Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 22:12, 4 August 2021 editSteve Quinn (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers39,902 edits →New comments: comment← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 02:18, 23 January 2025 edit undoThe Banner (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers125,946 edits →flightconnections.com: new section
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{short description\|Noticeboard discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}}		{{short description\|Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}}
	{{cent}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}		\|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = ~~348~~		\|counter = 465
	\|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
Line 16:		Line 15:
	-->		-->

			------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	== RfC: Adult industry sources ==
	{{atop
	\| result = Consensus is reasonably clear, with a full month of opportunity for discussion and a reasonable level of participation:
	: ], per '''option 1''', is generally ] for factual-type information on ''this particular topic'';
	: ], leans more towards '''option 2''', with reliability unclear and additional considerations applying. It is noted in the discussion that XBIZ does some clearly good reporting, and does not have a reputation for falsification of information, but also that it publishes press releases/sponsored content without clearly delineating the distinction between their own journalism and the promotional content of others. Therefore, while permissible to use and not generally unreliable, editors should take care that the source is not cited for content identifiably promotional or likely to be promotional. ] ] 06:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)}}
	<!-- ] 21:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1628197280}}
	Are the following two sources generally reliable for news reporting and ] statements in their area of expertise (the adult industry)? ] (]) 20:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

	* '''Option 1''': Generally ] for factual-type information on ''this particular topic''
	* '''Option 2''': Unclear or additional considerations apply
	* '''Option 3''': Generally ] for factual-type reporting on ''this particular topic''
	* '''Option 4''': Publishes false or fabricated factual-type information on ''this particular topic'', and should be ] as in the ] of the '']''?

	=== ] ===
	* '''Option 1''' As far as I'm aware, here hasn't been any particular controversy in regarding to AVN magazine and its journalism. It is a the prime source for the subject area and so seems one of the most appropriate sources to use. ]]<sup>]</sup> 21:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
	* '''Option 1''', I think: as we quote in our article on the magazine, '''' called it "an industry magazine that is to pornographic films what the trade publication Billboard is to records" in 2000. We currently consider its awards significant on bios. It seems of comparable quality to a trade publication in any other subject area. If we reject ''AVN'', I'm not sure what better sources there are on the sex industry. — ] (''']''') 19:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2''' - Additional consideration in that AVN does publish press releases as is, but does mark them as such. (Compare the labeled articles in this AVN search) Those press releases can not be relied on. ] (]) 21:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1''' for non-sponsored content and non-press release content as per {{u\|Morbidthoughts}}. Otherwise needs an '''Option 2''' disclaimer. I would say this is analogous to the sponsored content produced in many other news venues like ''The New York Times'', ''The Economist'', ''Wired'', and others. We should not trust such content as RS, but for the rest, I think it's probably okay.--] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 21:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1''' for any content that is not a copy of the press release. Reprints of press releases are only reliable for the press releaser stating something.--] (]) 09:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1''' for any non-sponsored content, which (per Morbidthoughts) can be distinguished from their own content. ] (]) 10:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1''' It can be relied on for reliability free from controversy. ] (]) 19:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
	=== ] ===
	* '''Option 1''' Being responsible for one of the main award competitions for the adult industry and not seeing any issues reported elsewhere regarding their journalistic side, I see no reason why they aren't a top level source for this specific subject matter. They aren't schlock celebrity news or anything like that. ]]<sup>]</sup> 21:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
	* '''Option 1''', I think: this one I've used in {{icon\|GA}} ] ('''warning''' for sexual abuse: you need a ''really'' strong stomach to click that link) and found it as reliable as all the internet culture websites (''The Daily Beast'', ''Vice'') and local coverage (NBC 7 San Diego) that broke the story and the mainstream sources that re-reported it (''New York Times'', ''Sydney Morning Herald''). '''' asked the president/publisher for a quote in their article. As with ''AVN'', it's a trade publication and if we reject it there's not much we can write about the sex industry. — ] (''']''') 19:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2''' - XBIZ publishes press releases as is, but does not mark them as such. They used to. They're somewhat easy to catch since they list no author (like AVN), but I would not rely on XBIZ for anything contentious. ] (]) 21:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2''' as per above, I think the issue is that they can produce sponsored content and not give it much definition to separate it. I would say that this means we should not use it for controversial matters, but otherwise GR. The industry is so extremely ad-based, that it makes sense that these considerations are a bigger problem here than elsewhere. Even more than typical journalism outlets which have a higher proportion of donors and subscribers.--] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 21:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2''', as they do not clearly mark reprinted press releases.--] (]) 09:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1''' for their own content. The ] GA Bilorv links above extensively uses (same warning for sexual abuse) source which is a thorough and good piece of news reporting. Their other work also seems to be reliable (ie not fabricated). It's not great that they don't mark reposted press releases clearly, but it can still be identified, and ''that'' content should be unreliable (this would be the "additional consideration" I suppose). ] (]) 10:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2''' It releases content without properly marking it. ] (]) 20:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
	{{abot}}

	== Rfc: ] ==

	<!-- ] 05:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1628830882}}
	{{rfc\|media\|pol\|soc\|rfcid=EC07E8C}}

	Hello all! While editing recent articles in Peruvian politics, especially regarding ] and the ], '']'' was encountered on multiple occasions. There are some interesting interviews and articles written by ''Jacobin'', though there has not been a clear consensus on the reliability of the magazine as a source.

	Previous discussions with dedicated sections were held, with the oldest being seen ], while in ] users shared that the reliability of ''Jacobin'' was between generally reliable and no consensus/addtional considerations after reviewing discussions from Archive 302.

	Since it appears that ''Jacobin'' , it is suggested that we determine the level of reliability of the source so it can be present on the ] page.

	Options are as follows:

	*'''Option 1:''' The source is recognized as being ].
	*'''Option 2:''' There is ].
	*'''Option 3:''' The source is recognized as being ] in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
	*'''Option 4:''' The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be ]

	Thank you for taking the time to take a look at this!--] (]) 04:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

	* '''So where's the dispute?''' I see you in reverts with other editors on those articles, but not concerning Jacobin in particular. What is the precise usage you are disputing, for which claims, and which of these usages are observably in dispute? Without this, this is an '''invalid RFC''' - ] (]) 06:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' I'm confused now, I thought the idea of an RFC was a generic reliability request. The idea being that there would be at least two prior discussions of the source and with a view to including it in the perennials with the outcome. Have I got this wrong?] (]) 12:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': It has been discussed here a bunch of times: a year ago, with a clear consensus for "generally reliable but attribute" and then seven months ago, with a consensus for "use with caution". Three substantial discussions would mean we could add it to the RSP list, but I don't see what we might say that wasn't already said in previous discussions, without a specific usage to discuss. (My choice though, if we proceed with this RfC, would be for '''option 2''': mostly a partisan opinion source usable with attribution if noteworthy, but occassionally publishes well-researched pieces by experts in their fields, on topics that might not be covered in more mainstream sources, in particular on the history of the left or on socialist theory.)
	*'''Option 2''' OK, that's clear enough, left wing source, mixes facts with opinion on occasion, so attribute seems best.] (]) 13:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2''' - <ins>'''Only reliable for attributed quotations'''.</ins> I would say too much opinion to be trusted for all matters of fact, but clearly '''reliable for attributed quotes''' and '''demonstrating''' ].--] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 21:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
	:*Add: This is what we do with most partisan sources, including left-leaning sources with an agenda just like some editors above have pointed out Jacobin has (e.g. ], ], ], ], ]). There's nothing particularly troublesome that ''sets Jacobin apart'' from these other extremely partisan sources as more unreliable. It just needs attribution to counteract its heavy bias.--] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 22:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

	*'''Option 3'''. It consists entirely of opinion pieces and is openly and heavily ideologically slanted. There is no good reason to use such a source - either better sources exist, or it's usually ]. Option 3 allows for occasional use for interviews with highly notable subjects or if an author of an article is a recognized subject-matter expert. Ending up with option 2 would result in editors arguing it can be used as a source for things like economics, contentious labels for BLPs, and so on, that are clearly not appropriate. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 04:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 3'''. It's really politically slanted and it's not a straight news source. I wouldn't trust them. Remember, we're talking about using them as the sole source for a fact. If ''Jacobin'' is your sole source for anything but the most ideology-free facts, no. Even for things like, I don't know, the year that a town was established or what have you... if ''Jacobin'' is your only source for a fact, it'd be a pretty obscure fact and maybe just skip it. I don't get a sense of how rigorous their independent fact-checking operation, and since "getting facts absolutely correct" is not their primary business raison d'etre, I'd be suspicious of even of anodyne facts such as the population of Labrador or whatever, if they are the ''only'' source, til I know more. Individual exceptions may be hashed out in individual articles. ] (]) 14:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2''' While I personally think it is generally reliable, the strong political slant of the magazine makes it best to use with attribution and perhaps not for contentious claims. Cheers, all. ] (]) 14:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1'''. They are a textbook example of a usable ] source that is still reliable (with the attendant warnings of why you have to be cautious when using any heavily ] source, of course, but if that alone disqualified a source then we wouldn't have BIASED.) is CJR's in-depth write-up of them, which compares it as follows: {{tq\|And yet as important as these articles were for Jacobin’s reputation, the magazine more closely resembled Wenner’s Rolling Stone, or Harold Hayes’s Esquire, or Tina Brown’s Vanity Fair than it did Dissent or the New Left Review in at least one respect: its whole was greater than the sum of its parts.}} Implicit comparisons to similar magazines earlier in the piece include The Atlantic Monthly, The New Yorker, Time, and Playboy. Note that every one of the sources it's compared to there are a ]. It is a plainly BIASED source, yes, and requires a warning to that effect; sometimes it has to be used with caution to avoid giving undue weight to its point of view. But anyone arguing it is unreliable is going to need to explain how they can support leaving, for instance, Reason at green in ] (another source that the CJR piece directly contrasts it with.) Or PinkNews, or The Intercept, or The New Republic, or one of numerous other comparable sources we consider reliable - or, for that matter, The New Yorker or The Atlantic, which are written in a similar style and are particular points of comparison above. Jacobin's less mainstream perspective is something that has to be considered when deciding where it is ], but it isn't a matter of reliability. In short, if a source has a reasonable reputation, then simply being biased isn't enough to render it unreliable; you have to demonstrate inaccuracy resulting from that bias. --] (]) 13:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1''' Aquillion covers the policies well and there's nothing to disagree with or expand upon. ] <small>(])</small> 14:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
	*<s>'''Option 2''' (possibly</s> '''Option 3'''). Normally, we put these extremely ideological sources in the Option 2 category (e.g., Salon {{RSP\|Salon}}, Townhall {{RSP\|Townhall}}). Jacobin obviously doesn't report straight news, so it (i) always needs to be attributed and (ii) check to see if it complies with ]. However, Jacobin has additional issues. Its stated political mission is to: {{tq\|centralize and inject energy into the contemporary socialist movement}} . So it is more in line with an advocacy group than a news source. Also, it has pretty fringe views. ] identifies Jacobin as part of the alt-left . It's pretty fringe-y on topics concerning Venezuela , the USSR/Communism , and anti-semitism , . I would avoid using Jacobin for those topics. But if you need a socialist/Marxist opinion on something, then Jacobin is definitely a good source to use. ] (]) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) <u>Based upon Noonlcarus's comment, Jacobin does seem to frequently use deprecated/unreliable sources for facts. Some examples include Alternet {{RSP entry\|AlterNet}} , Daily Kos {{RSP entry\|Daily Kos}} , Raw Story {{RSP entry\|The Raw Story}} , The Canary {{RSP entry\|The Canary}} , and the Electronic Intifada {{RSP entry\|The Electronic Intifada}} .] (]) 04:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)</u>
	::I agree that Jacobin is fringey on some of these issues, but we need to b e careful about unreliable versus opinionated. The Nieman Lab piece just says it has to use a range of methods to keep its revenue above its costs ("The majority of are graduate students or young professors.") not that it is unreliable. Wolcott is criticising their politics, not claiming they publish fake news (he attacks the Intercept for the same reasons). The Intelligencer says it has bad opinions on communism and Venezeula, but doesn't comment on accuracy. Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic says socialism is bad therefore democratic socialist magazines are bad, but doesn't comment on reliability. The (highly unreliable) WSWS dislikes its politics, but, well, so what? Arnold and Taylor provide lots of good reasons why Jacobin's opinions are unpleasant, but again doesn't talk about reliability. Finally literally all the ADL says is that it published an opinion piece saying “Israel Doesn’t Have a “Right to Exist”. The fact that these commentators take the time to polemicise against The Jacobin might suggest that sometimes its opinions are noteworthy, but it tells us nothing about whether it is reliable for facts. So I think these arguments keep us in option 2 territory. ] (]) 15:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1 {{small\|or 2}}''' I agree broadly with {{re\|Aquillion}}'s thoughts and think a disclaimer in the vein of ]{{RSP\|The Intercept}} would be ideal. That being said, Jacobin is not, strictly speaking, an actual news source and a part of me is uncomfortable slapping the ] label on it, even with a disclaimer. I mostly think 1 is the way to go, but I understand and accept 2. ] (]) 02:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
	* I agree with Aquillion. Reliable doesn't mean free of bias; if it did we would have no reliable sources. The CJR article should really be the end of this dispute (if there was one?) <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]</span> 07:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2'''. I don't like Jacobin, but I've never heard them to be liars or fabricators. Use with attribution, and I wouldn't use them as sole evidence of notability - it is after all primarily a magazine of opinion - ] (]) 10:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 3:''' Jacobin's clasification as unreliable would not preclude it from being used with attribution; what's important is to determine how reliable it is to be used for facts or with an editorial voice. Not only is Jacobin's bias concerning, but also its reporting. Besides the links provided by Dr. Swag Lord, to put an example, I should mention an open letter signed by around 200 Ecuadorians (), including prominent left-wing academics and activists, that criticized Jacobin and Monthly Review, which republished an article by The Grayzone, for attacking Yaku Pérez, an ecosocialist and indigenous candidate. In the case of the former, the signatories state that Jacobin overlooked Ecuador's indigenous history and ignores Yaku's "critiques of extractivist statism and monolithic personalism". This is more concerning knowing that Jacobin has quoted Alternet () and The Grayzone () in the past, sources that have been deemed as unreliable and that should be deprecated, respectively, and that Jacobin editors Hamzah Raza and Denis Rogatyuk have also contributed for the latter. --] (]) 19:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
	::The open letter is something we should take seriously as it was signed by the most distinguished scholars of Latin America. But I still think it suggests we should treat Jacobin on a case by case basis. We would never want to use it for a topic such as the Ecuadorian election, Pete Buttigieg's past or Labour antisemitism, on which there are acres of other reliable sources and it would be deeply undue to quote the Jacobin. And we would want to avoid a contributor like Denis Rogatyuk whose bylines are mostly in very low quality sources such as Telesur and Grayzone. But where we might want to use it is on a topic that is ''not'' covered by so many reliable sources such as radical history, other under-represented histories, trade union disputes or possibly socialist theory. These are topics where the contributors are often academic researchers. In addition, it occassionally publishes notable writers such as ], ], or ]. If we go with option 3, we will exclude noteworthy material on topics that are likely under-represented in mainstream sources. ] (]) 15:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1''' Concure, ] covers the policies well and there's nothing to disagree with or expand upon. ] (]) 00:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1/2'''. ] but no evidence of unreliability. Use with caution especially toward ], but any factual reporting from them ought to be accurate. -- ]]]] 01:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 3''' My cursory Google News search for phrases like "according to Jacobin" and "Jacobin reported" finds virtually no references in straight news stories in outlets we generally consider to be RS. As with all things, we should judge by what RS say; many !votes here are "seems reliable" or "I can't recall hearing about an issue with them". We, as Wikipedians, are not qualified to engage in the kind of content analysis needed to properly vet any publication, nor has anyone here shown evidence of having committed the time to do so on this publication. The scientific consensus for content analysis of online media generally suggests two constructed weeks of content be reviewed for every six months evaluated. In the absence of any editor doing that, we should not be !voting on reliability based on our gut instinct and must defer entirely to whether or not RS consider it reliable. In this case, there is no evidence they do (though, also no clear evidence they don't). ] (]) 02:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2''' possibly 3. Dr.Swag Lord's evidence is compelling. I would also point to Adfontes Media bias chart ]. Compare Jacobin to Breitbart. They have nearly identical reliability (29.93 vs 29.82 respectively) but Breitbart is actually considered less biased (-23.3 vs 17.49). This actually lands Breitbart in the second tier sources bracket vs third tier for Jacobin. Adfontes is not the end all be all but it is reasonably respected around here. ] (]) 03:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
	::AdFontes says that the Weather Channel, Forbes and the BBC are biased left and the Daily Mail is no more biased right than them, so I think it's stronger on rating reliability than it is on bias, as its idea of the middle is pretty right-wing. ] (]) 15:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
	* There is still a lack of examples of any factual inaccuracies in its coverage. This was pointed out in the last two discussions as well. To the contrary, on searching for coverage of ''Jacobin'' in reliable source, it has been for its fact checks and there are affirmatory reviews in and alongside the in-depth piece in the which has already been brought up above. On the basis of this, I would recommend '''Option 1''' with a disclaimer that it is a partisan magazine whose opinions should be attributed and coverage checked for due weight; à la '']'' {{rspe\|Reason}}. If it covers something that is not covered by any other reliable source, it is likely not due but that is not a objection against its reliability. I'm not too concerned with the criticism it has received which more so question its ideological standpoint rather than its journalistic integrity. The published in '']'' stands out as a positive to me, which criticises it for negative coverage of a socialist candidate. If anything it goes to show that the magazine is not susceptible to hyperpartisan impulses. It's use of sources also appears largely responsible, where in case of more partisan sources it tends more towards presenting a viewpoint with attribution rather than as a citation, i.e {{xt\|"This Raw Story piece reminded me of an article in the New York Times Magazine a few weeks ago."}} or {{xt\|"As the Washington Post notes, ... Or as Daily Kos’s Stephen Wolf put it, they were ..."}}, etc. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 11:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
	::I'm sorry: while I understand most of your arguments, I'm not sure if I follow the rationale about the content of the open letter. In this case, Jacobin's criticism towards Yaku Pérez, the socialist candidate, appears to be mostly due to its criticism to ], left-wing head of state and part of Latin America's ]. The author even goes as far as to say "Pérez’s political record suggests he is a Trojan horse for the left’s most bitter enemies". If this suggests that the candidate would actually help the political right-wing, it would be a proof of the contrary, that Jacobin is susceptible to hyperpartisan impulses. I tried to bring the question, among other things, on how omission by the outlet can affects its reliability, not only for being strong worded. --] (]) 22:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::Ah sorry, I did not look too closely at the context. My specific point regarding hyper-partisanship doesn't stand anymore considering it but nor does it affirm it the other way around. Them taking a position in an internecine competition doesn't tell us anything about their reliability. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 09:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1''' With 2 as my second choice. None of the purported evidence of their unreliability presented here makes a compelling case, and I've seen them write stories on par with other reliable sources. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 15:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1''' and attribute (in most cases). No specific case has been provided for unreliability. The main contentions are 1) that it has a pronounced bias, 2) that it cites sources we deem unreliable, and 3) based on some Ecuador election things. For 1) bias affects reliability only insofar as it actually affects reliability. For 2) the sourcing requirements we use on Misplaced Pages are quite specific to this community, and they really do not apply to the sources we use. Assuming ''Jacobin'' editorial oversight restricts citation to specific dodgy articles within a broader publication, there is not issue with them citing those broader sources. And 3) I confess I haven't dug too deep into this, but a brief glance at the article and reflection on the comments here seem to show that this is a left-wing political kerfuffle, rather than an issue of reliable sourcing.
	: Now for a positive case for reliability, based mostly on a sampling of uses from various sources:
	:# The outlet has a with 10+ full-time editors, 10+ contributing editors, and a separate editorial board.
	:# Reliable news outlets rely on ''Jacobin'' for quotes, implying that they are reliable at least as far as being trustworthy for not making things up.
	:# Peer-reviewed academic works cite ''Jacobin'' for statements of fact about topics including protest movements, international economics, and the history of various political movements.
	:# Sources on the American right cite ''Jacobin'' for statements of fact, implying at least limited acceptance across the aisle (though, to be fair, usually used to make ironic points--but taking ''Jacobin'''s statements as true, if politically inflected). Right-wing publications also use ''Jacobin'' to represent the perspective of the left.
	{{collapse top\|title=UBO examples}}
	Palgrave Macmillan peer-reviewed academic works:
	* In ''Body/Sex/Work: Intimate, Embodied and Sexualized Labour''. Cited without in-text attribution to discuss how feminism and sex work interact

	Bristol University Press:
	* inline to discuss the effect of COVID-19 on actions of international financial institutions.

	] (just a grad student journal, but article by editorial board)):
	* inline to describe racial diversity in George Floyd protests.

	Wits University Press:
	* to describe the effects of unemployment on workers, specifically in the context of African development patterns

	AK Press (radical left publisher):
	*Cited with in-text attribution in ''Taking Sides'' to discuss details of protester behaviours during the US Ferguson protests

	PM Press (offshoot of AK press):
	*Footnote in ''RE:imagining change'' suggests a ''Jacobin'' article analyzing Murray Bookchin in a modern context
	*Referenced in ''Beyond Crisis'' to describe the effects of austerity policy

	]:
	* On pharmaceutical industry vaccine development

	] peer-reviewed by ] listed among notable journals ]:
	* to describe student-led protest movements in Brazil

	Springer's ]:
	* :"The fifth panel in Figure 2 concerns MMT's disingenuity about the role and necessity of taxes. That disingenuity has been emphasized by Marxists and left-wing economists"

	Sage's ] (peer-reviewed since 1988):
	* in discussion of historical militancy in labor unions

	Sage's ] (peer-reviewed since 1984):
	*, about rank-and-file organizing. Included as an example of intellectual argument/analysis on organizing history and strategy

	Sage's ] (peer-reviewed urban studies since 1965):
	* in article on patterns of policing, supporting a statement about how police stops have been related to increased dependence of police budgets on fees.


	NYT:
	* Used as blurb for a recommended book -> weighty for book reviews.
	* An article was analyzed in NYT's "Opinionator". The article in question was first published in Jacobin and later syndicated in ''Slate'', described by Gordon Marino as "a much discussed article" -> Some specific articles are notable in themselves, lending support for possible RSOPINION status.

	Slate:
	* Designated as 'supplementary reading' for Slate's podcast on fascism to describe fascist movements in the United States. -> reliable for historical statements on fascism

	Vox:
	*: Cited, linked, and attributed for statements about housing density and city development
	* Linked to represent the political perspectives of the American left

	Vice:
	*: Brought up a participant in a back-and-forth over political matters
	*: Linked to show left critique of media
	*: Linked for media criticism of a specific film (The Hunger Games)

	New Yorker:
	*: Providing analysis of Bernie Sanders's political orientation

	Politico:
	*: Fully quoted and attributed to explain a possible pattern of USA nonvoter behaviours
	*: Quoting interview
	*: Quoting interview

	The Baffler:
	*: Cited and attributed to describe trends in consumer materialism/anti-materialism
	*: Used as an example of left attitudes on central planning
	*: Says that ''Jacobin'' is better for extended coverage of contemporary labor issues than most media

	Fox (note: no consensus on politics/science):
	* basically just summarized a Jacobin article to describe the perspective of the left on Kamala Harris.
	* interview

	The Federalist:
	* and quoted for statements on single-payer healthcare. (Note: This usage seems like a stretch on The Federalist's part.)
	* an interview.

	The Bulwark:
	* to explain what "abolish the police" means.
	{{collapse bottom}}
	: It should be recognized that this collection cannot give a full picture of use, but it does give illustrative examples of how ''Jacobin'' is used in context. These examples demonstrate both the wide usage of ''Jacobin'' in news RS and peer-reviewed literature.
	: I have tried my best for the journals to identify specifically peer-reviewed works from reasonably recognized journals, though I may have missed the mark since I am not a subject-matter expert.
	: Based on the lack of opposing argument, the positive arguments suggested above, and my presentation of the combination of robust ''Jacobin'' editorial support and robust use in the literature, I suggest that the source can be treated as generally reliable. I am open to specific examples showing otherwise, but these have not been shown so far (beyond political disputes and biased titles).
	: ] (]) 02:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

	*'''Option 1''' It is a respected magazine with authors who are published in major reliable sources. Bear in mind that opinion and analysis articles are not reliable sources wherever they are published unless written by experts and facts and opinions reported in the magazine usually fail weight unless they are published in many sources. As a minor publication with little news coverage, I would not expect it to be widely used as a source. But there are cases where it could be useful. ] (]) 03:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

	*'''Option 1:''' Though RfCs are somewhat new to me (not sure if RfC openers can do this), the observations by multiple users appear to support ''Jacobin'' as a generally reliable source. {{u\|Jlevi}} has noted the editorial prowess of the magazine as well as its acceptance across the political spectrum and academia. However, I will expand on recognizing some concerns.

	:It seems these are the main concerns:
	:*Bias: Users often hear the "every source is biased" phrase and this obviously applies to ''Jacobin'' as well. There are also ''multiple'' generally reliable sources regarded as having some bias, including ], the ], '']'', ], '']'', '']'' and '']''. This bias should not discount ''Jacobin'''s value as a reliable source regarding left-wing and socialist viewpoints. This bias can be noted in its entry just the same as the previously mentioned sources.
	:*Use of unreliable sources: As {{u\|NoonIcarus}} has mentioned, some articles mention Alternet, Grayzone and possibly other dubious sources. Though one can say that a broken clock is right twice a day, the use of these two sources in particular seems to be too common among left wing publications from what I have seen in my brief research, unfortunately. However, ] – which has previously been deemed generally reliable – has , even describing Breitbart as "". There is also the issue with contributors and opinion pieces, though I will elaborate on this next. As with other generally reliable sources, we can include a comment to make sure content is properly attributed.
	:*Contributors/Opinon: As with any other publication or source, there are going to be contributors and opinion pieces. These are usually not treated as statements of fact according to ]. This is one of ''Jacobin'''s shortcomings as it can be difficult to decipher whether an article is from a contributor or staff. For example, {{u\|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d}} shared an article by '']'' that reviews some opinion articles regarding Venezuela, such as one from ], though these are just that; opinion articles. Many of these articles were not written by ''Jacobin'' staff. If included in ], it would be important to note that users should observe what is opinion, similar to the WP:RSP entry of '']''.

	:In conclusion, ''Jacobin'' appears to be a biased, though generally reliable source. Ways to identify their opinion articles may not be so apparent, though their work is respected across the political spectrum and overseen by a large editorial board as noted by {{u\|Jlevi}}. If added to the ] list, I recommend an entry similar to '']'', stating something such as "There is consensus that ''Jacobin'' is generally reliable. The magazine identifies as socialist on its website. Most editors consider ''Jacobin'' a ] whose statements should be attributed. Ensure that ] are observed and utilized appropriately".--] (]) 08:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

	* '''Option 1 or 2''', although I will note that almost all of what they publish is opinion so most of it isn’t of much use to us unless the opinion holder is notable or useful for something. ] (]) 07:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

	* '''Option 2''' I have not come across any claims of their unreliability or publication of false/fabricated information. They do however have a notable left-leaning political stance and don't seem to clearly distinguish between news reporting and opinion pieces. I think attribution may sometimes be necessary when it comes to some of their more polemical articles, but otherwise I'd consider them to be generally reliable. --] (]) 12:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

	* '''Option 1/2'''. We must bear in mind this is a partisan source, definitely. Unfortunately a lot of what they publish is less of investigative journalism and more opinions/editorials, so we should tread here carefully to distinguish fact and opinion, which is also a feature of quite a lot of news outlets of a similar level of bias. That said, the factual accuracy has not been credibly asserted to be low enough not to merit a generally reliable descriptor; the ] argument by Jlevi is convincing for me (at least the sources actually refer to Jacobin), and this magazine has quite a lot of interesting insights into the left (such as the recent article about ] govt in ] in 1970s), if opinionated. Probably ''The Nation'' is a better alternative, but ''Jacobin'' doesn't seem bad at the end of the day. ] (]) 02:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

	* '''Option 1''' Although Jacobin's articles skew heavily toward opinion/analysis, they're supported by facts that have been cited by top-tier sources. Caveats regarding weight and attribution are unnecessary; like any reliable source, we use statements of opinion with attribution and statements of fact without. –] ] 02:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

	* '''Option 1''', with the summary containing the qualification provided by WMrapids. I'm fully convinced by the points by Aquillion (reliable ]), Jlevi (strong reputation as demonstrated by UBO) and WMrapids (particularly regarding the applicability of ]); I'm not seen any evidence compelling evidence put forward to suggest unreliability/factual inaccuracy. As a second, lesser preference, option 2 on the basis that BIASED says opinionated sources are reliable in ''specific context'', and per points above by Dr.Swag Lord, TFD & Horse Eye's Back made about its predominantly opinion-based output making its use situational (i.e. additional considerations), although I think this is would be inconsistent with the approach we've taken with other biased but usable sources of both left and right-wing dispositions, particularly the Intercept & Fox News, again a point best made by WMrapids but also others. ] • ] 13:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

	* '''Option 2.''' As far as I can tell, Jacobin publishes mostly op-eds. The reliability of the op-eds should be judged on the basis of the author's expertise and the claims put forth in the op-ed. If claims are extraordinary and made by an author who is not an expert on the subject, then the source should not be considered sufficient to include the content. To say the Jacobin is Option 1 is like saying the NY Times editorial pages are generally reliable. ] (]) 17:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

	* '''Option 1 and 2.''' As long as the story is factual and can be validated then Jaconin can be used as a reliable source. It shouldn't just be discredited automatically because it has bias. Every media has bias including mainstream media. A good example is the one article from Jacobin that talks about the media blackout on Assange. When a major witness recuited by the US had admitted that he had lied about Assange, the mainstream media has largely ignored it. <ref>https://www.jacobinmag.com/2021/07/julian-assange-iceland-witness-sigurdur-thordarson</ref> There is no reason for the mainstream media to shun such a bombshell story and also the Jacobin story indeed checks out. https://www.democracynow.org/2021/6/28/julian_assange_extradition_case. So it seems like they are an ivaluable source as they are willing to point out real info that is largely ignored by the mainstream media outlets and as long as their articles are strongly backed by facts from top tier sources, then they have done wrong to deserve the label of unrealible source IMO] (]) 05:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
	{{reftalk}}

	* '''Bad RfC'''. Somewhere in all this there might be some serious discussion about a dispute where Jacobin is used or misused in a specific Misplaced Pages article, if so bring it up separately. Pseudo-voting on this page won't overturn or confirm WP:NOTCENSORED, Jacobin is an opinion magazine. ] (]) 13:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
	:*{{re\|Peter Gulutzan}} The entire RfC is based on usage in recently edited articles (which you can see in the initial inquiry). This should be sufficient enough for an RfC as the intention was determining whether the source, ''Jacobin'', was reliable and appropriate to be included in the project.--] (]) 21:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::Basing an entire RfC on "usage", as if being used justifies an RfC, increases the objectionability. I did look at the "initial inquiry" and searched the talk pages of the named articles, Pedro Castillo and Peruvian General Election, for evidence of a dispute about "Jacobin". I didn't find it. ] (]) 14:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

	* '''Option 1''' because it is generally reliable per the following media bias fact checkers who rate Jacobin as having a left bias, but high factual reliability:
	:-
	:-
	:-
	:-
	:––]<sup>(])</sup> 01:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2''' - I wouldn't use it for any claims of fact, but there are some circumstances where it can be used to sources opinions with attribution.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

	*'''Bad RFC''' - We should not be rating things just for the sake of rating things, which is essentially what the nom is trying to do here. We risk rating the source as reliable (or not) when the issue is unimportant because "sure, why not?" and thus giving the impression that a source (which in this case is an opinions mag) is reliable in all contexts. The perennial sources list is for ''perennial sources'', meaning sources that are discussed perennially, not just once with no actual contentious matter discussed. It is not sufficient that the source be used X number of times (and less than a thousand cites is not in any sense common usage on Wiki - we have deprecated sources that are still used more times than that). ] (]) 16:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2''' It sometimes mix factual news with opinion, it can be used with attribution. ] (]) 16:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

	== Links to World Gazetteer don't work ==

	:''{{grey\|Moved to ]}}''

	== RfC: reliability of ] versus ]'s user generated information ==

	<!-- ] 00:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1629331319}}
	{{rfc\|econ\|rfcid=E9E4EC8}}
	Should ] be treated differently than ] on the reliable sources noticeboard? Here's a link to an earlier discussion I tried to start without making it an RfC, and it had a limited response: ] And here's a link to the page describing the difference between Crunchbase and Crunchbase News, trying to show journalistic independence. ] ] ] ] 23:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

	:Well, it selects journalists and signs up to an ethical policy. It's clearly not user-generated content, although that doesn't necessarily mean it's reliable. It doesn't appear to advertise a complaints process or policy. On reliability, how does Crunchbase News compare to sources like Techcrunch? ] (]) 14:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
	:: You can click on {{duses\|news.crunchbase.com}} to see all the different Crunchbase News articles that are used as sources on Misplaced Pages, to decide whether you think they are reliable or not. In my experience, the news reporting, both with Crunchbase News and TechCrunch, is reliable, and no more promotional than other reliable sources. They combine company announcements with interviews and independent reporting. The reason this is someone important is because another editor is mass removing all Crunchbase sources, based on a determination that the main Crunchbase is unreliable, and has included at least one Crunchbase News article as well. ] ] ] 16:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
	::It may be no more promotional than many other sources we use, but that's not saying much. If it's a RS, then that only applies to the independent reporting-.''']''' (]) 18:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::Agreed, which is why each source must be considered on a case by case basis, in the context that it's used. But we certainly don't want blanket wholesale removal of Crunchbase News sources, based on an unrelated determination that user generated Crunchbase is unreliable. And IMHO, even though it's a different conversation, Crunchbase is no more or less reliable than IMDB. Much is user generated, but the underlying info can be easily checked with independent sources. For example, Crunchbase reports on total funding by adding up the different rounds. If three reliable sources say that series A, B and C were $10M, $20M and $70M in order, and then Crunchbase says total funding to date is $100M, it's easier to source the aggregate total using Crunchbase than hunting down the three different announcements in third party press. That should be considered reliable, yet that's the type of info that is being wholesale removed. But first things first - back to Crunchbase News. ] ] ] 23:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::Yeah, I don't know why Crunchbase is deprecated, since I agree it's equivalent to IMDb. Deprecation is a bit arbitrary, though. Techcrunch is okay but it can be a bit promotional. At minimum I wouldn't use Techcrunch to source controversial information, or to source things that sound too hyped up or futuristic, and am unsure if they ever do straight PR. Sourcing a fundraising amount or owners of a company? Seems fine. Sourcing information in ], or some related exceptional claim about a company? Ehh... ] (]) 19:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::::The IMDB isn't an independent source, so if Crunchbase is like that, it's a good thing it's not accepted as a source. Crunchbase News seems to be run differently from Crunchbase, though, so whether it's an independent source depends on who writes the news, whether they fact-check the information, whether the content is sponsored by the companies being written about, etc. A proper news source should have a clear editorial policy. If the company obscures this kind of information, there may be reason for concern.—] (]) 18:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::::Crunchbase News claims an editorial policy, but almost the entire content is press release churnalism - ] (]) 19:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::Here’s their editorial policy. ] Seems pretty straightforward to me. Even Forbes uses their coverage in their articles. ] ] ] 19:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

	TechCrunch isn't a clear RS - it's yellow-rated, because it's boosterism that fails ] per previous discussions, linked from ]. There's no reason to presume Crunchbase News should be treated as an in the clear NEWSORG, given its parent fails to clear the bar.

	There's no discussion yet of the actual usages of Crunchbase News on Misplaced Pages. We have 82 usages of Crunchbase News. The content used is mostly barely-churned press releases (''e.g.'', ) with a bit of the sort of "analysis" that's indistinguishable from boosterism (''e.g.'', ). You'd have to be really stretching to consider this in any way comparable to independent third-party journalism on the companies.

	Even if we declare that the "news" site isn't technically deprecated, it's the sort of stuff that's at best a slightly worse version of the primary sources it's based on. Unusable for notability - it's precisely the sort of promotional boosterism that leads to funding rounds having been considered not usable for notability or ] - and barely usable for facts.

	I should note also: going through the Crunchbase backlog, a disproportionate number of these articles are just corporate spam, or barely above that. I keep hitting things warranting PRODs and speedies, orphans created by an SPA and not substantively edited in the several years since their creation, undisclosed paid editing, etc. I keep having to apply {{tl\|advert}} and/or {{tl\|puffery}} tags. Even in non-spam articles, Crunchbase or Crunchbase News adds information primarily of interest to the company's boardroom.

	As far as Misplaced Pages goes, Crunchbase is in practice a trashy source largely used for puffery, and looking for Crunchbase links is a good way to track down promotional editing - ] (]) 08:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
	:{{re\|David Gerard}} Thanks for sharing your perspective. I also spend a lot of time editing company articles, and I think you can find paid editing by tracking any publication. I'll take another shot at clarifying the difference between Crunchbase and Crunchbase News. The former is a highly visible crowdsourced data repository that summarizes company information in one place, and the info can be easily checked and corrected. Like Bloomberg, they make their money selling access to the info, but thanks to crowdsourcing and open access to the data, Crunchbase is more up to date. For my VC friends, Crunchbase is their go-to source for funding info. Crunchbase info is collected like Misplaced Pages, except at Misplaced Pages, it's considered more reliable because we show our sources. Crunchbase News is an independent news organization that, like any other media outlet, might use a press release as the starting point of any story, but they also add independent reporting and info they get from interviews. I'm curious if you have any examples of any of the info you removed from articles that was sourced using either Crunchbase or Crunchbase News being incorrect, and not simply because the info changed since it was originally added to our articles? Just as an example, the first item you linked, which sourced Greenlight Financial's $215 Series C, was actually used as a source by Forbes in its followup coverage, confirming the info you removed.] If it's good enough for Forbes, it should be good enough for us, right? Nonetheless, I'd be OK with adding a separate line to the reliable sources noticeboard for Crunchbase News and assigning it the same yellow rating as Techcrunch. That way, its reporting can be considered on a case by case basis and not blanket removed. ] ] ] 22:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
	::I'd say Misplaced Pages has nothing to be gained by adding Crunchbase News, except more corporate spam. And TechCrunch should be moved to "generally unreliable" in the manner of a tabloid that hasn't been caught actually ''fabricating'' information, but whose content is basically trash. Because it, and Crunchbase News, are basically trash. You were seriously claiming these could be placed with reliable NEWSORGs, and that's just incorrect. They are press-release churnalism that should be removed from Misplaced Pages, and absolutely not encouraged - ] (]) 14:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::Can you address my points? ] ] ] 05:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::Your proposals don't propose anything that would add to independent third-party RS coverage in Misplaced Pages. I don't think either belongs as a source in Misplaced Pages except in unusual circumstances, for the reasons I stated. Do you understand why churnalism is only a slight laundering of straight-up press releases, and is a net negative to Misplaced Pages that should not be enabled or encouraged? - ] (]) 09:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::: The source you surprisingly removed again from Crunchbase News in spite of this discussion being ongoing was used to show where the subject’s company was located, and how many people it had. ] Are you implying that that information is incorrect? And indeed, would you please show me the inaccuracies in any of the sources you are mass removing right now, so we can see the harm you are claiming? I already showed above how one source you don’t like ] was used by Forbes, so please address that. ] ] ] 18:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::::Yes, I removed it editorially with due consideration as churnalism - that is, a press release reprint being presented to readers as a journalistic source of quality, which it isn't. Do you understand why churnalism is only a slight laundering of straight-up press releases, and is a net negative to Misplaced Pages that should not be enabled or encouraged? - ] (]) 19:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::: I don't see the problem with using it for such noncontroversial information. ] (]) 04:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Related RFC:''' ] - ] (]) 10:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

	== RfC - ] ==

	<!-- ] 13:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1629378082}}
	{{rfc\|prop\|rfcid=6C1C459}}

	I’ve been researching Indian institutions in the past couple of weeks for a personal project. I noticed that ] has been used as a reference on Indian-related pages and came here to check its credibility. I first spotted it on the ]. After that, I found it on a few other pages, as seen below.

