to dox editors on Misplaced Pages and contributors to other internet sources, that is absurd and is not something that can result in them being tolerated as a source on Misplaced Pages. They do good work - they produce things that, while biased, are reliable, generally speaking. But their efforts have extended to doxxing contributors, and that is unacceptable. Misplaced Pages has an obligation to make reasonable attempts to protect its users - whether editors or readers - from having their information harvested through links. And since the Heritage Foundation has admitted they intend to engage in information harvesting based on links... nope. Not permissible. To clarify - my !vote here is not a comment on their reliability overall. If they cease their information harvesting, I support a further discussion on this topic. But if they intend to (and per reliable sources, may have already begun) use their links to harvest editor/reader information, absolutely not acceptable, and they should be blacklisted until they cease engaging in such behavior. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment to anyone voting “1”: do you seriously believe that or is it just a protest vote, because I’d say objectively an ideological think-tank should be at minimum a 2. An activist organization simply isn’t at the same level of trustworthiness as, say a newspaper of record with a notable ideological bias. Dronebogus (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tbf, only one person has !voted option 1 so far, and they then listed a couple of additional considerations.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I counted two Dronebogus (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Irrelevant, it would be for the closer to access the strength of any arguments. If they are weak that will be noticed, it is thus up to the poster to decide if their argument is good enough. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I counted two Dronebogus (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tbf, only one person has !voted option 1 so far, and they then listed a couple of additional considerations.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- option 2/3 - Heritage is a very influential think tank. What they publish matters in political discourse. We can not ignore them.
- That said, what they publish is opinion and there are limited circumstances when it is DUE to mention opinion. So… when discussing what they publish we should be careful to use in-text attribution - to present what they say AS opinion and not as fact. We can and should allow ABOUTSELF, primary source, citations when these are DUE.
- If you need an extreme analogy… we allow citations to Mein Kamph as an ABOUTSELF primary source for Hitler’s opinion. There are very few situations where it is appropriate or DUE to mention Hitler’s views… but IN those limited situations we allow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mein Kampf is a book and Hitler is dead. We can reference it without any risk that doing so might leak information about our editors and readers back to Hitler. The more comparable situation would be if we allowed links to an online copy of Mein Kampf which was hosted on a neo-Nazi website operated by an organisation that had previously threatened our editors and readers. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 On any other occasion I would have gone for "generally unreliable" and suggest citations to it require attribution, as it's a politically partisan think tank which publishes fringe views and has been known to publish misinformation. But in this case, I think such an extraordinary situation requires us to take extraordinary measures. This goes beyond the question of reliability, as the Heritage Foundation has signalled its intentions to "target and identify" our colleagues on this platform; this represents a clear and actionable threat of harm and it demands a response. Preventing them from using links to their website to carry out their attack campaign is just a reasonable act of self-defence. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 for the relibility of what they say as it often conflicts with scientific evidence or facts. They have in effect declared war on Misplaced Pages editors but are an important site so if there is a way of automatically warning readers if they click on a link that they are doing it at their own risk I think that would cover the business of the doxxing. I think that could be a useful facility if it looks like a link should be included in the encyclopaedia but there is evidence it may be malicious in some way. NadVolum (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3/Option 6/BAD RFC per Red-tailed hawk, Springee, GreenC. The Heritage Foundation is an important think-tank source for representing the views of its faction, and should not be deprecated or blacklisted for that reason. Also 1) WP:RSN is not the right venue for deciding on how to deal with the alleged browser fingerprinting, 2) fingerprinting can be addressed through much less drastic means than blacklisting (e.g. the idea of only allowing archive links), 3) the fingerprinting honestly sounds like fluff to me, and text analysis/facial recognition seems more likely to be the thing that can actually identify editors, and there's little we can do about that besides taking down pictures from profiles. GretLomborg (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The planned attack includes fingerprinting users coming from Misplaced Pages, adding tracking cookies, identifying who they are on other sites based on the extensive fingerprinting capable with html5, and using off-wiki data to complete the doxx. So any information connecting IPs to Misplaced Pages is the foot in the door to check say, the fingerprints from html5 being run on a malicious ad campaign via Twitter aimed at people who are interested in some tv show that an ARBPIA area editor also edits about. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- All of these techniques are things advertisers like Google Ads already do. You can't connect any particular fingerprint to "edits Misplaced Pages" unless you send out a specific phishing link only Wikipedians would click on, which is something we might want to look out for. However, there's no reason to think blacklisting Heritage will rid us of this threat any more than the US TSA prevents bombings, as they're unlikely to not use another domain. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with the BADRFC !vote as well. A !vote made as retaliation (even pre-emptive retaliation) is not supported in policy or guidelines of any kind that I know of. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The planned attack includes fingerprinting users coming from Misplaced Pages, adding tracking cookies, identifying who they are on other sites based on the extensive fingerprinting capable with html5, and using off-wiki data to complete the doxx. So any information connecting IPs to Misplaced Pages is the foot in the door to check say, the fingerprints from html5 being run on a malicious ad campaign via Twitter aimed at people who are interested in some tv show that an ARBPIA area editor also edits about. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Very poor option 2 or option 3 gunrel for a significant number of facts per the arguments above, including some fringe (for now, and will hopefully remain so) views, with particular caution regarding gensex and similar strongly recommended. They are often due either for their opinion, that index mentioned (?), or expert opinions published by them. Regarding the source quality (as in, the jurisdiction of this board), I see no policy-based reason for depreciation or blacklists. Having said that, if it can be plausibly shown that they intend to use their own domains to harm editors (which I consider unlikely because domains are easy to get and unwise to link to yourself), I would support any technical measure, preferably a warning for editors clicking on links (if technically possible). If that can’t be shown, I believe that a ‘punitive’ blacklist is understandable from a human level, but not beneficial to the encyclopaedia. FortunateSons (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - I think that categorizing sources as "reliable" and "unreliable" is an idiotic parlor game. Life is not 1/0 on such matters. It is ahistorical and leads to cultish thinking. That said, I consider the Heritage threat, if accurately recounted in the media, to be akin to a violation of the NOLEGALTHREATS rule; worse, actually, as it is arguably a call to terrorist vigilantism. I can see banning links to that site on that basis. I question whether this is the proper venue for that determination, however. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Being GUNREL or deprecated just means that their publications aren't good for determining when it's due to include their viewpoints in an article. —Alalch E. 19:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 Short answer: 1. Security is irrelevant to this RfC; 2. WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican; 3. HF should be treated the same as other well-established but POV think tanks like Cato, which is to be MREL. For point 1, apart from this RfC being about reliability and not security, it's hard to believe that any professional phishing attacks would use "heritage.org". Blacklisting their website won't accomplish anything for internet security. As explained by others, it would also be undue to blacklist HF when there are plenty of other organizations and governments hostile to Misplaced Pages. For point 2, I think saying HF is GUNREL for being WP:FRINGE is to lose the meaning of WP:FRINGE. What is fringe? Funky low-traffic websites saying hurricanes are controlled by lizard people. What is not fringe? Possibly the most policy-influential conservative think tank in the US, where half of people are Republicans. There are other arguments that HF could be considered GUNREL (which I disagree with so far), but I think WP:FRINGE is the wrong argument to take. For point 3, while I acknowledge in particular the sources provided by @Hydrangeans (is it appropriate for me to ping here? sorry if not), which I'll put here for convenience, and I admit I can't access the full 3rd and 4th source, I think the concerns highlighted by these sources are best addressed with MREL/additional considerations. HF is an advocacy group, and should be treated like an advocacy group in that not everything it says should be taken at face value — that's what "additional considerations" is for. Cato (MREL source), for example, gets criticized for its potential Big Oil conflict of interest, but they have lots of great work on, for instance, the economic benefits of immigration. I'm less familiar with HF, and though I know they've gotten lots of press for saying wacky things recently (though, again, security concerns irrelevant to this discussion), I do know they've had a long and recognized history of Republican policy work. Of course they'd get press for the wacky stuff, but a big part of the think tank industry is boring statistics and information gathering. If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference. If people don't like the Index of Economic Freedom because it's "pseudoscientific", they should think hard about the value of the index industry in general Placeholderer (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I'm a person who has explicitly called out the Index of Economic Freedom as pseudoscientific let me say that the majority of think-tank indices are crap that is unworthy of including in any respectable encyclopedia. This one is just particularly bad, derived from an outmoded economic treatise penned before the advent of the carbon arc lamp and then not even doing a very good job of cleaving to that in favour of the unproven, unscientific and entirely ideological claim that deregulation is equivalent to freedom. This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. This piece of pseudoscience is also being published by people who have openly declared themselves as enemies of this project. That leaves me feeling... substantially uncharitable. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular.
+1 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- What about the democracy indices from The Economist, or V-Dem, or Adam Przeworski et. al? Or the World Happiness Report? The Index of Economic Freedom is not indicative of GUNREL Placeholderer (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unrelated, please start a new RFC about those. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't an RfC about the Index of Economic Freedom. This is an RfC about The Heritage Foundation (HF), where the Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) is being given as an example of HF being a bad source. I am comparing HF to other think tanks, and IEF to other indices/indexes, because it is relevant to this RfC Placeholderer (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unrelated, please start a new RFC about those. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the democracy indices from The Economist, or V-Dem, or Adam Przeworski et. al? Or the World Happiness Report? The Index of Economic Freedom is not indicative of GUNREL Placeholderer (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Wealth of Nations is in no sense "outmoded". That's like calling the Principia outmoded. Placeholderer (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because both are. They're classic works, sure, but they aren't current and reliable scholarship. If I want to know the sun's mass, I'm not going to look for Principia's estimate. I'm going to read current scholarship making those kinds of estimates that have the benefit of an additional three centuries of research and knowledge with which to work.The comparison in any case is still pretty apples to oranges. Wealth of Nations lies in the social sciences while Principia deals with hard sciences, and social ideas about how humans function—and, for that matter, the societies within which said humans function—have changed a lot more than, say, the hard facts of gravity and the sun. For example, the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations in its original context referred not to market competition but rather to the Providence of God, not exactly a prevailing academic interpretation for how economics work. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Instead of us in this discussion deciding the academic or economic value of Adam Smith, I'll ask for RS that the IEF is unscholarly because it is inspired by The Wealth of Nations.
- The IEF is not a problem with this organization Placeholderer (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because both are. They're classic works, sure, but they aren't current and reliable scholarship. If I want to know the sun's mass, I'm not going to look for Principia's estimate. I'm going to read current scholarship making those kinds of estimates that have the benefit of an additional three centuries of research and knowledge with which to work.The comparison in any case is still pretty apples to oranges. Wealth of Nations lies in the social sciences while Principia deals with hard sciences, and social ideas about how humans function—and, for that matter, the societies within which said humans function—have changed a lot more than, say, the hard facts of gravity and the sun. For example, the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations in its original context referred not to market competition but rather to the Providence of God, not exactly a prevailing academic interpretation for how economics work. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference
: No, it wouldn't make sense to reference the Heritage Foundation directly. If what we want to cover is the criticism, we want secondary source coverage of such criticism; citing such criticisms directly and just deciding to put them in an article is original research in the pursuit of a false balance. Criticism of vaccination is an influential element of American culture, but we don't go out of our way to cite anti-vaxxers; we instead cite reliable sources that independently document and analyze such. The Confederate secession was a major part of American history, but we ought not write Civil War articles by citing 1860s South Carolina newspapers for information about anti-abolitionism; we cite historians and how they have documented and analyzed what's relevant, what's meaningful, what was disinformation, etc. Likewise, if what we want is coverage of the Heritage Foundation and its role as an agitation engine against certain kinds of policies (in your example, education), then we cite journalists, historians, sociologists, education professors, etc. who study and write about organizations like the HF. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- This is entirely correct. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The difference between anti-vaxxers and Heritage Foundation is that anti-vaxxers are a fringe perspective in the medical field, even if one of them is going to lead the NHS, and that Heritage Foundation is, like Cato, a well-established but POV/advocacy think tank. As for Civil War newspapers, the difference is timeliness: of course historical events have many better sources that are third-party analysis, but we do cite think tanks all over the place. I don't see why HF is substantially different from any other MREL POV, advocacy think tank whose work should be attributed.