	]
	]

	There doesn’t seem to be anything controversial about the coverage that I’ve found so far, but I’m a bit unsure about its editorial standards and therefore accuracy. Should its use as a reference be discouraged or is it okay to use? ] (]) 12:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
	:{{u\|FelixFLB}}, I'm not sure if this qualifies for an RfC. There hasn't been any previous discussion on it and there is no visible dispute over its use.
	:
	:Regarding the source itself, I am familiar with it and in my opinion it's a tabloid equivalent in financial news. I would recommend skepticism towards it in general and avoiding it in anything that might appear to be controversial. Their coverage can be quite misleading at times, for instance they tend to sensationalise the initiation of any investigation or even mundane penalties as a primer to a big "scam". There are also potential BLP issues in there. <s>That said, I don't remember them reporting something that's outright false, so I would say its reliability is something along the lines of "additional considerations apply".</s> <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 14:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
	::My concern is similar to yours, is it just a tabloid-style publication or is it worse than that. I also found ], who seems to be the Chief Editor. She refers to herself as a . I get the feeling the more I look at it that it's just a blog for her dressed up as a major publication? I've continued looking into this, so will post a more in-depth comment shortly. ] (]) 15:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

	'''Comment''' - To expand on my initial post, ] and ] made allegations about ] in 2015, which can viewed on Misplaced Pages ]. It led to a defamation lawsuit by NSE against the publication shortly afterward. Moneylife then set up a dedicated topic on its website where it lists various articles about the stock exchange and even has the topic in its navigation bar (seems highly unethical?). The majority of the articles in the topic/section are titled "scam" or "illegal." ] (]) 15:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
	:{{u\|FelixFLB}}, okay looking at their coverage of the NSE colocation controversy, I'll revise what I had stated before and just say that they are generally unreliable, i.e should not be used anywhere. There are glaring inaccuracies in these articles, for instance the site calls it an "algorithm scam", colocation itself has nothing to do with the use of algorithms in trading. There are articles in there which practically allege fraud and malpractice against officials at NSE and state that NSE was fined by SEBI due to that. The allegations themselves are unproven, if it were otherwise they would face jail time, SEBI dropped the charges and never took it to court, NSE was fined for not implementing adequate safeguards against exploits in the system.
	:
	:Although the site isn't per se a blog (has multiple authors and supposedly has an editorial process), this is blog quality, probably worse. The NSE article also needs some cleanup. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 18:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
	::I agree with a lot of that. This was the main article today on the , again about NSE. No other news outlet seems to have picked it up, and the grammar is terrible. ''"brokers have a membership of the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) they are suspended by that exchange too."'' ] (]) 14:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::I've been going through some of their recent articles and here are a few observations from that. They seems to have a disproportionate focus on the stock market, most of it is not attributed to any author but to "staff", there's poor research and frequent typos. This is neither really a financial news outlet or a personal finance website, and their editorial oversight is clearly inadequate.
	:::
	:::Honestly, it appears somewhat predatory, as in its content looks like its targeted towards a specific type of small stock traders who are apprehensive of institutions and larger players. They have this , which does not invoke confidence. They just repeatedly state that they are not liable for the accuracy of their material. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 19:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

	The actual reliability of a source is it's expertise and objectivity with respect to the item which cited it. IMO any overall generalization about any source is faulty. Such should be eliminated and certainly not expanded. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 23:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

	== RFC Tghat.com ==

	<!-- ] 06:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1629525682}}
	{{rfc\|prop\|rfcid=66E2464}}

	Greetings! Can you all weigh in on the reliability of this source > https://www.tghat.com/victim-list/ and whether it's should be deprecated or blacklisted? It is being used for articles related to Tigray war (claimed) massacres such as ], ] (]) 05:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

	*] {{diff\|Adi_Hageray_massacre\|1030074531\|1016690461\|diff}} source 2 and 4 is supporting the ''perpetrators'' and ''victims'' section. Issue: It's based on Tghat sources, not published elsewhere, no external sources.
	*The vast majority on the Tghat list are without any external sources claiming ‘family of victims’ or ‘relatives and witnesses, email’ as source.
	*The second most numerous source mentioned are links to social media posts(facebook & twitter posts), it is also using Assena TV as a source, but this is also a twitter link https://twitter.com/AtvAsena/status/1368960273831301123
	*Then it's followed by opinion sites & self published sources such as Ethiopia insight(same source mentioned twice) https://www.ethiopia-insight.com/2021/02/03/for-years-i-opposed-the-tplf-but-i-also-oppose-this-war-on-tigray/ & Tigray Online which links it to a pdf (same pdf used as source 10 times) http://www.tigraionline.com/ethio-eritrean-crimes-in-za-anbessa.pdf
	*Depracated source Dailymail is mentioned at least 3 times (same source used 3 times) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-9054001/Terrified-survivors-recount-attacks-civilians-Tigray.html
	*Then there are very few sources linked to humanitarian organizations or news sites such as ] but here you will find also discrepancies between TGHAT list which claims 31 victims and is listed twice using the same MSF source, the external MSF source which reported 3 victims. https://www.doctorswithoutborders.ca/article/ethiopia-horrified-brutal-murder-three-msf-colleagues Another one is the Telegraph, however the same source is posted 4 times on the list https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/terror-and-security/bodies-torn-pieces-ethiopian-eritrean-troops-accused-massacre/ Ethiopian Human Rights Comission is mentioned 24 times(same source 24 times) which is one pdf source published by Addis Standards https://addisstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Brief-Monitoring-Report-Humera-Dansha-and-Bissober-.pdf

	The very few reliable sources are mentioned several times over on the list, seemingly to inflate the number of reliable source, even inflated it makes less than 10%(estimate) of the list.

	The Tghat source is also used at ], ], ], ] and potentially more articles, where they cite Tghat ''Relatives and Eyewitnesses'' which has no external sources beyond Tghat.

	] (]) 05:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

	:No apparent editorial oversight; this appears to be a place for people to go to self-report. I would say it should never be used directly by WP, and I'd be surprised if reliable sources are using it for more than digging out anecdotal reports. ] (]) 09:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

	::Tghat (https://www.tghat.com/) is a relatively new news site based on community (redacted) contributions.

	::The argument made here is that Tghat’s verified list of civilian victims of the ] (https://www.tghat.com/victim-list/) and Tghat's article on the ] (https://www.tghat.com/2021/03/19/a-preliminary-report-on-an-adi-hageray-massacre/) would not be reliable, and should not be used as WP references.

	::For the Adi Hageray article the argument is that its content isn't reported by any other independent media outlet and so should not be taken as reliable. I am not aware, indeed, of any other media outlet reporting on that; unfortunately the war situation and censorship by the Ethiopian Media Authority (https://twitter.com/EUinEthiopia/status/1415692335099305994) make access to and reporting of massacres a difficult task.
	::Yet, there is sufficient evidence that Tghat is duly checking the veracity of the information and that they do a serious effort to make sure documentation of massacres is accurate. Here are some examples of massacres documented by Tghat and by international media, where, thanks to their local network, Tgat was first to document the massacre.
	::*An article in ] on the Abuna Yemata massacre (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/01/eritrean-soldiers-killed-19-civilians-in-latest-tigray-atrocity-locals-claim - 1 June 2021) confirms Tghat's article about the same massacre (https://www.tghat.com/2021/05/24/a-massacre-in-abuna-yemata-guh-at-the-foot-of-the-famous-rock-hewn-church/ - 24 May 2021).
	::*Shortly after its occurrence, Tghat reported the ] (https://tghat.com/2021/01/12/massacres-in-bora-selewa-and-debre-abay/ - 12 January 2021; and then https://tghat.com/2021/02/08/a-graphic-footage-of-the-debre-abay-massacre-what-do-we-know-about-it/ on 8 February 2021); it became world news after a further detailed and graphic article in ] (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/19/should-have-finished-survivors-ethiopian-army-implicated-brutal/ 19 February 2021).
	::*Tghat first reported the Bora massacre (https://tghat.com/2021/01/12/massacres-in-bora-selewa-and-debre-abay/ - 12 January 2021; and with more detail on 12 March: https://www.tghat.com/2021/03/12/the-bora-massacre/); Tghat’s initial reporting proved true, as can be read in the ] on 19 March 2021 (https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-03-19/ethiopia-tigray-war-massacre-bora).
	::Hence the facts reported by Tghat were later confirmed by media outlets. We can conclude that reliable sources are using Tghat for more than digging out anecdotal reports. And also that, so far, internationally recognised journalists reporting on massacres in the ] never contradicted Tghat’s findings.

	::On the victim list, the argument is that Tghat’s sources are the family of victims and social media. The information on victims whose sources are family or relatives are confirmed by Tghat calling them. Information including relevant social media posts by family members and friends are kept because they are useful contacts for future investigations.
	::Tghat’s victims list is a sourceless list, mainly because no media has been allowed for months and even when allowed, they couldn't do too much stories because of the security situation. Victim collection initiatives in other conflicts also rely heavily on accurate keeping of personal contributions.

	::Until ] comes up with information/data that contradicts Tghat’s reported massacres or victim list, or provides other hard evidence that this painstaking accounting of massacres and victims is flawed, Tghat should be considered as a reliable and even one of the top sources when it comes to ]. ] (]) 08:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

	:::Rastakwere's summary is fair: Tghat is often the first to report specific ], and its reporting is later followed up by mainstream Western media and by academic sources, with no obvious significant discrepancies. There does appear to be editorial oversight.{{pb}}Regarding the specific comment by Dawit {{tq\|Ethiopian Human Rights Comission is mentioned 24 times(same source 24 times) which is one pdf source published by Addis Standards (sic)}}: the ] (EHRC) has since former political prisoner ]'s nomination as its head. It unfortunately only publishes its reports, such as the , on a ]-run ] instead of on its own website, but that doesn't make it an unreliable source - it only shows that the EHRC lacks basic internet skills and understanding. However, the fact that ] ("Standard", not "Standards"; a major Ethiopian English-language newspaper with a reputation for independence from the various federal governments that Ethiopia has had) hosts (same ]) adds to the EHRC's credibility rather than weakens it. Tghat publishes its victim list on the same GAFAM-run etherpad; this again is unwise and violates both authors' and readers' privacy and security, but it does not make the general reporting itself unreliable. ] (]) 16:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::I'm concerned that the victims list published by Tghat seems to be primarily sourced from Facebook. ] (]) 17:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::Basing a list off Facebook is of concern.] (]) 18:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

	:::::Look i feel really bad responding to this, i even feel guilty to some extent discussing about war crimes and victims and i even thought about foregoing this discussion, hoewever since i iniated this discussion because of all the reasons mentioned above, i'm hoping Rastakwere can adress the concerns i mentioned earlier such as the discrepancy when Tghat cites the very few reliable sources and gives a different casualty number on the Tghat site, than from the reliable source.●@] if you read carefully i never doubted the EHRC & Addis Standard as a reliable source i mentioned them as the few reliable sources on Tghat, hoewever the EHRC has been mentioned in the Tghat list 24 times for the same event. I just pointed out Tghat inflating the mention of reliable sources by listing the same event and the same source more than twice. With that said i will now respond to ] summary:
	:::::*Your first point about supposed confirmed by Guardian, Quote: ''The testimony comes primarily from three individuals but is difficult to confirm in all its aspects.'' it is more appropriate to say it's alleged, not confirmed. Also question marks about the content of Tghat report vs the Guardian report.
	:::::*I have no acces to the telegraph, but i'm interested in reading it, so i'm going to ask Misplaced Pages Resource Exchange whether they can provide the article. I'm also interested to see whether this ''World News'' has been reported by other reliable sources. '''Update''' i received the article thanks to Resourche Exchange. This article mentions Quote: ''a pro-Tigrayan
	blog reported Ethiopian soldiers had killed 100 civilians at the same monastery on Jan 5.'' no credit given to Tghat by name and not corresponding with the date given by @], but i stress, there's no doubt killings happend at Debre Abay since this is a video footage, and according to the article under investigation by EHRC.
	:::::*About the Bora massacre, the LA times describes Tghat as quote: ''Tghat, a news site run by pro-TPLF activists, reported on the Bora killings Jan. 12, along with another massacre that reportedly took place in an area called Debre Abay.'' puts into question about the neutrality of Tghat as a source. The LA report also said, quote: ''“However, the verification of this information was, and remains, extremely challenging,” Pau Sole said.'' so probably more appropriate to say it's alleged. I searched whether it has been reported by a reliable source elsewhere, it has been mentioned in a opinion piece by the Guardian ], don't know if this falls under the Guardian blogs https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Also question marks about the content of Bora report by Tghat vs that of LA times.

	:::::For all the reasons mentioned above, i think it would be better to mention directly mention reliable sources than through Tghat ] (]) 18:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

	::::::'''Clarification needed:''' The original posting of this RfC leads to confusion about whether the discussion is about the reliability of Tghat in general, or Tghat's victim list. I think that further comments should clarify if they're about ''Tghat'' or rather about ''Tghat's victim list''. My main comment above was about ''Tghat'' in general, not about the victim list, though I did comment in my side comment that posting the victim list on a GAFAM-run etherpad is unwise. The victim list itself is in the spirit of the ]. ] (]) 19:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::::'''Clarification given:''' It's about Tghat in general that is why i put Tghat.com in the title, but i specified the problem of the victim list because it was actually used as a source on several articles(mentioned above and potentially other articles) which has not been mentioned by any reliable/indepedent sources at all. Here's for example a preliminary report published by Tghat based on eyewithness accounts ] & ] the same is on the victims list, ''Relatives and eyewitneses'' without external sources. So Tghat and the victims list are interlinked. ] (]) 20:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

	== RfC: ''Business Insider'' music coverage ==

	<!-- ] 15:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1629817282}}
	{{rfc\|media\|rfcid=FB464F6}}
	Is '']'' (renamed ''Insider'' in February 2021) generally ] for its popular music coverage (reviews, ratings, etc.)? Example , example , . --] <sup>]</sup> 14:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
	:FYI here is the most recent RfC on this source. ] I'm not sure if there is any reason to consider their reliability on popular music coverage separately. ] (]) 17:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
	*Please see my responses below in the survey. In short, this RfC was intended to be narrower in scope than the last one to hopefully achieve some consensus around its reliability in a topic area. I unfortunately had bad luck in wording it. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
	===Survey (Business Insider)===
	* '''Sure, why not''', since ratings/reviews are all subjective anyway. It's reliable for the opinion of the publication or the author, which is the same as any other review of a piece of art. I would say it's mainstream enough where it's views could reasonably be of note in the reception section of an article, which is the real question. ] (]) 18:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
	* Reviews and ratings are not a reliability issue. Any source is self-evidently reliable for their own opinion pieces, which is what reviews and ratings are. Whether or not any one review or rating or any other opinion is ''relevant'' to a particular article is a discussion for another venue, but strictly speaking, a source publishing its own opinion on a subject is ''always'' perfectly reliable for Misplaced Pages text that reports that opinion. --]] 18:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
	* '''Clearly permitted under ] and ].''' I can't put it more clearly or succinctly than the first two respondents, but just for the sake of registering my support: ] sources are always valid as regards their own perspectives and the need for editorial controls simply doesn't apply in these circumstances. As Jayron notes, whether a particular review is useful and appropriate under the ] and ] tests in any given instance is a separate question that needs to be addressed by ] in each case, but for a certainty, there is no compelling high level reason to establish a ban on such reviews from this one outlet, any more than there would be for any other source providing a subjective artistic critique of any work. This is kind of so self-evident under our basic policies on sourcing that I wonder about the history that brought this inquiry here. ''] ]'' 21:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
	*:{{re\|Snow Rise}} I apparently seldom have much luck wording RfCs. I saw that BI was "no consensus" at RSP following its status being raised as a question at ], so wanted to see if we could get some consensus for a narrower scope RfC to a topic area. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
	*::{{re\|GA-RT-22\|Jayron32\|ScottishFinnishRadish}} ^ --] <sup>]</sup> 22:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
	*::Ah, I see: in that context the narrow-purpose RfC makes sense, as it will give clarity for anyone who might have non-]/] uses in mind. Good call! ''] ]'' 03:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
	* '''Yes''' for statements attributed to their authors. Obviously. So you can say "Jane Doe of Business Insider says this is the best song ever written." But you can't say "This is the best song ever written" and source that to Jane Doe's review. For statements of fact I would use it, but carefully. "This song was recorded in 2014" is probably ok. "Taylor Swift was drunk when she wrote this song" I would leave out unless I had another source. ] (]) 21:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
	* It is probably as good as most other sites reviewing music, which is to say pretty bad. ] (]) 07:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
	*This is a question of ] really, not "reliability" for subjective opinions. So this really isn't the board for that - ] (]) 07:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
	* '''Yes.''' Business Insider is a site that publishes reviews and reports news, just like any other music publication. Their articles are fine as sources as long as it comes with attribution. ] (]) 09:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
	* '''Yes''' - being aware of ] distinction in any review between facts and the evaluation of the author as said by GA-RT-22... A “recorded in 2014” is fact “best ever” is their opinion. Cheers ] (]) 15:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
	*''Yes'' - Reliable depending of course on context, including for notability. ] (]) 16:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
	* '''Yes''' Ratings and reviews are the opinion of the author and Business Insider is like any other sites that do reviews. ] (]) 20:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
	* '''Yes''' So long as it comes with attribution. ] (]) 07:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	* Yes for things like that.] (]) 04:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

	== Boston Phoenix ==

	I recently an edit to the ] article concerning an animal welfare conviction, noting that there had been a consensus on the Talk page several years previously not to include it in the article. Part of the reason for this decision was the alleged unreliability of the ], a local arts and entertainment paper. Is there any particular reason this source should be considered unreliable? Do they have a record for publishing false information or getting sued? ] (]) 01:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
	:{{u\|MaxBrowne2}}, I don't think that issue was squarely confronted; the issue was more whether the conviction was a noteworthy event in that person's life. {{ping\|Drmies}} you were involved in that discussion but it's been a while, do you still consider it good law? ] ] 02:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
	::], it's a BLP issue still. A (now-retired) user, ], gave some pretty convincing arguments for why that paper (or at least that article) was questionable, but the bigger problem is this: a. apparently she was convicted on only one charge and served less than 30 days ("fewer"?), b. the thing is kind of like a magnet and has had a tendency for BLP-violating accretion, and c. if the Boston Phoenix is the only decent source for this, then what reason do we have to include this information? ] (]) 12:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::Well "Simon" was groovy, as is anything connected with Prince, and so is anything connected with Zappa... I'm inclined to like the woman. But isn't her animal welfare conviction sufficiently documented? ] (]) 17:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::I confess that I spend less time with BLPs than others, but I'm unsure I buy the argument that we should exclude someone's criminal conviction from their biography because it's immaterial to their career as a musician. We certainly don't take that line with sportspeople, or actors, or even other musicians for that matter. A person's life is what it is, and we see them in the round. The repeated argument on the talk people that the publications could be sued for libel seems specious, at best, and makes me disinclined to take the user's other arguments seriously. This feels much like special pleading in this case and I'm at a loss to understand why. When we write about coaches and football players we include DUIs and speeding tickets, and we're arguing here about an animal welfare conviction? Either our standards need to come up or come down.
	:::
	:::Anyway, main idea. The Boston Phoenix was an alt-weekly that apparently won some awards and like many alt-weeklies went under in the last decade. It is used elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, apparently without incident or comment. I see no real foundation for the attempts to undermine its credibility during this particular discussion; no one has disputed that they got the facts right. I would note that they are not the sole source for this story either. ] ] 17:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::One could certainly argue that her brief prison sentence was unfair; it's not like she was a threat to the public or anything, despite her previous conviction for (gasp) marijuana posession. But it seems strange to omit a notable person's imprisonment from their biography. ] (]) 18:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::::It's not strange at all to think a 90-day stint in a county lockup on a matter that has no connection whatsoever to a person's career or notability, with a ony single source paying any attention to it, would be omitted. --] \| ] 16:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::::{{u\|Calton}}, though, to be clear, more than one source reported it, so that doesn't seem germane here, and that would seem to enhance the ''Phoenix{{'s}}'' credibility if anything. ] ] 19:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
	:I'm inclined to think that the Boston Phoenix is RS. However, if someone wants a source from a more established newspaper, wikimail me and I'll reply with an article from the New Hampshire Union Leader. ] (]) 20:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
	::Well right, and could you just cut out the middleman and add it? For a negative, contentious fact in a BLP you'd want either an AAA-level source (which neither the ''Union Leader'' nor the ''Phoenxix'' are, as they're both biased and both probably have mediocre fact-checking), or two sources.

	::As to the BLP issue, that's for the BLP board, but in a nutshell what I like to consider is these things:
	::*So, first of all, the Misplaced Pages is really big, and an obscure private person (like ]) is really little. We can say whatever we want about her, especially if it's probably true, and there's really nothing she can do easily do about it, is there. (Sucks to be her, but she could have chosen to be an accountant and not a singer and she wouldn't have come into our crosshairs, so that's on her.) Second of all, for most not-very-famous people, their Misplaced Pages article is their main public face. For Bozzio, as is not uncommon, our article is her first google result. And other sites copy from or look to us. Third of all, while the Misplaced Pages may not last long (or may), the database -- the articles -- may we be around in one form or another for a long time, and be passed on further. So it's not just "we create her public face" but "we create her public face -- forever".
	::*And then, I say to myself, "with great power comes great responsibility". And I remind myself that I'm just as aswim in the moral world here at my keyboard as when I trip an old lady or give a dollar to a crippled orphan. I remind myself that "punching down" is a real phrase because it describes a real phenomenon, and that I'm not here to make people sad, hurt their feelings, hurt their reputation, ''if'' I can reasonably avoid it.
	::*So then, I ask myself, is there any ''possible'' way to justify not writing bad things about this person, without being unfair to the reader or doing egregious violence to the project's mission. If the bad thing is central to understanding the entity and what they have accomplished (or suffered) such that they're worthwhile learning about, then it becomes a difficult decision to weigh. If a reader would justifiably feel betrayed that we gave her a false understanding of the entity by withholding the data, then it becomes a difficult question to weigh. If it's not, the answer is easy! I like questions with easy answers!] (]) 23:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

	:::I don't feel comfortable jumping into this BLP issue (especially since I edit under my real name), so I'm not going to edit the article myself. However, if someone else wants sources, I can provide them. The Union Leader article is a good one and gives a fairly balanced view, but there are additional sources available, including the Associated Press, so this definitely is not an RS issue. ] (]) 14:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

	:::Just because you haven't heard of her doesn't make her "obscure". She is well known to pop and rock music fans; I'm pretty sure Lady Gaga has heard of her. The suspicion is that if properly sourced negative information about a person is not included, the article is being whitewashed. I don't agree that there should be a presumption in favour of excluding such information. Problem is, when people tried to introduce the information, the quality of the sources was questioned, spuriously in my opinion. ] (]) 23:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::Maybe, but the point is to keep the information out of the article, even in the face of the existence of people like you. Whatever it takes. I'm more concerned about the moral issue than worrying about being spurious on a website, see ] and ]. She's obscure. Maddonna or Beyonce I don't worry too much about because they are big enough to not be hurt by anything we say. This gal, not so much. it's not that I haven't heard of her, it's that google hasn't, much.

	::::And ''of course'' we want to whitewash articles about obscure persons. Holy shit why would we not. We are not the ''Tattler''. Altho not everyone thinks that, apparently. ] (]) 03:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

	:::::Well that's weird. How famous does someone have to be before negative information may be included? Are there some objective criteria for this? Given that she has a fairly substantial article and quite a bit of discography, she can't be ''that'' obscure. If they're notable enough to have a[REDACTED] article, they're notable enough to have a prison sentence noted. And citing IAR is never helpful in discussions, it's basically a catch-all excuse. ] (]) 10:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::::Well a catchall excuse to stop someone who is... not a gentleman... from deciding these things, if that's all that's available, will have to do. IAR is a key pillar of this project, one of the Five Pillars, and if you don't like tough luck. We are not rulebound and we are not the DMV or anything like that. And ''of course it's subjective''. Most things in life are... How expensive a shirt you want, whether you want to hang out with Tim, if you would rather have Thai or Mexican tonite, if you want to keep watching the game if the Sox are down 7-1... etc etc etc etc. This is life. Do you think there are rules written down for all this? Is not editing the Misplaced Pages part of life? Do you image that you remove yourself from the moral universe when you sit down to type? You don't. You never can, not ever for one moment.

	::::::We hopefully have the sense that God gave sheep and can use our wits to figure these things out. If I write bad stuff about Kim Jong Un or Barack Obama or Mick Jagger, that's not a huge deal, because they won't care and why should they. They have a public face way too big for use to do much damage. This person, not so much. Yes like most everything in this world it is subjective. My ''subjective'' opinion is that she's small enough compared to use that it's punching down to be on her case about a one-time thing that's not central to what we want to present to the reader.

	::::::My take is, given the choice between fucking people over and not, I choose the latter. Other people might feel differently, but I will hinder them if I may. ] (]) 22:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::If you think the ] policy is wrong there are places to effect that change. This isn't one of them. Do you have any views on the reliability of the ''Boston Phoenix''? You've opined on the reliability of its fact-checking but I missed where you gave evidence of that assertion. Thanks, ] ] 22:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::*{{tq\|Maybe, but the point is to keep the information out of the article, even in the face of the existence of people like you.}} That is uncalled for, especially since MaxBrowne2 actually ''removed'' the material in question from the article (in keeping with the previous RFC) and only then came here to ask for additional opinions. I think that as far as this goes, given that there's plentiful secondary coverage among reliable sources (which should be added to the article if we ''do'' include this, since we shouldn't rely on just one source), the hard ''requirements'' of ] and ] are clearly satisfied, but that that doesn't necessarily mandate inclusion - there's a huge gap between stuff that we can include and stuff that we must include. In this case it has a reasonable amount of coverage but is not central to the subject's notability, so I think it's basically just an editorial call on our part based on complex stuff like how much is in the article overall and therefore how ] this would be relative to the biography as a whole... as well as to what extent the article subject is a public figure. But those are more questions for ] and ] than here; ], at least, is satisfied. --] (]) 05:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

	:"Fame/popularity" is not really a policy based argument. High/low-profile-ness is, and that subject seems to be high profile as per ]. ] says: {{tq\|In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.}} There are multiple third-party reliable sources, (...). At a skim it seems no editor actually disputes that the event occurred, and AP is a HQRS, so BLP/RS objections seem a bit iffy. High profile individuals aren't eligible for the exclusionary protection of ] either, not that it'd be particularly relevant since there's a conviction. ] (]) 23:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	::The only thing I would add as a consideration (I don't know for sure) is if this something closer to just celebrity gossip rather than a "serious" conviction. We routinely do not post "everyday infractions" like speeding tickets, drunk driving, etc. unless that is a serious pattern for a public figure that merits enduring coverage in sources. It is hard (but not impossible) to find RSes about this conviction but there seems to be little more than news that she received and served the punishment for it, and it hasnt been brought up since 2009 that I can easily see. This question is far more subjective whether inclusion is merited, but we can state that it is not an RS issue that prevents inclusion since some quality RS sourcing exists. --] (]) 00:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::Well, drunk driving is often covered in articles (eg ], ], ]). But in any case I don't think {{tq\| animal-cruelty conviction ... Bozzio was originally hit with 13 animal-cruelty charges, which stemmed from her failed attempt to "save" feral and sick cats from the New Hampshire woods. Two cats were found dead and 12 were put down following an indeterminable period of neglect}} falls into the category of everyday infractions. ] (]) 00:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::That's why I'm saying its not a clear cut line. To take Bieber, he is well known to have a long list of confrontations with the law while younger, so it can been seen to make sense to talk about them that way. Here, there ''are'' sufficiently reliable sources to include it, and the baseline of PUBLICFIGURE is met, but its one singular case that seems isolated. I'm not saying it can't but there's reasonable arguments that could be made in a consensus discussion to omit. Just that saying we can't include because there aren't good RSes is not correct. --] (]) 05:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

	== The Conservative Woman ==

	*{{duses\|conservativewoman.co.uk}}

	I've come across this publication several times, it seems to be a fringe British right-wing opinion publiciation/glorified group blog that promotes anti-vaxx and anti-lockdown rhetoric. Checking the duses we have about 20 citations to it, mostly in BLPs. Does anybody object to me removing all of them? ] (]) 13:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

	:I'd say it's definitely a source worth deprecation (for the news, facts etc.), but the refs generally lead to opinion pieces published by the subjects of these articles, so I believe you shouldn't delete these; there is one mention in the article which mentions the publication's endorsement for Brexit - I'd have it stay, as the editor-in-chief was apparently among BBC's 100 Women so seemingly notable. For all other uses, I'd delete on sight. ] (]) 14:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
	:: Yeah, having a look again most of these look ok under ], I've gone ahead and removed those where I think it were undue. ] (]) 14:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
	:I would strongly support deprecation as this is a totally fringe conspiracy theory group blog masquerading as a mainstream Tory site, but it shows up in Google News so might be used as a source inadvertently. ] (]) 17:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
	:: It's had a number of opinion pieces from some quite prominent Tory politicans, at least historically, but I agree that its editorial direction has gone off the deep end since COVID, including classy comparsions of vaccine passports to "apartheid". ] (]) 18:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Support deprecation'''. Yikes, just had a look at the website – vaccines are poison, on the front page. Existing refs should be scrutinised at the very least, although I fully support complete deprecation and removal of the small number of existing uses. While some look acceptable under ], I'm aware that {{u\|Hemiauchenia}} has already removed the worst uses and yet I can still quickly see problematic uses, such as ], where it's used to report non-notable, non peer-reviewed politicised research without, presumably, any kind of editorial scrutiny: e.g. {{tq\|"the group has claimed that current migration rates require the construction of one new house every six minutes,"}}. ] • ] 19:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
	* I also support its deprecation, or at least add the unreliable assertion here for archives if it doesn't pass. I've seen this before and ensured that extant usage was only for ABOUTSELF. Still, the latter only allows minimal uncontroversial use. It's unfortunate that once again conservative must mean ridiculous and unreliable, and that these happen to be women, but this definitely is it. The last possible use would be if a very notable person writes in it and that for some reason that is considered a ] ] opinion somewhere. —]] – 20:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
	*: {{Ping\|PaleoNeonate}} How may uses did you end up removing? If there were a large number of uses for factual information then there is likely a serious case for deprecation. ] (]) 07:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
	*:: If I recall correctly it was mostly used for ABOUTSELF already, —]] – 17:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
	* Yeah, this is trash. '''Deprecate''' for dangerous conspiracy crankery. We used to have an article on it, but it thankfully ]. (Though if its crankery achieves note, it might get an article again for that.) There is no reason to treat this as any more reliable than a Facebook post by a subject, and it's absolutely unusable for factual claims in general; even under ], it should be avoided - ] (]) 21:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
	* I’m just not seeing it as at all usable, they don’t appear to be taken seriously at all by even conservative media in the UK and I’m not seeing any of the other hallmarks of a reliable source. It also appears that they cross the line from punditry to misinformation hence deprecation may be in order. ] (]) 22:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
	*Not a source we should be touching. Deprecate. ] ] 14:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
	*Why use deprecation, RfCs, and waste a row on RSP for small sources like this? Can't it just be added to the spam blacklist along with other similar sources? ] (]) 14:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

	== Is ] effectively a list of banned sources? ==

	I know that RT is a deprecated source, generally I wouldn't consider using it, however it is a reliable source on what it publishes. Given that Eva Bartlett, the subject of this BLP, writes commentary pieces for RT, then I dunno, I thought it might be common sense that it could be referenced if only for what she'd said there? Apparently not, . I note especially in the rush to remove it both editors have managed to butcher the text leaving wiki syntax exposed.

	My question, are we to remove anything sourced to RT no matter what the reason? <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 16:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

	:No. Any source that isn't ] could be used for content here, depending on the claim it was used to support. You could definitely use an RT article as a source for the statement that RT published that article. The reason you don't seen these sorts of uses all over the project is because of ]. If RT publishes an article saying X, and there's no better source covering the fact that RT said X, then it's probably not worth us mentioning that RT said X. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 17:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	:It seems that in this instance the text was already supported by two other sources and that the link was more like an external link to an archive of the column itself (deemed unnecessary there). But, consider an opinion post in RT by a notable person, as MPants said it would depend on if it's ] and could also be attributed (]) instead of stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. —]] – 17:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	:I recall one editor, I forgot his name, seemed to spend his editing time going around removing deprecated sources. I don't think they should be removed automatically and if there is no remaining cite, then a cn tag should be placed, possibly even an effort to find an alternative being made by a removing editor. A lot of rt cites were made before it was decided that they were to be deprecated.] (]) 17:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	::"Doing valuable and often thankless work to improve the encyclopedia", is what I think you meant to write there. --] \| ] 17:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::After a bit of searching, and . ] (]) 17:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::: Calton would seem to be right, you appear to be demeaning productive and valuable work which improves the encyclopedia in a number of both short term and long term ways. I get that you personally would do it differently, but that doesn’t mean that the other editors are wrong per say. ] (]) 17:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::::I did not mention anyone by name initially and my comments were directed at indiscriminate removal by any editor as per the links I just gave.] (]) 18:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::::: I know, thats why I said work and not editor or editors in that first sentence. If they are only removing deprecated sources in situations in which their removal is valid (outside about self and other minor exceptions) then it isn’t indiscriminate removal, perhaps you mean something less hyperbolic? ] (]) 18:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::Indiscriminate removal is what I am against and to repeat, it is explained what that is in the links I provided and as was noted by another editor, it seems we sometimes don't follow our own policies.] (]) 18:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::::::I’m not seeing a policy based consensus that resembles what you’re saying in any of these links. In the discussion at hand here ] would appear to be the most immediate policy and it does not allow for any discrimination at all... It must be "'''removed immediately and without waiting for discussion'''.” (emphasis in original) ] (]) 18:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::::My initial response, which I had not really expected to be controversial, was directed at the general question posed not the specific case. As for policies contradicting each other, I don't what the rules are there, the solution would seem to be to amend the policies in clarification if necessary. I haven't looked at it, but if the facts of the specific case warrant removal, then it is not what I would call "indiscriminate".] (]) 18:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::::::::Thanks for explaining it, looking back through the discussion I think the problem lies with the OP making a complete hash of the opening/naming of the discussion... We’re answering completely different questions. ] (]) 18:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::It was discussed here too: . This kind of removal actually doesn't make sense if you spend more than a few minutes thinking about it, even if you believe the sources are the worst things to exist on the planet. ] (]) 18:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	:''I thought it might be common sense that it could be referenced if only for what she'd said there? '' Strange, that's not the rationale you gave in your revert: ''rv you need to look at how sources are used, rather than blindly remove them, '''in this case used to illustrate RT false reporting'''''. How, exactly does this link do this? --] \| ] 17:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	:] is effectively a list of banned sources. If it's in red (generally unreliable), you need to think of a good reason for using it. If it's in dark red (deprecated), usage is effectively ], and you'll need a ''very'' good reason to use it, or it'll be removed. The list of very good reasons is very small, and I can't think of any off the top of my head. ] (]) 17:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	::I guess rt should be considered reliable for what they say about themselves at least, aboutself.] (]) 18:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::Deprecation is a sensible idea, but some thought needs to go into the removal. I listed the issues with this mass removal approach comprehensively at . The indiscriminate removal of sources, not addressing the content it apparently supports (ie by removal or replacement), objectively provides no improvement for the encyclopaedia. But regarding the issue of reliability for what it said, some editors just blanket oppose any kind of link to crappy sources. I highly doubt you'll find any consensus for any inclusion of RT even if reliable in context, and I doubt it's even possible to hold a discussion on how deprecated sources are best dealt with (see that ANI for reason why). The topic has become too politicised. ] (]) 18:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::We used to joke about cabals on[REDACTED] but sadly no longer. It's got to the point you can't have a sensible conversation about this. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 19:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

	* For BLP there really isn’t an about self exception to deprecation, our standards are higher in that space. In a BLP a deprecated source and anything solely sourced to it must be removed on sight, we have no wiggle room on that one unlike outside the BLP space. ] (]) 18:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	*:@], I don't think that's true. Why would it be okay under ] to use a self-published, spur-of-the-moment social media post by Paul Politician to say "Paul Politician posted this", but it wouldn't be okay to use a planned, printed-on-paper ] published in ''The Daily Mail'' to say "Paul Politician wrote this"? That's not logical at all. Remember, ABOUTSELF's first words are ] <u>and ]</u> sources may be used" – not "Self-published sources may be used, but questionable ones can't be". ] (]) 15:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	::: {{Reply\|WhatamIdoing}} Deprecated =/= questionable, those are two different levels of unreliable. For our purposes publisher matters, note that in your example there are two different publishers (the politician and the Daily Mail) so it is entirely logical for them to be treated differently. ] (]) 16:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	::::It's the same author writing the same thing, so it's entirely logical for it to be treated the same. ] (]) 05:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	::::: Same author, different publishers (one deprecated, one not). I will also note that your logic appears to be whatever is currently convenient for your position. ] (]) 16:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	:The disputable item that the OP linked to is a cite of rt.com used for the name of an rt.com section. ] on July 19 . ] on July 28 "... per WP:RSP". ] on July 28 . ] on July 28 . My opinion is that, since WP:RSP is an essay-class page with "summaries" that can be unreliable and be based on formulaic context-less RfCs attended by a few people, its use to override real policies and guidelines would be illegitimate. ] (]) 18:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	*Much ado about nothing. The statement was sourced to two other sources, so there was no need to keep a deprecated source. ] ] 18:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

			==RfC: NewsNation==
	oh, it's the DM fans again.
			<!-- ] 13:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1740574870}}
			{{rfc\|prop\|sci\|rfcid=5F45265}}
			<!-- ] 02:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1739068436}}
			What is the reliability of ]?

			* '''Option 1: ]'''
	In my experience, the fans of deprecated sources consider ''any'' removal "indiscriminate", and often treat their favoured deprecated source as somehow worthy of greater consideration than merely bad sources that anyone would remove on sight. They will go to tremendous lengths to find excuses why bad sources are good, actually.
			* '''Option 2: ]'''
			* '''Option 3: ]'''
			* '''Option 4: ]'''
			] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

	The appropriate policy is ], which explicitly refers to the strong guideline ] as the way to proceed.

			===Survey (NewsNation)===
	] says: {{tq\|Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published sources}}.
			*'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light).
			**NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
			***In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the ], Coulthart said {{xt\|"... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"!}} . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including ] and ], all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects.
			***Writing in ''The Skeptic'', Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: {{xt\|"Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."}}
			***He wrote a UFO book titled ''Plain Sight'' which ] described as a {{xT\|"conspiracy narrative"}} and a {{xt\|"slipshod summary"}}.
			***The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for {{Xt\|“espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”}}
			***The ] did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking {{xt\|"Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary?}} while strongly implying the former.
			***The '']'' has described him as a {{Xt\|"UFO truther"}} with {{xt\|"little appetite for scrutiny"}}.
			***Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked ] investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians.
			**Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs:
			***In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the ''Washington Post'': ), the channel {{xt\|"was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health"}}.
			***In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said {{xt\|"... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing"}}. The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to ]'s analysis, a Boeing 737 .
			:] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage ] (]) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. ] (]) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' per Chetsford. – ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative.] (]) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. Compare ]. ] (]) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' why are we putting ''any'' stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “]” syndrome. ] (]) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. - ] (]) 00:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' I would go with Option 2 but their UFO coverage makes me consider Option 3. I think for anything outside of UFO-related topics they are generally reliable. Other sources should be cited. ] (]) 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' for non-UFO coverage, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. ]@] 00:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			===Discussion (NewsNation)===
	WP:RS is a guideline, but it's included by explicit reference in the first sentence of ], which is policy: {{tq\|On Misplaced Pages, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.}} The words "reliable source" link further down the page to ], which is headed with {{tq\|Further information: ]}}.
			*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)

			== Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] ==
	Verifiability - which is policy - requires the use of reliable sources. Deprecated sources are those that have been found, by strong consensus, to be generally unreliable. RT is a deprecated source. This means it has been found, by broad general consensus, to be all but unusable on Misplaced Pages.
			This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] on the multiple issues regarding that article.
			I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:<br>
			1. The academic backgrounds of the writers of those sources are unknown (keeping in mind that they were written by Yemenis who have limited internet access), and<br>
			2. {{tq\|1=Yemeni state-controlled media outlets}} wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets")
			Now, Javext has removed all the sources and text that they support from the article and used other sources (some of which I find no problems with using, although they provide little context compared to the other sources) and kept the sources that I've brought when I translated the Portuguese article.
			]: This is the version of the article that has the Arabic sources and is the version that I want to keep and then expand with other sources that both I and Jav has used. <br>
			]: This is the version that Jav wants to keep
			Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand):
			*
			*
			*
			* (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome)
			*
			*
			Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved:
			*
			''']]''' 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in ''The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast'' (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. also seems to be a relevant document. ] (]) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq\|1=There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle}}<br>]?<br>{{tq\|1=citing Portuguese records}}<br>That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above ''']]''' 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. ] (]) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::One example of another secondary source comparing the accounts (after C. F. Buckingham) is Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1997). ''The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama''. pp. 290-291. () ] (]) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--] (]) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?''']]''' 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. ''The Independent'' is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. ] (]) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the ] was a thing according to a Facebook post made by a high school that he attended).{{efn\|Machine translation: Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamusa, a native of Al-Shahr and a graduate of the third class of Al-Mukalla High School for Boys (now Bin Shihab High School for Boys)<br>High School Flags<br>Tuesday, September 17, 2024<br>After years of parting, Abu Bakr Bin Shihab High School for Boys in Mukalla embraced Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamoussa, who graduated on the educational ladder for years and is now at the age of retirement. He visited the high school and in his gaze with passion and love for the past years, he climbed the stairs of the high school to the second floor to the office of the principal Mr. Saeed Ahmed Al-Amari, who welcomed him warmly and said that this visit gave us a boost and moral support, and the visit for Mr. Bamoussa was to ask about the old administrators, services and guards who were who were in the period of the sixties and seventies, but unfortunately the administration could not answer this and invites everyone who has information about them to raise it quickly, as Mr. Bamoussa has been working for years on writing a book about the beginning of education in Hadramawt since the time of the Qaitian Sultanate in the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, and he made a very important statement that the first principal of the high school is Mr. Karama Bammin from Tarim and then came after him Mr. Al-Sudani Al-Taloudi and this was a surprise for us and he confirmed this in his book that will see the light after completion of it.<br>May God prolong his life and give him health and wellness to provide us with important information about the history of education in Hadramawt.<br>The high school administration thanks Mr. Mohammed Bamoussi for this visit and this effort exerted by him for this wonderful work, and wishes the officials in the Ministry of Education, the governorate office and the local authority to adopt such people who raise the slogan of education and the slogan of Hadramawt, the land of science, knowledge and culture.}} He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others . He also published a book about the city of Shihr . He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023 {{pb}}{{talkreflist\|group=lower-alpha}} ''']]''' 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.] (]) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the ] ] and ] sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) ''']]''' 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. ] (]) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. ] (]) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::@] If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in , which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! ] (]) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Hi, @]. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this:
			::::::"Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India , his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." ] (]) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::{{tq\|1=capturing Al-Shihr}}<br>hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? ''']]''' 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder.
			::::::::I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. ] (]) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city ''']]''' 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. ] (]) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{outdent\|8}} {{tq\|1="Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, '''capturing Al-Shihr''',}} (Never happened btw) {{tq\|1= and how important it would be to conquer Diu."}}<br> ''']]''' 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::"Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? ''']]''' 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned ''']]''' 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::capturing a city != sacking it <br>your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here ''']]''' 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. ] (]) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Now show me where in your sources does it say that ''']]''' 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::You were just denying that this happened after I showed you the sources, why are you asking this now? Didn't I just give them above? ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{outdent\|7}} What sources about capturing a city did you show me? Those letters clearly show that the portuguese wanted to capture the city and they failed as we have no proof of them being there after the battle was over. But did they lie to whoever they sent this letter to? ''']]''' 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Look bro, the letter doesn't state they failed, it states the Portuguese captured the city and then sacked it. For the fourth time, this DOES NOT mean they retained control of the city. ] (]) 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:@] so we can finish with and archive this, can we use those sources in anything other than the battle section? like the other sections that I've mentioned being deleted here ] <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">] ] (])</span> 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::In general I think we've established that there is currently no way of including any claim which cannot be directly traced to the 16th-century Portuguese histories or the Hadrami chronicles (which agree). This is because no source cites any other form of evidence, and because it represents the approach of English-language academic books. I have not reviewed the details and I do not know which claims qualify, but you're free to add anything you can find in an appropriate source. ] (]) 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::not even a legacy section like the one you proposed? <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">] ] (])</span> 06:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			== RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu ==
	The ] says: {{tq\|There is general consensus that RT is an unreliable source for Misplaced Pages content, and that it publishes false or fabricated information and should be deprecated along the lines of the Daily Mail.}}
			<!-- ] 18:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1740333680}}
			{{rfc\|hist\|bio\|rfcid=5DC5768}}
			The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (B and C):
			* '''A: Geni.com'''
			* '''B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley'''
			* '''C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav'''
			:Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.
			:They should be:
			* '''Option 1: listed as ]''' (change nothing to A; add B and C at ] as such)
			* '''Option 2: ]''' (list them as such at ])
			* '''Option 3: ]''' (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2)
			] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

			=== Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu) ===
	The referenced ] says that it is {{tq\|generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles.}}
			* 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 ===
	(Note that a lot of the arguments above are the same arguments that Daily Mail and Sun partisans use, including Daily Mail partisans who are still unwilling to accept two broad general RFCs deprecating the Daily Mail.)

			: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)
	] - which is policy - states: {{tq\|Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.}}
			::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)
	As such, removing links to RT is almost always the correct thing to do, as it is a source that has been found generally unreliable. It is not ''mandatory'' - but it is almost always ''correct''.
			::These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Read Background: B. ] (]) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::<strike>I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc.</strike> --] (]) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

			=== Survey A: Geni.com ===
	] - which is policy - also states: {{tq\|The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material}}. So the burden of proof for addition ''or restoration'' of deprecated sources is entirely on the person doing so, and not on the person removing the deprecated sources.
			:'''Deprecate'''. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. ] (]) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''.<strike>'''Question'''. Isn't it already deprecated?</strike>--] (]) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate''' A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			: '''Unsure'''. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) ] (]) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. Really bad. Needs to go away.—] 00:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

			=== Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley ===
	The particular usage in question was an ] fact about RT. It was eminently removable and there was no reason to think it was something that justified using a deprecated source.
			:'''Deprecate''', per background discussion. ] (]) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Comment'''. I think this source has been often discussed in a superficial way, together with other sources, which does not always lead to a clear perspective. This is not like the other two. It collects a lot of useful extracts from primary sources than can be helpful for getting a grip on a topic. Although it is basically the work of one editor, this editor was assigned to do this for an organization which does make some efforts to maintain a reputation for quality. (The FMG publishes a journal, and it posts some online corrections to Keats-Rohan's reference works for the 11th and 12th century, and she has noted those helpful efforts in print.) On the other hand, Medlands does not use secondary material very much, so it is normally not going to the type of source we would use on WP on its own for anything non-obvious. I note these complications because I see that sources like Ancestry.com and Findmypast also have special notes about how they can sometimes have useful primary materials. To give a practical example of what might go wrong, what I saw in the past whenever this source was discussed, is that it was even deleted from external links sections and so on. I think this is a source that can be used for external links at the very least. I feel hesitant to say that it should NEVER EVER be used even in the main body to be honest, although I don't use it on WP.--] (]) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate''' Crawley has no academic background in history and MedLands is self-published. It is not published by FMG only hosted by them. That it contains a lot of useful information is not the same as it having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, something it doesn't have. Deprecation isn't blacklisting, editors are warned against adding it not blocked. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{re\|ActivelyDisinterested}} I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "'''the source is generally prohibited'''". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) ] (]) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Editors who know the fine print will be the ones using the source correctly, and will know how to handle the situation. The issue is that editors who don't know keep adding this as a reference to support content, and the many discussions on the source show they isn't support for that. Adding a warning when editors post will at least get editors to ask why they are getting the warning, and help them understand the situation.
			:::Deprecation of this source will ''reduce'' the pointless pseudo-legal debates, by reducing the problem of the source being repeatedly readded. Editors should use their own good judgement, but as repeated discussion about this source have shown that isn't happening. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--] (]) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--] (]) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Yes the cost of not having to continuously patrol for this source and have the same discussion about it's reliability again and again.
			:::::::Separately before the two of us fill the survey section with our disagreement (mea culpa), should we move this discussion to the Discussion section? -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Generally unreliable'''. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) ''Generally unreliable'' is the one which says this: {{tq\|"questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published"}} I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would ''only'' allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be ''prohibited''. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--] (]) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at ] shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he ''knows'' {{xt!\|may be of little factual significance}} at face value just because he finds them "]" ({{xt!\|but is reproduced by way of interest}}), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't ]. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. ] (]) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the '''Generally unreliable''' category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then ''only as far as we have to''. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --] (]) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Generally reliable''', in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate''' per ActivelyDisinterested.—] 00:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== 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. ] (]) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--] (]) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as {{xt\|genealogy.eu}} and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). ] (]) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
			:'''Comment'''. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the ], Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". ] (]) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Deprecate'''. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; . --] 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			** This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site . And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. ] (]) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. ]. Deprecation will have a positive effect. And while it's always possible that someone in the know, who's really into genealogy, has the ability of figuring out out how the operator of this website makes it have the content that it has, that's not useful for determining reliability.—] 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

			===Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)===
	If you want material from deprecated sources, then the onus is surely, by policy, 100% on you to find an RS to keep the material in. If you think I have this wrong, please explain why I have the policy above incorrect.
			{{re\|ActivelyDisinterested}} my apologies also. To be clear, I respect your concern, and I think I understand it. I think we've conveyed our concerns, and laid out some pros and cons, and background principles. I'm not stressed about that. I think its a point of getting the balance right. In practical reality the three sources should not normally be used, and I see no big disagreements. I just think the difference between the two categories offered is (or should be) meaningful, and I wanted to make that clear. I am not really disagreeing with any other specific point.--] (]) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Although I disagree I can understand you position. It's to easy to get stuck in disagreement spirals are part of RFCs. Let's see if anyone else brings any new ideas. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I previously commented that a seperate warning for generally unreliable sources would be helpful, for ones that are problematicly readded on a regular basis would be useful. That way a warning would appear but wouldn't come with the baggage of deprecation. At the moment deprecation is the only resource available, but it is a somewhat blunt hammer. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] Thanks for restoring the discussion from the archive; it evidently was not yet closed. It would seem that we've got a clear result though. Should I request a third party to formally close it with a conclusion, or how does this go with RfCs? ] (]) 18:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The {{tl\|RFC}} tag was missing, which would have added "DoNotArchiveUntil.." to the header to stop it from being archived. I've add the RFC tag which will list in for every to see (not just those to happen across it on RSN). I suggest waiting and seeing if any more comments come in, as they editors have taken part yet. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			==RfC: Jacobin==
	I would also like to hear from the people who don't want me to remove their favourite deprecated sources, detailing what they're doing about our massive backlog of deprecated sourcing - ] (]) 19:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 17:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1740070870}}
			{{RfC\|prop\|pol\|media\|rfcid=857ECCA}}
			Which of the following best describes the reliability of '']''?
			* Option 1: ]
			* Option 2: ]
			* Option 3: ]
			* Option 4: ]
			— ] <sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

	:I wholly endorse this comment. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 19:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	:😂‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‏‏ ‎I actually saw that coming! ] (]) 19:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	::and it's a cut'n'paste response, but then it is in response to cut'n'paste arguments - ] (]) 19:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::I figured as much. Doesn't change a thing. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 20:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	::Me too. If the only "source" to mention something is absolute dreck, then it is almost always correct to remove that thing from the article, on the grounds that no one trustworthy has cared about it. If a deprecated source is redundant with reliable ones, then it contributes nothing, and the pointer to the deprecated source should be removed to keep Misplaced Pages tidy. ] (]) 22:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::I have previously opposed some cases plain removal of some deprecated sources for uncontroversial material (mostly comparable to ]), but didn't oppose flagging or replacement. For uncontroversial I mean, for example, referencing the exact date of a public diplomatic event. ] (]) 17:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
	I also note that {{u\|Wee Curry Monster}} started a discussion of an editor without notifying them in any way. Best not have that become a habit - ] (]) 19:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	:I guess that's the one thing we might agree about, and that's the reason I pinged you, as well as the editor whom you reverted. ] (]) 20:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	::Thanks for the ping. The specific claim that was sourced was exclusively this: The "Op-ed" section used to be called "Op-''edge''". The source for this claim is an ] page ''(only the archive page)'' of the RT's website, as it appeared some time ago, when the section was styled "Op-edge". This absolutely verifies the claim. Internet Archive is an amazing source for what was on the internet. This was part of an edit that changed her work from "writes op-eds" ''(someone made a cardinal error when they figured out that the subject writes op-eds upon seeing that RT styled one of the sections on their website "Op-ed(ge)")'' to "writes commentary" (language actually used in a reliable source). Removing any mention of op-ed/"Op-ed(ge)" would have been fine as well, but retaining this term/name in some form, although contextualized, appeared to be a more conservative edit (technically a more gradual change). ] (]) 22:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

			===Survey: ''Jacobin''===
	{{ping\|David Gerard}} I'm not a Daily Mail fan, I've never bought the paper, it's not my preferred source and was completely irrelevant to mention it. Nor am I a fan of any "deprecated" sources. My preference is to ideally use academic sources. But your little diatribe does illustrate the issue, you start from the outset assuming bad faith, it's akin to a religious zealot denouncing heretics. In your mind, it's a black and white issue, you're right, everyone else is wrong and for some reason you seem to think this allows you to be gratuitously uncivil. But as a bonus I'm sure the DM appreciates the free publicity.
			*'''Option 2''' I am opposed to the use of ] and think that no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2. With that being said, I would list New York Times or the CBC in precisely the same way and I don't believe that any of the complainants have demonstrated in any way that Jacobin is less reliable, per Misplaced Pages's standards, than any other American news media outlet. I am deeply concerned that many of the complaints are about "bias" when reliability does not include a political compass test. This is not grounds to treat a source as unreliable. ] (]) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2/3''', bias is one thing, getting things down right incorrect is another. As was demonstrated in the pre-discussion, the notion around the housing stock was truly an egregious error. This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts. When that happens, "Generally unreliable" or at minimum, "Additional considerations" makes sense as the guidance when using this source. I do not think further deprecation is warranted though since the reporters seem to be of a mixed quality, some are more diligent than others and the bias merging into wanton disregard for facts varies there too. The problem is, we rate sources, not just individual writers, and therefore as far as a source rating goes, "Option 2" or "Option 3" then makes the most logical sense. ] (]) 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It was corrected. Your entire case is based on a single incident where a single writer made a single mistake. ''And it was fixed.'' There is absolutely no grounds for "Generally unreliable" on the basis of presented evidence. ] (]) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::It was corrected only after significant outside pressure and even then the correction was weak and inaccurate. The guy who wrote the article was explicitly mocking the people who pointed out his error and accusing them of something along the lines of being corporate shills. It also wasn’t a single incident as they publish nonsense regarding Russia and Ukraine, including and up to outright conspiracy theories, pretty regularly. It simply is not a reliable source, however much one agrees with their editorial stance.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::So you agree with Iljhgtn's conspiracy theory that this was the purposeful result of pushing bias not an error? ] (]) 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			**::::I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including ] and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:::::You misquote the editor (to your benefit), for someone so interested in errors supposedly motivated by bias that seems odd... In context its clearly stronger than that "This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." when nothing suggests that this was the result of narrative pushing (thats how you push a narrative either, as you've pointed out although lingusitically similar its an embarrassing and obvious error). ] (]) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***::::::You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***:::::::You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) ] (]) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***::::::::No , I’m not. I’m simply asking you to refrain from trying to falsely characterize other people’s comments as “conspiracy theories” in a cheap attempt to delegitimize them since they’re clear nothing of the sort. Not everything you disagree with is a “conspiracy theory”. In this particular case, the article clearly had false info in it. No one has ever said that “information was changed” (as if on purpose) so please stop pretending otherwise. What was said was that “bias creeped in” which I think is a fair characterization. So please quit it with the strawman’ing.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***:::::::::I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we ]. I believe @] is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. ] (]) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***::::::::::Its you who needs to provide a source to substantiate your allegations against a living person. ""This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." is a BLP violation unless a source is provided or the author drops dead. ] (]) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:And what is your source for that? Nobody else is saying that this was the result of bias, the sources say that "third largest corporate owner of housing" became "owns a third of housing" which is a very understandable mistake. You appear to have constructed your own conspiracy theory around this incident. ] (]) 17:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Im sorry but “third largest owner” turning into “owns one third of all housing stock” is NOT an “understandable mistake”. It misstates the actual fact by a factor of 500. Maybe if this was like a student in some freshmen class using AI to write a paper that would be “understandable” (and still get an F) but this is supposed to be a professional, who’s job it is to get this stuff right and this is supposed to be a serious organization that has an editorial board that does fact checking. Which they obviously didn’t do.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) ] (]) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Whats “not math”? The difference between .0006 and .33? You sure? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::And let’s see these “every major and minor publications” that make these kinds of error.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::I note the failure to provide the requested source. ] (]) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:::::Right back at you.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			**::::::, your turn and no stonewalling now provide the source or go away. ] (]) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***::::::Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***:::::::Your source that this was "exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative" and not simply an error is what? ] (]) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I have to say I question your judgment in supporting option 3 "generally unreliable" over ''Jacobin'' publishing and then retracting a single erroneous sentence, and for having a bias/narrative/agenda, when you also !voted option 1 "generally reliable" for ] which routinely publishes fabricated information without retraction. Could you kindly articulate how an admittedly biased outlet with a team of fact checkers is apparently significantly worse than a think tank that churns out misinformation and disinformation ()? <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 20:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' A screenshot of a tweet documenting an already corrected error is insufficient to depreciate a reliable source. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --] (]) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. ] <small>(])</small> 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{ping\|Gamaliel}} Mostly ] and at ]. Kind regards,
			:::::Thank you for the links. I will repost once I've read through those discussions. ] <small>(])</small> 18:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2 at the very least, change current assessment'''. It might be easier to comment if editors agree or not to change the current category. My position is based on coverage that mixes opinion with facts and its use of unreliable sources, some of which have been deprecated by this noticeboard (like The Grayzone). I went into more detail about this at ] and at ]. --] (]) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' (intext attribution) ] and ] cover most of the points here. Jacobin publishes opinions peice that should have intext attribution. This is how they are used in the large amount of ] that Jacobin also has. I may not like Jacobin very much but bias, opinion, or minor mistakes do not make a source unreliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' ]: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." The example given was a mistake in a book review, cubsequently corrected, about how much housing stock Blackstone owned. No reasonable editor would use this review as a source for an article on housing or Blackstone and more than one would use a reliable source on U.S. housing for an article about 19th century French poetry. ] (]) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1-ish''' Jacobin are clearly a biased source but they are also clearly as reliable for facts as any other major ]. When they make mistakes, they correct themselves, and that ''improves'' their reliability, it doesn't hurt it. ] (]) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2: additional considerations/bad RFC''' - based on the discussion above, evidently there's some kind of social media uproar about some thing that Jacobin published and later corrected. It's poor timing to hold an RFC on reliability both when emotions are high and when it's in response to an isolated incident, both of which are true here. But ignoring that, it seems (again from the discussion above) that ''Jacobin'' published something that was egregiously incorrect, then retracted or corrected it. That's pretty much the standard we expect of reliable publications: errors are compatible with reliability, it's how the publication responds to and corrects errors that determines reliability in this context. gives ''Jacobin'' a "high" reliability score of 1.9 (out of 10, lower scores are better), which is in the ballpark of the ''New York Times'' (1.4) and ''Washington Post'' (2.1). However, they also give it a "left bias" rating of -7 (a 20-point scale with 0 as completely unbiased), which is on the edge of their extreme ratings. Editors should consider attribution, and/or balancing this source's POV against publications more to the right. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''Option 2/3''' While BIAS usually covers issues like, it may not be entirely sufficient for advocacy media, which includes ''Jacobin''. While ''Jacobin'' is a fine publication and I've sourced it myself, the reality is it does not usually report Who/What/Why but almost exclusively publishes explainers and analysis pieces that have a designed structure. For instance, ''How Biden Embraced Trump’s Terror Smear Against Cuba'' is not an editorial or opinion piece, it's presented as straight news reporting in the form of an explainer article. But, as an encyclopedia, we obviously can't start injecting artistic wordsets like "terror smear" into articles. So merely saying that BIAS can cover the case of ''Jacobin'' is not sufficient. For the purposes of encyclopedia writing, there will never be anything chronicled by ''Jacobin'' that is appropriate for WP which we can't find a superior source for elsewhere. They don't do spot news, data journalism, or investigative reporting, which are the three ways we use newsgathering media to reference articles. Simply looking at the current issue, I don't see a single story that is actually reporting things. Each article is an opinion piece lightly packaged as an explainer. So, while I don't think ''Jacobin'' is "unreliable" ''per se'', I don't see any value of using it for the very scope-limited purpose of encyclopedia-writing. ] (]) 18:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	Except it simply isn't the case, there are things published in deprecated sources that we might occasionally wish to cite - for example the column of a writer who writes for RT. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and if anyone thought for a moment and applied a little common sense it would not be controversial. As one editor mentions above ''"This kind of removal actually doesn't make sense if you spend more than a few minutes thinking about it, even if you believe the sources are the worst things to exist on the planet."'' I find it deeply sad that we're not able to have a reasonable conversation about this. You are welcome to have the ], I trust it will not detract too much from "Doing valuable and often thankless work to improve the encyclopedia".
			*'''Option 1''' for facts and 2/inline attribution otherwise for articles that are mainly opinion. The hoohah over an article that was actually about Mark Fisher and since corrected such that it doesn't even mention Blackstone seems like a one off. ] (]) 18:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Nothing in the above discussion or that I've seen in the last year leads me to deviate from my !vote in the previous RfC which was this: '''''Option 2''': mostly a partisan opinion source usable with attribution if noteworthy, but occasionally publishes well-researched pieces by experts in their fields, on topics that might not be covered in more mainstream sources, in particular on the history of the left or on socialist theory.'' I also think that the closing of the last RfC, and in particular green flagging on RSP, did not reflect the consensus of the discussion, as I argued when this came up on this board in 2023: '' I have long been unhappy with the RSP summary of the many RSN discussions of this source, where the consensus has clearly been much more negative than the summary. It is clear that several editors have major issues with its use in specific areas (e.g. Russia/Ukraine, Venezuela) and that this should be flagged, and that it publishes content by a few conspiracy thinkers (Branko Marcetic was mentioned in the last discussion, McEvoy flagged here) and again this isn't highlighted in RSP. So I'd favour a rewrite of the RSP and possibly a change from green to yellow as a better reflection of the community consensus.'' In short: I think we need to approach it in a much more case by case basis. ] (]) 18:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' My assessment hasn't changed from last time, jacobin publishes mostly opinion so this is largely a moot point and the rest of what they publish often contradicts itself—] 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''1 or 2''', I think that most of the time they should be used with attribution but they're generally reliable enough that I don't think we should be requiring attribution. I also question the need for a new RfC... It doesn't seem like there has been anything substantial since last time so this shouldn't have been opened. ] (]) 18:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Weak option 2''' per above voters (especially AD and Bob), but I won't die on that hill if the consensus ultimately feels differently. '''Strong oppose option 3''', though, for somewhat obvious reasons. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 18:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1/2''' - I don't like Jacobin. They read to me like the socialist equivalent of Christian rock. But they have an editor, publisher and corrections, and I'm reasonably sure they're not actually liars. It's an opinion outlet, like a leftist analogue of Reason. I'm not convinced coverage in Jacobin connotes notability. So I'd give them a strong "considerations apply" - attribute, not ideal for notability - ] (]) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1/2''' Jacobin's fine. It's left-leaning, but it doesn't cook up facts or make shit up. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 19:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' <s>or 4</s> They publish outright falsehoods and when they issue corrections these are weak and weaselly. The recent completely absurd claim in one of their articles that Blackstone owns 33% of US single family housing stock is an example (it’s actually 1/10 of 1%). Whether you’re sympathetic to their editorial position is irrelevant. Garbage is garbage and facts are facts and as an encyclopedia we can’t rely on click bait nonsense for sources.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''', with attribution for analysis and opinion pieces. The Blackstone mistake was bad, and the author's petulant attitude upon being corrected leaves much to be desired. But the error was corrected relatively promptly, and they have an editorial team on staff. I'm not in favor of downgrading a source based on a single mistake. However, Jacobin has an explicit editorial stance that informs nearly all of its articles, and if it's used for more than straightforward facts, it should probably be attributed as e.g. "the socialist magazine Jacobin". I'm open to changing my view if others can demonstrate a more sustained pattern of errors or falsehoods. ] (]) 20:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' (with caveats) due to the lack of developments since the last RfC which could actually change the conclusion of ''general'' reliability, as opposed to demonstrating fallibility or bias. I do have some sympathy with the {{tq\|no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2}} position articulated above, but I think that comes down to how we interpret "generally reliable" in practice. In other words, "additional considerations" ''always'' apply, in principle. The difference between option 1 and option 2 comes down to ''how likely'' we expect those "additional considerations" to be of practical relevance, and how exactly we should address them. ] (]) 20:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''', it doesn't seem anything has changed since the last RfC. Corrections and retractions is what a reliable source is expected to do and is a sign of reliability. Mistakes which are far greater than this are commonplace across the array of reliable sources (what matters is whether there are corrections or not) nor does partisanship equate to unreliability. Here the error appears to be about what's more or less a single sentence, an ancillary point or side-note in an opinion piece which has been corrected since. It should be treated no different a manner than any other openly partisan neworgs such as '']'' {{rspe\|Reason}}. There is no requirement for reliable sources to be "neutral" or for the matter any standard that suggests newsorgs with an explicitly stated ideological position are any better or worse in matters of reliability than newsorgs that don't have an explicitly stated ideological position. ] and ] are quite clear.
			:Though the standard disclaimers apply which are to check for whether what they publish has ] for inclusion (not an issue of reliability), use in-text attribution with their political position made apparent when quoting opinion and that the context always matters. That there is a subreddit post critical of a error that was corrected is no basis for determining reliability of sources on Misplaced Pages or starting an RfC, so this is also a '''Bad RfC'''. This discussion has been had at a much greater depth in the ] where it was shown that the magazine in question has quite significant ] and affirmatory coverage from reliable secondary source demonstrating that they generally have a "]" which doesn't needs to be rehashed. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Option 1: Bad RfC + L + Ratio''' Creating this RfC immediately after some sort of ostensible social media outrage (ex. I nominated ] for deletion not long after the ], and people got so upset that they brigaded it via external social media) seems like a bad idea. It's been made clear in the past that ''Jacobin'' has a perspective (like literally any media outlet) but don't sacrifice factual accuracy to get there. My previous vote remains true: "While it wears its political perspective on its sleeve, it has proven itself time and again in its robust fact-checking. The issue with conservative and reactionary ] and ]] sources on the WP:RSP isn't that they have a bias – it's that they constantly express said bias through the use of provable mis- and disinformation. Jacobin does not sacrifice factual accuracy for the sake of a bias."
			:I would say the same of any other outlet whose perspective coexists peacefully with actual facts. The sort of neoliberalism adopted by American news outlets which we categorize as generally reliable (correctly so) isn't some sort of default worldview that needs to be treated as sacred and less biased than any other. If we're allowed to point to a single incident, then I could just as easily (but wouldn't, because I'm acting in good faith) point to the NYT's 2002–2003 reporting about Iraq and WMDs which was so unbelievably mistaken and grounded in literally nothing that ] to falsely luring Americans into supporting ] based on lies, yet Misplaced Pages (even in the days when that story was reasonably fresh) would balk at the idea of calling them 'marginally reliable', let alone 'generally unreliable'. Meanwhile, this one is literally just a typo in a single article – a bad typo, but one anyone with a brain could understand didn't reflect reality and which was quickly corrected. Reading some of the stories on the front page right now, they report on events similar to what would be covered in a magazine like the generally reliable '']'' and contain no obvious factual errors. <b>]</b> ] 21:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 2''', mainly per u:BobFromBrockley. The Blackrock error was quickly corrected, so I don't hold it against them. Consider this quote from ] {{tquote\|Anglo-conservatives sometimes fantasize about reuniting the dominions ... where workers could be exploited freely.}} A not-insignificant percentage of the content supported by Jacobin is of similar nature. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' A screenshot from Reddit detailing an error which was corrected is not reason to lower our consideration of the reliablity of the publication. ] is generally reliable, not always reliable. Admittedly the publication does contain a lot of opinion peices, however that is already covered by ] and ]. Notably, ] is similarly heavy on opinion pecies and community consensus is that it is ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 22:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' Jacobin is basically the left-wing equivalent to the right-wing British Magazines Spiked and The Spectator. Like these publications, most of its content is opinion orientated, and citing less opinion-focused sources should be preferred. It's clear that the current "generally reliable" rating is suggesting to readers of RSP that Jacobin's opinionated content is usable carte blanche without caveat, which I do not think is accurate. ] (]) 22:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: Some Jacobin pieces have openly pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories , as well as conspiracy theories about the Euromaidan which have not been retracted. The Green RSP rating has mistakenly led people to believe these pieces were reliable , ] ] (]) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::You should probably read farther than the headline. ] (]) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::: The pieces (which are both by staff writer Branko Marcetic) are strongly slanted, but you're perhaps right that saying they are "pushing conspiracy theories" is going a bit far. ] (]) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::"The CIA bungled intel pre-9/11" is somewhat the opposite of a conspiracy theory since it ''literally attributes to incompetence what conspiracists attribute to malice''. ] (]) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			* (Summoned by ping in this thread) '''Bad RFC / No listing''' just as in 2021. Or '''Option 2''', it is a liberal analysis magazine, to be considered frequently as ]. See you at the next 1-day social media hysteria. ] (]) 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*: <small>This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but ''Jacobin'' is not remotely liberal. It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --] (]) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC) </small>
			*::For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. ] (]) 22:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I find it really funny when Americans see somebody holding mainstream social democratic politics and start calling them extreme. ] (]) 22:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1'''. Correcting a mistake is a sign of reliability. The normal caveats about bias/opinion and attribution apply, but not seeing enough to move it down to 2. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' The current summary at ] acknowledges that Jacobin is biased and that editors should take care when using it, which is exactly how it should be. Bias and adherence to factual accuracy are two different things; neutrality is not objectivity and vice versa. We do not need to demote it purely for being biased. Agree with others that an RfC being started based on a Reddit thread of a screenshot of a tweet of an editor who made a mistake which was ultimately corrected is a bit silly. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' as per the analysis by Selfstudier, XOR, and Tayi. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 23:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' ] already has certain considerations and it doesn't mean that 100% of what is published can make it to WP. Editors are expected to use their judgement. The article in question is a ]. I don't see any reason for downgrading them based on a reddit thread. ] (]) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' This entire RfC appears to be politically motivated and is predicated on a correction of a sentence that mixed up "third largest" with "a third of". Many other mainline newspapers have made similar, if not worse, errors before. The question is whether corrections were made when such errors were pointed out. And the correction was made here, meeting requirements of reliability. This is likely also about an opinion article, which makes this even more pointless. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Weapons of mass destruction from the New York Times? Was that ever retracted? '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''3'''. If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than ''Jacobin'' to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it.