- To source HF's own role in policy, of course it wouldn't be used as a source for itself. The same holds for any source, MREL or not Placeholderer (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you saying economics is not a science or social science? Because I am saying that their index is specifically pseudoscientific within the field of economics. No amount of "well its ideology" irons that out. Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
What are you suggesting out of this, what we delete the Index of Economic Freedom page?Placeholderer (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- If you mean to say that HF is GUNREL because the IEF is pseudoscientific, then I'd ask for RS that say the IEF is pseudoscientific (not that it's just flawed, because of course any index is flawed) Placeholderer (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think about the second sentence of the Economy of the Republic of Ireland article as seen in Special:PermanentLink/1268161574, which begins as follows, reference included (the reference is the Index of Economic Freedom on heritage.org):
Ireland is an open economy (3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom), ...
—Alalch E. 23:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- No matter what happens here that doesn't seem due... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- To connect better to the preceding comments in this thread: Even if certain experts may be behind the Index of Economic Freedom, it is still a non-scientific source (which is different from pseudo-scientific), it can't be treated as a secondary source, and can't be used to directly support statements of fact, such as "X is Y". —Alalch E. 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- To restate my own point, I don't think the IEF can at all be taken as a reason to call HF a GUNREL source.
- I actually think Economy of Ireland is a great example of an article where the IEF (and by extension HF work) can be brought up, since Ireland's corporate economy is based around being a regulatory/tax haven, though I do think the current phrasing especially with parenthesis is weird so early in the article Placeholderer (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- This exact phrasing, meaning this sentence supported with this citation, does not belong anywhere in the article. —Alalch E. 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think "Ireland ranks 3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom" is perfectly reasonable to include in an article about the economy of a corporate tax haven Placeholderer (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- This exact phrasing, meaning this sentence supported with this citation, does not belong anywhere in the article. —Alalch E. 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- To connect better to the preceding comments in this thread: Even if certain experts may be behind the Index of Economic Freedom, it is still a non-scientific source (which is different from pseudo-scientific), it can't be treated as a secondary source, and can't be used to directly support statements of fact, such as "X is Y". —Alalch E. 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- No matter what happens here that doesn't seem due... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think about the second sentence of the Economy of the Republic of Ireland article as seen in Special:PermanentLink/1268161574, which begins as follows, reference included (the reference is the Index of Economic Freedom on heritage.org):
- Are you saying economics is not a science or social science? Because I am saying that their index is specifically pseudoscientific within the field of economics. No amount of "well its ideology" irons that out. Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is entirely correct. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican
: Reliable sources and the neutral point of view aren't determined by what is politically mainstream, whether Republican or Democrat in the United States, or Labour or Tory in the United Kingdom, or LDP in Japan, etc. The Taliban is a mainstream political faction in Afghanistan, insofar as it's the faction in power, but I don't think we would consider some kind of Taliban-aligned think tank to be a reliable source for Afghani society and politics. Mainstream reliability is determined not by the ideologies of politics but by the rigors and standards of academia and journalism. A majority of Americans believe a creator deity was involved in the origins of humanity, but that belief being 'mainstream' doesn't make it reliable, and we wouldn't treat a source attesting such as one that's reliable for biology or evolutionary anthropology. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- To clarify, I don't mean to assert that HF is reliable because of being mainstream Republican. I mean to say that WP:FRINGE, specifically, doesn't make much sense to use against what is, in the US, a political and academic giant. They might have some specific views that are fringe, but that shouldn't necessarily disqualify the source — The Economist has called for the legalization of cocaine, which is a fringe position, but The Economist is (rightfully) a well-respected source.
- TLDR I complain about specifically WP:FRINGE being invoked against HF as reason to deprecate Placeholderer (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:FRINGE is a bogus charge with regards the IEF (which has plenty of uncritical WP:USEBYOTHERS), but they definitely push fringe positions on climate science. Their output is vast though, and one part of it advocating a fringe theory doesn't necessarily make the whole organisation fringe. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I'm a person who has explicitly called out the Index of Economic Freedom as pseudoscientific let me say that the majority of think-tank indices are crap that is unworthy of including in any respectable encyclopedia. This one is just particularly bad, derived from an outmoded economic treatise penned before the advent of the carbon arc lamp and then not even doing a very good job of cleaving to that in favour of the unproven, unscientific and entirely ideological claim that deregulation is equivalent to freedom. This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. This piece of pseudoscience is also being published by people who have openly declared themselves as enemies of this project. That leaves me feeling... substantially uncharitable. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2. Other sanctions may be appropriate for the privacy issues, but RSN is not an appropriate forum to pursue them. We cannot retaliate against sources for conduct which is not restricted by wiki accuracy and notability guidelines. And I'm leery of taking such wide action against an organization with a long and complicated history, comprising some intentional lying (especially the last 4 years) but also real and valuable research. Ideally we would give Heritage up to 2020 similar treatment to Cato
The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.
(which I think is the only thinktank with an RSP listing) and minimally GUR it for 2020+, but with the RFC as-listed I think we have to err on the side of trusting editors to use their own judgement. This RFC did not arise from an editing dispute and I don't think Heritage is being regularly used inappropriately on wiki. If a dispute does arise, Option 2 will be enough to prefer other sources. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) - Option 2. It's a widely used source, not just on Misplaced Pages but also in other RS, including scholarly articles (, ), so WP:USEDBYOTHERS applies. I'd support every effort to combat their scheme to influence Misplaced Pages but blacklisting them as a source is not going to help. Blacklisting them would make us look like vindictive amateurs rather than a serious encyclopedia. Alaexis¿question? 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
If its relevant would not other RS report it anyway? Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Heritage Foundation is most cited through their Index of Economic Freedom, which is a lot of data that's documented on that article in tables refreshed each year; no secondary source includes all the data included on that article. We could start a discussion on that article's talk page about removing the data under WP:Indiscriminate if we wish, but there does seem to be precedent with global indices to include all countries' rankings, indices, and historical rankings. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Secondary sources may not list it because it's minutia from the pro-pollution lobby. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I just meant with the WP:Indiscriminate part of my reply. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah Misplaced Pages would be improved by removing their deregulation index in full. Simonm223 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. It would be a bit hard, though, since other indices also list everything. I would support such rampant restructuring if I had a clear picture of where the removed data would go. I'd say Wikidata, but that doesn't seem to have such facilities/pages. And no, I don't think it's reputation is that much worse to warrant deletion. Alaexis lists two sources that cite IEF: one source from the unreliable MDPI, but also one source from Nature, which is like top-tier iirc. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah Misplaced Pages would be improved by removing their deregulation index in full. Simonm223 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I just meant with the WP:Indiscriminate part of my reply. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Secondary sources may not list it because it's minutia from the pro-pollution lobby. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor. XOR'easter (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- "
An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor.
" How does this in any way comment on the RfC, "What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation and should it be blacklisted?
" - This is exactly the sort of comment that is not actually addressing the RfC, but is purely retaliatory and very angry (perhaps understandably, but that is besides the point). Nothing about this sort of comment is rooted in policy, and I hope any closer views such !votes with the correct and proper disregard that they deserve. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reliable sources don't need to resort to hostility to impose their POV. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- So their reliability is called into question only due to alleged "hostility" of some kind reported in one source and which hasn't even occurred yet from what I can tell? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- If they are unreliable on specific grounds, so be it, but so far mere retaliation is neither valid nor constructive. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nope. Their hostility is the icing on the cake. M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- So their reliability is called into question only due to alleged "hostility" of some kind reported in one source and which hasn't even occurred yet from what I can tell? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reliable sources don't need to resort to hostility to impose their POV. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- "
- Option 5, or at the very least options starting from 3, due to its publication of fabricated and/or misleading information and its widespread use in the project. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 or 2. As far as I can tell, their internal memoranda are a wishlist and aspirational, and so far they haven't been successful in any of their reprehensible ideas. As far as the source itself, I tend to see it as verging into pretty unreliable territory similar to Fox News, but it's a think tank, so sometimes they might have some well-researched reports or attributable opinions, and they're one of the largest right-wing think tanks so they have a large body of usable attributed information, similar to other think tanks or advocacy groups, biased, but occasionally useful with real academics working there, so I think full deprecation or blacklisting seems excessive. The reality is, their desire to dox editors is easier wished for than done, and it doesn't expressly impugn the reliability of their past material. Andre🚐 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- After some thinking, I'm leaning towards option 4 per Tryptofish above. Besides the extensively documented lying, I (unfortunately?) don't trust a source that aspires to covertly attack and burn down us and our library, and there should be a pretty good reason for someone to click twice on the "publish" button. This won't stop any "link injection", and it shouldn't: Thinking blacklisting would diminish security problems is pure security theater, per RedTailedHawk; it is not something we should do. Deprecating informs newer editors of the situation, and that's something we should do. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can do both (deprecate the source and blacklist its domain for good measure). M.Bitton (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just said blacklisting would bad due to being security theater in my comment. You should read RedTailedHawk's comment for a slightly more in-depth layman's explanation on the technical-ish side. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know what you said and I have read RTH's comment. That doesn't change anything. M.Bitton (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, I thought your comment meant that blacklisting would constitute good measure. It'll only make stupid attempts at spearphishing less obvious. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you said. M.Bitton (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you said. How about you cut it out, huh? —Alalch E. 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- How about you stop asking me to read what I read and disagree with? M.Bitton (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you said. How about you cut it out, huh? —Alalch E. 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you said. M.Bitton (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- M.Bitton, you're wrong to insist on blacklisting based on this discussion. The real discussion about what to do technically, and blacklisting is a technical and not an editorial measure is had at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. It is also had at other places, where discussions aren't public. —Alalch E. 01:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, I thought your comment meant that blacklisting would constitute good measure. It'll only make stupid attempts at spearphishing less obvious. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know what you said and I have read RTH's comment. That doesn't change anything. M.Bitton (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just said blacklisting would bad due to being security theater in my comment. You should read RedTailedHawk's comment for a slightly more in-depth layman's explanation on the technical-ish side. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can do both (deprecate the source and blacklist its domain for good measure). M.Bitton (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 The sites are not reliable and the new information showing recently shows clear and obivous issues brought up by most here so far. ContentEditman (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4 - Are there any indications at all that their statements are a reliable source about anything that is not embarrassing to themselves? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4+5 per the sources above. They routinely publish misinformation, and make no particular claim that I can see towards doing any fact-checking or having any editorial controls in the first place, so they shouldn't have been used as a source to begin with; but the fact that they somehow ended up used in so many articles shows that deprecation is necessary. In the rare case where someone there says something significant, it will be reported in secondary sources and can be cited via those; there is no exception to WP:RS for "they're really important, tho", precisely because unreliable-but-important sources can be cited via secondary coverage. Their threats to use domains they control to dox and out Misplaced Pages editors is just an additional reason on top of this and a reason to take the step of a formal blacklist. While blacklisting obviously won't solve the problem, it will avoid situations where editors feel they have to click their links in order to evaluate a potentially-viable source, and force them to use lesser-known (and, for most editors, more intrinsically suspicious) domains in order to do any sort of spear-phishing attack. Some editors seem to be saying "well let them use their own domain for those attacks, that'll make it more obvious" - but if we don't blacklist it then it won't, because allowing it means it could also be used in good faith. --Aquillion (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Routinely publishing misinformation would be a concern, but I haven't been convinced from the discussion so far that they do that. Could you elaborate? Placeholderer (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: +1 (what Aquillion said) + Think tanks are rarely anything but a source of last resort on Misplaced Pages. We mostly use them when they have useful insight into niche security topics. If any primary research or opinion from the HF is particularly notable and due, it will be covered by reliable, secondary sources, and we can still cover it. We don't need to send users to a website with potentially malicious activity. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 This seems like a drastic overreaction. Nemov (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- 5, and 3/4. If this had been asked a month ago, I'd've said 3 because, as Alalch and others laid out in the RFCBEFORE, they have a reputation for letting politics trump accuracy, leading to mis- and dis-information; in any situation in which their views are DUE, those will (by definition!) have been covered by other, reliable sources; and any ABOUTSELF statements needed on their own article can be handled as exceptions/whitelisted. But 5 is also in order: for a source to operate in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, is not only additional evidence that they do dishonest/untrustworthy things and are unreliable, the misuse of their domains in particular merits blacklisting. Pace those who think blacklisting their main domain is "security theater" because they'll also use other domains, I think it's necessary, as I (a) see no reason to doubt they're using their main domain for the same thing, and (b) view blacklisting them (under their main domain) as a necessary first part of blacklisting them (under any other domains they're caught using). -sche (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 given the explicit details of the threat they pose to editors here. (same reason that a site like Conservipedia should be blacklisted too). The content they produce would already make them generally unreliable (and I don't know if we ever considered them reliable before so deprecation doesn't sound possible), but we should go the step further to protect WP editors here. I can see limited exemptions to use them as a primary source only on a page about the Herigate Foundation itself if that absolutely needed, but likely not. --Masem (t) 05:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 This feels cut-and-dry. They're a propaganda wing for a specific hardline ideology and have a long and storied history of simply disregarding factuality. Ignoring all the concerns with them outing editors, I'm amazed it wasn't already considered unreliable.
- Option 4, and blacklist: clearly unreliable. The blacklisting decision should ideally not be here but a matter for the Spam Blacklist discussion pages, but as it is here, I support blacklisting for security purposes too. If the HF changes course and presents no further security considerations, the blacklisting can and should be revisited without prejudice to a RSN discussion. Sceptre (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- +1 on the potential revisiting. Many editors have commented that blacklisting will only make them more determined, or something along those lines (though I think this is implausible given that they are already determined enough to consider what they are proposing). But fewer are considering the alternative: that being blacklisted may incentivize them to reconsider their course of action. No reputable think tank should want to be considered unreliable or be in the insalubrious company of deprecated /blacklisted sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion: The Heritage Foundation
What exactly happens to the 5000 links if we blacklist them? Does a bot go through and remove the https:// from them so they are unclickable? (Seems reasonable.) Or are the citations deleted? (Seems a bit damaging.) Or something else? This will affect how I opine in the above RFC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae I'm just noting that it isn't 5000 but cca 1750, please see Special:Diff/1268481621. Sorry for propagating the incorrect number. —Alalch E. 22:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It could either of those two options or it could be that the bot goes through and replaces the references with a {{cn}}. I guess that should be discussed. TarnishedPath 23:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting says "Ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting." —Alalch E. 23:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Spam-blacklisting is not the same thing as a Reliable source/Noticeboard discussion around "blacklisting" a source per the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list. No action should be taken pertaining to this discussion prior to the formation of a clear closing and consensus being reached. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know why you are making this comment here, and what it's supposed to accomplish, but you are incorrect. Spam-blacklisting is adding an entry to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. The page Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting (the same page I linked to in my previous comment you replied to) is a supplementary page explaining some principles and workings of the spam blacklist. Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist is the (pretty basic) guideline about the spam blacklist. But the real instructions that are the most useful are actually in the header of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. The "Legend" section of the Perennial sources information page (see WP:RSP#Blacklisted) only explains what it means for a particular row in the table of perennial sources to have a grey background and that entry's status to have a particular icon. RSP does not contain general advice about blacklisting pages. RSP only records when a page is blacklisted in addition to having a status describing the consensus around its reliability. The list of blacklisted domains is the spam blacklist itself. Sometimes, relatively rarely, when a source is discussed at RSN, an additional outcome may be to add the source to the blacklist; this generally happens when editors discover that the website is simply a spam website. The underlying discussion, the main thrust of the discussion, is a discussion around reliability, consistent with the name of this forum: The Reliable sources noticeboard.The problem with this RfC was that it erroneously began as a discussion around computer safety, which is out of scope. But it has somewhat, partially, corrected itself. —Alalch E. 01:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think a malware website can not be used as a reliable source. The intent is to misinform and endanger. Nothing reliable about that. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know why you are making this comment here, and what it's supposed to accomplish, but you are incorrect. Spam-blacklisting is adding an entry to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. The page Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting (the same page I linked to in my previous comment you replied to) is a supplementary page explaining some principles and workings of the spam blacklist. Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist is the (pretty basic) guideline about the spam blacklist. But the real instructions that are the most useful are actually in the header of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. The "Legend" section of the Perennial sources information page (see WP:RSP#Blacklisted) only explains what it means for a particular row in the table of perennial sources to have a grey background and that entry's status to have a particular icon. RSP does not contain general advice about blacklisting pages. RSP only records when a page is blacklisted in addition to having a status describing the consensus around its reliability. The list of blacklisted domains is the spam blacklist itself. Sometimes, relatively rarely, when a source is discussed at RSN, an additional outcome may be to add the source to the blacklist; this generally happens when editors discover that the website is simply a spam website. The underlying discussion, the main thrust of the discussion, is a discussion around reliability, consistent with the name of this forum: The Reliable sources noticeboard.The problem with this RfC was that it erroneously began as a discussion around computer safety, which is out of scope. But it has somewhat, partially, corrected itself. —Alalch E. 01:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Spam-blacklisting is not the same thing as a Reliable source/Noticeboard discussion around "blacklisting" a source per the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list. No action should be taken pertaining to this discussion prior to the formation of a clear closing and consensus being reached. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I see arguments above that the Heritage Foundations declared hostility to Misplaced Pages's neutrality means we should treat them as a hostile organization. There are other entities hostile to our neutrality; Donald Trump and the Chinese government are two that come to mind. Neither is what I would call a reliable source, but we don't ban all links to them; they're treated as reliable for a very limited set of cases. What's the difference between these cases? There are governments who have imprisoned Misplaced Pages editors (so I gather; I don't have a reference but I've seen it said). Can those governments be cited for anything at all -- e.g. the names of their ministers? Option 5 seems inconsistent with the way we treat these other hostile entities. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Donald Trump doesn't have a detailed cyberattack plan to doxx editors here. The heritage foundation does plan on using web technologies to harm editors. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not that they're hostile, as lots of organizations are hostile; it's that they've identified themselves as having planned a specific, malicious digital attack vector against the community. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, but that vector doesn't seem as hostile as imprisonment to me. Why does the fact that this attack is digital mean option 5 is appropriate (instead of e.g. just using archive.org to avoid direct links)? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not that they're hostile, as lots of organizations are hostile; it's that they've identified themselves as having planned a specific, malicious digital attack vector against the community. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment, a great many comments !voted purely out of retaliation to try and stop Heritage foundation from taking a certain action that some perceive to be "doxxing". I have a serious question though, "Does deprecating and removing any links to Heritage Foundation, IF the blacklist/deprecation retaliatory measure passes... does this actually stop them from initiating their plan, or parts of it? I am not familiar with all of the details, but with A.I. and other tools these days, couldn't they still try and do things to identify some editors with certain editing patterns or behavior completely independent of whatever happens with this discussion and then do the "doxxing" anyway? This seems to have larger legal implications, unless I misunderstand it, and if that is the case then this seems silly to try and solve with a angry RfC which might not have any real defensive benefit for the community. Has anyone taken this into consideration? Is anything being done about that? If not, why not? Iljhgtn (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. It seems like best course of action when someone or some group questions your intellectual independence is to ignore it and rise above it. Blacklisting and censoring a think tank over something like this would simply be more fuel for the fire. Nemov (talk) 16:45, 11 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.
- Rosenfeld, Arno (2025-01-07). "Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to 'identify and target' Misplaced Pages editors". The Forward. Retrieved 2025-01-10.
- "Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom". www.heritage.org. Archived from the original on 21 May 2020. Retrieved 2022-11-12.
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)
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)
- Reviewing the PCORI website leads to the conclusion that their strength is the cross-sectional diversity in how they evaluate, monitor, then disseminate summaries of research projects, described here. They are not the publication venue for completed research - the WP:MEDASSESS sources of journals, books or clinical organizations - but rather their reports are summaries of the research project. For this reason, I would ask why would we cite a PCORI summary when a peer-reviewed publication is the main source? Is there an example of a PCORI final report that you feel is a good MEDRS example?
- There was concern that funded research groups submitting final reports to PCORI had "spin" language, which was caught and adjusted by PCORI before publication.
- As of 2023, the National Academy of Medicine is collaborating with PCORI to improve the review process for evaluating research funding candidates.
- The PCORI article needs updating. There are fewer than 30 watchers/editors of the article. Zefr (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Zefr: Two issues here: The extent to which PCORI publications meet MEDRS, and then presuming that PCORI is reliable, WP:Verifying that Misplaced Pages reflects PCORI's claim in an appropriate context. Originally I think you were challenging PCORI, but here, I think you are challenging the claim. Do you agree with that distinction and separation, and if so, can you (or I) move your text discussing the claim to Talk:Modafinil#Clarification_on_a_WP:MEDRS_sourced_claim_that_was_reverted?
- This is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, so this is the place to discuss your comments about the organization and your question about why to cite PCORI's summaries instead of the original source. Briefly, there can be multiple approaches to healthcare. Most approaches originate in the healthcare industry, and it is challenging to escape that. PCORI speaks for itself, but I would describe it as remaining in the healthcare industry (as opposed to exiting it to seek alternative medicine), and within that context, recommending evidence-based medicine which prioritizes person-centered care. So for example, many medical recommendations from industry seek to maximize curing disease, but a patient-centered approach could emphasize managing side effects and planning the financial cost of treatment. Regardless of what kind of recommendations PCORI is making, I sustain the notion that per WP:MEDORG, Misplaced Pages includes expert institutional claims which may not go through the peer review process of a journal.
- I think the report we have been discussing is a good MEDRS example. It comes in different forms -
- for clinicians (we were discussing citing this one)
- for patients
- the peer reviewed research article for the trial
- Misplaced Pages typically does not cite trials, but here, PCORI is elevating the results of this case study into a special report and expert recommendation. We can attribute this to the organization following WP:ACCORDINGTO/WP:INTEXT guidelines, which was the original attempted edit.
- PCORI gets into cases like this which are fairly unusual. The situation is that there is an Off-label use for a drug (so it is not indicated or approved, but there is evidence for it) and then PCORI is giving an alert about that off-label use. I am not a physician, and I do not know how to untangle expert institutional critiques of off-label drug use, but in general, I just trust PCORI's process and think Misplaced Pages can include PCORI recommendations attributed to them. I do not see this as the same as citing a case study without the backing of an expert org.