			:It's not a matter of some particular instance about mistakes regarding mixing up "third largest" with "a third of" or whatever. Heck everybody does stuff like that. The ''NYTimes'' has has published more (unintentionally) misleading or plain-wrong charts than I've had hot meals. I mean, ''Nature'' finding that "among the 348 documents that we found to include the ] 'fact' that 80% of the world's biodiversity is found in the territories of indigenous peoples] are 186 peer-reviewed journal articles, including some in ], ], and ], and 19 news articles targeted at a specialist audience." Imagine that. I would guess that that's largely because "puts indigenous peoples in a good light" trumps "is true" in the ''emotional hind-brain'' of the leather-elbow-patch set. It's not a lefty thing in particular, right-wingers are just as bad I'm sure.
	I apologise for forgetting to ping you earlier, it's not something I would normally do and a simple omission on my part. You have a nice day now. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 11:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Entirely second ]'s comment here. David Gerrard's comment is simply gratuitous, based apparently on the idea that opponents of the DM ban must have loved it to the same extent that they (Gerrard) hated it, as though there could be no other motive for opposing blanket bans. I note that this intolerant attitude seems to have been the main cause of the recent exit of one of the ban's main advocates ({{tq\|"Kill it! Kill it with fire!"}}). ] (]) 15:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	:If I add up the various times this issue has cropped up, I've spent a few hours of my life thinking about it (including reviewing pagefuls of DG's edits to see if I found any of them overzealous), and removal still makes sense to me. ]; we aren't here to tally every thing that a writer has written. If no reliable sources have taken note of someone's publishing in a deprecated source, then policy straightforwardly implies that we have nothing to say about it. If reliable sources ''have'' taken note, then we use them, and refrain from directing our readers to "references" in the worst publications in the industry. Is it a black-and-white issue? No ... but the gray side is really, really dark. ] (]) 16:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
	: While I wholeheartedly agree that "there are things published in deprecated sources that we might occasionally wish to cite” I wholeheartedly disagree that the "column of a writer who writes for RT” is one of those things... That clearly falls under ] and as such would require a high quality source which a deprecated source never is even in the situations its usable in. ] (]) 16:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
	::Another important thing I would point out is that when cleaning up depreciated or unreliable sources, the ''vast majority'' of removals are just replacing them with a higher-quality source or removing them as unnecessary because we are already citing better sources (which someone probably added because they recognized that the existing source was no good.) Those are just simple uncontroversial improvements; bad sources should be replaced by better ones whenever possible, and when we already have a strong source we shouldn't be citing a weak one, since it makes the article look bad. --] (]) 01:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	*Reliable sources described Misplaced Pages's "deprecation" as a ban on a source. The only allowable use of deprecated sources is for "uncontroversial self-descriptions." That is the same for ] sources. But we cannot use articles attributed to third parties because we don't know if they were written by that person or if they are accurately published. If we allowed use of these articles, then we would be treating RT as a "generally unreliable" source. ] (]) 20:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
	*As others have said, depreciation is ''technically'' not a ban because there are exceptions that allow sources to sometimes be used in limited contexts regardless of their reliability (eg. ] / ].) Opinion is a special case and is a bit more controversial because ] is ambiguous on to what extent opinion sources are held to the ] standar. But it does ''not'' free them from it entirely and no reasonable reading of it could reach that conclusion; in practice, depreciated (and in many case, even simply unreliable) sources can only be cited for opinion via the restrictions ] / ], the same way we would not cite someone's opinions from a blog without abiding by those restrictions; the lack of acceptable editorial control and fact-checking means that publication on an unreliable source adds nothing, so things "published" there should be treated the same as Reddit posts, Medium posts, or the like - ie. in ''extremely rare'' cases we might be able to do this, but the author must be an established expert in a relevant field whose output ''on that topic'' has also been published in actually reliable sources, and even then should be used extremely rarely and cautiously, and never, under any circumstances, for any statements about ]s, even when stated as opinion. There are almost always going to be ] concerns if no ] has taken note of something someone has said as well - it is difficult to argue how an opinion that appears in no reliable sources at all could possibly be due. The basic standard of "treat it like a blog" is useful shorthand for anything cited to an unreliable source. --] (]) 01:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	*Zooming out to the more general question, what has been created is essentially a list of banned sources. The Perennial sources page, created simply to avoid repeated discussion of the same source, has now turned into a list of approved and disapproved sources. This is also the reason for the regular RFCs on this page to render judgement ''generally'' on which sources it is OK or not OK to use, without any reference for the circumstances it is being used in. This is just a bad development, harmful to the project. It has not even prevented repeated discussion, as the continuing re-opening of the DM ban on this page over the past two years has demonstrated. ] (]) 15:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	:*I mean. To the extent that RSP is a list of "banned" sources (or at least sources banned outside of the narrow usages outlined above), unreliable sources have ''always'' been banned. As ] says, {{tq\|Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article.}} The only difference is how quickly or aggressively we remove them. RSP serves to formally settle whether and to what degree a source is generally reliable, but it does not change our basic policy on unreliable sources. And ] ''has'' decisively resolved confusion over whether the Daily Mail is reliable - all discussions since then have overwhelmingly backed that fact; the question has never again been successfully reopened, since the original outcome has been repeatedly reaffirmed (in fact, at a quick glance, it has received larger mandates each time, which shows that your feelings on the subject aren't widely-held.) As I'm sure you're aware, since you're one of the people who has most consistently rejected the outcome of those discussions, it's impossible to ''completely'' end discussion on a topic as long as there is anyone who objects, but since that RFC the Daily Mail has been handled consistently across the project in a manner that reflects our policies, which is the main goal of such RFCs. And I think that, overall, the quality of our sourcing has dramatically improved since 2017 and since ] was created - you indicate that you personally feel that it has been "harmful to the project", but I'm not seeing how. In the last few years the world has faced a deluge of misinformation that Misplaced Pages, overall, has handled admirably - and most mainstream coverage seems to agree. See . Some of these sources ''specifically'' mention our willingness to depreciate the Daily Mail as an example of how effective we are. --] (]) 05:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::It is harmful, it is being treated by some as a de facto ban in all but name, even the examples you give above are being removed citing ] as justification. Even if challenged the proponents are organised and will defeat any objection with mob rule (even when their edit and justification make no sense); I don't think it's healthy when their first recourse is to personally attack anyone they see as "crossing them" and tag team edit war their changes into articles. It's become so politicised it's actually impossible to have a civil conversation with some editors. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 11:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	::::I think {{u\|WhatamIdoing}} made a point well in a different policy discussion that we should build a culture around building content and consensus and not necessarily rule-following. RSP is obviously a good thing, and the list is an asset to Misplaced Pages and the quality of its articles. The only issue is with the (at times) senseless enforcement of it, used to prohibit text or sourcing that would never be controversial in the slightest if people thought about the content in context and not just about applying an abstract rule.{{pb}}I think as long as we keep doing this "DM fans" thing to halt any productive discussion, nothing will change on that front. I think the above parties should show a bit more restraint, but I recognise it's a very effective method of shutting down discussions that could change consensus away from ones preferred position, so I understand why the method is used I guess. ] (]) 11:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	:::::What is your planned course of action, that doesn't violate the policy provisions I replied in detail with? You seem to be claiming some sort of false balance, not something based in anything substantive. What do you want to happen?
	:::::{{tq\|a very effective method of shutting down discussions}} This is what the Daily Mail deprecation RFC was for: stopping querulous nonsense where people kept trying to put forward this obviously terrible source. Much as, in the present discussion, an editor is trying to put RT into the wiki as a source. As such, you're saying that ] worked as intended, to make a better Misplaced Pages.
	:::::I gave a detailed policy-based response to this issue above, and you're doing an ] - ] (]) 12:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	::::::I don't know ], I don't have all the answers myself. But I do see a problem. From the ANI it's clear to me that some aspects of this 'deprecation removal' - perhaps not necessarily the specific issue preceding this RSN section - are wholly illogical and counter-productive to their stated purpose. I feel like you either don't understand that 'the deprecation of Daily Mail' (one of 40-ish deprecated sources) is a separate conversation to 'the nature of deprecation', or you're muddling them up. What I would like to see is a calm, productive discussion on the latter, as to how deprecation is best implemented to make a better Misplaced Pages. The implementation needs to be connected to the issue it's seeking to fix.
	::::::Some results of such an RFC should be to expand ] with appropriate guidance to that effect. In addition, some thought needs to be given to how RFCs are conducted on this board. I'm not convinced, based on my experiences reviewing RSN discussions for closure, that the current system is ideal. Guidance needs to be added as to what RSN RfCs should be focused around (i.e. finding evidence of unreliability, what kinds of evidence one should look for ). When should a source be deprecated, vs be marked as generally unreliable? What kinds of evidence should we seek for that determination?
	::::::Such a discussion cannot happen in this environment. It would quickly turn into a battleground. Part of the reason why, but not the only reason, is that you frame any discussion about deprecation into the "DM fans" relitigating a 2017 RfC. I'm sure such a group may well exist, but it hardly seems relevant to most of these discussions from my perspective. ] (]) 13:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::Your attempt to blame querulous attempts to relitigate deprecation on me saying "DM fans" comes across as performative rather than substantive, because you're still being vague as to the particular issues you claim to have with RSN RFCs - apparently deliberately, as you're tacking on excuses for being vague, rather than stating your claim. Instead, you're trying to make out that it's my fault for actually removing generally prohibited sources per the multiple RFCs that say that deprecated sources should be removed.
	:::::::I suggest you put together something stating the problem clearly and convincingly, with examples that would convince someone who doesn't already agree with you, and stating actionably what you want to happen next.
	:::::::Note that, as I link below, we've already had one RFC endorsing the concept of RFCs on general reliability. So you'll need to come up with something that addresses everything in that sufficiently convincingly - ] (]) 14:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	::::::::I listed several specific issues at the ANI.
	::::::::{{tqb\|
	::::::::# The complete removal of factually accurate content, evidently without even a cursory Google search
	::::::::# The removal of uncontroversial usages of content
	::::::::# The replacement of refs with just {{cn}}}}
	::::::::These are issues because, for example, if you have a sentence sourced to Daily Mail, which we say is very problematic, and you just replaced a cite that sticks out in red for those with the userscript with {{cn}}, you've just moved it into a tracking cat of 1 million pages making it even harder to correct and likely never to be reviewed again. Secondly, if someone ''does'' want to review it, being able to read the DM source might help them research other sources that could verify, but since you've purged the link that effort is made difficult.
	::::::::As for my issues with RSN discussions, I listed some general ones above. A particular example is . I don't read that source but I presume it publishes dozens of articles per day, incl on other topics (a skim of their site shows sports coverage). We're calling for it to be banned, and all existing usages to be purged, based on one story? There needs to be real criteria on when deprecation is appropriate and the specific remedies that should be employed to fix the identified problem.
	::::::::As for whether discussions can happen, see at having a discussion, with several valid concerns raised there. The inability to stay focused (not just from you, I recognise) obviously led to it drying out. ] (]) 13:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	::::*{{tq\|The only issue is with the (at times) senseless enforcement of it, used to prohibit text or sourcing that would never be controversial in the slightest if people thought about the content in context and not just about applying an abstract rule.}} I'm not seeing this, in general. The vast majority of removals of depreciated or unreliable sources fall into one of two categories - either there was already another source citing the text in question, or they get replaced with a higher-quality source. Both of these are net improvements to the project; yes, it is true that the text is often less controversial - the low-hanging fruit is the easiest place to improve our sourcing - but in general we ''should'' work to improve the quality of our sourcing, which makes the encyclopedia look better and encourages new editors to use strong sourcing based on the quality of sources they see when they arrive. Additionally, such improvements make it easier to skim through sourcing and find the more serious situations (where unreliable or even depreciated sources are used to cite ] or BLP-sensitive things.) I do not understand how anyone could reasonably object to such improvements - by my reading they are an straightforward implementations of both the relevant ] discussions and ] / ] itself. --] (]) 01:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	::::{{tq\|de facto ban in all but name}} Or, as ] put it: {{tq\|generally prohibited}}. You're protesting that a general prohibition, by widespread community consensus, and ratified in a second RFC, is treated as a general prohibition, with an extremely few exceptions. That's because the words {{tq\|generally prohibited}} mean it's a general prohibition. That is: you're using a lot of words and cries of unreasonability to try to do an end run around two broad general RFCs, an RFC ], and multiple deprecation RFCs since.
	::::I don't expect you to stop, but I also don't see why your repeated attempts to go against broad general consensus should be treated seriously. If you think you could swing countervailing RFCs, by all means do so. At this point, you're just being querulous - ] (]) 12:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	*{{tq\|generally prohibited}} means "generally prohibited" - it shouldn't be a hard concept - ] (]) 12:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	:::::Nope, again you're simply being rude and obnoxious in order to avoid discussion. I have not made repeated attempts to go against consensus and such meaningless hyperbole is unhelpful at this juncture. I am talking about the very few exceptions where it is appropriate. The point being, you insist on removing even those. As to "querulous" again you demonstrate a presumption of bad faith. As I said it's nigh on impossible to have a reasonable conversation in such an atmosphere. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 14:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	::::::What you're talking about, then, is an editorial disagreement - and this entire section of RSN is a coatrack on an edit you wanted in a given article, ''and which multiple editors have already disagreed with you on'', which suggests I was correct to remove it.
	::::::These are deprecated sources. A situation where they have almost no usage in Misplaced Pages is the ''expected outcome'' for sources which are {{tq\|generally prohibited}}. You are lashing out at being editorially disagreed with and claiming that disagreeing with you editorially is somehow malfeasance - ] (]) 18:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::Actually several editors agreed with me that your removal defied common sense but I guess that confirmation bias and your general habit of finding reasons to ignore opinions you dislike allowed you to skip over that. I am not the one lashing out here, I haven't referred to you in a derogatory manner and lord knows given the attitude you've displayed it would have been understandable. Once again you resort to ridiculous hyperbole, I have claimed nothing of the sort; the comment I made was that it should be possible to have a reasonable and courteous discussion between editors but your confrontational attitude makes that impossible. As usual the ] is yours, enjoy. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 19:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

			:Which just strengthens my point, there're no blinders like ideological blinders, so its not so much a matter of how many fact-checkers you have as in how you maybe are presenting facts which, while individually true, are cherry picked or incomplete or out of context or one-sided or otherwise misleading. It might not even be intentional, exactly. Mind-sets are like that. Better to stick with ''Time'' or other people who are more into just blandly attracting a broad readership rather than with people who have points to make.
	: entry for "generally": "1. in most cases; usually." "2. In general terms; without regard to particulars or exceptions." "3. By or to most people; widely." So an RfC which says "generally prohibited" is not prohibiting everything, as the closers of the DM RfC made clear by saying that opinions are not banned. The policy-based argument is that WP:V policy says use reliable sources, but the determination of reliable sources can be via WP:RS guideline which points to context, determination via WP:RSP non-policy non-guideline is not policy-based argument. ] (]) 14:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	*RSP was never ''intended'' to be a list of “approved” and “banned” sources, but I do think that is what it has evolved into. Evolution happens with any policy… subsequent interpretations often take the policy beyond original intent. At that point, question becomes: do we accept the evolution (and adjust the policy page to account for it), or do we reject the evolution and try to walk it back (clarifying the policy to make original intent clearer)? ] (]) 14:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	*:I don't think anything needs to be done. It's a list of ''perennial'' sources, meaning sources which are frequently brought up here. As a result of their frequent discussion, we have solid consensuses on how to treat them, ranging from "this source is almost always reliable" to "this source is almost always unreliable". ] is thus a ''record'' of past discussions and their outcomes.
	*:Is if effectively a list of banned sources? Well, no, not really. It includes many reliable sources, such as ] and '']''. And even those sources in red aren't ''banned'', but ''deprecated''. They can still be used for attributed claims, and in some unusual contexts.
	*:I certainly don't want to have a policy that states we can never cite '']'', for example, because they publish conspiracy theories and I may need to cite them to write in one of our articles that ''Breitbart'' published support for such-and-such a conspiracy theory. And I worry about scope creep, too. The last thing I want is to see generally reliable sources get banned because we aren't familiar with them, or we don't like their strident anti-Misplaced Pages bias, for example.
	*:On the flip side, I don't want to see this list removed, either. It's made my editing much easier when I can scan WP:RSP for a suspect source and get a clear answer on its general reliability. Removing it would only make editing more difficult, and would embolden POV pushers who want to cite many deprecated sources to support their views. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 16:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

			:They're big and smart enough that reporting their ''opinions'' are worthwhile, of course. "According to ''Jacobin'', consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine. As long as we include the qualifier. ] (]) 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Is hipinpakistan a reliable source? ==
			::{{Reply\|Herostratus}} not to backseat comment but if "They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine." isn't that a 2? I'm in much the same boat and offered a split 1/2, my understanding is that a 3 shouldn't be used for opinion. ] (]) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Backseat comments are totally fine. I live for them. I'm not sure about the details of our rule, but aren't ''all'' publications are completely reliable ''for their contents''? If the ''News of the World'' says "the moon is made of green cheese" we can certainly say "According to the ''News of the World'', the moon is made of green cheese" if for some reason that was useful. The ref is just so the reader can check that they did indeed print that. Similarly for any opinion or other statement. Since all entities are reliable for their own contents, I assume we are not talking at all about that. Why would we.

			:::What we are talking about is: if entity X says "FBI stats say that African-American violent crime was up 50% in Los Angeles in 2024", can we say that ''in our own words'' because we can be confident that it is true because we know that entity X has a good fact-checking operation? Can we be very very sure that entity X would also point out if violent crime for ''all'' races was also up 50%? Can we be very very sure that this increase is not because the FBI started using a new definition of "violent crime", because entity X would surely point that out? Can we be very very sure that violent crime in the city of Los Angeles is steady and the increase is purely from Los Angeles County (or whatever), because entity X would surely point that out? In other words -- can we be very very sure that entity X would not cherry-pick some facts and leave out others because they are here to make points? We want to be careful about being led by the nose by these people. ] (]) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	I was checking one page then I found out that IP 59.103.96.130 (now blocked) was adding hipinpakistan.com as a ref to several pages. Is it considered reliable source? Thanks ] (]) 04:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
			::::I think the thing is our due weight policy says that due weight (noteworthiness) is apportioned based on the amount of attention given in reliable sources. I take that to mean opinion in generally reliable sources is worth reporting; opinion in generally unreliable sources isn’t. ] (]) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The Daily Mail is not reliable for its own contents, having doctored its archives. ] (]) 00:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' The author's attitude certainly leaves much to be desired... but I don't think a single mistake that was quickly fixed – in a blog piece, which generally wouldn't even be cited except in very limited circumstances and with attribution per ] – is a good enough reason to downgrade their reliability. ] (]) 07:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''Option 2''' My opinion is unchanged from the previous RfC. It is absurd that we've opened up another RfC over a minor issue that was quickly corrected, all because a few neoliberal redditors got mad about it. I think citations to ''Jacobin'' should require attribution, but trying to tar them as unreliable over this one case is ridiculous. Log off Reddit, there is nothing worthwhile to be found there. --] (]) 09:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{reply to\|Ulubatli Hasan}} They certainly claimed so that they are one of the most ] at the minute but that was more of a POV blog. Wait out for more responses.] (]) 02:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2'''. I concur with other editors that this RFC should never have been opened. Please be more considerate of your fellow editors' time. ] (]) 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' possibly Option 3. I don't see that the source is any better than it was in 2021. Per {{u\|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d}}'s previous comments and references from the 2021 RfC copied below as well as this recent incident. Yes, making a mistake and correcting it is good but when the mistake is so egreious and the author attacks people who note the error how much faith should we put in the source? Last time I also noted that per Adfont's media review (not a RS but still worth a look) this source is more biased than Breitbart!
			::{{tq\| Normally, we put these extremely ideological sources in the Option 2 category (e.g., Salon {{RSP\|Salon}}, Townhall {{RSP\|Townhall}}). Jacobin obviously doesn't report straight news, so it (i) always needs to be attributed and (ii) check to see if it complies with ]. However, Jacobin has additional issues. Its stated political mission is to: {{tq\|centralize and inject energy into the contemporary socialist movement}} . So it is more in line with an advocacy group than a news source. Also, it has pretty fringe views. ] identifies Jacobin as part of the alt-left . It's pretty fringe-y on topics concerning Venezuela , the USSR/Communism , and anti-semitism , . I would avoid using Jacobin for those topics. But if you need a socialist/Marxist opinion on something, then Jacobin is definitely a good source to use. ] (]) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) <u>Based upon Noonlcarus's comment, Jacobin does seem to frequently use deprecated/unreliable sources for facts. Some examples include Alternet {{RSP entry\|AlterNet}} , Daily Kos {{RSP entry\|Daily Kos}} , Raw Story {{RSP entry\|The Raw Story}} , The Canary {{RSP entry\|The Canary}} , and the Electronic Intifada {{RSP entry\|The Electronic Intifada}} .] (]) 04:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)</u>}}
			:As I mentioned above, when a source is this biased we have to ask if that level of bias is going to have too great an impact on both the weight they give various facts thus leading to questionable conclusion and their ability to verify otherwise factual claims as we saw here. I think that puts the source deep into the use with caution territory ] (]) 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::And yet you rated the Heritage Foundation at 2/3 below and didn't find any problem with their extreme ideological bent, saying in their defense that deprecating the foundation {{tq\|would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge}}. This is a group that is regularly equated in academic best sources with fascism such as in:
			::# ''Neo-fascist trends in education: neo-liberal hybridisation and a new authoritarian order'' Díez-Gutiérrez, Enrique-Javier, Mauro-Rafael Jarquín-Ramírez, and Eva Palomo-Cermeño, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS). Sep2024, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p125-169
			::# ''Pandemic abandonment, panoramic displays and fascist propaganda: The month the earth stood still.'' By: McLaren, Peter, Educational Philosophy & Theory, 00131857, Feb 2022, Vol. 54, Issue 2
			::# ''THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY THINK TANK.'' By: Stewart, Katherine, New Republic, 00286583, Sep2023, Vol. 254, Issue 9 <small>(note that the think tank that they call "The West Point of American Fascism" in this article is the ] but that they refer to Heritage as participating in Claremont events.)</small>
			::#''The Road Ahead Fighting for Progress, Freedom, and Democracy,'' Weingarten, Randi, American Educator. Fall2024, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p2-9. 8p.
			::So I guess my question is one of consistency: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the fascist-adjacent Heritage foundation? If not why do you believe that the Heritage Foundation is more valuable to the "goal of collecting knowledge" than Jacobin? ] (]) 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::You are missing a major difference. HF isn't a media source, they are a think tank. Jacobin is a media source, not a think tank. I've argued that all think tanks should be used with great care and in particular we should generally not cite them unless an independent RS points to their work. So the question is can we cite HF when a RS mentions the views/claims/etc of HF with respect to the article topic. In that regard I'm suggesting we treat them more like a primary source vs a RS. Jacobin is different and the relevant question is can we treat them like a regular RS as we do with many other news media sources. If Jacobin publishes a claim about an article subject should we cite them? I argue they should be evaluated by the same standards we use for news media sources. By that standard it's strong bias etc means we should use it's claims and reports with caution and should question if they have weight to justify inclusion. In your post above you provided a list of texts but absent links I can't see what they say nor if their arguments are sound or crap but they don't impact the distinction I've made. ] (]) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The list of texts are available via Misplaced Pages library which is why I provided bibliographical information rather than links as links to material on WP library don't work. With the exception of New Republic all are academic journals. And now please answer my original question: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the Heritage Foundation? ] (]) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::If you want to cite those sources to support an argument you should tell us what they say or at least why you think they support your position. As for your question, I already answered. It doesn't matter if the HF is more or less compromised because the purpose of each is different. When it comes to topics of automobiles Honda is more compromised than the AP but they also might be a better source if we are asking about stratified charge combustion in automobile engines. ] (]) 21:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::On this charge I will defend Springee. I don't necessarily agree with them but I'm not seeing the dissonance in their arguments, especially as they seem to be going 2/3 on both (there is not formal vote here but that seems to be the upshot of what they're saying). Their slighlty idiosyncratic argument about the purspose of the source being primary is also one which they've been making consistently for years. With all due respect I think you're being too hard on Springee. ] (]) 21:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I take the idea that a publication being openly social democratic is ''too biased to be reliable'' personally offensive. Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. But I will concede that Springee is being consistent. And I actually agreed that think tanks should be treated as primary sources. Frankly, were Springee to be more reasonable on the "political bias" overreach, we might otherwise be agreeing. ] (]) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::We may not be disagreeing at all given we both are giving them a "2". I'm arguing that their bias is too much to make them a 1. The possible 3, the same score I gave them last time, is a concern regarding things like the issue that started the recent discussion. I was about to post something about really disliking the RSP's simplistic bucketing. It's really not a good system as we really should put more effort into asking if a source is appropriate for the claims being supported and when an encyclopedia should be citing strongly biased sources in general. If we need to use such a strongly biased source is the information DUE? ] (]) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::We do agree on disliking the RSP bucketing system. My personal opinion is no news media source should be treated as a blanket "generally reliable" because reliability is contextual. However I do think that Jacobin is, from a global perspective, not in any way ideologically extreme. Social democracy is a normal left-of-center political position. The extreme-right shift of US politics over the last few decades makes them seem like outliers but that's the real bias problem right there. ] (]) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their page states they offer {{tq\|socialist perspectives}} and approvingly includes quotes describing them as supporting {{tq\|radical politics}} and {{tq\|very explicitly on the radical left, and sort of hostile to liberal accommodationism}}. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::I would strongly advise against getting too side-tracked by having a conversation about "social democracy" vs "democratic socialism" (same goes for any arguments over distinctions between "left" vs "liberal" in this thread). I can say from experience that these semantics rabbitholes are shockingly deep, and they're not at all necessary or helpful for this RfC. All I'll say is that these terms ''are'' commonly used as synonyms by at least some people, and the "Ideology and reception" section of ] notes {{tq\|the political diversity of contributors, incorporating "everyone from social democratic liberals to avowed revolutionaries"}}, so I don't think either you or Simonm223 are wrong on this. Different people are gonna use different terms and apply different meanings to each of them. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 03:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::{{tq\|Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center.}} Where outside the United States are you talking about? The world where ]? Where ]? Is it Japan, where the conservative ] has been in power since 1955? Or China, where a media outlet that is as critical of the ] as Jacobin is of the ] would have long been banned, and their writers arrested? I think we all need a reality check here, especially if we want to represent reality in our articles. ] (]) 03:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::While I can't speak for them, I'm guessing they probably had in mind specifically other western democracies, as it's common for European countries to have a mainstream Socialist Party with an ideology listed as social democracy (to name a few: ], ], ], ], etc).
			::::::::I'm comfortable speculating this is their argument because it's one that's often repeated in American progressive-left circles. This argument is usually presented as follows: ] is viewed as the furthest left one can go in America, the things his supporters want are not radical to other developed countries (paid time off, universal healthcare, etc), therefore what is far left in America is only moderately left elsewhere.
			::::::::Not saying I entirely agree or disagree with that argument, either how Simonm223 phrased it or how I interpreted it. Just saying I think they had in mind comparable democracies, not the entire world.
			::::::::<b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 16:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Yeah. I don't feel the need to put a million qualifiers on a comment on a WP discussion board when all I really need to say is that the United States has an abnormal political compass compared to its peers. But also there used to be lots of socialists, for instance, throughout the Middle East. American allies killed most of them. ] (]) 18:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::This has become a discussion about Overton windows rather than the source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3 or 2''' - Right-wing outlets that mix opinions in their articles, selectively choose facts to promote a political agenda, or sloppily misrepresent the truth have rightly been marked as unreliable ages ago. There is no reason to have a different standard for other political positions. And regardless of that, outlets that do that cannot be ''relied on'' (i.e. are unreliable) to present an accurate picture of the facts on a given topic, nor are their writers' opinions noteworthy in our articles. Op-eds from even mainstream papers like NYT, WaPo, etc. are routinely removed as sources; outlets like ''Jacobin'' that consist entirely of such articles should likewise not be used (and we have already done this for right-wing opinion outlets like ''Quillette''). The green checkmark at RSP misleads editors into thinking opinions and claims published in ''Jacobin'' are more noteworthy than they really are. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Jacobin's ] is to promote socialism, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting. However, it may be used with caution for topics within its area of expertise (such as the theory and history of socialism, labor movements, and socialist cultural commentary), provided proper attribution and corroboration from neutral sources are applied. ] (]) 03:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::This is no more a good argument than it would be to state that the raison d'etre of X publication is to promote capitalism and the geo-political interests of the United States, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting.
			*::I could apply that faulty argument to shitloads of mainstream US publications that are currently considered to be generally reliable. '']''<sup>]</sup> 05:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1'''. Folks have said it well already so I won't belabor the point. I can't really imagine an occasion when I would cite ''Jacobin'', but I consider them roughly a left-wing equivalent of ''The Economist'' or ''Reason'' (also publications I'd be unlikely to cite –– all three of these are usually rather predictable and tend to offer shallow analysis). I wasn't sure how we list those other two so I checked RSP just now and saw that they're 1s. Yes, OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument, but I was more interested in getting a baseline on where the community draws the line between 1 and 2. With respect, I object to Crossroads' comparison to ''Quillette'', which leans heavily into platforming fringe ideas and displays little editorial oversight. (Interestingly, on a hoax published in ''Quillette'', revealing the latter's abysmal editorial practices, courtesy of ]) ] (]) 01:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Personally I don’t see Reason and Economist as equivalent, and was surprised to see Reason green flagged for the same reason that I don’t think Jacobin should be. That is, whereas Economist is mostly reporting and some opinion, both Reason and Jacobin are mostly opinion and some reporting. The Jacobin piece on the Quillette hoax looks good to me, but everything else they’ve published by that author wouldn’t be usable for facts as they’re pure op eds. I’d put the Spectator and National Review in the category as Jacobin and Reason. (Whereas Spiked and American Conservative are worse, red flag territory rather than amber.) ] (]) 15:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Additional considerations apply'''. As I indicated in the ] which I started, the mere fact that Jacobin thought it appropriate to publish a statement that ] "owns a third of US housing stock" indicates that they do not do adequate fact-checking before publishing articles. Therefore, one should attempt to corroborate any facts they publish with more reliable sources before relying on Jacobin to support any factual statements in articles. ] (]) 03:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1'''. Our ] is explicit that {{tq\|reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective}}. I may not personally love the political perspective of ''Jacobin'', but they don't go out of their way to platform disinformation that flatly contradicts academic consensus about reality. Regarding ''Jacobin'' as unreliable on the grounds of its bias would require evidence that said bias leads it to regularly publish misinformation and untruths. I haven't seen this established.{{pb}}Moreover, the error brought up that somehow has sparked this RFC was both A) corrected in a timely manner, which is what we ''expect'' from a reliable source; and B) a case where ], as the original source was a book review of several books written by Mark Fisher. If cited, it should be cited to warrant information about Fisher or his books or the genre he wrote in, etc. The Blackstone number was {{tq\|Information provided in passing}}, and we already know that such info occasionally {{tq\|may not be reliable}}, and so we use our best judgment as editors, citing and reading a wide variety of sources and going to the ]. For a topic like ], looks like ''Jacobin'' is a good resource. For Blackstone and housing, try from the journal '']''. Not every source is perfect at every subject, but when a source has a known editorial staff, issues corrections to publications, and is grounded in reality, it's reliable, even if I wouldn't personally enjoy talking politics with the editor.{{pb}}Finally, when a piece published in ''Jacobin'' is an opinion piece, we can just treat it as such, ]. ''The Economist'' and ''The Wall Street Journal'' publish a lot of opinion pieces too, yet GREL they've remained. As the perennial list says of ''The Economist'', {{tq\|editors should use their judgement to discern factual content—which can be generally relied upon—from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources}}. ] (] \| ] \| ]) 06:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

	~~:It~~ ~~depends~~ ~~on how it~~'~~s being used. Because~~ ~~their~~ '~~about~~' ~~page says they~~'re a ~~source~~ of ~~(among~~ ~~other~~ ~~things)~~ ~~gossip,~~ ~~then~~ ~~I'd~~ ~~like~~ to ~~see~~ ~~corroboration~~ in ~~other~~ ~~sources~~ ~~before~~ ~~using~~ ~~it.~~ Or ~~make~~ ~~sure~~ ~~that~~ the ~~Misplaced Pages~~ ~~article~~ ~~citing~~ it ~~attributes~~ ~~the~~ ~~claim~~ ~~properly,~~ so it ~~isn't~~ ~~Misplaced Pages's~~ ~~voice~~ ~~making~~ ~~the~~ ~~claim~~. ~] ~~<small>~~(])~~</small>~~ 20:13, 1 ~~August~~ ~~2021~~ (UTC)		* '''Option 3''' or '''Option 2''', long overdue for the reasons already set out in this thread. And frankly, the idea that a magazine whose name is derived from the people who instituted the ] was ever acceptable w/o issue is offputting by itself. ] (]) 23:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:For the record, the that in naming the magazine, he was thinking of '']'', a book about the ], not the French. ] (] \| ] \| ]) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Not that that is relevant anyway when assessing reliability. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::''The Black Jacobins'' is named so because the author analogizes the actions of the Haitians to that of the French Jacobins. It's just adding an extra step (not to mention that the word has a known meaning on it's face, so it's mostly irrelevant.). Regardless, it's clearly derived, and it's frankly silly to even argue semantics. ] (]) 02:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Just to be clear your argument about the name being relevant to reliability is literally arguing ]. Your objection doesn't make any sense. ] (]) 03:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I was referring to the semantics of what counts as "derived from." And no, while the name clearly doesn't ''inherently'' reflect relevance. If a source called "The KGB Times" came up on the noticeboard for reliability, it's perfectly reasonable for a person to point out "Hey, I don't think it's reliable for reasons x,y, and z, andddd the name also doesn't exactly inspire confidence." That's all I'm saying. Don't twist my statement into something it's not. ] (]) 05:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::That is arguing semantics. ] (]) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::If that's your benchmark, then practically everything is arguing semantics, including this whole thread. "Jacobin publishes words -> what are the meaning of those words? (semantics) -> can we qualify those meanings as 'reliable?'" Clearly distinguishing factors, and I'm not interested in ''arguing semantics about the word "semantics"'' with you like a 12 year old. My vote's been explained, ]. ] (]) 17:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''Option 1/Keep the current RSPS summary''' I think a few people arguing for additional considerations are misremembering the current RSPS legend. ''Additional'' considerations doesn’t refer to things like weight, or bias, or that you need to attribute opinion pieces because those are all standard considerations that apply to ''all'' sources. The current RSPS summary already says (in part) {{tq\|Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'.}} I can't find anything that indicates that's not still a perfectly good summary. ] (]) 01:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] ==

			'''Option 1''' Jacobin is a biased source, something that should obviously be considered by anyone thinking of sourcing them for anything contentious, but their reporting has never been an issue in terms of establishing basic factual information about a situation. One writer for a book review making a dumb statement that was corrected by the source doesn't change that. ] (]) 04:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	There is a long term doubt over whether this qualifies as RS. I feel it does. This has been discussed before ] and ]. {{u\|Ab207}} and {{u\|Bovineboy2008‎‎}}, you are welcome to share your opinion. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">] ] </span> 03:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1:''' Nothing of substance has been presented to suggest that this source is not GREL. Most of the reasons being presented for MREL appear to be about bias, but that is not of direct relevance to reliability unless it can be shown that any bias directly impinges somehow on its reliability. That it provides a perspective from a rarefied position on the political spectrum is a moot point in terms of reliability. Arguably it is good to have sources from all different positions on the political spectrum for the purposes of balance, but that is, again, irrelevant to its reliability. ] (]) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I'd start by saying that Idlebrain is a farily comprehensive source when it comes to ], espcially for the films that released between 1999 and 2010, where no other comparative source is available online. It is repository of uncontroversial information related to release dates, runtimes, cast and credits, awards and nominations, exclusive interviews etc. that would satisfy our requirements. -- ] (]) 05:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1/2''': generally reliable, they have a correction policy. Bias for opinion pieces and essays should be taken into account, attribute accordingly. ] (]) 00:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Bad RfC''' As on . ] (]) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' I previously commented in the 2021 RfC based on ]. In particular I found persuasive. Most recently cites a ''Jacobin'' article from November 2024 positively. A major trade publication in the field of journalism still seems to find ''Jacobin'' worth citing as "demonstrat convincingly" how Harris lost the pro-labor vote in the 2024 election. Why should we not follow ''CJR''s lead? The arguments seem to be (1) ''Jacobin'' recently issued a major retraction and (2) ''Jacobin'' has a left-wing bias. I could buy into (1) if they constantly issued retractions, but no one has shown that that is the case. (2) is contrary to ]. Altogether, I don't see why we should treat ''Jacobin'' differently from reliable but right-of-center-biased publications like '']'' or '']''. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]</span> 07:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2 or Option 3''': Not only is Jacobin an extremely biased, ideologically charged source, but their reporting has been called into question multiple times. At the very least, additional considerations do apply. ] (]) 13:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2'''. This is not a ]. Its stated purpose is . Compare to the missions of the NYT: ; or the BBC: . The NYT and the BBC are both biased (every source is biased), but they do at least aim to deliver ''reporting''. Jacobin, on the other hand, is an advocacy organisation. That doesn't make it automatically unreliable, nor does that make it solely a source of opinions, but that does makes it qualitatively different from the newspapers that others have compared it to - and that is an important additional consideration worth noting. For the record, I disagree that one incident of inaccuracy is enough to downgrade a source, particularly one that was corrected. ] (]) 13:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Just because I note that my earlier !vote wasn't posted in to this section, for the avoidance of doubt, whilst I think this is a '''Bad RFC''' because there's no reason for initiating it, I support '''Option 2''' or '''Option 3''' because it is strictly an opinion site and not one that should be relied on for statements of fact about anything but itself. ] (]) 14:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1'''{{spaced en dash}}''Jacobin'' may be biased, but that has no bearing on reliability. They have many well-respected articles that have been cited by other reliable sources, have transparent editorial controls, and a demonstrated process for retraction and correction. I see a couple complaints above that ''Jacobin'' isn't a news organization; however, this isn't relevant to reliability. Just like ''The Economist'', ''Jacobin'' publishes more retrospective, interpretive articles which for certain subjects can often be ''better'' than using contemporaneous news articles. Overall this is a very '''bad RfC''' given the creator's undisclosed connection to the previous overturned RfC (see comment by {{noping\|Tayi Arajakate}}) and a complete lack of any examples of ''actual uses on Misplaced Pages where the reliability is questioned''. This is as far as I can tell a knee-jerk reaction to a single example of an error on an unrelated topic in an offhand remark inside a book review, and which wasn't even used on Misplaced Pages. An absurd reason to open an RfC. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard"><span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 4px lightskyblue, -1px -1px 4px forestgreen;font-weight:bold;">]</span> (] • ])</span> 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' per Silver seren and Wugapodes (and thank you for providing actual reported information on their editorial process rather than speculation, heavy irony in this whole discussion). This whole saga is based on one correction? Really? ] (]) 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' bias has nothing to do with reliability. Meanwhile, corrections are a strong signal of reliability. --] (]) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Discussion: ''Jacobin''===
			*Seeing as there's substantial disagreement in the pre-RfC section above, I've gone ahead and launched this RfC. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Pings to {{yo\|Feminist\|The wub\|Thebiguglyalien\|Super Goku V\|Simonm223\|FortunateSons\|Oort1\|Burrobert\|ActivelyDisinterested\|Hydrangeans\|Vanilla Wizard\|Iljhgtn\|Selfstudier\|Horse Eye's Back\|NoonIcarus\|Harizotoh9\|Springee}} who commented above. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Additional pings to {{yo\|WMrapids\|David Gerard\|Bobfrombrockley\|Shibbolethink\|Crossroads\|Herostratus\|Dumuzid\|Aquillion\|Gamaliel\|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d\|BSMRD\|Wugapodes\|Ip says\|King of Hearts\|Chetsford\|Tayi Arajakate\|MPants at work\|Jlevi\|The Four Deuces\|Grnrchst\|Szmenderowiecki\|Dlthewave\|Jr8825\|Thenightaway\|Nvtuil\|Peter Gulutzan\|FormalDude\|Volunteer Marek\|FOARP\|Sea Ane\|3Kingdoms\|Bilorv\|blindlynx\|Jurisdicta\|TheTechnician27\|MarioGom\|Novemberjazz\|Volteer1}} who commented in the ]. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I think you should also disclose that the previous RfC was initially closed by you (back then under the usernames ] and ]) and the discussions that followed at {{slink\|Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 6#Jacobin (magazine)}} and {{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340#Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability}} led to an overturn on grounds of it being heavily flawed and ostensibly a ], followed by a re-close afterwards. Especially considering your statement in the above section questioning that (re)closure now, which also partially forms the basis for this RfC. Those discussions might also answer your question on why it was (re)closed in the manner it was. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 20:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I've tried to ping everyone from the prior RfC and from the discussion above. This was done manually: I excluded 1 vanished account and I tried to ping people by their current usernames if they have changed names since then. If I missed someone, please feel free to notify them. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Per my prior comments about space constraints I've split this to its own section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I've just moved the RFC out of the discussion again. The RFC shouldn't be made a subsection of the prior discussion, due to ongoing issues with overloading on the noticeboard. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''Comment''' Editors should bear in mind that reliability does not mean infallibility. It merely means we can use sources where applicable. In this case, the impeached article is a book review, which combines a description of a book and the reviewer's opinions. The only acceptable use of a book review - whoever wrote it and wherever it is published - is in an article about the book reviewed.
	:I truly don't know enough about the source to provide an informed opinion. From what I've seen, the source was discussed first ], citing it an SPS, which does seem to line up with what is written on the website's Wiki article. It was then listed ] as a potentially unreliable source but with no justification or discussion. I think the concern is that since the website is basically run by a single person, it does not have editorial oversight and thus no one is determining whether or not the content is accurate or independent from promotion. Per , he was informed that his content sway box office figures, making it a major source, but not necessarily reliable. <small>]</small>] 11:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
	::Idlebrain is good source for the information which I've listed above which is more or less ] and I don't think there are any instances of the website publishing fake information in over two decades of its operation. Because every film review is a statement of opinion, I believe Idlebrain can be mentioned per ]. -- ] (]) 15:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

			Ironically, there can be no article about the book because it lacks notability. It was only reviewed in Jacobin. We are basically working to prevent things that will never happen. Under current policy therefore this source could never be used.
	== Responding ==

			Our time would be better spent ensuring that RS policy is adhered to.
	Hoping to get a second opinion regarding the acceptability of using GitHub, a forum post, several blogs, etc. for an “Issues” section. Any input is appreciated. ] (]) 16:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

			] (]) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	== US Government Website (FCC) ==