- Base question back to you - how do you feel about including statements attributed to PCORI based on trials, when they conflict with other evidence? Bluerasberry (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- If PCORI published a summary of results from a multinational Phase III trial or a systematic review that it had helped to fund, then perhaps that would meet WP:MEDORG (although still not a national clinical guideline that would better meet MEDASSESS). In the case of the reference for modafinil, PCORI is giving an update on a pilot study, which clearly isn't MEDRS.
- "how do you feel about including statements attributed to PCORI based on trials, when they conflict with other evidence?" Defined on the PCORI website under Evidence Updates:
PCORI presents findings from systematic reviews and some of our funded research studies in concise, accessible formats called Evidence Updates. Most Evidence Updates are available in two versions: one for patients and caregivers and one for clinicians and other professionals. These updates, which capture the highlights and context for these new findings, are created and disseminated in collaboration with patients, health professionals, and other organizations."
- Likely, the PCORI update for a systematic review would be more digestible for the common Misplaced Pages reader, but having the original journal publication would have to go with it as the more complete source. If there was a conflict with another source and both were MEDRS-qualified, WP:BALANCE would say discuss them both.
- It's ok to copy any of this to the modafinil talk page. Zefr (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say its non-governmental... It seems to be more semi or quasi governmental (Interestingly enough a notable concept that we seem to lack a wiki page for) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back: I do not think there is a term for nonprofit organizations which have strong government ties, but yes, I understand what you mean. PCORI is a 501(c)(3) organization which receives government grants through the Affordable Care Act.
- I wouldn't say its non-governmental... It seems to be more semi or quasi governmental (Interestingly enough a notable concept that we seem to lack a wiki page for) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Law&Crime Network
Hello! I would like to know your opinion about Law&Crime Network youtube channel and their news site Law&Crime News. Are they reliable source for information about murders/trials? SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Youtube channels are generally not reliable sources. Please see WP:RSPYT for additional context. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't speak to their YouTube channel at all. Re: their website, Adam Klasfeld used to be their managing editor (he's now a journalism fellow with Just Security), and I found him to be a very reliable reporter on legal issues. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their website is RS. However many of the sources there, you have to deal with BLPCRIME, for which you must be cautious anyway. But I have found them to be fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Catholic-Hierarchy.org
Catholic-Hierarchy.org is a self-published source that has been featured in two prior discussions (2016 and 2020). Multiple editors appear to consider it a reliable source specifically because it is used in other independent publications. This is a noted exception for self-published sources that can be found in WP:RS/SPS. However, users also acknowledge that it should never be used in biographies of living people.
Is there more discussion that should be had? Should these details be added to WP:RSPSOURCES? This source is used several thousand times on the English WP, so centralized standards for it might be desirable. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is there any context, any new disagreement about the source that would warrant a new discussion? If not the RSP has inclusion criteria and can be discussed on WT:RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @OldPolandUpdates: Where can that noted exception for self-published sources be found in WP:RS/SPS? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mid-paragraph here. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others, that isn't there. The self publisher here is an amateur, a self described "Random Catholic Dude" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is WP:EXPERTSPS? It redirects to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Do we have standards on who is/is not an expert? If Catholic-Hierarchy.org is not an expert source, then it is not a reliable self-published source, and this has implications for thousands of WP articles.
- Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources seems to imply that if one's material is used by reliable publications, then one might be considered an established expert. Catholic-Hierarchy.org is used in peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and other types of articles. Some of the usage is described here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_203#catholic-hierarchy.org. Therefore, the discussion might revolve around whether Catholic-Hierarchy.org is used enough by external publications.
- If you consider Catholic-Hierarchy.org not reliable, then would you also agree that it be depicted as such in the WP:RSPSOURCES table? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The standard is mid-paragraph here "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." which does not appear to be the case here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would also note that there appears to be a consensus from 2020 that this is a SPS, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#Catholic-Hierarchy.org Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have added the source to the WP:RSPSOURCES list. Please take a look. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- From the wording you've used there ("Other editors do not consider the website to be a subject-matter expert in its field.") I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others... Its not the website which isn't a subject-matter expert, its the self publisher who isn't. The argument that "some editors have considered the website to be reliable because some of its content has been published in reliable, independent publications" is seperate from the argument about whether or not its a SPS... A SPS which is used by others still has to follow SPS rules. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide the standard that you are using to determine whether someone is an expert? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The standard: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is possible that I am misinterpreting that, and I did consider that bolded section to basically be similar to WP:USEBYOTHERS. If work that appears on Catholic-Hierarchy.org is published in the form of a reference in reliable sources (books, peer-reviewed journal articles, dissertations, and reliable newspapers), then isn't this bolded section satisfied? What does the bolded section mean? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, there has to be works other than the self published ones and they have to predate the self published one. Generally only academics and journalists satisfy our requirements. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is possible that I am misinterpreting that, and I did consider that bolded section to basically be similar to WP:USEBYOTHERS. If work that appears on Catholic-Hierarchy.org is published in the form of a reference in reliable sources (books, peer-reviewed journal articles, dissertations, and reliable newspapers), then isn't this bolded section satisfied? What does the bolded section mean? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The standard: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have modified the WP:RSPSOURCES entry to better reflect this comment. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It still feels off, you're giving wayyyyyy too much weight to the group that thinks its reliable when that view isn't supported by policy and guideline. You also make the consenus that it isn't an expert SPS look like just an opinion, but we clearly have consensus that the author isn't a subject matter expert by our standards. It also isn't a general opinion that SPS can't be used for BLP, thats solid policy. This comes off more as apologism than what consenus actually is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide the standard that you are using to determine whether someone is an expert? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- From the wording you've used there ("Other editors do not consider the website to be a subject-matter expert in its field.") I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others... Its not the website which isn't a subject-matter expert, its the self publisher who isn't. The argument that "some editors have considered the website to be reliable because some of its content has been published in reliable, independent publications" is seperate from the argument about whether or not its a SPS... A SPS which is used by others still has to follow SPS rules. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have added the source to the WP:RSPSOURCES list. Please take a look. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 23:49, 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)