			*'''Bad RFC''' because we should not be rating things just for the sake of rating things, but since we're doing this: Jacobin is clearly an opinion outlet, not a news outlet. We shouldn't be relying on them for statements of fact for that reason alone. ] (]) 17:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	There is an ongoing discussion on ] as to whether the Federal Communications Commission's website (fcc.gov) is a reliable source when it comes to the naming of wireless frequency bands. The FCC describes band 26 as "800MHz SMR", but other editors disagree that the FCC is a reliable source. The FCC is the government agency responsible for licensing this wireless spectrum to the wireless providers. Is the FCC's website considered a reliable source? ] (]) 16:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
			*:Notwithstanding my !vote above I do agree this is a bad RFC because there's not ever been an example presented of Jacobin being used to source anything even remotely questionable during the RFCBefore discussion. ] (]) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Just to be clear, are we talking about the name of the band, or the frequencies it covers? Because the name does not necessarily indicate the latter (as on a practical basis, bands can cover a range that is not strictly listed by the name). There should be no issue with the FCC as a source for the name/description, but the actual specification would need a source that explicitly covers the technical aspects. ] (]) 16:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
			*::Well, there was one example that generated the 2023 discussion which was Jacobin being used to source a description of the 2014 Maidan Revolution as "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests", so that's one occasion of it being used to source something questionable. It was also by the same editor on the 9/11 attack page to source the claim that the CIA facilitated the attacks and intentionally withheld information that could have stopped the attacks.
	::The name of the band is the disagreement. Currently, the article lists band 26 as "850MHz Extended CLR", but no source or citation was provided for that name. Another user provided sources (including from the FCC), which lists this band as "800MHz SMR", but 3 other editors feel that the FCC is not a reliable source. ] (]) 17:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
			*::That editor is now blocked (because of their conduct on this noticeboard I think?) but they used the green flag at RSP to justify their edits. ] (]) 10:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::The FCC is perfectly fine to source the name. Since the I dont have any problem with the FCC as a source. I've done a brief search and I cant find anything reliable for extended cellular - which sounds more like a branding thing than an actual technical name. ] (]) 17:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
			*:Absolutely a bad RfC, I rolled my eyes when I was pinged about this. Nothing fundamental has changed about Jacobin's editorial line or policy since the last RfC was opened four years ago. I can't believe we're hashing this out again because of a single reddit post. --] (]) 10:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::I agree. No one has been able to find a reliable source for Extended CLR. If the FCC is considered a reliable source, my feeling is the name should be changed unless a reliable source for E-CLR can be found. So far, none can be found. It appears that the person who originally created the article made up that name, since there are no citations for it anywhere. ] (]) 17:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::::{{u\|Dv42202}}, The FCC is a reliable source for what they might name something, but they are not a source for the idea that no one else uses a given name. For example, 'Extended CLR' appears as a name for that band in "The LTE-Advanced Deployment Handbook: The Planning Guidelines for the Fourth Generation Networks", ISBN 9781118484807, page 115. ] (]) 17:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::::{{u\|MrOllie}}, On what basis is that book a reliable source? I've seen websites that got their information from the incorrect Misplaced Pages article. It wouldn't surprise me if books were also sourcing that information from the Misplaced Pages chart. No one has been able to find any reference to "E-CLR" from the FCC, or any wireless carrier. Nor do any of them refer to the band as "850MHz". ] (]) 18:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::{{u\|Dv42202}}, It is published by Wiley, who are a fairly well respected publisher so far as I know. If you aren't familiar with what makes for a reliable source, you can read ], or given the noticeboard we're on I'm sure someone will be along to explain it to you soon. ] (]) 18:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::::::{{u\|MrOllie}}, No, I fully understand it. You don't appear to understand that we have already determined that the FCC is a reliable source. ] (]) 21:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::::{{u\|Dv42202}}, So? It is certainly possible for more than one reliable source to exist. ] (]) 21:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::::::::{{u\|MrOllie}} - And they contradict each other, so which is actually correct? You alone get to decide that? ] (]) 21:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::::::{{u\|Dv42202}}, No, you get to go back to the article talk page and work it out with other editors to form a consensus. (P.S., don't write things like 'the name should be changed unless a reliable source for E-CLR can be found' if you don't really want somebody to go look for a source). ] (]) 21:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::::::::::{{u\|MrOllie}} - I am actually not able to read the source you provided without purchasing the book. Maybe it's a reliable source. But no one here will be able to determine that unless they own the book. ] (]) 21:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::] is applicable here. - ] (]) 21:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::{{u\|MrOllie}} - You purchased the book? I doubt it. ] (]) 21:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::{{u\|Dv42202}}, I happen to have access to a good library. At this moment I am looking at table 5.1 'FDD frequency bands for LTE', which lists '26 Extended CLR (850)' ] (]) 21:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::{{u\|MrOllie}} - What you're telling me is that the FCC, Sprint, Dish, and all media organizations who refer to this spectrum as 800MHz ESMR are all incorrect? Sprint has been incorrectly referring to their own spectrum for decades? You don't see why that's incredulous? ] (]) 21:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::{{u\|Dv42202}}, I think we can stop duplicating comments from the article talk page here, don't you? ] (]) 21:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

			*The Jacobin author who wrote the nonsense claim that Blackstone owns 1/3 of US housing stock literally mocked the people who tried to correct him and the correction - which itself was inaccurate and weaselly - was issued only after social media pressure. This is an outlet that very obviously does not care one bit about fact checking if it gets in the way of producing click bait pieces. It’s exactly the kind of source we should NOT be using, especially as the whole media landscape is shifting that way.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Using a ] interview ==
			*:They issued a correction. This is what we expect of reliable outlets. Your personal characterization of the correction as "weaselly" is your personal opinion on tone and has nothing to do with any Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 19:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Did this correction at least state what the correct % was? Like, the correction itself tries to make it seem like a minor overstatement rather than, you know, a completely wild exaggeration that tried to take advantage of general innumeracy. “I’m a billionaire!”. “No you’re not”. “Ok that was an overstatement”. Come on. It’s quite disappointing to see how many people are fine with misinformation, weak sourcing and “alternative facts” as long as it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. Whats even more disappointing is when these are people who are claiming to be building a factual encyclopedia. Facts are facts and garbage is garbage, regardless of whether it come from the left or right.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes facts are facts and garbage is garbage but as long as we allow garbage like ''New York "Iraq has WMDs" Times'' to be treated as a reliable source I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently. Jacobin is compliant with Misplaced Pages's requirements. If you want to talk about tightening those requirements I'd be open to the discussion at ]. ] (]) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Was the weapons of mass destruction bit ever retracted by New York Times? As far as I'm aware it wasn't. Perhaps we should be wasting community time and having a discussion about them? '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Yeah my point is just that a lot of editors are establishing a double standard where Jacobin is being held to a higher standard than what Misplaced Pages generally expects from news organizations. I would like it to be measured against the same standard as anyone else. ] (]) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Agreed. I'm not the biggest fan of them because there's so much oped stuff but we've never thought that reason to downgrade ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Exactly. And that is kind of what I was getting at when I suggested the right venue for what {{noping\|Volunteer Marek}} was concerned about was ]. If we allow these kinds of sources then we allow these kinds of sources. I would be happy to restrict these kinds of sources more than we do but it has to be handled at a policy level rather than via exceptions to present policy. ] (]) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:This does not appear to be an outlet generally characterized as producing click bait. ] (]) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It is not the case that a book review can ''only'' be used in an article about that specific book. For example, they are frequently cited in biographies of authors, in order to demonstrate that those authors meet ]. And an article about the pedagogy of some subject could cite reviews of textbooks about that subject. ] (]) 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			== The Heritage Foundation ==
	Hey everyone, I've found some sources that I would like to use to improve the article ]. One of these is an interview with several crew members by Decider, which is run by the '']'' (). I understand that the ''Post'' is considered generally unreliable by ], but I've haven't been able to find any indication of the reliability of Decider specifically. Normally, I would just assume I should stay away, but since this is an interview with the involved parties about an uncontroversial topic (the production of the episode), it seems like this article might be reliable enough to warrant inclusion so long as the Misplaced Pages article only cites information from the interviewees. Thoughts? ] (]) 03:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 16:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1739462471}}
			{{Moved discussion to\|WP:Requests for comment/The Heritage Foundation\|2=Due to how large the discussion has become, and size constraints on the noticeboard, this discussion has been moved to it's own page. <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}

			== Sources for Chapel Hart ==
	:I would say decider.com falls under ], I wouldn't use it, it's not listed at ]. I would of thought it should be listed know, under it's own listing or NY Post. ] (]) 14:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
	::I'm confused as to how ] applies; that policy discusses how "Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper", which pertains more to notability. The topic is notable even without this source. My question pertains to the source's reliability since it quotes the crew members without offering much commentary of its own. ] (]) 16:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
	:::I am saying that I feel decider.com runs rather like a tabloid newspaper. ] (]) 18:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

			Hi, I am currently reviewing a GA nomination for ]. I've never heard of the following sources currently being used nor can I find past discussions on them. As such, I would others' opinions on them.
	== MEDRS required for amount of grant money received? ==
			*https://texasborderbusiness.com/chapel-hart-music-video-for-new-single-i-will-follow-premiered-by-cmt-on-friday-february-5th/
			*https://drgnews.com/2022/09/19/darius-rucker-set-to-release-new-song-featuring-chapel-hart/
			*https://www.southernliving.com/chapel-hart-danica-vocal-cord-surgery-6825847
			] (]) 22:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

			:The Texas Border Business link (now dead but available from the Wayback Machine) is a press release, you can find the exact same wording elsewhere. So it would be reliable in a primary way, as it's from the band about the band.<br>Southern Living appears to be an established magazine, I don't see why it wouldn't be reliable.<br>The drgnews.com article appears to be another press release, as the wording is found in many other sites. Oddly though I can't access any of them, as I get blocked by cloudflare for some reason. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	''sighs''. Questions about these edits:
			::Thank you, I'll take this into consideration for my review. ] (]) 23:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	* : {{tq\|Don't see why this is particularly noteworthy. We shouldn't be citing a conspiracy-theory article here anyways.}}
			:Southern Living tends toward puffery, and I would avoid using them for controversial claims (although they mostly avoid making controversial claims anyway). I would accept an article by them as supporting notability. ] (]) 01:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	* : {{tq\|Vanity Fair is not a reliable source for scientific information, and we should not be linking to popular magazine articles by non-experts that push fringe scientific views. As for when popular magazines started promoting fringe scientific ideas, this has happened often during the pandemic. Don't add again without consensus.}}
			::My assessment:
			::* The https://texasborderbusiness.com/ source isn't labeled as a press release. Overall, the site looks like a low-quality ] that lightly repackages any information they receive that they think would interest their readers (i.e., their advertising targets). Other sites label it a press release, and I'm sure these other sites are correct. That said, even if we treat it like a press release, press releases can be reliable for the sort of simple fact this one is being used to support.
			::* The DRG News source is labeled as being from '']'', which appears to be a media outlet/country music magazine. They ''might'' be part of https://www.cumulusmedia.com
			::* ] is a reliable source.
			::] (]) 20:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			== RfC: TheGamer ==
	] says: {{tq\|Vanity Fair is considered generally reliable, including for popular culture topics.}} established that it's generally reliable for news in general, not just popular culture.
			{{atop\|OP has withdrawn the discussion. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 21:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			<s>TheGamer seems to be either user-generated content, or slop listicles. Additionally, it seems to source it's content largely from dubious YouTube content, Reddit posts, or Twitter/X threads. However it is listed as a source in articles such as ] purely in relation to one listicle that ranks Flowey in relation to other characters. What is the reliability of this site?

			* Option 1: ]
	Questions:
			* Option 2: ]
	# Since when is ] of ] writing (which academics find no issue with) a "conspiracy theory article"? Is it a BLP issue to say someone is writing conspiracy theory articles with zero evidence and zero reliable sources cited to support such a statement?
			* Option 3: ]
	# Since when is MEDRS required for saying how much funding a person receives from grant-making organisations?
			* Option 4: ]
	# Since when is it a ''bad thing'' to receive NIH funding? I'd be pretty proud if I had millions in grants from NIH. In fact, the subject lists it in their CV, according to the source: {{tq\|Shi Zhengli herself listed U.S. government grant support of more than $1.2 million on her curriculum vitae.}} It's not presented as a negative thing in the source at all, because it isn't a negative thing...
	] (]) 13:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
	:I would agree you do not need MEDRS sources for the amount of grant money received by a person or group. But you also need to have care what you infer. The source says "Shi Zhengli herself listed U.S. government grant support of more than $1.2 million on her curriculum vitae: $665,000 from the NIH between 2014 and 2019; and $559,500 over the same period from USAID.", it does not say what it was for.] (]) 13:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
	::Does it matter what it's for? In our article someone just added it to the career section, and in the full context all it said was: {{tq\|Shi is the director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), located in Jiangxia District, Wuhan. In support of her research there, she has received grant funding from U.S. government sources totaling more than US$1.2 million, including $665,000 from the National Institutes of Health from 2014 to 2019, as well as US$559,500 over the same period from USAID.}} ] (]) 13:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::Yes, if we say it was used to fund her research at X (or into X) the source must support that (see ]).] (]) 14:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::Ah, yes, that's true. If we remove the {{tq\|In support of her research there}} then it should be okay? ] (]) 14:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::::It would be reliable for the fact she received the money, its inclusion is not a matter for this forum.] (]) 14:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
	:Grant information is nothing close to biomedical, and as long as its stating details limited to when, how much, and the broad purpose of that funding, any RS can be used for it. (There are multiple ways to identify grants given out by the US gov't available to the public, it is not like interpretation of biomedical information.
	:That said, while the facet of receiving grants from gov't sources for funding is its fair to include, looooots of people get grants, and at least how that statement is written does feel a bit promo-ish, given that's its not specifically talking about what those grants were being used for. At least to me, that's a tone issue. But you could write the statement that is in debate "Zhengli's research has included backing from NIH and USAID.", still using VF for the source, without any problem. --] (]) 13:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
	:And separately, just to add on to this, here's a Nature source that is more description to this point and points out a few things are missing in addition: her grants need to be tied to the EcoHealth Alliance as WIV was a subrecipient to them (it comes up later but needs to be mentioned there), and it should be pointed out how these grants were pulled by Trump when the connection was made. So let's put it this way: its not true she received grants directly from NIH/USAID, but through EcoHealth Alliance (which I would understand as a researcher on a CV to assert receiving the subaward grants as appearing as direct funding). And the mess around Nov 2020 appears to have more that can be pulled in about Zhengli and her research that may appear in RSes due to the political mess around the funding. --] (]) 14:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
	:Funding and politics would not be covered by MEDRS, thats a good use for that source although we should be careful to use a wide variety of sources. Whoever told you that was mistaken, the characterization of it as a "conspiracy-theory article” also appears to be without merit. I think we may have more of an editor conduct issue here than a reliability one. ] (]) 15:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

			]</s>
	== Jewish Virtual Library ==

			<span style="font-family:Kurale; color:#ff0000;">]]</span> 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	Is Jewish Virtual Library a reliable source?
			* '''Bad RfC'''. While begun in good faith, this RfC is malformed. The opening statement is not {{tq\|neutrally worded and brief}} as our ]. I would also ask why the ] about ''TheGamer'' available at the list maintained by ] isn't considered sufficient. If this is at root a page-specific concern about ], as the opening statement causes it to appear to be, the matter can surely be handled better at ]. ] (] \| ] \| ]) 02:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/] (]) 06:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
			Nevermind then. I'll delete the info on the Flowey page that provides no encyclopedic value. The reason I proposed this originally was because TheGamer's content has gotten worse and more sloppy since 2020.<span style="font-family:Kurale; color:#ff0000;">]]</span> 04:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abottom}}

			== GBNews can be reliable for group based child sex exploitation==
	:From a quick look, it isn't really a 'source' at all, any more than libraries in general are. It's contents seem to consist of articles etc already published elsewhere, which would have to be assessed individually, in the context of what they were being cited for. ] (]) 06:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

			Hello everyone, I am making the argument that whilst GBNews is generally speaking not a great source, it has some of the most stellar investigative reporters on group based child sex exploitation, aka rape gangs.
	:Per , no. It has an entry at ]. ] (]) 07:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

			For example, Charlie Peters has written about this extensively, it is his main topic of writing for years. https://www.gbnews.com/authors/charlie-peters
	::Is this article reliable? I read in the rfc that some articles are reliable sources. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/hasidim-and-mitnagdim] (]) 07:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

			I'd genuinely argue he is even as or if not more reliable on this topic than most trusted sources. If you want an insight into why I believe that, without going into just arguing over facts and analysis which I can do in the comments below this thread, read this anecdote from him being the only reporter who bothered to show up to one of the most prolific child sex abuse cases in British history for most of the hearing https://thecritic.co.uk/why-was-i-the-only-reporter/
	:::Idk. It also says if the article cites sources, those should be used instead. At any rate, I think you need to make the case that it is reliable, most people are just going to assume it isn't unless it is backed up by third party rs.] (]) 07:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
	::::Ok, Thanks!] (]) 07:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

			Yes, GBNews is genuinely quite a sloppy publication, I'm not here to make an argument that it is not even remotely, but I think the summary ought to be changed from the first to the second.
	== Otokonoko (again) ==

			<blockquote><p>There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable.</p></blockquote>
	Previously mentioned at: ] and ].

			<blockquote><p>There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable. It is reliable for specifically group based child sex exploitation.</p></blockquote>
	At ], it is suggested that the inclusion of 男の娘 (Otokonoko) in the results when searching for "trap" at ], an online Japanese to English dictionary, is supportive of inclusion of article text {{tq\|Otokonoko characters are commonly referred to by English-speaking anime and manga fans as "traps"}}. Jisho sources definitions from "JMdict".

			I am not sure if it is precedent to specifically name a reporter, but if that is the case then specifically naming Charlie Peters is important here. He isn't the only good reporter on child sex abuse at GBNews but I'd argue he's the best. In essence, ''I''<nowiki/>'d argue and make a fierce case that Charlie Peters of GBNews (and some other reporters), regardless of his employer, is easily one of the most qualified and leading reporters on this specific topic of group based child sex exploitation and I'd make a very long argument that articles specifically by him should be included and it would be worse not better for Misplaced Pages to include them. I am not arguing for Peters (and some other reporters) to be included for other topics at this moment, just specifically the topic of child sex abuse.
	A review of all used sources at ] would be appreciated; particularly the ''Vice'' source (text & video), which is referenced for the article text {{tq\|Otokonoko (男の娘, "male daughter" or "male girl", also pronounced as otoko no musume) is a Japanese term for men who adopt a culturally feminine gender expression,}} (one of 3 sources here) and {{tq\|The term <Otokonoko> originated in Japanese manga}}.

			I hope I have formatted this correctly, thank you. ] ] 19:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	Thanks. - ] <sup>]</sup> 11:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
			:Sorry but it is the source we judge, not the writer, his work say in the Telegraph can be cited, not his work for GB news. ] (]) 19:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Just to be clear here, I am not saying Peters is the only good reporter. GBNews has some good reporters and they're specifically concentrated on this. I think GBNews is generally slop but I just wanted to cite a specific reporter as an example. I think GBNews' work and information on this very narrow subject is worth considering. ] ] 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:This seems backwards, ] claims require exceptional sources, not exceptions for terrible ones. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:GB News is persistently and relentlessly unreliable. We cannot make exceptions for a single reporter (and I say that as someone who believes Peters to be one of the better GB News reporters, though admittedly that's a very low bar). If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that ''weren't'' run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear. ] 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I don't think more sensationalist reporting is going to make that page better. Let's leave GB News off it. ] (]) 19:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Again, I'm being clear here I'm only talking about one narrow subject. ] ] 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I was also being very specific to that one page as well. ] (]) 20:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::So you're saying that, specifically on child rape, they're sensationalists. I agree with you that their titles would do better without the incessant capitalisations but their reporting on this isn't errant in any way. ] ] 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::So you're basically just saying Peters is a racist and if I can prove he isn't racist you'll be convinced? Here he is covering a white rapist. https://www.gbnews.com/news/two-rotherham-child-abuse-victims-accidentally-left-out-court-rapist-sentencing-office-error ] ] 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: I absolutely did ''not'' say that Peters was racist, so don't do that again please. I was pointing out that GB News inevitably covers Asian grooming gangs, but almost never white ones. If Peters broke that mould I ''would'' be convinced. ] 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::: Oh, I've just seen your userpage. That explains it. ] 19:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::> '''Sources (some are invalid and blatantly biased for[REDACTED] standards but summarise info well. i'll find a proper source for them.'''
			:::::Not all the sources in my user page are valid at all, I've just added them to look deeper in later on to verify myself.
			:::::If you're accusing me of being a right wing grifter so be it, I literally just added an article by Bindle to my user page smearing the right as racist grifters before I read this, I edited McMurdock's article and wrote how he kicked a woman four times, I try my best to be fair. I am not interested in just saying "Pakistani men rape and whites don't", that's absurd. The state has routinely failed children of rape. I'm arguing that GBNews on this topic is good. ] ] 20:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::: I suppose even Bindel can be right occasionally. That's not the point though, I followed a few of your links and saw the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page - that's not good on a BLP, whether you are a right-wing grifter or not (I have no idea if that's the case). But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop. It would be ''incredibly'' problematic if we had to define sources as reliable or not depending on which journos were producing the material, especially as their material is routinely filtered through an editorial process which we have defined as unreliable in the first place. ] 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I understand. I regret making my initial point on Peters specifically because you're right that specific journalists do not save a publication. I've been trying to change the position to accomadate this, and say something more so on the lines of "Generally speaking, their covering of child sex abuse is good, can we make an exception for this topic". Is your argument here from the context of me originally saying Peters was good or is your argument here that no matter how good the journalism is on child sex abuse, the rest of the publication is too sloppy to make an exception? " But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop"
			:::::::> the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page
			:::::::Is this on the word 'despite'? This was talked about on the talk page, I agreed it was a mistake. ] ] 21:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Again, GBNews is generally slop, we can agree on that. I believe they have good journalists focusing on child rape. ] ] 20:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::: We can't separate the two, that's the issue. The ''Daily Mail'' has good journalists as well, the problem in using them is the venue they publish their work in. ] 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I agree the Daily Mail is total slop as well, but if they had excellent journalism on one specific topic that would warrant an exception. That's what I'm arguing here. ] ] 20:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I'm not going to repeat that as you have made clear that was not your intent, but I'm not trying to strawman you. I've misinterpreted what you're saying here as you calling Peters / GBNews / their audience racist (though that is not what you are saying), I am confused on what you exactly are you trying to say with the below. May you please elaborate?
			::::"If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that weren't run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear." ] ] 20:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::: GB News is a right-wing channel (and, to be fair, it is transparently so); it tells its viewers what they want to hear. Much of the right-wing audience believes that child abuse is mostly committed by Asian gangs, because that's what right-wing narratives have told them, even if it's false. GB News doesn't actually ''say'' that is true, but it reinforces those ideas by focusing on such cases. ] 20:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I'm not accusing you of calling them 'racist', but what exactly would you call the behaviour your describing, if not racist.
			::::::Yes, GBNews is obviously a right wing channel. I believe you can criticise nearly all political journalistic publications that aren't state funded of pandering to their audience. CNN, the Telegraph, the Guardian, Fox, etc. I find it all a bit obnoxious.
			::::::I do however have qualms with the idea that GBNews is, how do I put this, 'filtering out or downplaying' rape gangs when they are not Pakistani / Bangladeshi? You say the majority of these perpetrators are white, I believe that is true of CSAM online but I amn't sure that's true at least on a per capita basis for rape gangs though I have collated a lot of sources which I intend to read when I have the time, as you've noted on my talk page, so I'll be better informed to answer this in the future.
			::::::In essence, your hesitance or better put refusal to add an exception to GBNews on rape gangs isn't derived from a sense that they're journalistically or factually incorrect outright but rather they have underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. If I'm understanding what you are saying correctly which I'll need confirmation on as I do not wish to strawman you. ] ] 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::: Yes, that's exactly what GB News does (though I would not go as far as saying it is "factually correct" ''all'' the time). It is, however, understandably more careful with its narratives with this subject than it is with others (although it does publish nonsense like , notably not by Peters). ] 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::That's an opinion piece that more falls under geopolitics. That wouldn't fall into what I, or the other user, is arguing to include.
			::::::::If we can agree that at least ''nearly all'' the time they are factually correct on this very specific subject, and the wealth of information is enormous, we can just put a warning that GBNews has something along the lines of "accusations of underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias" in a general sense (but is better on this subject (and thus the exception being made) as you noted and I agree), but that if possible, should be substantiated with another source, but is still acceptable on this very specific subject, even independently, especially if there are no other sources available. That's reasonable, I believe. Thoughts? ] ] 22:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::: I'm not convinced, I have to admit, and I wouldn't vote in favour of it. Though I ask, could it be any worse that allowing the ''Telegraph'', a paper which posts rabidly transphobic opinion pieces, to be used on trans-related topics (as was allowed in a recent RfC)? It's unlikely. ] 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::As long as what is written is factually true, the agenda behind it just has to be made known to the editor beforehand to caution them. We shouldn't restrain facts and deprive people of them because we deem the authors morally repugnant. ] ] 23:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Comment''' Whilst I agree that GB News should be approached with caution (and I wouldn't touch their climate change reporting with a barge pole), I think Charlie Peters is an exceptional reporter. I would generally trust what he has to say before, for example, ''The Guardian'' or ''The Times''. I think that by barring his reporting on GB News we are probably barring the country's most pre-eminent authority on gang-related CSE. IT's worth bearing in mind that coverage of this topic has now become highly-politicised, but Charie probbaly brings the most balanced and fact-based perspective to the coverage of the issue. We could treat his reporting on GB News on this particular issue as an instance of expert ]. If other sources are reporting the same thing then fine, bit I honestly believe we would be devaluing Misplaced Pages's coverage by excluding him. The fact remains he is not interchangeable with other journalists at other news outlets, because he brings a wealth of research and statistics to the table, and has probably interacted with grooming gang victims more then any other journalist. ] (]) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I know this sounds silly but it is refreshing hearing more knowlegable Wikipedians explain what I'm trying to articulate so eloquently. I do want to be clear however that I think GBNews' coverage on gang CSE is excellent, not just Peters. The main contention seems not to be on if it is factual, no one here seems to be disputing this, but rather if it has underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. You can read my last comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269267836 as I try to ] what another user is saying to the best of ability. ] ] 21:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Are there any third-party sources that validate the claim that GB News and Peters are the best sources on this topic? ] (] • ]) 05:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I agree with the other user in the past linked Otokonoko post. "The appellation 'trap' is ] in the anime pop culture sphere and does not require a citation." As any citation is going to be user generated because translation of slang terms is just that. None of the links actually hold up to reliability standard of Misplaced Pages. This is not a historical event. This is translation of a slang term in another language. ] (]) 04:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
			::What do you mean? How would that work? Are you asking if reputable sources cite GBNews regularly on this topic? If so, yes I've read many articles, especially the Telegraph, mentioning them if I recall correctly. ] ] 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Well, according to ],{{tq\|If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims.}} That seems to be one way it works. Normal editorial processes are that we use secondary sources to evaluate the significant views among published reliable sources, and UBO is in most cases relatively weak validation for other claims. ] (] • ]) 07:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: If you're going to start an RfC on this topic (which would be required to carve out an exception for GB News), it would be far better to present such evidence as opposed to a simple opinion of "I think it's reliable". ] 08:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'm not sure there are any sources out there that flat out stipulate that Charlie Peters is the best source for this topic, but he is increasingly becoming the "go to" source in this area. report how he "broke" the latest story about the Government declining the national inquiry into CSE in Oldham, and other news outlets have approached him to co-author their articles, presumably for his insight, such as and . ''Deadline'' profile him —it is worth bearing in mind he was a specialist in this area before working for GB News, having made a documentary about the Rotherham cover-up. Maggie Oliver—a former police detective who blew the whistle on the cover-up in Greater Manchester and now works with survivors—holds his journalism in . In reality, as NotQualified has noted, other news outlets have re-used facts first reported by Peters in their own stories, so there is no way to really avoid his core reporting. Part of the reason for this is because , so they are dependent on those that have. For the record, I do think there is a difference between the core facts as reported by Peters and the framing of these stories by GB News in its broadcasts. ] (]) 10:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::If other sources have reported on the details, then they should be used. That way editors waste less time arguing about the source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::You get less depth and less nuance from news outlets which repackage his work, usually for sensationalist reasons. Peters has interviewed the survivors and their families extensively. He attended the trials and the sentencing. If other news outlets are happy to re-use his material I don't see why it should be any issue here. ] (]) 12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Any other source is going to be less sensationalist and so less controversial. The issue is doing the simple option so as to avoid wasting time arguing over which source to use rather than something more useful. GBNews is by it's nature always going to be controversial, so using a different source for the same information is the best option. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That is an ad hoc approach which only works for one news story at a time. Simply put, what if other sources don't. This is why it is important the exception is carved out. ] ] 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::If a single news source is the only source that picks up a detail, that probably goes to show that detail shouldn't be included (] / ]). That other news sources decide not to include certain details may well be because they do not believe the details are important, or that they are presented properly. I would say it goes to shows why there shouldn't be a exception given. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@] this statement can be applied to any source in any discussion... ]<sub>]</sub> 21:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Yes, choosing the least contentious source to support a detail is always a good idea (regardless of the article). Arguing other a contentious source when others are available isn't a good use of editors time. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The New York Times says {{tq\|No British media outlet has revived the grooming scandal with the zeal of GB News, a hard-right cable news channel that went on the air in 2021, a decade after The Times’s investigation into grooming gangs.}} which does not exactly sound like a ringing endorsement. It instead sounds rather more like exactly the sort of {{tq\|unduly represent contentious or minority claims}} we're supposed to take care to avoid. If a primary source has been published in multiple places, I see no compelling reason why the reliability of GB News even needs to be discussed, and it seems like nobody wants to use the secondary parts. ] (] • ]) 11:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Surely that's a ] issue to be determined in the context of what is being written, rather than a ] issue. ] (]) 12:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Even if it isn't a "ringing endorsement", it does sound like NYT agrees it has the largest wealth of knowledge on this issue, which is one of the reasons I'd argue it's critical to allow. If that knowledge was erroneous, I'd obviously agree it shouldn't be included, but that knowledge as discussed on this talk discussion seems to be virtually always correct.
			::::> If a primary source has been published in multiple places,
			::::And what if it isn't. Misplaced Pages as a whole suffers. ] ] 17:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{tqbm\|And what if it isn't.}}
			:::::] and ], even were it to be considered reliable. ] (] • ]) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Other sources are reporting on Peters “breaking” the story in that he revived a myth that was taken up by Elon Musk who then intervened in uk politics and got far right grifters competing with each other for his attention, making Peters’ “reporting” noteworthy, but not reliable. ] (]) 15:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::post sources ] ] 15:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::A few examples:
			:::::*FT: “How a handful of X accounts took Elon Musk ‘down the rabbit hole’ on UK politics… In the past week, Musk has also amplified posts on the grooming scandal by former prime minister Liz Truss, former Labour MP Kate Hoey, former Reform politician Ben Habib and people linked to broadcaster GB News.”
			:::::*Yahoo News: “News of Philips's rejection letter was then reported by GB News on 1 January, sparking an intense debate about whether such an inquiry was needed. This was picked up by Elon Musk who began posting prolifically about the issue, levelling harsh criticism at the government and at one point calling for Philips to be jailed for rejecting the request.”
			:::::*BBC: ”Debate around grooming gangs was reignited this week after it was reported that Phillips rejected Oldham Council's request for a government-led inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation in the town, in favour of a locally-led investigation. The decision was taken in October, but first reported by GB News on 1 January.”
			:::::*BBC Verify: “In one post, Mr Musk alleged that "Gordon Brown committed an unforgivable crime against the British people" and shared a video clip from campaigner Maggie Oliver appearing on GB News. In the clip, Ms Oliver alleged: "Gordon Brown sent out a circular to all the police forces in the UK saying 'do not prosecute these rape gangs, these children are making a lifestyle choice'."… But BBC Verify has carried out extensive searches of Home Office circulars issued across that period and found no evidence that any document containing this advice exists.”
			:::::*New Yorker: “The onslaught began on January 1st, when Musk responded to a report by GB News, a right-wing cable-news channel, which said that the country’s Labour government had rejected a national inquiry into non-recent sexual abuse in Oldham, a town just outside Manchester, in northern England. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the actual story is more complicated than that.”
			:::::*NYT: “No British media outlet has revived the grooming scandal with the zeal of GB News, a hard-right cable news channel that went on the air in 2021, a decade after The Times’s investigation into grooming gangs… Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform U.K., an anti-immigrant party, has praised Mr. Peters, saying he had “really reignited this story” and demonstrated that “these barbarities have taken place in at least 50 towns.”… The cumulative effect of Mr. Musk’s inflammatory posts has been to energize Britain’s populist right.”
			:::::] (]) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I’m just here to say that a source being ''generally'' unreliable doesn’t mean they can’t be reliable in specific circumstances. That is, if you want to make a case that a specific subset of GB News output is reliable enough to support statements in a specific article, you can make that argument on the Talk page of the article and it doesn’t need to be carved out as a formalised exception on ]. ] (]) 17:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Absolutely agree with this, both "''generally'' reliable" and "''generally'' unreliable" are not absolutes. Either way you may be required to convince other editors (on the articles talk page) that a specific source should, or shouldn't, be used. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Considering that there is quite a lot of academic material on this subject that isn't currently being used in these articles I'm somewhat reticent to start making exceptions for generally unreliable news media organizations out of some sort of belief we are missing sources. ] (]) 17:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The specifics would be a discussion for the articles talk page, but in general I'd agree. Less news and opinion sources, and more academic sources would be an improvement for many articles. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			If other sources do not follow though with a story, there may well be reason why, and one of those is they can't confirm them. This is what they are RS, they do try to fact-check before publication. So if a reputable publication does not report it I have to ask the question why is the only source reporting this an iffy one? ] (]) 17:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Thanks for this comment, this was also my interpretation when reading the thread, and surprised no-one else referenced the obvious here: If Charlie Peters is such a respectable journalist (let's assume he is for the sake of argument), then why is his work not published in respectable and reliable sources such as The Telegraph that he previously worked for? While trying to avoid a discussion on this journalist career path and choices in life, it does seem remarkably odd that there aren't reliable sources reporting his coverage indepth. This makes me suspect that it's because it's much easier to publish for GB News than it is other news orgs that do fact-checking and thorough reviews. Baring in mind, its not just WP that considers GB News as generally unreliable, there is rough consensus among UK journalism that it is a trashy tabloid-like source. So why is such a respectable journalist writing such great contributions for a trash can? Without intending to speculate much further than I already have, it could be because what he writes for GB News isn't as reliable as what he has written elsewhere. Generally if there were topics that I would say GB News was specifically unreliable for, it'd be along the lines of Reform Party coverage (it's a quasi-primary source at this point), and contentious topics such as the far-right riots, Tommy Robinson, and grooming gangs. Feel free to accuse me of a broad stroke, but I'd otherwise consider GB to be generally reliable for entertainment and culture topics (similar to NYP). ] (]) 00:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Slang terms are often documented in reliable sources (See: ]). But, in cases where no reliable sources can be found for a topic, we don't then use non-reliable sources. And we don't use sources for content which they don't directly support. If no sources used in the article are reliable, and none can be found, the article should not exist & should be sent to AfD.
			::Just to be clear here, it isn't just Peters, I'm arguing that generally their coverage on group based child sex exploitation is good. Peters has written under multiple papers. I do not know why he works for GBNews particularly right now but he brings spectacular journalism to it. ] ] 00:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Editors are welcome to challenge the other sources used; or to nominate the article for deletion; but not to include poorly sourced content.
			*'''Nah.''' If there's news that doesn't suck it'll show up elsewhere. Per {{u\|CommunityNotesContributor}}, that it ''isn't'' showing up elsewhere raises an eyebrow - ] (]) 10:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::BLUE is a nice ''essay''; with the contrasting viewpoint at ]. But, while BLUE outlines a rationale for unsourced content, it is not an excuse to use non-reliable sources.
			*Strong disagree with OP. In fact, i’d say that the fact that the Telegraph has taken up Peters’/GBNews’ reporting might lead us to the rule that the Telegraph, is not reliable on this highly contentious topic. Example: here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/04/grooming-gangs-scandal-cover-up-oldham-telford-rotherham/ Peters and a co-author claim to catalogue the “cover up” of the grooming scandal “to preserve the image of a successful multicultural society” — yet every single factual claim in their article is taken from a pre-existing primary source (a 2010 W Midlands police report, a 2013 sentencing report, the 2014 Rotherham Jay inquiry, the 2015 Rotherham Casey report, the 2019 Manchester police report, the 2022 Telford Inquiry and the 2022 national independent review) that to my mind prove that far from a cover up this has been extensively investigated and publicly addressed for well over a decade. There is no actual investigation here; they rely on the investigation done by others and use it to spin an inflammatory conspiracy theory. I think it might be time to downgrade the Telegraph not upgrade GBNews. ] (]) 15:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	::At the ''policy'' level, WP:V requires that content which has been challenged be verified with reliable sources; the material has been challenged, and therefore requires sources. WP:NPOV requires that the article include aspects of the topic which appear in reliable sources; if this aspect does not appear in reliable sources, it should not appear in the article.
			*:Regarding this article, is it usual for reliable sources to correct the content of articles without referencing a change? This was first published on , and modified by with attribution to GB News added (can verify with ):
	::Neither of those policies are optional. But sometimes the sky is grey. - ] <sup>]</sup> 07:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
			: {{tq\|"In Jess Phillips’s letter to the council, '''revealed by GB News''', she said she understood the strength of feeling in the town, but thought it best for another local review to take place.}}
			: {{tq\|"The state must leave no stone unturned in its efforts to root out this evil. As one victim, '''told GB News''', "..."}}
			*:It's good they corrected the article with necessary attribution for unverified claims, however it took 4 days to do so, and they failed to reference such changes in the article, including the original date. Not a good look imo. ] (]) 15:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer ==
	Longer list of proposed sources:
	:{{Cite web\|last=\|first=\|title=Japanese with Anime\|url=https://www.japanesewithanime.com/2018/02/trap.html\|url-status=live\|access-date=2021-08-02\|website=Japanese with Anime\|language=en-us}}
	:{{Cite web\|title=業界用語集｜ニューハーフ、女装・男の娘の求人情報で充実の掲載件数のnewmo「ニューモ」\|url=https://www.new-mo.jp/glossary/#glossary_10\|access-date=2021-08-02\|website=www.new-mo.jp}}
	:{{Cite web\|title=Japanese Fans Rank Top 5 Anime Traps, “Otokonoko”!\|url=http://tokyogirlsupdate.com/top-anime-traps-201611113376.html\|access-date=2021-08-02\|website=Japanese kawaii idol music culture news {{!}} Tokyo Girls Update\|language=en}}
	:{{Cite web\|last=\|first=\|date=2021-01-03\|title=19 Best Anime Trap Series That Aren't Hentai - Cinemaholic\|url=https://thecinemaholic.com/anime-trap/\|access-date=2021-08-02\|website=The Cinemaholic\|language=en-US}}
	:{{Cite web\|date=2020-02-03\|title=26 Best Anime Traps Characters\|url=https://myotakuworld.com/anime-traps/\|access-date=2021-08-02\|website=My Otaku World\|language=en-us}}

			Is this sigcov , reliable for ]? ] (]) 09:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	<small>Most were previously listed at ]; there was only one response on the sources, which did not consider them reliable.</small>
			:The first link goes to a summary of a detailed software review by Friedrich Blase, the “Innovator-in-Residence” of the Ontario Bar Association. It looks like Dr. Blase, whose references writings on legal technology, might qualify as a subject matter expert, so I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. The second link goes to a blog, which would not be a reliable source. ] (]) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Ok, thank you very much. ] (]) 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Did Howard Dean get paid to give speeches promoting the MEK? ==
	Are any of these reliable? If so, do they verify the proposed article content - {{tq\|Otokonoko characters are commonly referred to by English-speaking anime and manga fans as "traps"}}? - ] <sup>]</sup> 14:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
	:They're as reliable as the rest of the sources in the article. Also, "Fuck" is listed as a profane English word. Reminder that slang at least in the way for trap is the informal version of a formal word. Fuck is not formal to begin with. ] (]) 23:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

			{{u\|Hogo-2020}} and I have bit of a dispute : can we list that Howard Dean as among the American officials who received either cash payments or some other form of compensation for making speeches promoting the ]?
	The rest of the sources:
			Sources:
	:{{cite news\|last=Ashcraft\|first=Brian\|title=What Is Japan's Fetish This Week? Male Daughters\|url=http://kotaku.com/5804979/what-is-japans-fetish-this-week-male-daughters\|access-date=5 January 2014\|newspaper=]\|date=26 May 2011}}
			*A telephone interview with ] that was published on a newsblog on ]. Smith writes that Dean "said that while he's given paid speeches for the group, his advocacy is pro bono."
	:{{Cite news\|url=https://soranews24.com/2014/06/08/japan-begins-to-more-openly-discuss-crossdressing-men-in-heterosexual-relationships/\|title=Japan slowly begins to openly discuss crossdressing men in heterosexual relationships\|last=Clegg\|first=Cara\|date=7 June 2014\|work=SoraNews24\|access-date=14 March 2018\|language=en-US}}
			*An editorial by ] in '']''.
	:{{cite news\|title=OTOKONOKO : DES GARÇONS TROP MIGNONNES\|url=https://www.vice.com/fr/article/5gxd8d/otokonoko-des-garcon-trop-mignonnes\|access-date=5 January 2014\|newspaper=]\|date=8 August 2013}}
			**The editorial links to a '']'' article, which writes "Mr. Dean confirmed to the Monitor that he received payment for his appearances, but said the focus on high pay was “a diversion inspired by those with a different view.”"
	:{{Cite news\|url=https://dot.asahi.com/wa/2014053000082.html\|title=「男の娘」「女装子」と呼ばれる人々 "中性化受け入れ"円満な夫婦の鍵〈週刊朝日〉\|last=森友\|first=ひい子\|date=2 June 2014\|work=AERA dot. (アエラドット)\|access-date=14 March 2018\|language=ja-JP}}
			*An article in '']'' which says "Dean himself has acknowledged being paid but has not disclosed specific sums". Dean's advocate responded to that article, according to Salon, saying "On the issue of the MEK, he is not a paid advocate. He was paid for a handful of speeches, but has not been paid for his advocacy."
	These included. Let's have others get a chance to speak shell we. ] (]) 00:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	:: Of the first five proposed sources, the first, "Japanese with Anime" is a user-generated content blog, and therefore unreliable. The third, fourth, and fifth are all listicles - #3 sources itself from goo.ne.jp (user votes; unreliable), #4 is a very fancy Wordpess site (blog; unreliable), and #5 is explicitly "My Otaku World is one of the best anime blog for the anime fans Build by an anime fan lets have fun together & lets build the best Anime blog on the internet" (blog; unreliable). #2 is trickier as my Japanese is very rusty, but I don't see any sourcing information for their definitions, and can confirm that some of them are just plain incorrect. Reviewing the rest of the site, I wouldn't call it a reliable source.
	:: Regarding the remaining four sources, #1 is Kotaku, "quite a reputable gaming media source" - this isn't about gaming, but I see no reason not to include it, so long as the content is backed up by other, more reliable sources. #2, SoraNews, is a blog (unreliable). #3, Vice, currently has no consensus as to its reliability (per the perennial sources listing on Wiki). #4 states that it's an excerpt from a Weekly Asahi article, which is itself tied to Asahi Shimbun, which I would call reliable - certainly the most reliable of the bunch thus far.
	:: With the proposed text in mind ({{tq\|Otokonoko characters are commonly referred to by English-speaking anime and manga fans as "traps"}}), there are no reliable sources given here that link "otokonoko" and "trap", and especially nothing that supports the "commonly referred to" detail. I would also add that "trap" is considered a pejorative, the implication being that a person presenting as one gender 'traps' an unsuspecting other party into sex with them, and we should be '''very''' careful of using it in Misplaced Pages's voice or normalizing it in any way. ] (]) 15:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

			''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 13:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Artnet news ==

			:@] I don’t think the reliability of any of these sources would be in question by most editors - this seems a bit more of a content dispute on the surface. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 01:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	Over at ], a SPA is repeatedly removing article which alleges that the artist partially forged a painting by another artist, saying that it is "defamatory" and "libellous". ArtNet news has always seemed fine to me for art-world related news, but I would like a second opinion. There is also a in the same publication. ] (]) 18:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
			::@], well Hogo that the guardian piece is an ], the politico piece is a ] and there's no consensus for salon at ]. These are all ]-based arguments.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 03:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:ArtNet is pretty respected in the space. Absolutely an RS in its area - ] (]) 19:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
	::I ~~agree.~~ ~~With~~ a ~~paid~~ ~~staff~~ of ~~editors~~ ~~and~~ ~~reporters~~ to ~~ensure~~ ~~journalistic~~ ~~integrity~~, this ~~isn't~~ ~~just~~ ~~some~~ ~~self-published~~ ~~vanity-press~~ ~~source~~. ~] ~~<small>~~(])~~</small>~~ 20:05, 1 ~~August~~ ~~2021~~ (UTC)		:::The issue at hand is whether a couple of op-eds provide sufficient evidence to justify adding to Misplaced Pages that a politician was paid for making speeches. Then, there's also the question if this would be in line with ]. ] (]) 07:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			* There are two issues here, neither of which is really a ] issue directly (but they touch on how different types of sources can be used and the considerations that come with them.) First, since those are all either opinion pieces, interviews, or quotes, they would have to be ''attributed'' if used; they can't be used to state facts in the article voice - looking over the article history, it previously said {{tq\|In 2012, Seymour Hersh reported names of former U.S. officials paid to speak in support of MEK, including former CIA directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss; New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton}}. If the listed sources were all you could turn up for including Dean in that list with that sort of wording, it's not enough for that specific wording - you can't say as fact that he was paid, and cite an opinion piece from Greenwald to support that. (That said, is there a problem with citing the CS Monitor article directly? Citing it via an opinion piece by Greenwald seems weird; the Greenwald piece is a weaker source due to being opinion.) Either way, second, as is often the case when dealing with largely opinion sources published in RS / ] venues, is the ] issue - the question is then whether Greenwald etc. are noteworthy enough for their opinions about this to be in the article, or whether the sum of all of them is enough to put it over the top, or the like. --] (]) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::That's a pretty explosive story, of course, but on the face of it it looks like what a well-backed story they wrote with caution would look like - ] (]) 20:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
			::I should add, looking at ], it feels to me like this is a result of a dispute over previous wording that probably reflected the ''broad strokes'' of what the sources support but which wasn't quite correct in terms of both the specific source it relied on and how it summarized it - finding individual sources for every person in that list, yet trying to retain it as a list whose original version was really an inaccurate paraphrase of a different source, is going to constantly run into problems like this and may produce ] issues. I would suggest discarding that list and instead reconsidering what the section should say from the top, after reviewing the best available sources individually. Why this list of people? Why those specific names? Just because they were in the Shane source, which ''doesn't'' say they were paid? I suggest going back to the drawing board, looking at the relative level of coverage for each and whether it's something we can use for fact or just attributable opinion, then deciding who to cover and how to cover them based on that. --] (]) 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	: Artnet, despite the silly name, is highly respected and their reporting standards are rigorous. Niche source but generally reliable within that niche. ] (]) 03:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
			:::I think that this is solid advice. ] (]) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Those are great points. It would be great if you can help discuss on that talk page.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 01:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] thanks for your input. Understand the point about CS Monitor. But my next question is this: Ben Smith, a journalist working for a reputable source like POLITICO, wouldn't just fake or distort an interview. Smith isn't stating his opinion, he's giving the results of the interview. To me Smith is a stronger source than CSM because CSM doesn't actually say where they got the info from. In either case, is the CSM source enough to state it without attribution or would it also require attribution? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 01:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: Stumbled across this. The Christian Science Monitor investigation into the MEK paying Dean and many others (which I happened to edit). https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0808/Iranian-group-s-big-money-push-to-get-off-US-terrorist-list . I don't understand the dispute here. Dean is on record in this article admitting he was taking their money.] (]) 01:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Is REAL, Journal of Almería Studies an rs for ] ==
	== nashpia.co.il ==

			See. The link doesn't go to the source cited and I can't find that aource. ] ] 16:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	Is this a reliable source? I tried the link it did not work.] (]) 19:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
	:When I try to go there, my browser gives me a message that the site cannot be reached. There isn't anything there. So the answer is: no it isn't a reliable source, at least the way you spelled the domain name. ~] <small>(])</small> 20:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

			:Found a Spanish Misplaced Pages article on the explorer. ] ] 16:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I found it spelled that way and it was used as a source in wikipedia. I removed it.] (]) 20:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
			::I found a link to the pdf but which I don't read well. ] (]) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] @] My Spanish is at a passable level, from a first glance I’m not seeing anything outlandish/indicative of unreliability but I can take a deeper look a bit later. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 01:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			:The journal isn't peer-reviewed, so it's not a top quality source, but it is a serious journal, in the sense it is something we would usually accept as reliable in general. The writers seem reasonable-ish. However, it's not a good enough journal that an outlandish article would become reliable. I'm reading the article now, and a couple of things strike me as a bit off, but maybe it's just because I've been drawn to it here. Will give a bit more info later today.] (]) 07:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Test performed according to cheap electric guitars. ==
			::OK, the article appears to be claiming Lorenzo Ferrer Maldonado completed a crossing of the ] in 1588. Between February and March. This is an extraordinary claim, I don't think the source is good enough to state that in the article.] (]) 07:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::And if I'd checked, I'd have found out that he made up the story although it was taken seriously 200 years later. ] ] 09:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The article is really odd, it is drifting towards the genre of ''x was actually Spanish/Catalan/Indian/Hungarian'' and ''the Masons hid the evidence of how they built pyramids so they could continue Akenhaton's religion''. They use a photoshop reconstruction of how a woodcut of Ferrer might have looked and suggest a Spanish conspiracy to hide the fact they had discovered the Northwest passage, so the English and Dutch couldn't use it. They also claim that "Anglosaxon scholars" now accept Ferrer's claims, but fail to cite them. Valeriano Sánchez Ramos seems to be a quite decent local historian of eastern Andalucia, whereas Alfonso Viciana Martínez-Lage is more of a general writer but has published some academic stuff. I can't quite make my mind up if this is a sort of ''folie à deux'', or whether they are publishing an academic joke.] (]) 17:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::They managed to get published in Boletín de la Real Sociedad Geográfica (Tomo CLX (2023), p. 115). But still I wouldn't give it much weight unless there are other scholars that concur with them. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I'm really surprised at that, I would have to say this is covered by ]. It is hard to understand how the editorial team might have accepted for publication an article which suggests an ice-free passage existed in the winter of 1588. You need specialist ships, and often icebreakers, to do it in summer today.] (]) 07:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::That someone was able to navigate the northwest passage at that time is definitely bthe type of exception claim that ] talks of. This would require multiple high quality sources, so this source alone would not be reliable for the claim. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			==''Pirate Wires''?==
	I recently added info to this Misplaced Pages page: ] . There's a section about construction and there's a statement ''Cheaper guitars are often made of cheaper woods, such as plywood, pine, or agathis—not true hardwoods—which can affect durability and tone. '' That statement is absolutely true. No question about it. But electronics are the heart of electric guitars, so I wanted to add a bit of info about the electronics of cheap electric guitars.
			'']'' as an "American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." It doesn't shout "reliable source" to me (feels more like a group blog), but could somebody else take a look at this and help me determine if (a) its articles, or (b) its claims about itself should be cited in articles or BLPs, ? — '''] \| ] \|''' 20:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Wouldn’t this be an aboutself citation anyway? I would be more concerned about primary/OR here in that case.
			:Regarding the source: they are likely to be pretty biased, but according to the page linked, they seems sufficiently reliable for this, unless someone can dig up large-scale issues I missed. Employees, proper funding etc. all seem to be fine. ] (]) 21:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of {{talk quote inline\|as of January 2025, his profile at the online publisher '']'' lists him as a senior editor\|q=yes}}? I just wanted to make sure ''PW'' was something worth mentioning at all, or if it was more akin to 'he's the senior editor this super-serious blog' and name-dropping a site that bore no mention. — '''] \| ] \|''' 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I’m not sure, but think being descriptive is fine for “articles about Misplaced Pages” and stuff, “critical“ is probably better coming from a specific source, even if it’s obvious. With everything else, it’s probably a question of DUE, not RS. ] (]) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::: I'd eschew calling out any of his particular articles over others, since there's... no reason to, right? Without reliable third-party sourcing, they're no more notable or inclusion-worthy than his others. — '''] \| ] \|''' 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I think this is a case for ], but it seems like a reasonable option ] (]) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			: Pirate Wires has a strong right wing "libertarian tech bro" bent to its coverage, unsurprising given its links to Peter Thiel. The way it frames events is often strongly slanted, sometimes to the point of being misleading. Take for instance the recent story claiming that the WMF had been taken over by "Soros-backed operatives" . I would argue that this framing is conspiratorial and hyperbolic. I think it might sometimes be usable with caution for uncontroversial facts, but more objective sources should be preferred. ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: Here's a Business Insider story on Pirate Wires that gives a good sense of its ethos . ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Invoking ] to attack an organization is not a good start for Pirate Wires, a new publication that does not have much of a reputation at this point. Definitely not ], and I would avoid using this publication for ]. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I wouldn't call it a "group blog", it just has a niche audience in the tech industry. It is certainly more factually based than Fox News. The article you linked is using it problematically though. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 14:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			] (]) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Solana is the founder and operator of Pirate Wires, so maybe it's wise to consider his pieces in particular self-published. No idea the level of editorial rigour other contributors are under though. ] (]) 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	I wrote the following to share what I have found out during my 12 years playing the guitar: ''Electronics of cheap electric guitars are usually durable and solderings are done correctly, but the material and tone quality is lower than with more expensive models.''
			* ''Pirate Wires'' should be considered Generally reliable. The information that they publish, though perhaps from a libertarian or right wing political slant, is generally truthful/accurate and therefore should be considered ] unless someone is able to provide substantial evidence and examples that disprove this. ] (]) 16:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It's Mike Solana's blog. ] (]) 17:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Do you have an evidentiary basis for your claim? I ask because I was recently described in a Pirate Wires article as a member of a powerful pro-Hamas group, and while this was entertaining in its foolishness, the important point for RSN is that it was a factual error. The article contained many inaccuracies about various things, and it was clear that no attempt had been made to avoid errors and erroneous conclusions. So, using it for BLPs might be unwise, and the notion that it is "generally truthful/accurate" seem highly questionable. Of course, I only have one data point, so it could be an outlier, but I doubt it. ] (]) 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Yeah. I was not happy about Pirate Wires being used for that whole fiasco. But as for the evidence look above at the link {{U\|Selfstudier}} provided in which Mike Solana says, "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever." ] (]) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously ''his personal thing.'' ] (]) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. ] (]) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. ] (]) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::What "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" are you referring to? Can you cite specific examples please and quote from the source directly? Also, are there other reliable sources which then criticize PW for "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" or is that ] and/or your own conclusion being reached? ] (]) 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Considering that comment and the fact that founder ] is the chief marketing officer of ], Pirate Wires has a major ] with all of the individuals and organizations associated with Founders Fund, and is a non-] source with respect to all related topics. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 03:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Pirate Wires is trashy far-right culture wars content. It is at best a group blog - ] (]) 10:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Marginally reliable, there seems to be a pretty wide spread quality wise because they seem to allow their writer a loose leash. This means that some articles are very good and some are very bad. Personally I've found them solidly reliable for the more wonkish techy stuff but have a lot of issues when they start to cover politics or culture/society in general. Crypto seems to be the only blindspot within their otherwise area of expertise, their crypto coverage is just awful and should be avoided like the plague. When used I would attribute and I would strongly advise against any use for BLP not covered by ABOUTSELF. I agree that pieces by Solana should be treated as self published and that coverage by Pirate Wire is not to be considered independent of the Founders Fund. ] (]) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			=== Need context before coming to RSN ===
	I backed that info up with a test I made: I bought 5 cheap electric guitars and tested them for a month. I linked to the content I wrote about that test, on the part where electronics are torn down.
			At this point, the source is used in only 7 articles in mainspace. . in general, RSN really shouldn't be used to approve sources ahead of time, editors exercise their own discretion, debate merits of source in the talk page of article, and come here if the same source is debated over and over again, or if reliability is still at issue. ] (]) 16:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Per <s>{{U\|Slatersteven}}</s> its founder describes it as a ] - it should be treated accordingly. ] (]) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Not me. ] (]) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Oh dear did I misread? OOPS should be per {{U\|Selfstudier}} apologies. I will strike above. ] (]) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It is not ] and its founder merely said things along the lines of "I am not bought and paid for nor a mouthpiece for any billionaire" etc. Now I do not know the veracity of that statement for sure, but I do not see that Mike Solana declared Pirate Wires to be SPS or a blog. It has numerous other independent journalists and appears to run as a full-fledged journalistic organization like any other, with their own right leaning or right-libertarian bias of course. But bias is not a reason for a source to otherwise be deprecated or considered SPS or anything else, it is just the nature of nearly every source that some bias to one direction or another is to be expected. ] (]) 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::But they don't have any indication of editorial controls, or a fact-checking process, or any of the things that an ] would have; neither is there any reason to think they have a particular {{tq\|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}. A statement like "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever" makes it pretty clear that it's not structured the way we'd expect a RS to be structured. I'm with the editors above who describe it as a blog - there's just nothing here that even has the ''shape'' of an RS. The fact that the person who runs it sometimes also includes guest posts by other people doesn't change the fact that there's no editorial board, no source of fact-checking, and most of all no reputation. Like... what makes you think that it's a ], according to the criteria we use? Where do you feel its reliability comes from? --] (]) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yeah by that criteria this is a SPS, one guys blog is still one guys blog even if they let their friends post. ] (]) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			=== Usage in ] ===
	'''Source:''' https://guitaristnextdoor.com/best-electric-guitar-under-200/#quality-of-the-electronics
			Is the Pirate Wires piece by ] a reliable source of claims for the ] article? Rindsberg has published other content about Misplaced Pages on Pirate Wires, including . — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 04:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			:It's at best, usable for the attributed opinion of Rindsberg only, but even then, it's obviously polemical and partisan. There's lots of right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages that I personally find disingenuous, but inevitably an article on "Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages" is going to have to include some partisan sourcing, but not framing it as fact is essential. I am unsure whether Pirate Wires is prominent enough a publication that it would be due to mention in any capacity. ] (]) 04:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	I wanted to back up my statement.
			::I don't even think its usable for that... Can't find anything that suggests that Rindsberg is a subject matter expert. ] (]) 18:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Sources in that article should have some leeway, as Misplaced Pages is obviously going to be criticised by such sources. But I totally agree with Hemiauchenia that framing is key. This is the opinion of a hyper partisan source, framing it as fact is wrong. Whether it should be included or not is a discussion for the articles talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It is more or less a group
			:blog that mostly publishes opinion, including eg antisemitic Soros conspiracy theories. Any Misplaced Pages editor reading their coverage of this project will immediately spot multiple falsehoods and errors, and also personal attacks on names editors based on these inaccuracies. At best on a par with Quillette. In short, not reliable for this topic, and if this topic is a guide to how robust its general reporting is it’s probably not reliable for anything. ] (]) 16:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Both unreliable and ]. Rindsberg's views on any topic are quite irrelevant to anything. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 06:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Agree fully. Unreliable and undue. ] (]) 14:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:almost certainly no. the article attacking[REDACTED] has falsehoods and even ignoring that and arguing its an opinion piece we could use with attribution , it goes at it from a very marginal POV … there are more useful opinion pieces from more reliable outlets out there.] (]) 07:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:How is it used by others or is it even used by others? If sources have cited their work then I think we can as well. However, I would be very cautious about using it as an independent reference. Very cautious to the point where I would generally say no. Perhaps in a case where it's spot on topic (ideological bias of Misplaced Pages) but then only with attribution. Speaking generally, these sort of sources are always difficult as they may provide very good information but other than editors reading the text and using their own common sense, OR, etc, we don't have a good way to judge the quality of the output. BTW, this is also why I think "use with caution" may not be specific enough. Some sources are more like "use with caution but probably OK" while others are more like "use with extreme caution but there is probably a case where it provides more than about self content". ] (]) 14:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Pirate Wires itself is notable as it's had coverage in other notable outlets but its viewpoint about Misplaced Pages per se might not have been documented in RS yet. But I'm confused -- Why are some of these other media outlets' self-published viewpoints ] without them necessarily being considered RS themselves? ] (]) 13:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The term '']'' refers to sources without adequate editorial oversight, which includes most ]. ] are not self-published sources. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 14:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Imo Having Misplaced Pages articles that discuss whether Misplaced Pages is reliable, biased, antisemitic, etc is silly. We're all too inherently conflicted as Misplaced Pages editors to give a sober assessment of these topics and what is/isn't due to include. These topics are best left to scholars. That said, Pirate Wires is a lot less established than these other publications you mention. ] (]) 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Outright rejecting ] because it's "right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages" and has "a very marginal POV" is the issue with ] that the piece is trying to critique. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 13:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::But it does affect ] weight (which requires balance between sources, and which is the real concern for something that, as a ] or a website with no reputation, would obviously be opinion at best.) The article already contains a large number of right-wing sources with a similar perspective; does this piece add anything to them? My feeling is that articles like this are subject to problems where editors try to do this nose-counting thing where they add dozens of opinionated or biased sources saying the same thing because they feel it's a ''really important'' perspective - but that's not how opinion is really meant to be used. If we have twelve sources that are fundimentially similar saying the same thing, they ought to be condensed down to a single sentence or so saying "a bunch of sources said X" (unless some of them are individually noteworthy on their own merits somehow, eg. if they're an opinion from a significant expert, but that obviously isn't the case here.) --] (]) 14:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] makes a perfectly valid point. ] (]) 14:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::It's being rejected because it's a random tech guy's blog - not because it's right wing. ] (]) 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::One thing @] said I half-agree with. The question of Misplaced Pages bias is one best answered by academics - which we should document appropriately and neutrally - the opinion of Ashley Rindberg on a blog with no editorial board is not a notable opinion, again, not because of its left-right bent but because <s>s</s>he's just some person with a megaphone. ] (]) 14:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::It is your opinion that it is a blog. That itself would need evidence and probably an RfC. ] (]) 14:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Also, ] is a man. ] (]) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Evidence has already been provided. In this thread. The founder brags about having no editorial board on twitter dot com. ] (]) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Getting neither the gender {{tq\|"she's"}} nor the spelling {{tq\|"Ashley Rindberg"}} correct shows me you may not have looked into this very much. ] (]) 14:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Oh do stop. That's an awful lot to take from a bloody typo. ] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Here's a freebee for all the people looking to say Misplaced Pages has a left-wing bias. This is what a reliable source accusing Misplaced Pages of a left-wing bias looks like: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.2020.1793846 ] (]) 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Two can play that game. https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased ] (]) 14:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::The Manhattan Institute is a think-tank with no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it is obviously not a ]. --] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::This too, in addition to my comment below. Frankly I'm finding this interaction very strange. ] (]) 14:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::I should add that the Manhattan Institute was discussed previously ]; the discussion was never closed or added to ] but by a quick nose-count the total unreliable + deprecate opinions outnumbered the "unclear" opinions almost two-to-one (and there were almost no people saying it was GREL.) --] (]) 14:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::What game? I literally provided a source accusing Misplaced Pages both of left-wing bias and of bias against women at the same time. ] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::*We don't actually require an RFC for every individual dispute; and sources certainly do not ''automatically default'' to reliable. Just doing a quick nose-count in this discussion suggests that it's extremely unlikely that an RFC on Pirate Wires' reliability would support your contention that it is reliable - numerous issues have been raised, especially regarding its lack of editorial controls and its lack of the {{tq\|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}} that RS requires. We can pull it through an entire RFC if you really think it's necessary but I think your time would be better-spent looking for more clearly reliable secondary sources covering this, if you want it in the article. This would also turn things back to the more fundamental ] problem I mentioned above - this looks identical to dozens of similar pieces posted by people with similar opinions; given that it's published in what's ''at least'' a low-quality source compared to the ones already in the article, what makes this one significant enough to highlight? --] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:For disclosure, I originally wrote the ] article. I think the answer is ''no'' to this question specifically, and similar questions generally.<Br/>Pirate Wires is an advocacy media outlet. Its writing is in a punchy tone -- a tech-ish form of ] -- that blends opinion with explanatory reporting. They don't do spot news. So there's just no utility in using it for encyclopedia-writing.<br/>That's not to say it's either good or bad, merely that it doesn't serve the limited purposes for which we use sources here. (It ran a widely cited interview with ] and I don't think anyone believes they made-up the interview. But if we need to cite that interview in an article it can be referenced to any of the numerous RS that, themselves, cited it through précis', versus Pirate Wires directly.) In any case, anything it publishes that ''is'' encyclopedic will be covered in a second, more conventional RS and we should reference the second source. Anything not referenced in a pass-through outlet is probably undue. ] (]) 18:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			== CEIC data ==
	All this content has been fact-checked by Tommy Tompkins, an experienced guitar player who has been working with me.

			I often see this site being used as a source for country-list data. They appear to be professional, but I'm not sure if they're considered a proper secondary source. They do not appear to be the same CEIC as the one owned by ], as they say they are owned by "ISI Markets". ] (]) 23:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	I'm an electrician by vocation and performed test measurements with my professional FLUKE-multimeter. I also checked solderings and took photos to prove that everything is fine. I thought that this would work as a source for Misplaced Pages too.

			:It looks like just a big database. I would trust the first party sources for raw data more. ] (]) 10:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	And yes, I know that Misplaced Pages links are Nofollow and don't affect the SEO rankings at all. But that Misplaced Pages article lacked crucial info, that's why I added it.
			::If in question use secondary sources.] (]) 02:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Fantasy Literature ==
	Reasons why I think this kind of source is valid and why I added the link to my content in the first place.

			I see this source around a lot and I would like to have it settled for whether it is OK to use for reviews. It looks good to me and not promotional or any of the typical sorts of issues that plague these kinds of websites, but I am not sure, and I would like to know before I use it on pages, and sometimes books are cited to this at NPP and I am unsure how I should judge it. I would judge it as decently established but it looks to me to be straddling the line between online review publication and blog. It's used on about 160 already. Anyone else have any thoughts? ] (]) 02:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	1. I checked references for that page (Electric guitar): those included sites like: musicradar.com (self-published blog with ads and affiliate links), lespaulforum.com (well it's a forum), StewMac (content there is self-published by SteweMac which's main goal is to sell guitars and gear). I personally have nothing against these sources (well the forum source is a bit unreliable, but the link is broken anyway). But after looking at these I thought that maybe I'll add something based on my heavy focus on cheap electric guitar this year.

			:It has the appearance of a blog. It has a sort-of staff:. I'd be hesitant to use it for ] purposes. ] (]) 09:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	2. I have really performed a test, using legitimate methods. Measuring resistance gives us valuable info about how much copper wire is around magnetic pole pieces. More resistance there is, hotter tones the pickup provides. I checked solderings to see if everything is well-attached and that there are no cold solderings.
			::This is the terms its staff work under:
			::Basically they're unpaid volunteers who become voting members of the staff. They are expected to review an unspecified but regular number of books in order to maintain their membership. It isn't clear that there's much in the way of editorial oversight beyond a pledge not to plagiarize review material. Considering their concentration on volume of reviews and appearance of loose editorial standards I'd be hesitant to use this group to establish the notability of a book. ] (]) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::So just for notability purposes it is unusable or is it something that should not be included on pages that are notable? ] (]) 22:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I'd say unusable for notability purposes. I'd likely leave it off other pages unless it had something significant to say that better sources didn't. ] (]) 14:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Not an RS. ] (]) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			== NASASpaceFlight.com ==
	But to my amazement, not only the link was removed, but also the statement too. At the same time, the tonewood statement remained(without proof).

			Looking to see if we can come to some consensus on 's use as a reliable source in articles related to ], specifically in its use in ] and ].
	I chatted with a moderator of yours. He first stated that all self-published sources are forbidden. I didn't found anything stating that and the actual Electric guitar Misplaced Pages page and its References speak against this.

			At a glance, to me the site seems to be a bit fan-sitey and seems to glean a lot of information from rumour and speculation based on photos and video they've taken from the perimeter or via drones flying over SpaceX facilities. I also see no evidence on the website of any editorial oversight or fact checking policies.
	After letting him know all this he stated that my site and page has Affiliate links to the products I test. I didn't know that's forbidden. And because you are linking to musicradar.com, I assumed it to be OK.

			] mentions the site as a reliable source but the only criteria they give for its inclusion are that the source <br>
	I performed a legitimate test. I can send a photo of my graduation diploma as an electrician. I know how to use a multimeter. I know how to measure resistance. I know how to check solderings. My content was fact-checked by others. Any book Misplaced Pages articles refer can be way more inaccurate.
			{{tq\|1="should already have a Misplaced Pages page (notable enough to be created) and have reliable sources covering them (notable enough to be mentioned)."}} which I think we can all agree is not valid signal of reliability. ] (]) 03:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			:] calls for {{tq\|"a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"}}. A Google books search appears to show ], and even use by NASA. They appear to have some editorial staff, but there's no editorial guideline I could find. Obviously the forum section wouldn't be reliable per ].<br>Given how often they are used by other sources I would think they should probably considered generally reliable. Is there any specific instances that are of concern? After all generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	So is there a rule (that's broken a lot) that a blog while it's a legitimate business is not a valid source?
			::{{tq\|1=Is there any specific instances that are of concern? After all generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable.}} Nothing in particular, mostly just looking to see if coverage of events from this source would constitute sigcov in reliable sources for the purposes of ]. ] (]) 15:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::This is probably a reliable source, but ] isn't just matter of reliability. Notability is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{tq\|1=WP:SIGCOV isn't just matter of reliability.}} no, but coverage in an unreliable source does not count for ]. That's why I'm seeking opinions on whether this source in particular is reliable. ] (]) 15:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I've found their written news reporting to be generally reliable however their coverage of SpaceX in particular often comes off as promotional (you very rarely see the controversies or criticisms found in other sources reflected in their work) but that may be more self-censorship to maintain their inside access to SpaceX than objective promotion. I would not touch their forum or youtube channel with a 10 foot stick but thats surely besides the point of this discussion. ] (]) 21:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{tq\|1=I would not touch their forum or youtube channel with a 10 foot stick but thats surely besides the point of this discussion.}} well, maybe not exactly besides the point. There are several citations to their YouTube channel in the articles I've mentioned (and similar articles). What in particular about their YouTube channel do you believe is less reliable than their website? ] (]) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::In general I find the stuff on their Youtube channel to be much more speculative and clickbaity as well as of a generally low quality. Often its just one of their people flipping between a bunch of pictures from the day before and speculating live about what they might mean. It also doesn't appear to be subject to the same standard of editorial review, its not the same standard of writing and analysis (much of it appears unscripted and I haven't seen them make corrections after the fact). ] (]) 21:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			== How restrictive is the TRT World „Turkish Government conflict of interest“ unreliability? ==
	Or is it the affiliate links on the page? I can make a new page without those links to act as a source for my statement.

			How broad should this restriction be interpreted? For example, does it include topics such as ], ] and the current conflict in Syria? ] (]) 12:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	Or is it the fact that I have affiliate links on my site overall? MusicRadar has these. SteveMaw actually sells guitars. There is a disconnection here.

			:I would have thought it applies very strongly for Kurdistan and Syria, as Turkey is in open conflict in those areas. Israel might depend on the context, Turkey obviously isn't a uninterested party but it's not Iran. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	And I didn't feel that my addition was spam. I did it once on to a page that I have gone through carefully. I'm professional about that subject. I'm professional when it comes to electronics too.
			::To be clear it would be reliable for statements of the Turkish governments official views in all cases. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Of course, I‘m just asking about reliability for facts, because I saw some less than great statements, particularly in the I/P area. Thank you! ] (]) 14:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Basically agree with ActivelyDis. I think TRT World is pretty good on non-domestic issues on the whole, but not for anything Kurdish. Israel is fine. Probably not good for Syria as Turkey is a belligerent party there, although I’ve never seen it actually publish anything questionable on Syria apart from Kurdish-related stuff. ] (]) 16:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Is “Zannettou, Savvas "A Quantitative Approach to Understanding Online Antisemitism". a reliable source for ] ==
	Hopefully, you can clarify the matter.

			I can’t find evidence it’s been published. ] ] 19:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	I want to thank you for your time and for the work you are doing! :) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span>
	:We need RS to say it, this site does not look like an RS.] (]) 12:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
	but can't clarify why you think that similar sites that don't even buy and test guitars and forums are?
	or why my statement was removed?
	:Without knowing what sites you refer to I can't say. What I can say is ] is clear blogs can only be used if they are by acknowledged experts in that field. I am unsure whoever Tommy Tompkins is counts as such an acknowledgment. Nor does the use of bad sources justify the use of another bad source, it just means we should remove the other bad sources.] (]) 13:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
	Read the message above...well I can make things easier for you :) here's a quote about those other sources: ''musicradar.com (self-published blog with ads and affiliate links), lespaulforum.com (well it's a forum).
	Here's a definition of expert for you (webster): ''one with the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject''
	I'm the expert. I open up electric guitars. I measure resistances and check electronics based on the knowledge I've gained when I studied my vocation and during my 12 years with guitars. My site has combined 82 years of guitar experience behind it. https://guitaristnextdoor.com/should-you-even-trust-us-guitaristnextdoor-com-testimonials/