- This is a non-expert self published source. We have established that no such "noted exception" exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- If it is used by reliable secondary sources then it shouldn't be difficult to find the information from the reliable source itself. Shankargb (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: The London Standard
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The London Standard, formerly known as the Evening Standard, has 18,703 links on the English Misplaced Pages. Its reliability has not been discussed since 2018, and there is currently no consensus on its reliability. Therefore, what is the reliability of the London Standard?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Marginally reliable, or additional considerations apply
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated
JJPMaster (she/they) 23:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you should also post some examples of the articles from this publication. People would then know why this outlet is now up for discussion. Shankargb (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can we stop doing RfCs with no background? That is not what this is for. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PARAKANYAA: I brought it here (a) because of its recent change in format and (b) because it hasn't been discussed in seven years. I figured that the previous discussions would have been sufficient for WP:RFCBEFORE, so I didn't think to start a regular discussion beforehand. JJPMaster (she/they) 01:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You don’t start off with the RfCs, for which you provided 0 context. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PARAKANYAA: I brought it here (a) because of its recent change in format and (b) because it hasn't been discussed in seven years. I figured that the previous discussions would have been sufficient for WP:RFCBEFORE, so I didn't think to start a regular discussion beforehand. JJPMaster (she/they) 01:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Summoned by bot) I'm with Parakanyaa here. That it hasn't been discussed since 2018 is not sufficient reason for an RFC, in fact it's reason against one. I would have expected some recent discussion prior to an RFC, so that we have some context. TarnishedPath 02:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bad RFC because of lack of WP:RFCBEFORE. I have no context whatsoever here. Presumably if it's being brought up here, JJPMaster thinks there's some kind of problem with it, but if so it's not clear at all what problem(s) they think there is. Loki (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bad RFC due to complete lack of WP:RFCBEFORE. No discussion in any capacity since 2018. The Kip 04:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Procedural Close. There is no mandatory periodical process for the reliability of specific sources. A source is brought here for discussion only after what the instructions demand, in large fonts, right at the header:
Please supply the article is used in, and the claim it supports. RFCs should only be started if there have been previous discussions .
This is a bad RfC and should not be entertained nor continued. -The Gnome (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC) - Unless there's some new context in regard to it's reliability, disagreement between editors or discussion of London Standard's reliability in secondary sources, then there's no need for a new discussion let alone an RFC. Maybe the wording in header and edit warning needs to be stronger. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable per WP:NEWSORG. Since this newspaper is listed in RSP, we are within our rights to !vote on it. James500 (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Request withdrawn per above. Checking a wikipedia source
I'm curious as to whether in general I can copy an already existing citation from one Misplaced Pages article to another which says the same thing without having to check that citation. For example, on the page George Robert Russell there's a citation which I haven't checked, but I'm assuming the person who added it did: , and I want to use it to link his name on Jonathan Russell's page. This example is the specific one and a little complicated (and I apologize for that), but the question also applies for other cases. Can Do I have to check the citation myself first to do this? Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Wikieditor662 You should. Noone can force you, but sadly often, WP-sourcing is not what it should be. Gbooks and archive.org is sometimes helpful. Note also that you are close to have access to the WP:LIBRARY. WP:RX is sometimes useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You should be able to access page 190–191 via Google books here -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The advantage of checking sources yourself is that you're much less likely to see your edits reverted with a comment of failed verification, not in source later. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you guys very much, I added it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The advantage of checking sources yourself is that you're much less likely to see your edits reverted with a comment of failed verification, not in source later. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
References
- Jacques Downs, The Golden Ghetto (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1997), 191.
RE: Lambgoat
Lambgoat just got discussed recently, but I have a useage that hasn't come up yet in discussions that I want to get clarity on. Is an article like this, about heavy metal genres, acceptable for use on the relevant Misplaced Pages genre articles, with the exclusion of any BLP claims or controversial statements? I'm pinging the other editors who were involved in that discussion. JeffSpaceman, Sergecross73, MFTP Dan.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have to say, I have never seen LG do something like this and would not be personally inclined to use it. It's only just over a year old, so maybe it's a new thing they're doing and I didn't keep up. mftp dan 19:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I found another music history article from 2024, so it looks like this might be a new addition to the type of coverage that they do.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I suspected. I would be loath to use this, I always treated LG as a last resort for routine coverage of bands. To me, it's the lowest tier of source that's still acceptable for use especially on, you know, older subjects where there isn't surviving online coverage otherwise. They are impressive for cataloguing that far back. mftp dan 14:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I found another music history article from 2024, so it looks like this might be a new addition to the type of coverage that they do.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would recommend verifying with other, more established reliable sources, and potentially citing those instead per User:MFTP Dan. I think routine coverage (as you state, barring exceptional claims or third-party information about living people) is probably viable, but I'm not confident this source should be cited for what you are looking into it being used for. But I'll see what others think and where consensus goes. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They don't mention editorial staff or fact checking on their about us. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They do have an editor, per the staff page, but the role is not explained.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, you don't see that explanation a lot these days. Especially in the content area LG serves. It's surprisingly slim pickens out there. mftp dan 14:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- They do have an editor, per the staff page, but the role is not explained.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Does this source even exists?
I saw this ড. মুহম্মদ আব্দুল করিম. বাংলাদেশের ইতিহাস. মগ বিতাড়ন ও চট্টগ্রাম জয়. cited on an article (here Bengal Sultanate–Kingdom of Mrauk U War of 1512–1516) but I couldn't find any source with this name anywhere on the internet, can anyone confirm if it is real or not? Koshuri Sultan (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)