			:I'm not up for reading it right now, but it's been published, and the correct citation is: Zannettou, S., Finkelstein, J., Bradlyn, B., & Blackburn, J. (2020, May). A quantitative approach to understanding online antisemitism. In ''Proceedings of the International AAAI conference on Web and Social Media'' (Vol. 14, pp. 786-797). Google Scholar shows where it can be accessed. If it's kept, the references to it in the Notes section should change "Savvas" to something like "Zannettou et al." ] (]) 21:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	1 of those experts is David Slavkovic, he mainly works as senior editor at https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/ a page that gets over 50million visits each month. He also works with me because experts hangs out with experts. He performs with his own name because he trusts my site. Another expert has taught guitar since high School: DL Shepherd. I have spent this year studying budget electric guitars. And you say that this is not enough? We have the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject, in this case about guitars and all gear related to guitars.
			::I should add that the Zannettou et al. citations that currently exist in the article are preprints, which generally are not RSs, per ]. The other citation was also subsequently in conference proceedings. Conference proceedings might or might not be reliable sources for specific content, depends on the conference and the content. ] (]) 22:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	:We need RS saying they are an expert, and treating them as such.] (]) 13:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
			:::It's important to keep in mind that ''most'' of the preprints people link to as sources were eventually published; we just link to the preprints as courtesy links because they're usually what's available. PREPRINT even mentions this. --] (]) 15:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Now I doubt musicradar.com is an RS either. lespaulforum.com might be, it would depend on who posts on it (for example if Eric Clapton posts there that would be an RS).] (]) 13:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
			::::Yes, but in that case, you still need the correct citation for wherever it eventually appeared, and if there's a link to that final version in full, then you should link to the full final version rather than a preprint draft. In this particular case, the citations themselves were not for the final version, and the final versions are both available in full elsewhere. ] (]) 15:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::{{u\|Slatersteven}}, ] may or may not be reliable, but at least it is not self published, it is a product of magazine publisher ]. The specific cite that GnD2020 appears to be concerned about looks to be a repost from sister publication/print magazine ]. - ] (]) 13:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
			:What's the context for this question? Where is it being cited/do you want to be able to cite it? ] (] \| ] \| ]) 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Ahh, I see. Well (OP) there is your answer, it's not an SPS. It's more of a ], which can be RS.] (]) 13:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
			::@] I'm a bit confused by the question - did you look at the article? It's cited several times there and as I can't find evidence that it's been reliably published I don't think it should be used. ] ] 08:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	*Note that I have over 25 years of experience playing, maintaining, repairing and even building guitars, though I'd never consider myself an expert on the subject. I find the OP's claim of 12 years of experience qualifying them as an expert to be rather dubious, and am rather surprised that no-one has yet mentioned that the ] which they have self-published will never be acceptable without being picked up and vetted by an authoritative re-publisher. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 20:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
			:::Sorry; that's my bad. I was running on low sleep and shouldn't have been on Misplaced Pages, and I read your prose where you don't include a link but glazed past the header text where you did include a link. ] (] \| ] \| ]) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:See https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/7343/7197 ] (]) 15:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			Apologies, I missed another one, also apparently never published."Zannettou, Savvas, Tristan Caulfield, Jeremy Blackburn, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Michael Sirivianos, Gianluca Stringhini, and Guillermo Suarez-Tangil. "On the Origins of Memes by Fringe Web Communities." arXiv.org, September 22, 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.12512." ] ] 08:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			:I provided a link to the published version of that one in my second comment above. The citation is Zannettou, S., Caulfield, T., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Sirivianos, M., Stringhini, G., & Suarez-Tangil, G. (2018, October). On the origins of memes by means of fringe web communities. In ''Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018'' (pp. 188-202). There's an alternate citation at the top right of the copy where it says "ACM Reference Format." ] (]) 13:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Excluding academic sources due to ''relative'' infrequency of citations in citation indexes ==
			::@] ACM is reputable, but I seem to have forgotten that we can use published conference papers, but not papers simply presented at a conference. Sorry. ] ] 14:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I'm not sure that I'm following. Both papers were published in conference proceedings. FWIW, even preprints are ] in WP's sense of this term, which is only "a source that is made available to the public in some form." Even if there are no conference proceedings, it's possible to use a conference paper that was presented, as long as the presenter has made it publicly available (e.g., via something like arxiv.org). But all of this only establishes that the paper is published and therefore verifiable, not that it's a RS for the content in question. ] (]) 14:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Sorry, I mean when is a paper submitted to a conference run by a reliable organisation an RS? When submitted? If published as part of the publication of the conference papers? ] ] 15:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::A paper that's been submitted to a conference should be treated like a preprint. A paper that appears in conference proceedings is more likely to be an RS, but that will depend on whether the conference is one that reviews all papers in a way that's similar to peer-reviewed journals, and — as always — on the WP content that it's being used as a source for (a paper can be an RS for some content and not for other content). Assuming that the papers do substantiate the WP text, I'm guessing that they're RSs (Google Scholar indicates that they've been cited over 200 times). ] (]) 16:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::It is published, Conference proceedings of Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), volume 14. AAAI has been around since 1979 with respected associations. Submission to a conference is not sufficient to meet any standards. Acceptance by a reputable conference after peer review (some conference talks are invited and not peer reviewed) is a good indicator of reliability though not a guarantee (the conference paper may well be revised between acceptance and publication in a proceedings and even then might in the long run not be considered reliable). As it stands, I would say reliable for the use of Happy Merchant online unless other sources can be found undermining its reliability. ] (]) 15:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I would consider a paper published in the proceedings of a respected conference a reasonably reliable source. If it was contradicted by peer-reviewed research or, even better, a peer-reviewed meta-analysis of available literature I would give it a bit less due than those sources. But I'd say that yes, at its base, this looks reliable. ] (]) 16:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Thanks all. I'm really cross with myself for not checking on Google Scholar - ironically I've just done that with another paper. I would have saved you all a lot of time if I had done that. ] ] 18:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] ==
	It is an established principle here - see ] - that one criteria of reliability for academic sources is whether or not they and/or the journal in which they have been published have been cited in other reliable academic publications. And that checking citation indexes is one way to determine that. The question I raise here is this: If an academic source has a low citation count - that is, a citation count greater than zero, or perhaps greater than one or two, - is that low count ''alone'' a reason to object to the inclusion of that source in an article here?
			<!-- ] 19:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1751745462}}
			Should we be using articles from the Hawar News Agency, especially in relation to the (geo)political side of Rojava? This also includes articles in the scope of the Syrian civil war. It has ties to the SDF, which means there is a significant conflict of interest here; <s>I should also add that the YPG/YPD/SDF , which raises concern over its reliability.</s> I want to get community consensus before I do anything, especially because the article in question (]) is related to a CTOP. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 19:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:(Copying this response from the talk page of the ]:) Of course we have to use Hawar, simply because it is one the most prominent news sites from Syria. It ''shouldn't'' be used as the sole source for contentious issues (unless it cites claims), but for basic facts such as local election results, regional policy decisions, etc. it is one of the only sources available. It is also used as a source by academic researchers such as in ''The Kurds in the Middle East: Enduring Problems and New Dynamics'', ''The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts'', ''Soldiers of End-Times. Assessing the Military Effectiveness of the Islamic State'', and ''Statelet of Survivors. The Making of a Semi-Autonomous Region in Northeast Syria''.<br>(The following part is new, written for RSN:) These are books written by experts on Syria, released by reputable publishers such as ‎ Oxford University Press, and they have seemingly deemed Hawar to be a partisan, but useable source. Speaking from experience as an editor who has been active in editing articles on the Syrian civil war for ten years, I would also note that Hawar was previously discussed by editors and similarily assessed, as it is fairly reliable though should be used with caution in especially problematic fields such as casualty numbers (where partisanship becomes a major problem). ] (]) 20:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Having read through the article you linked it doesn't show that media is heavily censored. A relevant sentence would appear to be: <br>{{tq\|"In the current situation, the journalists we interviewed usually stress that, on the one hand, they enjoy relative freedom of expression. The PYD did not forcefully close those it considers as antagonistic media. Reporters can move freely in the region and cover a wide array of issues. Additionally, journalists from international or regional media are also generally allowed to operate freely. However, they also say that there is always a tension with the authorities in power and there are red lines that cannot be crossed."}}<br>As well as:<br>{{tq\|"Gradually, they seem to have adopted an editorial line that is less critical, if not supportive, of the political system in Rojava. This support, according to some local journalists, is not due so much to direct imposition from the authorities, but rather to their own convictions and, even more important, to the feeling that doing otherwise would be very unpopular in a conflict-ridden context."}}<br>So it doesn't sound like they have the most freedom of media, but it appears a long way from heavily censored. Restrictions on reporting matters that could effect security are common in areas of conflict (and even outside of them).<br>Hawar News Agency has some ] and would probably be covered by ]. Issues of bias (]) and opinion (]) don't immediately make a source unreliable. In general I would agree with Applodion, reliable but caution should be taken for issue where it's bias or censorship of security matters may effect it's reporting. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Agree with above, helpful to understand its bias, but this means to use with caution and understanding rather than preventing use. ] (]) 00:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Agree with the above. If we are citing it for contentious claims, then it's better we provide attribution. Unless OP or someone else can come up with credible sources that ] the reliability of ''Hawar'', I don't see any reason to worry about its inclusion. Looking over the article, it seems most of the citations to it are for easily verifiable facts (i.e. changes in AANES leadership, recognition by the Catalan parliament, etc.), rather than anything contentious. --] (]) 10:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:If we consider TRT sub-optimum in relation to Rojava and the Syrian war because of its affiliation to the Erdogan government (see above on this noticeboard), the same should apply to Hawar. It’s fine for reporting the statements by AANES/PYD/SDF or uncontentious facts, but it should always be attributed and triangulated for anything at all contentious. I’d rate it above Al-Masdar and below the SOHR for reporting facts about eg battles in the Syrian war, but like them is a weak source. ] (]) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Is there anything to show that Hawar is not independent of the SDF? I couldn't find anything making an explicit link. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{ping\|ActivelyDisinterested}} from the ]: "On Thursday, the group held funerals for 17 of its fighters in the border town of Tal al-Abyad, the '''SDF-linked''' Hawar news agency said...". 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 22:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That would indicate a need for caution. Whether to the level of TRT I couldn't day. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 01:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Being censored is a ] issue and a reason to use a source with caution (with attribution for anything remotely contentious), but it doesn't automatically render them completely unreliable. The big question is whether they're yielding to pressure to publish things that are actually inaccurate rather than just one-sided. If not, they can still be used with caution - we'd want to cite better sources when possible and avoid giving ] weight to a source with a clear bias, but there's some advantage to having sources that are close to conflicts. And a major problem with removing sources simply for being subject to censorship is that it could produce systematic bias by removing every source from a particular region; I'm not familiar with the Syrian press specifically, but in other regions with similar censorship, there's still a difference between sources that carefully report as much as they can get away with and as accurately as they can within the restrictions of government censors, and sources that full-throatedly broadcast misinformation to support the party line. --] (]) 15:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			== RfC: LionhearTV ==
	At ] editor ] has argued that a particular extension of the Gini coefficient should not be present in the article because the academic sources which support that application have either no or, more important for this question, low citation counts. He , "Please note that these papers have no impact, the most cited appears to have 9 citations on Google Scholar, the other one has 4. This is not encyclopedia level. As to the 'Parsa, Motahareh, Antonio Di Crescenzo, and Hadi Jabbari Nooghabi. 'Comparison of Systems Ageing Properties by Gini-type Index.' 13th Iranian Statistics Conference. 2016.', it has no citations."
			{{Moved discussion from\|Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Sources#RfC: LionhearTV\|2= Royiswariii, 19 January 2025 00:55 (UTC)}}<!-- ] 11:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1740135721}}

			I want your comments about the reliability of LionhearTV, I can't determine whether it is reliable or not, on ], the Lionheartv is in the unreliable section, but, despite of that some editors still using this source in all Philippine Articles. So let's make a vote:
	The uncited paper is, of course, of questionable reliability. But does the fact, alone, that others have only 4 or 9 citations make them of "not encyclopedia level"? I can find no Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that would suggest that such is the case, but perhaps I've just missed it. (Let me note in passing that I'm not advocating for inclusion of the material. There may well be other reasons to exclude (or include) it. I'm just uncertain about using citation count alone, as is being argued there, as a criteria for sufficient reliablity to be included here.) Regards, ] (]) 19:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

			* '''Option 1: ]'''
	:I'm not aware of any such guideline, either. It's a curious question: balancing ] against ], but I'm not familiar enough with the state of economics literature to assess whether 4-9 citations is on a "nobody reads this shit," level of obscurity or on a "not the most popular research, but not bad," level. I know that in physics, 4-9 citations would be the former, whereas in New Testament studies it would be closer to the latter. I seem to recall that economics tends to see low citation counts, but I can't be sure enough of that to stand behind it. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 20:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
			* '''Option 2: ]'''
			* '''Option 3: ]'''
			* '''Option 4: ]'''

			] ] 10:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: {{ping\|MPants at work}}, {{ping\|TransporterMan}}, Thank you for raising the question, I have been arguing that for a few months now on different pages, all related to ]. The field is fairly new and even though I have adapted most of these new papers professionally and have proven their legitimacy, their low number of citations due to the lack of academics in the field caused my edits to be deleted. In that particular case ], the use of the Gini Index was published in two books by highly reputable publishers of scientific literature with peer-review editorial boards, but was described as '''very very low impact''' by another user. As a matter of fact, the new use of the Gini index that I added extended the concept of the Gini coefficient from economics to ] and proposed a Gini–type coefficient that helps to assess the degree of aging of non−repairable systems or aging and rejuvenation of repairable systems. As a reliability professional, I adapted this concept in converting the system aging to an index number based on the paper I read. As I mentioned, reliability engineering is fairly new field and not too much present on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 00:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	:::If it's a new and relatively small field, that would explain the lack of citations. But it also might be an indicator that developments within that field are not notable enough for inclusion here, and in extreme cases, might be a case for arguing that there's some pseudoscience going on (there's usually at least a ''little'' pseudoscience going on in new fields, but it usually gets worked out quickly). My advice to you would be to point to this thread and explain that the lack of citations ''alone'' is not a compelling argument, and ask for any other reasons to exclude this material.
	:::You may ping me at the discussion if you like, but be warned: I'm known for frequently changing my mind as I learn more details. I'll most likely show up, but whether I'll be on your side or not depends entirely on the quality of the arguments at that thread. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 12:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

	::~~:{{ping\|MPants~~ at ~~work}},~~ ~~thank~~ you ~~for~~ ~~your~~ ~~support,~~ ~~and~~ I ~~think~~ ~~it's~~ ~~fair~~ for ~~you~~ to ~~change~~ ~~your~~ ~~mind~~ on ~~the~~ ~~subject~~ ~~after~~ ~~the~~ ~~discussion~~ ~~develops~~. --] (]) 22:18, 3 ~~August~~ ~~2021~~ (UTC)		:'''Deprecate'''. The Philippines has plenty of ] to choose from. If you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find refs for something or someone and have to use this, I'd say consider against and don't add it to the article. ] (]) 13:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Comment''': For better understanding and context, especially for editors unfamiliar of this topic's origin:
			::LionhearTV is a blog site, as described on its "About Me" page, established in 2008 and functioning primarily as a celebrity and entertainment blog. The site is operated by eMVP Digital, which also manages similar blog sites, such as and .
			::In addition to these blogs, LionhearTV organizes the , which recognize achievements in the entertainment industry. This accolade has been acknowledged by major industry players, including ] and ]. Like other awards, the RAWR Awards present physical trophies to honorees.
			::A discussion about LionhearTV’s reliability as a source took place on the ] talk page in September 2024 (see ]). The issue was subsequently raised on the Tambayan Philippines talk page (]) and the ] (]). However, these discussions did not yield a constructive consensus on whether LionhearTV can be considered a reliable source. The discussion at Tambayan deviated into a debate about ], which was unrelated to the original subject. Meanwhile, the sole respondent at the RSN inquiry commented, {{tq\|It may come down to how it's used, it maybe unreliable for contentious statement or comments about living people, but reliable for basic details.\|quotes=yes}}
			::At this moment, LionhearTV is listed as '''unreliable''' on ] as result of the no consensus discussion at RSN.
			:<span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 13:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Lionheartv is one person operation. How can there be editorial discretion on that case? ] (]) 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I'm more surprised on how a single person actively manages three blog sites and one accolade, with the accolade even giving out physical trophies to its winners. Like, how is he/she funding and doing all of these? <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 14:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::It's immaterial on how we determine ]. What could be very important that other ] missed out on that only this blog carries? If it's only this blog that carries articles about something, it's not very important. This blog is the very definition of ]. I'm surprised we're having this conversation. A blacklist is needed. ] (]) 02:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Option 3'''. There's something about its reporting and organizational structure that is off compared to the regular newspapers. ] (]) 14:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Though, I find it strange and concerning that reputable sources copypasted some of LionhearTV's articles:
			::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts/ (December 8, 2024)<br/>Sunstar: https://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts (December 10, 2024)
			::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2025/01/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 11, 2025)<br/>Manila Republic: https://www.manilarepublic.com/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 14, 2025)
			::These are two instances I found so far where other sources copypasted from LionhearTV. But I saw other instances where LionhearTV is the one who copypasted from other sources, such examples include:
			::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-im-okay-to-cinemas/ (December 30, 2024)<br/>Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/showbiz/music/2024/12/29/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-i-m-okay-to-cinemas-0948 (December 29, 2024)
			::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/06/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game/ (June 27, 2024) <br/>Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/starmagic/articles-news/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game-22637 (June 24, 2024)
			::I honestly don't know about these editors, they just copying each other's works. Probably cases of ]. <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Option 3''' - As much as possible, LionhearTV and its sibling sites under the eMVP Digital should not be used as sources when more reliable outlets have coverage for a certain event, show, actor and so on. Even if a certain news item is exclusive to or first published in a eMVP Digital site, other journalists will eventually publish similar reports in their respective platforms (refer to some examples posted by AstrooKai). -] @ 15:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::What I fear in these kinds of low quality sources is that people will find something very specific about someone, e.g. "This person was seen in a separate engagement vs. the others in their group," and this low quality source is the only source that carried this fact, and since this it is not blacklisted, this does get in as a source, and most of the time, that's all that's needed. We don't need articles on showbiz personalities tracking their every movement as if it's important. Blacklist this. ] (]) 01:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{hat\|Discussion about moving RFC to RSN}}
			:::@], @], @], if you don't mind we can move this discussion to ] to get more opinions and votes on other experienced editors. ] ] 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::'''Support'''. ] (]) 16:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::'''Support'''. Though, I suggest finishing or closing this discussion so that we don't have two running discussions that tackles the same thing. If we want to construct a consensus, we better do it in one place. Alternatively, we first seek consensus from the local level first (by finishing this discussion) before moving one level up (the RSN). <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 16:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{hab}}
			*'''Option 3'''It's a blog. That means ] applies. This means it might be contextually reliable for ] or under ] (with the usual condition that SPSEXPERT prohibits any use of SPS for BLPs) and so I don't see any pressing need for deprecation, but this is very clearly a source that is not generally one we should use. ] (]) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:FWIW, the person behind this blog is not a subject matter expert. Like, we don't even know who this is. (One subject matter expert in Philippine showbusiness that I know of that runs a similar blog is , and I event won't even use the blind items as sources there lol) As explained above, once this gets to be used as a source, it won't be challenged and people just accept it as is. This is a low quality source that has to be blacklisted. ] (]) 01:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Yeah that's fine. I was just saying that, in general, those are the only two avenues to use someone's blog. ] (]) 20:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Hatebase.org ==
	:No, because there are many reasons why a paper might be frequently cited. Adam Smith, Marx, Keynes and Milton Friedman are frequently cited because of their contributions to economics, but per ], their works are probably less accurate than an economics textbook published this year. But the textbook will probably receive few cites. ] (]) 02:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	:Can you find a ] about this method? I think one the main—if not explicit—reason for this content dispute is that you are using the paper by Kaminsky and Krivtsov as a source for the method it describes, i.e. as a ] . Primary sources are not banned, but they should be used with care, and sometimes the inability to find a secondary source can indicate that the conclusions or methods of the paper are not notable enough to be included in a encyclopedic article. ] ] 13:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

			Is a reliable source? ] (]) 19:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Glamour Magazine as a Reliable Source in the Fashion Industry ==

			:Is there an ] for this? And/Or some context for the use case? ] (]) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	Could Glamour be considered a reliable source in this industry?
			::I have checked and I can't find any previous discussion, hence why I opened this one. There is ] about the site. I intend to use it to expand list of slurs articles. ] (]) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::<small>I’m not making a statement on the source, as I’m not familiar with it .</small>Then this doesn’t require an RfC, just a normal source discussion, if you’re concerned about reliability. Do you mind removing the descriptor from the title? And best of luck! :) ] (]) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Okay, I just added it because I saw some of the other discussions had it. I am removing it from the title. ] (]) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::That happens, don’t worry about it! Thank you! ] (]) 20:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:used in 4[REDACTED] articles, seems highly premature. use best judgement until it can't be resolved in an article's talk page between editors, and needs wider[REDACTED] community feedback. ] (]) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I wish this were otherwise because it looks like a really interesting website but it uses user-generated content. Which is a problem from an RS perspective. ] (]) 20:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::None of the uses are for anything other than Hatebase itself, and as the site was been retired since 2022 it's unlikely it will see much more use ('retired' as it's been closed to editing, all user data deleted, and may go offline at any point, so not quite closed but very close). As most of the supporting data is gone, and what there was was user generated, I don't think it could be used as an RS. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			== LaserDisc Database? ==
	* I would hope so, but fashion magazines live their lives on a lack of space between editorial and advertising - ] (]) 20:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
	*It should be. ] is one of the oldest fashion magazines in the US, and it's backed by a reputable publisher (]). And it has strong too. ] (]) 13:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

			I'm working on adding citations to ]. I'm looking for a source that supports the sentence "Image Entertainment released another LaserDisc" . I've found the laserdisc in question on LaserDisc Database . Can I use it as a source? The "register now" box states that users can "submit" new Laserdiscs, which implies some editorial oversight compared to other websites with user-generated material (although it looks like there ). My other options are or interlibrary loaning the original Laserdisc. ] (]) 19:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Science reporters ==

			:The bottom of the page has {{tq\|"Disclaimer: The data on this webstite is crowd-sourced..."}} and from the page you linked it's unclear what amount of checking is done before any submitted updates happen. Worldcat is the better option. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	Is it permissible to cite scientific reports which written by journalists or science reporters? If they claim that they write what scientists and specialists say? --] (]) 20:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
			::oops, I missed that. Thank you for the advice. I'll use WorldCat if I can't find a news article. ] (]) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Usage of AirPlay Direct for music articles ==
	:In general, yes, but there are many situations in which doing so may be unadvisable. You must provide details: What are you citing these science reporters to say, what article do you wish to say it in, what is the source of the science reporting, and what are the objections to you doing so?
	:Without answering those questions, we cannot give you a definitive answer, here. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 20:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
	*If it relates to medicine, the answer generally “no”… see ] for more. ] (]) 20:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
	{{Ping\|Blueboar\|MPants at work}} I will cite report. --] (]) 20:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

			Is reliable for use in articles about music (such as songs, albums, artists, etc.) ] (]) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:You still haven't said what you would cite it to say, what article you wish to say it in, and what objections have been raised to doing so. I assume that someone has objected to your edit, otherwise, there's little point in requesting a consensus on the content here.
	:Also, as Blueboar pointed out: For MEDRS stuff, (which this looks like it might be), a science reporter is ''not'' good enough. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 21:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
	{{Ping\|MPants at work}} Objection was that science reporters are not experts, so they cannot be cited because they may not have been properly understood what experts mean. --] (]) 21:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

			:Per their about page they are not a normal news source, but a promotional platform. Their articles, etc are likely based on press releases and information from the subject of the article. So they might be reliable as a ] source within the limits of ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I still need an article and what you plan to say using that source to make a judgement call, but that's certainly a reasonable objection in general. Whether it applies here? I can't say without all the facts. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 21:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
	::Looks likely to be ] & the discussion at ]. - ] <sup>]</sup> 02:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	:::So from a brief skim there, it looks like this science reporter is being cited to counter primary studies. I don't think this falls under MEDRS, but it certainly doesn't look to be part of a compelling argument. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 12:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

			== Global Defense Corp ==
	:I don't see this as a problem of RS so much as DUE. The paper cited in the journal you referenced probably meets RS and could be used instead. However, the issue is how important this opinion is. Science journals often publish stories about views that receive little attention in academic writing. ] (]) 01:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

			Global Defense Corp should be deprecated as it is a incredibly unreliable source which frequently fabricates information they are incredibly biassed against Russian technology to such an extent as to lose all objectivity here I will share just a small snippet of the blatantly false information they have spread over the years
	== BuzzFeed News source on ] ==
	===Summary===
	'''Source:''' Mimms, Sarah. (July 27, 2021) . '']''.
	<br>
	'''Question:''' Is this source reliable enough to use in the article? Does it comply with Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines?
	<br>
	'''Notes:'''
	* Discussion has taken place at ].
	* See ] for the general consensus about BuzzFeed News.
	––]<sup>(])</sup> 03:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	===Discussion===
	====Key points by {{U\|SinglePorpoiseAccount}}====
	* {{re\|Horse Eye's Back}} Basically I compared it against the first suggested source in the thread and came to the conclusion that the BuzzFeed News article had more or less the same basic facts regarding the topic, but the article from PNT was worded in a fairly neutral manner, and aside from a few opinionated angles. It's not the source in question but it's what I'm comparing it against. Please also note that to stay consistent we should review the BFN article as it was written at the point the discussion began, it has since been silently edited and there is a risk it will happen again over the coming days.
	:* The title reads as follows: {{tq2\|Twitter Suspended Nine Accounts That Had Been Promoting Pro-Trump "Audits" Of The 2020 Election}} Note the framing here; the audits are mentioned with the "Pro-Trump" qualifier, and there are quotation marks around "Audits" as if it wasn't an actual audit. The way I see it both of these points of framing go against ] in the context of the Misplaced Pages article, readers who are Trump supporters and/or support the audits will likely read that as an attack on their opinions rather than a statement of fact. This is a problem because as seen on the talk page in general there are multiple readers claiming the Misplaced Pages article as a whole is biased, therefore we should take extra care to make sure the article sources aren't biased where possible. Furthermore both points are opinions. The audits in question are neither proven to be pro-Trump nor illegitimate, and thus cannot be regarded as statements of fact with sufficient confidence.
	:* Second paragraph contains the following: {{tq2\|Among those suspended was the official Twitter account for the ongoing, Republican-led audit in Arizona, which is being overseen by a contractor who has spread false conspiracy theories, including in a recent pro-Trump movie.}} There is an inline link as a source for "false conspiracy theories", but that page itself has some framing issues as the editorial commentary is inline but the rebuttals are collected at the bottom. Nevertheless, they are at least somewhat relevant to the topic of the article, even though the Tweets aren't from any of the aforementioned 9 accounts in question. The "including in a recent pro-Trump movie" part is completely irrelevant though, it's clearly meant to discredit Doug Logan, which according to the wording of that sentence is implied to be "overseeing" the official Twitter account of the Maricopa audit. Also note that the Twitter account isn't mentioned by name and the inline link is broken (even in the current revision as of 2021-08-06 06:34 CET).
	: These are just two of the points I've used to determine that the BFN article is unsuitable in the context of the Misplaced Pages article in question. The Maricopa audit is a very controversial subject in general and special care should be taken to make sure one side doesn't feel unfairly treated in the Misplaced Pages article. It is my understanding that a neutral point of view is extra important in controversial articles, especially while a semi-lock is in place. To that point; I see no reason the BFN article has any advantage over the initially suggested PNT article either. Both support the claim that Twitter accounts related to the audit were banned, and the Misplaced Pages article doesn't (and perhaps shouldn't at this point in time) go any further than that.
	: To summarize in a single sentence; I have major concerns with quality, POV, and framing issues in the BFN article, and there is already a more widely supported alternate source (PNT) which is sufficient to support the claim in the Misplaced Pages article with little to none of the same issues. ] (]) 04:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	====Key points by {{U\|FormalDude}}====
	* Here's some of the corroborations that I brought up in support of using the source:
	:1. Corroborating source for the statement from the article that the audit is unauthentic.
	:2. Corroborating source for this portion of the article "the official audit account had spread misinformation about the 2020 election."
	:3. Corroborating source for this portion of the article "The audit accounts are just one way that pro-Trump figures have continued to push the lie that the election was stolen from him."
	:4. Corroborating source & for the portion of the article regarding Twitter's ban of official audit accounts. <small>''Added at 22:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC) by ]<sup>(])</sup>''</small>
	:5. Corroborating source in general: . '']''.
	:6. Corroborating source in general: '']''.
	:––]<sup>(])</sup> 03:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

			1. they've claimed that Azerbaijan using either an Israeli or Turkish drone was able to destroy a Armenian nebo-m radar which is impressive considering Armenia doesn't even have that radar or has at any point Displayed any interest in buying that radar there evidence for this is a footage of Azerbaijan destroying a p-18 radar and then claiming it's the nebo-m and they didn't just claim this once they've claimed it at least twice in two different articles.
	====New comments====
	* {{Ping\|SinglePorpoiseAccount}} do you think you can sum up the argument you make on the talk page against the use of this source? I’m having a hard time following it and its so long at this point that its easier just to ask. ] (]) 03:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	*{{re\|FormalDude}} As a source for which article content? - ] <sup>]</sup> 03:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	*:Wanting to use this source in the lede section for "The audit stirred controversy due to extensive previous efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the election and due to assertions of rule violations and irregularities in the conduct of the count, leading to claims that the audit is essentially a disinformation campaign." ––]<sup>(])</sup> 03:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	:::This was not the use discussed on the talk page. This is another use which is already sourced from two other sources. The use discussed on the talk page was the topic "Various Twitter accounts suspended" and possibly extended to "Although it may still warrant mentioning that Twitter has called out the Arizona state legislature for essentially lying on their platform." (no clear draft exists). ] (]) 05:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	::::We also discussed my edit that you reverted which put the source in the lede section for use that I mentioned above. I also think the source should be used for the topic "Various twitter accounts suspended". ––]<sup>(])</sup> 05:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	:::::The source was not used in the lede section prior to the discussion of it as a suitable source was initiated on the talk page. ] (]) 05:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	:'''Note''': per ], '']'' (as distinct from ''BuzzFeed'') is currently a green-light source with some recent notes of caution due to a reduced newsroom. To the extent that the source is merely reflecting the consensus of content from other reliable sources, I would not consider it either impermissible or indispensible as a source for the point raised. ] ] 04:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	* {{Reply to\|SinglePorpoiseAccount}} BuzzFeed is making the claim that the audit was not made or done in a way that reflects tradition or faithfully resembles an original, that it is unauthentic. They make no claims about its legitimacy; their claims are about the manner in which the Arizona Senate has gone about this audit.
	:The audit is proven to be pro-Trump: "Groups connected to prominent supporters of former President Donald Trump’s movement to cast doubt on the 2020 election results have raised $5.7 million for Arizona Republicans’ election audit" per . ––]<sup>(])</sup> 05:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	::BuzzFeed News isn't making that claim in the title at all, they just put it in quotation marks. AP reporting that the audit is pro-Trump doesn't constitute proof; AP is the officially selected partner for verifying election results. Since the audit is investigating the same election results, AP has a demonstrable conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results, after they have previously stated the results are verified. ] (]) 05:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	:::That is the main claim BuzzFeed makes throughout the article. One can conclude after reading the article that the intent behind the quotations for "audit" in the title was because:
	:::1. Professional auditors do not consider it to be an audit (AZ Central)
	:::2. It dose not resemble previous audits or what an audit is supposed to be (Basically all of the ]s) ––]<sup>(])</sup> 05:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	::::1. ''Some'' professional auditors do not consider it to be an audit. AZ Central picked a few to question and they may or may not be a representative selection of professional auditors.
	::::2. It does not resemble previous audits in a lot of ways, one of which is digital forensics.
	::::3. The nature of the way BuzzFeed News discredits the audits isn't actually relevant to the issue at hand; which is that 9 Twitter accounts related to them were banned and BuzzFeed News is discrediting the audits themselves in the article about the bans. ] (]) 05:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	:::::Good Christ, you're impossible. I don't care anymore. I'll leave it up to whatever other editors decide here. ––]<sup>(])</sup> 05:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	* I do not believe that we have any precedent that would disallow use of AP as a source merely because AP played a role in "verifying election results". Certainly there were not AP personnel counting ballots or directly supervising the initial election work of the Maricopa County Board of Elections. While AP was cited by many news organizations in its report of the outcomes, that is still just reporting the news. We have no standard for excluding a news organization from reporting a later development because they also reported earlier developments in the same matter. Furthermore, AP specifically routinely issues corrections when its original reporting contains errors, so it can not be said that they are biased towards upholding previous reporting when it is inaccurate. ] ] 06:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	::Is this a reply to a subcomment above? ] (]) 11:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	::: It is a reply to the general notion that AP is not a reliable source for this topic. ] ] 21:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	::::You're misunderstanding what I said; the AP is the selected partner for verifying the election result and as such has a conflict of interest in reporting the election results were definitely right but then report they were potentially wrong. AP is pretty big and I see no reason to exclude them altogether, but if they call the audits pro-Trump then I'd take that statement with a grain of salt. ] (]) 23:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	*BuzzFeed News is a generally reliable ]. It would take remarkable circumstances to claim it was not one, particularly with the corroborating coverage. This issue seems querulous - ] (]) 09:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	::Please keep in mind this isn't about BuzzFeed News as a source in general, it's about this particular article. The supposedly corroborating sources listed above by FormalDude do not mention the Twitter account bans. Many (but not all of) the sources I've seen covering the Twitter bans are themselves using BuzzFeed as a source for those facts alone (list of Twitter accounts and statement from Twitter) but generally do not share the same POV and framing, see the PNT article. ] (]) 11:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	*BuzzFeed News is a generally reliable source, and I see nothing in the text of the article itself that would lead me to believe that this particular article has any problems with it. --]] 12:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	*Just piling on here to say that BFN is a reliable sources as has been discussed numerous times at this very board, and I find the notion that AP is anything less than a top-tier source to be so remarkably bizarre as to suggest that the person making that implication is not doing so in good faith. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 22:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	** {{re\|David Gerard\|Jayron32}} Any opinions on the assertion that AP has a "conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results"? ] ] 22:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	*** I would say that is not just wrong, but conspiracy-theorist thinking from the editor asserting it, and good evidence that their opinions on sourcing should be presumed wrong and their edits should be examined. (Though I'm not going to personally get around to that last one.) - ] (]) 22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	*** I find the assertion laughable. The AP reports election results, as do MANY news organizations. The fact that they report election results does NOT mean they have a "conflict of interest" in later reporting on the same election. That makes no sense. Participants ''in'' the election would have a conflict of interest. The AP is a news organization, one of the most respected in the US, and is widely trusted around the world for its accuracy, its prudence, and its neutrality. --]] 12:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	****I think you're losing track of what this issue is about. It's about a single BFN article. Not BFN in general, not AP, and certainly not about me. To me this is starting to look more like a witch hunt to get rid of the question. If you want me gone then fine, take it up in the appropriate forum, but this is not the place for it. ] (]) 23:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	****:I am confident everyone responding understands what the issue is about. Here's an explicit link from the general to the specific: since BFN is reliable, we'll only be convinced this particular article is unreliable if there are major issues. The points you raised are not issues, and if they were, not major ones. ] (]) 23:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	****::I was asked to summarize, and that's what I did. I can go into way more detail as to why there are major issues with this particular article if requested. ] (]) 23:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	****:::I assume you came with your most persuasive points. I am not eager to hear more. Are you willing to accept consensus on this issue? ] (]) 00:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	****::::I only summarized the points mentioned on the talk page because I thought it was going to be enough to initiate the discussion. I will of course accept whichever end result we reach, but I don't quite thing we're there yet as there are still more threads to resolve. ] (]) 11:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	****:The single BFE article is encompassed within our judgement of BFN in general.
	****:This is how we know what's reliable. Your method above of scrutinizing the source to pick out which parts you think are biased and which parts aren't is just ] with extra steps. We look at the circumstances and history of a source; we look at their editorial control, their topical focus, how they handle mistakes, their fact-checking, how widely-cited by other reliable sources they are, what the credentials of the authors are and whatever else would speak to their trustworthiness, and then we make a determination whether or not to believe them. We don't analyze the language used by the author to try to take a guess at whether they're biased or not, because ], only whether they're ''reliable''.
	****:This is how neutrality is achieved. Once we've decided a source is reliable, we accept what that source says, regardless of whether it disagrees with our preconceptions or not. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 00:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	****::Surely this cannot be true; how can we possibly maintain objectivity if some sources are regarded as publishing unquestionable truths? If a source under ] were to print "pigs can fly", would we blindly update the Misplaced Pages article about pigs to add they can fly? Furthermore, ] explicitly states {{tq\|Prefer nonjudgmental language.}}, shouldn't we then prefer the much more neutrally worded PNT article over the BFN article? ] (]) 11:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	****:::At this point you're having a ] experience. The answer to your question in this particular case is "no, AP's reporting is fine and you're wrong." You're now trying to argue in ridiculous hypotheticals - ] (]) 12:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	****:::SinglePorpoiseAccount: This is a very long thread so apologies if I missed it but can you explain what is the purpose of us preferring Phoenix New Times over Buzzfeed News? What difference does it make to what we will say in the article? If you could explain this, it may help us or at least me better understand your concerns over that particular Buzzfeed News article. If you can't because there it's not going to affect our coverage and you just want us to use Phoenix New Times instead of Buzzfeed News because you think it's a better source in this instance then sorry but I'm not just not sure this is even worth RSN's time. Source choice can be tricky but Buzzfeed News seems to be well accepted enough that I don't think it worth arguing over it especially not compared to Phoenix New Times. Even if it's true the article itself is better, the counterpoint is since the source lacks the reputation of Buzzfeed News, readers may not trust it as much regardless. ] (]) 13:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	****::::I'm a bit perplexed by all this talk about AP, it's a separate topic altogether? It's just my opinion that of all sources, AP probably isn't the one to use as proof for the audit being pro-Trump in a heated discussion. Also note the difference between evidence and proof; evidence points towards something being true while proof supports a statement of fact. An AP article can probably serve as ''evidence'' of the audits being pro-Trump, but it cannot reasonably serve as standalone ''proof'' of it. Take for instance the theory of gravity; we have mountains of evidence for it being true, even in a literal sense, but no respectable scientist will call it proved. We simply cannot definitively prove it from understanding of the underlying mechanisms (yet, which is why we're building increasingly advanced particle accelerators). We can still accept it as true based on the available evidence, but there is still no ''proof'' of it being true.
	****::::The "pigs can fly" example was an extreme hypothetical to determine the priority of ] status or overwhelming evidence. In other words; regardless of what the threshold for overwhelming evidence is, is there a point where evidence and reason takes priority over ] status or is all questioning of such a source constitute ] in an absolute sense?
	****::::In essence I think a really strong argument for PNT over BFN for the context in question is that the Misplaced Pages article itself sees very polarized bipartisan traffic. Several IPAs on the talk page has questioned its bias over the past month, and off-site comments about Misplaced Pages articles like it indicating doing the same trend. Therefore I think it would be best if we avoid feeding into those conspiracy theories by using neutrally worded sources as much as possible. Again, the PNT and BFN article both have more or less the same basic facts about the Twitter bans and should be interchangeable from a factual standpoint (at least in the context of the Twitter bans as BFN covers a broader range of off-topic issues), but they are worlds apart in their apparent bias. If consensus turns out to be to allow the BFN article I would at least ask for it to be put last in the list of sources to the Misplaced Pages claim. It should be in our own self-interest to appear neutral in our selection of sources. ] (]) 14:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	****:::::{{replyto\|SinglePorpoiseAccount}} wait so this discussion isn't even over whether to use PNT or BFN while keeping the content the same, but ultimately ends up being about which one to put first? Sorry but I really really don't think that's a discussion worthy of RSN. ] (]) 19:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	****::::::It's probably better to explain things from the beginning. An IPA started a new talk page heading about "Various Twitter accounts suspended" and used the PNT article as a source for their claim. Then FormalDude suggested we use the BFN article instead and (at least as I understood it at the time) asked for comments. I provided my comments, I'll paraphrase for brevity but I said it was my opinion that the BFN article had serious issues in neutrality and quality compared to the PNT article. Then there was some back and forth until FormalDude took it here. And here we are. If consensus is reached to use the BFN article over the initially suggested PNT article, I only ask that it would be put last so we don't transfer the apparent bias into the Misplaced Pages article by having it appear as the dominating source. It would be the only BFN article on the page and AFAIK BFN has a bit of a reputation on run-ins with Republicans, which means the conspiratorially inclined (and there are probably a lot of those surrounding an long-winded audit) would ''undoubtedly'' use it against Misplaced Pages if it appears as the dominating source to any claim in the Misplaced Pages article. ] (]) 21:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	****::::{{re\|SinglePorpoiseAccount}} your gravity example is completely flawed. It is the nature of ] that they can never be proved - Hawking described them as "unprovable but falsifiable". Additionally there is no "theory of gravity" itself. And there is no doubt that gravity is a fact. It can even be measured. ] ] 15:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	****:::::Yes there is a theory of gravity, there are in fact several. You might also want to read up on Higgs bosons. ] (]) 16:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	****::::::Look at this point, you're approaching ] levels of misdirection and obfuscation. We've told you the sources in question meet Misplaced Pages's standards for reliability, at this point your just ] and it is growing wearisome. I think we're done here. --]] 16:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	****:::::Furthermore, "proof" is a matter of semantics here. If you're using "proof" to mean "shown to be unquestionably true for all time", then ''no'' explanation of reality is every proven. If (as most people do) take "proof" to mean "consistent with existing observations" then theories are as "proven" as they need to be. --]] 15:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	****::::::Sure they can, we can prove things like the Pythagoran theorem or use the more special legal term ''prove beyond reasonable doubt'' that someone did or didn't do something. It's not just a matter of semantics, the words evidence and proof are different words for a reason. If you try to equate them then you're just diminishing the nuance if the terms. ] (]) 16:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	****:::::Shockingly, IP accounts complaining about an article doesn't actually mean that the article is bad. ] (]) 16:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	****::::::Of course not, but that doesn't mean we can just ignore IPAs. See ]. ] (]) 16:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	****:::I think the fact that you honestly seem to believe that the average person is qualified to diagnose the bias of an author through what amounts to engaging in a post-modernist, subjective literary analysis of their writing, absent even the contextual data that lends a (mostly false) air of credibility to academic post-modernist literary criticism, in support of a POV which is generally held by people who hold post-modernist thought and academia in contempt is really a much bigger problem for you to be dealing with than the fact that this article says stuff you don't agree with.
	****:::One simply ''cannot'' maintain any degree of objectivity if their definition of "objective" is entirely dependent upon their own personal inclinations (otherwise known as biases). Here at WP, we look to the most widely respected and demonstrably accurate sources of information, and then yes, we choose to hold everything those sources say about the subject of their expertise to be accurate, especially when other widely respected and demonstrably accurate sources agree with them. On those rare occasions when the preponderance of other widely respected and demonstrably accurate sources disagree, then and only then do we consider a source's claims suspect, and we then remember that we failed to trust them on this issue the next time it comes up. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 16:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	****::::I usually consider myself fairly good a English for a Swede but that went over my head. Could you please rephrase the first paragraph in simpler terms? It's a little too much for me to properly make sense of when I have to look up so many uncommon words, like what is "academic post-modernist literary criticism" even supposed to mean? One by one, or in pairs, I can make sense of it but all of it together is hopeless.
	****::::To the second paragraph I fear we're getting into meta-levels of definitions. From a pedantic perspective everything is interpreted on some level, like text and words are interpreted to meanings based on existing knowledge of those words, but that's still just being pedantic. If you mean something along the lines of not everyone is qualified to determine what they should think is true, then I find that downright offensive. It's a fundamental principle of a functioning democratic society that one is allowed to form their own opinions and apply new information to their existing knowledge to determine what is true or false. Anything else axiomatically requires authoritarian truth, i.e. the basis of any stable dictatorship. It was my understanding that this is a part of what made Misplaced Pages "The 💕"; we only publish the facts and opinions which makes up a neutral point of view so that the readers can form their own interpretations and opinions. But hopefully I'm just misunderstanding what you mean. ] (]) 17:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	****:::::Fortunately, we have an encyclopedia near at hand. I would suggest reading articles in the given order: ], then ] (specifically the section on ]), then understand that you're refocusing at this point, read ], and then for context, you can also read ] and ].
	****:::::After that, I recommend ], ], ], ] and ].
	****:::::As to my second paragraph, if you can't understand the sense in it (based as it is in our policies and guidelines), ] might be a good read. Pay special attention to the second, third and fourth bullet points in the first section. I'd say the first certainly doesn't seem to apply here. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 17:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	*''Buzzfeed News'' is generally reliable, and without clear-cut and truly dramatic evidence that they screwed up in this particular case, that general judgment applies to the specific example here too. Such evidence is lacking. The claim that "AP has a demonstrable conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results" is risible. ] (]) 01:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	*"Why would a Wookiee like Chewbacca would want to live on Endor with the much smaller Ewoks when 'it does not make sense'. He argues that if Chewbacca living on Endor does not make sense—and if even mentioning Chewbacca in the case does not make sense—then the jury must..." discount Buzzfeed as a reliable source. (quotation from ]). ---] (]) 22:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

			2. in this article you can see a picture of the SU57’s internal weapons bays but what they don't tell you is that this picture is CGI at no point do they communicate this in fact they claim it's from the Sukhoi design Bureau even though it's not.
	== citypopulation.de and worldpopulationreview.com ==

			3. in this article they talk about how the S 400 range decreases against objects at low altitudes which is true but fail to explain that this is true for all radar guided Sam systems thanks to an effect known as radar horizon where objects at low altitudes are able to hide behind the curvature of the earth and therefore can only be detected at certain distances but not only do they not explain this to the reader creating a false impression that this is an issue unique to the S 400 but they even claimed that Turkey accused Russia of fraud because of this. which is weird for several reasons one Russia has at no point claim that the S400 range does not decrease with altitude but also because it implies Turkey believed the S 400 could defy the laws of physics they also have no source of this claim and no other articles on the Internet claim this.
	Are and reliable sources? ] (]) 03:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

			4. In this article they claimed SU57 lacks sensor fusion which it doesn't and then just ignore that low probability of intercept radar is a thing .
	== foodnavigator.com ==

			5. in this article they berate the S 400 for not intercepting Israeli F35’s in Syria but forgot to mention that Russia and Israel were long believed to have an agreement in the Syrian civil war to not engaged each other.
	They appear to have and state they . Can it be used to prove notability of a business (see ])? ] (]) 13:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	:Since Food Navigator is a trade rag, my personal sense is that it's not useful to establishing notability (]) but is otherwise reliable. ] (]) 06:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	: I’m with Chetsford here, perfectly usable for most things in its niche but for notability purposes they don’t count for much. ] (]) 16:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

			There bias is also evident in just in the words that they say frequently attacking Russian equipment with ad hominems such as cooling the S 400 ,another lame duck missile system, or starting there articles with stupid Russians or Russian equipment exposed. they also lack of any transparency no one knows who owns the website none of the articles say the names of the people that wrote them making the website Even more suspicious but despite all of this they are still frequently cited all the time on Misplaced Pages.
	== International Journal of Molecular Sciences ==

			Sources
			1.https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/02/01/turkey-exposed-fatal-flaws-in-russian-made-s-400-surface-to-air-missile/

			2. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/07/11/rostec-nebo-m-radar-is-it-a-scam-or-propaganda/
	Is the '']'' <ins>generally</ins> a ] <ins>for articles related to physical chemistry and adjacent disciplines, including ] when it intersects, with the normal and customary ] and ] caveats</ins>? This a first quartile (5.923 impact factor), Scopus-indexed, peer-reviewed journal. It is published by ] which was briefly listed on Beal's list of predatory publishers in 2015 but removed shortly thereafter after further investigation . (Note, the journal was never listed, only MDPI.) It has sometimes been favored by researchers with non-Anglophonic names which, unfortunately, I believe may be the genesis of questions about its reliability despite all evidence pointing this being RS. ] (]) 13:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC); edited 14:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	:Which of its papers, for what sort of claims, in what sort of articles? ](]) 13:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	::Sorry, I've edited the question for clarity. ] (]) 14:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

			3. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/12/28/russian-su-57-will-carry-four-missiles-in-the-internal-weapons-bay/
	:::So, to be clear, in answer to my question, you have no ''specific'' citation in mind, no ''particular'' edit or content, and no ''identifiable'' Misplaced Pages article in mind when you posed your query? ](]) 15:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	::::Yep. ] (]) 06:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	:] have persisted well after 2015; having an impact factor and being indexed in Scopus generally suggest that ], but they don't imply that it is ''reliable.'' And given the ], I don't see why having one in the "first quartile" of any population is particularly meaningful for our purposes. Without more details about the topic and the claim in question, it's hard to say more. ] (]) 22:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	::I'm not certain six questionable articles for a publishing house that had published more than 50,000 articles in the last 10 years qualifies as something that could be characterized as "troubles". If that's our criterion we could easily eliminate Taylor & Francis, Emerald, and a host of others. ] (]) 06:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	:::I could name more articles than are listed there, some going well beyond "questionable" into crackpot. But what matters is not the total number or a ratio, it's how those articles call into question the process itself. It's reached the point where I wonder if ''],'' for example, has meaningful peer review at all. ] (]) 15:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	:Considering previous RSN discussions where MDPI was mentioned there seems to be no consensus that it would be reliable, —]] – 01:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	::Our consensus on MDPI at ] is to "evaluate on a case by case basis" which, as I read it, specifically directs us ''not to'' dump every journal into a pile on the basis of it having a common publisher and move on, but to spend time critically evaluating aspects of reliability of each individual journal. CITEWATCH specifically suggests several criteria to evaluate the quality of journals, all of which this seems to meet (a) indexed in a reputable bibliographic database (Scopus), (b) established 2000 or prior, (c) not included in Beal's blacklist. Combined with frequent citing of its articles in unambiguously reliable journals (a couple examples from a single IJMS article I chose at random: '']'', '']'', '']'', etc.) , I'm having a hard time identifying if we have a rational, objective reason to determine this is unreliable, or if it really is just "it's MDPI"? ] (]) 06:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	:::I appreciate your point, but I'm wary of talk about "objective reasons" when the "objectivity" in question boils down to "this page with a capitalized redirect says so". Setting a cutoff at the year 2000, for example, was a judgment call; relying on that choice of year is relying on somebody else's subjective judgment. Maybe it was a well-informed one, but even so. Handing the decision off to someone else doesn't make the subjective into the objective, it just defers the responsibility. After all, "It's published by MDPI" is an objective fact, and one with a lot less ambiguity than other data (calculating an h-index, for example, depends upon the citation corpus, and what criteria the database builders use for including a text; Google's numbers will differ from Scopus's, because Google scrapes everything). I take the "evaluate on a case by case basis" advice to refer to evaluating ''each citation,'' not each journal, since the factors on which we might judge reliability can vary across articles within the same journal. So, without more specifics as to where and how ''IJMS'' is to be used, I don't think a call can be made. ] (]) 16:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	*It seems pretty reliable. Abstracted/indexed by Scopus, ], etc. High impact factor, high (a higher h-index for the last five years than the ], ], ]). and a strong . No evidence of predatory behavior. ] (]) 09:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

			4. Radar Horizon. (n.d.). www.ssreng.com. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www.ssreng.com/pdf/Radar_Horizon.pdf
	== The journal ''Capitalism Nature Socialism'' ==

			5. Butowski 2021, pp. 78–82
	Is the journal '']'' a reliable and due source? I saw it being used for a book review in edit by {{u\|Davide King}}. Inseparable in my view is the issue of whether it is ] for criticism of this book.

			6. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2022/01/24/sukhoi-su-57s-x-band-n036-byelka-and-n036l-1-01-l-band-radars-are-not-what-you-think/
	The journal is openly ideological, being ecosocialist. On their website's , they call themselves {{tq\|an online community of red-green activists}} and state that {{tq\|CNSWeb is a platform for intellectuals who may be outside or at the margins of academic institutions...}} This triggered alarm bells for me vis a vis ].

			7. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2019/09/22/over-hyped-s-400-and-s-300-surface-to-air-missile-failed-to-detect-f-35i-adir/
	As far as I know reputable academic journals are not explicitly ideological, even if the researchers who publish therein tend to certain viewpoints based on their studies or otherwise. So what is Misplaced Pages to do about these sorts of journals that claim to be academic but are openly POV? (Definitely unreliable journals exist, like '']'', so having an academic publisher is not an automatic green light.) I am inclined to think they should be excluded. We do allow ], which comes up often for mainstream media outlets that have bias or for individual papers, but an entire obscure 'academic' journal? <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	:An academic journal that serves a particular community and thus embodies its biases does not sound very different from a news website with an editorial slant, as far as ] is concerned. I'd take a journal that wears its editorial mission on its sleeve ({{tq\|We are affiliated with no political party or organised political tendency and are open to diverse views within left ecology/ecological left movements}}, ) over those that try to look staid while having no standards inside (an '']'' or an '']''). Maybe this is in the "use with in-text attribution" range. It's not clear how distinct "CNSWeb" is from the Taylor & Francis journal; the former {{tq\|intends to expand the aims of}} the latter and has different licensing policies and submission channels. ] (]) 23:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

			8. When Israel bombs Syria, Russia turns a blind eye. (2022, January 3). thearabweekly.com. Retrieved January 22, 2025, from
	:It is reliable because it is published by an academic publisher (]) and has an editor board of academics. While most academic journals do not openly declare a political orientation, reliability is about factual accuracy. One would expect that the dozens of professors on the editorial board would be able to fact check areas of their expertise. As for DUE, the criticism seems to be representative of a large number of experts. ] (]) 23:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	:~~Agree it's reliable as per ]'s reasoning~~. ] (]) 06:08, 4 ~~August~~ ~~2021~~ (UTC)		https://thearabweekly.com/when-israel-bombs-syria-russia-turns-blind-eye ] (]) 15:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Do we use them? ] (]) 15:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The S 400 Misplaced Pages page has 20 citations from them and the su 57 Misplaced Pages page has four. ] (]) 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I agree that they're generally unreliable but I'm not so sure I'd chalk it up to bias rather than incompetence. They seem to be suggesting that the news they publish is a sideline to their core business of international security consulting... But they're spamming the cheapest ads on the internet alongside that content suggests that this is their primary income. To me it looks like a vanity site, I also suspect they are ripping stories off or using generative AI. ] (]) 17:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I will agree with you that they are incompetent But I think you can be incompetent and bias, some mistakes they've made such as having a image of the SU57 that is CGI on the web page and claiming it was a picture taken by Sukhoi I could see that being a result of incompetence but stuff like claiming Turkey accused Russia of Fraud over the S 400 because its range decreased against objects at lower altitude I have a harder time believing is just incompetence specially since the mistakes that they made seemed to always understate Russian equipment’s capabilities I have never been able to see and correct me if I'm wrong any incidents where they have overstated a piece of Russian equipment’s capabilities and yet I have seen dozens of mistakes in the opposite direction which suggests to me it is not random error. but quite frankly if their biassed or not I think is irrelevant even if we somehow conclude that they do have a neutral point of view there is still no way they could be considered a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards as they do not meet the other criteria mainly the one which is in quote ‘Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy’ there is no universe where they pass that one and as a result they cannot be considered a reliable source something which you agree with this alone should be enough to get the website Deprecated irrespective of if their bias or not. ] (]) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I think the one thing that seems to be universally agreed on is that this is not a reliable source. ] (]) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I would agree, that regardless of whether it's bias or incompetence, it all adds up to unreliability. Cheers. ] (]) 23:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Should we trust ] for statistics ==
	== ScienceDaily ==

			Certain pages about certain living subjects contain an infobox template that really emphasises view counts and subscriber statistics. However, that data is often sourced from ]. Here's what WP's page about Social Blade says;
	Is ] a reliable source? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span>
	: It's a press release aggregator, so no. Press releases are self-published and tend to exaggerate the claims made in papers and are designed to promote the work. ] (]) 23:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
	::Hemiauchenia just said what I was about to. ] (]) 23:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

			"An official YouTube Twitter account, @TeamYouTube wrote that "Please know that third party apps, such as SocialBlade, do not accurately reflect subscriber activity." Social Blade's Twitter account responded to that tweet, commenting "We don't make up data. We get it from the YouTube API. We rely on it for accuracy." Social Blade's community manager Danny Fratella suggested that YouTube content creators may notice subscriber and view count purges more due to a higher accessibility to data-tracking tools like Social Blade."
	== Hall, Ian; Bristol University Press ==

			The question is should we trust it?
	* Hall, Ian. Modi and the Reinvention of Indian Foreign Policy. United Kingdom, Bristol University Press, 2019

			Plus, why do pages about gamers and vloggers place so much emphasis on what appears to be arbitrary, trivial information that is prone to fluctuation?]] 15:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Preview available on Google books

			:It is ] - I don't think ] applies since it is drawing its data out of an API but I'd say it's a marginal source. ] (]) 16:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Would you consider it reliable source?
			::It certainly isn't a source that I would trust but it is frequently cited in certain articles to populate value statement parameters such as subscriber count, view count, like count etc in ]. My understanding is that ] sources shouldn't be used to verify value statements? ]] 17:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Prior discussions for reference; ], ], ], ]. The general opinion appears to be that it's marginal at best. Personally I doubt how reliable their data is, if it's available from the original source that should be used and if it's not available from the original source I wouldn't trust it. They also have 'rankings', which are worthless for anything other than the opinion of Social Blade. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			== RfC: EurAsian Times ==

			<!-- ] 23:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1740610876}}
	] (]) 12:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
			{{rfc\|prop\|pol\|rfcid=11A50DD}}

			The (used to have its own article but it was apparently PRODed) is cited in several hundreds of articles, mostly pertaining to Russian military hardware and South Asian issues, but not exclusively. It was mentioned ] ] ] on this noticeboard but only on a surface level.
	:Depends. What is it being cited for? Do other sources contradict it? Context matters... ] (]) 13:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	::Bookku, an editor whose record on Misplaced Pages seems to be about showing how poor the status of women is in ], is attempting to show somewhat startlingly that the ''Indian'' prime minister Narendra Modi did not abandon his wife as has been ], that Modi had a "child marriage," forced upon him by his family, and he thus stands absolved of abandonment or desertion. Bookku, in my view, is attempting to rope in Ian Hall in support of his quest. The RFC which Bookku has requested in this matter on ] seems to be going near-unanimously against him. I suspect he is looking to use this paragraph from Hall (p. 64)<blockquote><small>Soon after, other points of contention emerged. When Modi was about six, his father had made a preliminary arrangement for his marriage, as was customary at that time and in that community (Verma, 2014, pp. 9-10). By the time he was 13, however, he seems to have begun to protest against the idea of marrying (Mukhopadhyay, 2013, pp. 65-6; Marino, 2014, p. 21). Nevertheless, a ceremony was conducted at some point with Jashodaben, his intended spouse, either when Modi was 13 or 16 (his biographers disagree on the details) (Verma, 2014, p. 10). Another was performed to seal the marriage when Modi was about 17, at which point the couple were meant to live together, with his wife joining his parents’ household. This situation did not last long. Within weeks, he broke with both his spouse and his family. He left home and thereafter did not return, except very briefly, to either his wife or his parents."</small></blockquote> In my understanding, Bookku would like to use this paragraph to reason that because Modi was "about 17," the marriage was a "child marriage," a term with much resonance in India, and many tragic tales of young Indian women being abused. India did have a "Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929," which after one amendment in 1949 (after India's independence from Britain) stated that a (heterosexual) marriage was not recognized (and hence a child marriage) if the bride (woman/girl) was below the age of 15 or the groom (male) below the age of 18. Jashodaben Modi, Mr Modi's wife was definitely above the age of 15. Mr Modi's age on the day of marriage is murky. In the RFC, ten editors have voted to support, "Mr Modi was 18 and his wife was 17" or words to that effect and in effect have voted against mentioning "child marriage." The ''Child Marriage Restraint Act'', however, always had the girl in mind, not the boy. Its main concern was pre-puberty girls, often between the ages of 9 and 14, who had been abused in the institution of marriage in Hindu India for centuries. Bookku in my view is engaged in a rear-guard action in the last week of the RFC (which began on July 10 and which is) slated to close next week. Why he is taking a patriarchal stance in the instance of India, given his record of ostensible feminism in Pakistan-related articles, is a bit of a mystery. ]] 20:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	:::I should add that I'm not familiar with Ian Hall's work, but I expect that he is a good academic. His book is about foreign policy. His paragraph should be seen as art, not science, in other words, reliable on foreign policy, less reliable on the murky travails of Mr Modi's marriage; Hall has attempted to write a semi-coherent narrative there, given the all too few published books discussing the marriage. ]] 20:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	::::If a source states that someone was 'about 17' when something happened, one would generally assume that they are being non-specific for good reasons - almost certainly because they don't have the evidence to be more definitive. So regardless of whether Hall is 'reliable' on this particular matter (he would seem to be for the actual topic of his book) he can't be cited for anything more specific about Modi's age. As for what the article should say on the matter, without looking into it in further detail I'd do better not to offer any opinion beyond pointing out that policy suggests that if reliable sources differ on something they consider to be of significance, Misplaced Pages should generally say so, rather than trying to decide who is right. ] (]) 21:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

			In light of all this, how would you rate the EurAsian Times?
	== Are these reliable sources for a statement an IP has been adding at ] ==

			* '''Option 1: ]'''
	The book is by ] and the statement is "However, in 1959 Hazlitt published The Failure of the New Economics, a detailed, chapter-by-chapter critique of John Maynard Keynes' arguments." The IP has now added two sources:<ref>
			* '''Option 2: ]'''
	{{cite web
			* '''Option 3: ]'''
	\|url=https://mises.org/library/failure-new-economics-0
			* '''Option 4: ]'''
	\|title=Failure of the 'New Economics'
	\|last=Rothbard
	\|first=Murray
	\|date=3 September 1959
	\|website=Mises Institute
	\|access-date=3 August 2021
	\|quote=Keynes' General Theory is here riddled chapter by chapter, line by line, with due account taken of the latest theoretical developments. The complete refutation of a vast network of fallacy can only be accomplished by someone thoroughly grounded in a sound positive theory. Henry Hazlitt has that groundwork.}}
	</ref><ref>
	{{cite web
	\|url=https://fee.org/articles/a-reviewers-notebook-19595/
	\|title=A Reviewer's Notebook
	\|last=Chamberlain
	\|first=John
	\|date=1 May 1959
	\|website=Foundation for Economic Education
	\|access-date=3 August 2021
	\|quote=To review in small space Mr. Hazlitt’s demolition of the whole Keynesian structure is a physical impossibility. Mr. Hazlitt takes up the General Theory line by line and paragraph by paragraph, discovering scores of errors on almost every page. Not only does he kill Keynes; he cuts the corpse up into little pieces and stamps each little piece into the earth. The performance is awe-inspiring, masterly, irrefutable—and a little grisly.}}
	</ref>

			Thank you. '''''<span style="color:#503680">] ] ]</span>''''' 22:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) <small>PS: it is the first time I create an RFC, I hope it is not malformed</small>
	My issue is in part that we shouldn't be saying this in Misplaced Pages's voice (let alone the "However"). But the sources don't look reliable, being the ] and the ]. The reception section is basically sourced by using quotes from the ] or its supporters, with one mixed review from a blog by ]. Nothing from JSTOR. Four of the reviews in fact link to the Mises Institute which is flagged by the script at ] as a "generally unreliable source". See this discussion last October.. Note that two of the editors there, Flickotown and Festerhauer, were socks of the same editor, see ]. I'm not surprised, my experience is that these articles seem to be part of a walled garden (in part because there aren't many people who aren't fans of this brand of economics interested in them).

			===Survey (EurAsian Times)===
	Given the state of the article, from the lead on down, once the sources issue is decided I may go to NPOVN. ] ] 15:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	{{reftalk}}

			*
	:Mises and FEE are stupendously biased to the point of crank territory (or "heterodox", as they put it in economics). I would say, delete the claim and those terrible sources - ] (]) 18:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	*Yea, these overly ideological sources aren't generally great and shouldn't be used without attribution. But someone like ] should be reliable enough to give an accurate summary of a book. You could instead use , , , or Here are some additional sources you could use for the reception section for Economics in One Lesson: , , , , , , ] (]) 21:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

			===Discussion (EurAsian Times)===
	== This article seemed unreliable ==
			* Previous discussions at ] (2024) ] (2023), and ] (2022). It looks like there's already consensus that it's unreliable and an RfC is not necessary. ] (]) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

			== flightconnections.com ==
	This article claimed Haredi divorce rates were increasing and claimed its source from the IDI. when looking at its claimed source: Which is apparently the IDI 2016<ref> https://en.idi.org.il/media/4240/shnaton-e_8-9-16_web.pdf</ref>. The IDI makes no claim that Haredi divorce rates are increasing. I am not (yet) saying that Haaretz in general is an unreliable source, but this article in particular needs investigation into its reliability. Can I have more eyes looking into this particular articles reliability?] (]) 20:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	{{reflist-talk}}
	:Can you specify in which context you or other editors want to use this article? ] ] 21:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	::Full context on Talk ].
	::tl;dr There is[REDACTED] voice which states Haredi divorce rates are increasing. This is sourced to 2017 Haaretz article. It seems that articles from that time on do not make that claim. In fact there appears to be isolated reports of Haredi divorce rate dropping.] (]) 21:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	:::I will not have the time to take a look at this today but other users can take a look at {{slink\|Talk:Haredi Judaism\|Divorce section}}. ] ] 21:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
	::::Okay, Thanks for taking the time to look it over!] (]) 21:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

			I wonder if flightconnections.com is a reliable source. Examples of it use are on and . In both cases ] asks for {{tq\|airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet ]}}. I have doubt if flightconnections qualifies as reliable. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 02:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	Pinging {{u\|IZAK}} {{u\|Debresser}} {{u\|Pipsally}}.] (]) 21:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:18, 23 January 2025

Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context

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

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465

Additional notes:

Shortcuts

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

Start a new discussion

RfC: NewsNation

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

Misplaced Pages proposals
Maths, science, and technology

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

What is the reliability of NewsNation?

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

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

Survey (NewsNation)

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

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

Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage Personisinsterest (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 2: Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. Barnt Toust 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 3 their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 2 per Chetsford. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage. Compare WP:ROLLINGSTONE. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 3 why are we putting any stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “broken clock” syndrome. Dronebogus (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage. - Amigao (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 2 I would go with Option 2 but their UFO coverage makes me consider Option 3. I think for anything outside of UFO-related topics they are generally reliable. Other sources should be cited. Frankserafini87 (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 for non-UFO coverage, Option 3 for UFO coverage. ミラP@Miraclepine 00:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (NewsNation)

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

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

This thread is opened at the request of @Kovcszaln6 following the dispute between me and @Javext in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) on the multiple issues regarding that article. I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:
1. The academic backgrounds of the writers of those sources are unknown (keeping in mind that they were written by Yemenis who have limited internet access), and
2. Yemeni state-controlled media outlets wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets") Now, Javext has removed all the sources and text that they support from the article and used other sources (some of which I find no problems with using, although they provide little context compared to the other sources) and kept the sources that I've brought when I translated the Portuguese article. Special:diff/1266430566: This is the version of the article that has the Arabic sources and is the version that I want to keep and then expand with other sources that both I and Jav has used.
Special:diff/1266448873: This is the version that Jav wants to keep Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

What sources about capturing a city did you show me? Those letters clearly show that the portuguese wanted to capture the city and they failed as we have no proof of them being there after the battle was over. But did they lie to whoever they sent this letter to? Abo Yemen ✉ 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Look bro, the letter doesn't state they failed, it states the Portuguese captured the city and then sacked it. For the fourth time, this DOES NOT mean they retained control of the city. Javext (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal so we can finish with and archive this, can we use those sources in anything other than the battle section? like the other sections that I've mentioned being deleted here #c-Abo_Yemen-20250108072200-GordonGlottal-20250107223800 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

In general I think we've established that there is currently no way of including any claim which cannot be directly traced to the 16th-century Portuguese histories or the Hadrami chronicles (which agree). This is because no source cites any other form of evidence, and because it represents the approach of English-language academic books. I have not reviewed the details and I do not know which claims qualify, but you're free to add anything you can find in an appropriate source. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

not even a legacy section like the one you proposed? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

History and geography
Biographies

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

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

They should be:

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

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

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

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

Preliminaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey A: Geni.com

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

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

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

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

Deprecate. Really bad. Needs to go away.—Alalch E. 00:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deprecate per ActivelyDisinterested.—Alalch E. 00:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deprecate. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; Foix. --Kansas Bear 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site here. And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the Europäische Stammtafeln. Ghirla 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. NLeeuw (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Deprecate. WP:SPS. Deprecation will have a positive effect. And while it's always possible that someone in the know, who's really into genealogy, has the ability of figuring out out how the operator of this website makes it have the content that it has, that's not useful for determining reliability.—Alalch E. 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@ActivelyDisinterested Thanks for restoring the discussion from the archive; it evidently was not yet closed. It would seem that we've got a clear result though. Should I request a third party to formally close it with a conclusion, or how does this go with RfCs? NLeeuw (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The {{RFC}} tag was missing, which would have added "DoNotArchiveUntil.." to the header to stop it from being archived. I've add the RFC tag which will list in for every to see (not just those to happen across it on RSN). I suggest waiting and seeing if any more comments come in, as they editors have taken part yet. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Jacobin

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Jacobin (magazine)?

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Survey: Jacobin

Option 2 I am opposed to the use of WP:GREL and think that no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2. With that being said, I would list New York Times or the CBC in precisely the same way and I don't believe that any of the complainants have demonstrated in any way that Jacobin is less reliable, per Misplaced Pages's standards, than any other American news media outlet. I am deeply concerned that many of the complaints are about "bias" when reliability does not include a political compass test. This is not grounds to treat a source as unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 2/3, bias is one thing, getting things down right incorrect is another. As was demonstrated in the pre-discussion, the notion around the housing stock was truly an egregious error. This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts. When that happens, "Generally unreliable" or at minimum, "Additional considerations" makes sense as the guidance when using this source. I do not think further deprecation is warranted though since the reporters seem to be of a mixed quality, some are more diligent than others and the bias merging into wanton disregard for facts varies there too. The problem is, we rate sources, not just individual writers, and therefore as far as a source rating goes, "Option 2" or "Option 3" then makes the most logical sense. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
It was corrected. Your entire case is based on a single incident where a single writer made a single mistake. And it was fixed. There is absolutely no grounds for "Generally unreliable" on the basis of presented evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
It was corrected only after significant outside pressure and even then the correction was weak and inaccurate. The guy who wrote the article was explicitly mocking the people who pointed out his error and accusing them of something along the lines of being corporate shills. It also wasn’t a single incident as they publish nonsense regarding Russia and Ukraine, including and up to outright conspiracy theories, pretty regularly. It simply is not a reliable source, however much one agrees with their editorial stance. Volunteer Marek 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
So you agree with Iljhgtn's conspiracy theory that this was the purposeful result of pushing bias not an error? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including User:Iljhgtn and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? Volunteer Marek 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  You misquote the editor (to your benefit), for someone so interested in errors supposedly motivated by bias that seems odd... In context its clearly stronger than that "This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." when nothing suggests that this was the result of narrative pushing (thats how you push a narrative either, as you've pointed out although lingusitically similar its an embarrassing and obvious error). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  - You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome. Volunteer Marek 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    No , I’m not. I’m simply asking you to refrain from trying to falsely characterize other people’s comments as “conspiracy theories” in a cheap attempt to delegitimize them since they’re clear nothing of the sort. Not everything you disagree with is a “conspiracy theory”. In this particular case, the article clearly had false info in it. No one has ever said that “information was changed” (as if on purpose) so please stop pretending otherwise. What was said was that “bias creeped in” which I think is a fair characterization. So please quit it with the strawman’ing. Volunteer Marek 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we WP:FOC. I believe @Horse Eye's Back is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Its you who needs to provide a source to substantiate your allegations against a living person. ""This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." is a BLP violation unless a source is provided or the author drops dead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
And what is your source for that? Nobody else is saying that this was the result of bias, the sources say that "third largest corporate owner of housing" became "owns a third of housing" which is a very understandable mistake. You appear to have constructed your own conspiracy theory around this incident. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Im sorry but “third largest owner” turning into “owns one third of all housing stock” is NOT an “understandable mistake”. It misstates the actual fact by a factor of 500. Maybe if this was like a student in some freshmen class using AI to write a paper that would be “understandable” (and still get an F) but this is supposed to be a professional, who’s job it is to get this stuff right and this is supposed to be a serious organization that has an editorial board that does fact checking. Which they obviously didn’t do. Volunteer Marek 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Whats “not math”? The difference between .0006 and .33? You sure? Volunteer Marek 01:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

And let’s see these “every major and minor publications” that make these kinds of error. Volunteer Marek 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I note the failure to provide the requested source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Right back at you. Volunteer Marek 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  , your turn and no stonewalling now provide the source or go away. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  - Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that. Volunteer Marek 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Your source that this was "exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative" and not simply an error is what? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I have to say I question your judgment in supporting option 3 "generally unreliable" over Jacobin publishing and then retracting a single erroneous sentence, and for having a bias/narrative/agenda, when you also !voted option 1 "generally reliable" for The Heritage Foundation which routinely publishes fabricated information without retraction. Could you kindly articulate how an admittedly biased outlet with a team of fact checkers is apparently significantly worse than a think tank that churns out misinformation and disinformation (and has a team of paid staff working around the clock to target, dox, and threaten Misplaced Pages editors)? Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 A screenshot of a tweet documenting an already corrected error is insufficient to depreciate a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs) 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Mostly Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin and at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine). Kind regards,

Thank you for the links. I will repost once I've read through those discussions. Gamaliel (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Option 2 at the very least, change current assessment. It might be easier to comment if editors agree or not to change the current category. My position is based on coverage that mixes opinion with facts and its use of unreliable sources, some of which have been deprecated by this noticeboard (like The Grayzone). I went into more detail about this at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin and at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine). --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 2 (intext attribution) WP:RSBIAS and WP:RSOPINION cover most of the points here. Jacobin publishes opinions peice that should have intext attribution. This is how they are used in the large amount of WP:USEBYOTHERS that Jacobin also has. I may not like Jacobin very much but bias, opinion, or minor mistakes do not make a source unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 Context matters: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." The example given was a mistake in a book review, cubsequently corrected, about how much housing stock Blackstone owned. No reasonable editor would use this review as a source for an article on housing or Blackstone and more than one would use a reliable source on U.S. housing for an article about 19th century French poetry. TFD (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1-ish Jacobin are clearly a biased source but they are also clearly as reliable for facts as any other major WP:NEWSORG. When they make mistakes, they correct themselves, and that improves their reliability, it doesn't hurt it. Loki (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 2: additional considerations/bad RFC - based on the discussion above, evidently there's some kind of social media uproar about some thing that Jacobin published and later corrected. It's poor timing to hold an RFC on reliability both when emotions are high and when it's in response to an isolated incident, both of which are true here. But ignoring that, it seems (again from the discussion above) that Jacobin published something that was egregiously incorrect, then retracted or corrected it. That's pretty much the standard we expect of reliable publications: errors are compatible with reliability, it's how the publication responds to and corrects errors that determines reliability in this context. Media Bias/Fact Check gives Jacobin a "high" reliability score of 1.9 (out of 10, lower scores are better), which is in the ballpark of the New York Times (1.4) and Washington Post (2.1). However, they also give it a "left bias" rating of -7 (a 20-point scale with 0 as completely unbiased), which is on the edge of their extreme ratings. Editors should consider attribution, and/or balancing this source's POV against publications more to the right. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 17:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Option 2/3 While BIAS usually covers issues like, it may not be entirely sufficient for advocacy media, which includes Jacobin. While Jacobin is a fine publication and I've sourced it myself, the reality is it does not usually report Who/What/Why but almost exclusively publishes explainers and analysis pieces that have a designed structure. For instance, How Biden Embraced Trump’s Terror Smear Against Cuba is not an editorial or opinion piece, it's presented as straight news reporting in the form of an explainer article. But, as an encyclopedia, we obviously can't start injecting artistic wordsets like "terror smear" into articles. So merely saying that BIAS can cover the case of Jacobin is not sufficient. For the purposes of encyclopedia writing, there will never be anything chronicled by Jacobin that is appropriate for WP which we can't find a superior source for elsewhere. They don't do spot news, data journalism, or investigative reporting, which are the three ways we use newsgathering media to reference articles. Simply looking at the current issue, I don't see a single story that is actually reporting things. Each article is an opinion piece lightly packaged as an explainer. So, while I don't think Jacobin is "unreliable" per se, I don't see any value of using it for the very scope-limited purpose of encyclopedia-writing. Chetsford (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 for facts and 2/inline attribution otherwise for articles that are mainly opinion. The hoohah over an article that was actually about Mark Fisher and since corrected such that it doesn't even mention Blackstone seems like a one off. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Nothing in the above discussion or that I've seen in the last year leads me to deviate from my !vote in the previous RfC which was this: Option 2: mostly a partisan opinion source usable with attribution if noteworthy, but occasionally publishes well-researched pieces by experts in their fields, on topics that might not be covered in more mainstream sources, in particular on the history of the left or on socialist theory. I also think that the closing of the last RfC, and in particular green flagging on RSP, did not reflect the consensus of the discussion, as I argued when this came up on this board in 2023: I have long been unhappy with the RSP summary of the many RSN discussions of this source, where the consensus has clearly been much more negative than the summary. It is clear that several editors have major issues with its use in specific areas (e.g. Russia/Ukraine, Venezuela) and that this should be flagged, and that it publishes content by a few conspiracy thinkers (Branko Marcetic was mentioned in the last discussion, McEvoy flagged here) and again this isn't highlighted in RSP. So I'd favour a rewrite of the RSP and possibly a change from green to yellow as a better reflection of the community consensus. In short: I think we need to approach it in a much more case by case basis. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 2 My assessment hasn't changed from last time, jacobin publishes mostly opinion so this is largely a moot point and the rest of what they publish often contradicts itself—blindlynx 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
1 or 2, I think that most of the time they should be used with attribution but they're generally reliable enough that I don't think we should be requiring attribution. I also question the need for a new RfC... It doesn't seem like there has been anything substantial since last time so this shouldn't have been opened. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Weak option 2 per above voters (especially AD and Bob), but I won't die on that hill if the consensus ultimately feels differently. Strong oppose option 3, though, for somewhat obvious reasons. The Kip 18:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1/2 - I don't like Jacobin. They read to me like the socialist equivalent of Christian rock. But they have an editor, publisher and corrections, and I'm reasonably sure they're not actually liars. It's an opinion outlet, like a leftist analogue of Reason. I'm not convinced coverage in Jacobin connotes notability. So I'd give them a strong "considerations apply" - attribute, not ideal for notability - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1/2 Jacobin's fine. It's left-leaning, but it doesn't cook up facts or make shit up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 3 ~~or 4~~ They publish outright falsehoods and when they issue corrections these are weak and weaselly. The recent completely absurd claim in one of their articles that Blackstone owns 33% of US single family housing stock is an example (it’s actually 1/10 of 1%). Whether you’re sympathetic to their editorial position is irrelevant. Garbage is garbage and facts are facts and as an encyclopedia we can’t rely on click bait nonsense for sources. Volunteer Marek 19:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1, with attribution for analysis and opinion pieces. The Blackstone mistake was bad, and the author's petulant attitude upon being corrected leaves much to be desired. But the error was corrected relatively promptly, and they have an editorial team on staff. I'm not in favor of downgrading a source based on a single mistake. However, Jacobin has an explicit editorial stance that informs nearly all of its articles, and if it's used for more than straightforward facts, it should probably be attributed as e.g. "the socialist magazine Jacobin". I'm open to changing my view if others can demonstrate a more sustained pattern of errors or falsehoods. Astaire (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 (with caveats) due to the lack of developments since the last RfC which could actually change the conclusion of general reliability, as opposed to demonstrating fallibility or bias. I do have some sympathy with the no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2 position articulated above, but I think that comes down to how we interpret "generally reliable" in practice. In other words, "additional considerations" always apply, in principle. The difference between option 1 and option 2 comes down to how likely we expect those "additional considerations" to be of practical relevance, and how exactly we should address them. XOR'easter (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1, it doesn't seem anything has changed since the last RfC. Corrections and retractions is what a reliable source is expected to do and is a sign of reliability. Mistakes which are far greater than this are commonplace across the array of reliable sources (what matters is whether there are corrections or not) nor does partisanship equate to unreliability. Here the error appears to be about what's more or less a single sentence, an ancillary point or side-note in an opinion piece which has been corrected since. It should be treated no different a manner than any other openly partisan neworgs such as Reason (RSP entry). There is no requirement for reliable sources to be "neutral" or for the matter any standard that suggests newsorgs with an explicitly stated ideological position are any better or worse in matters of reliability than newsorgs that don't have an explicitly stated ideological position. WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASED are quite clear.

Though the standard disclaimers apply which are to check for whether what they publish has due weight for inclusion (not an issue of reliability), use in-text attribution with their political position made apparent when quoting opinion and that the context always matters. That there is a subreddit post critical of a error that was corrected is no basis for determining reliability of sources on Misplaced Pages or starting an RfC, so this is also a Bad RfC. This discussion has been had at a much greater depth in the previous RfC where it was shown that the magazine in question has quite significant use by others and affirmatory coverage from reliable secondary source demonstrating that they generally have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" which doesn't needs to be rehashed. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Option 1: Bad RfC + L + Ratio Creating this RfC immediately after some sort of ostensible social media outrage (ex. I nominated David Joyner (business executive) for deletion not long after the Killing of Brian Thompson, and people got so upset that they brigaded it via external social media) seems like a bad idea. It's been made clear in the past that Jacobin has a perspective (like literally any media outlet) but don't sacrifice factual accuracy to get there. My previous vote remains true: "While it wears its political perspective on its sleeve, it has proven itself time and again in its robust fact-checking. The issue with conservative and reactionary sources on the WP:RSP isn't that they have a bias – it's that they constantly express said bias through the use of provable mis- and disinformation. Jacobin does not sacrifice factual accuracy for the sake of a bias."

I would say the same of any other outlet whose perspective coexists peacefully with actual facts. The sort of neoliberalism adopted by American news outlets which we categorize as generally reliable (correctly so) isn't some sort of default worldview that needs to be treated as sacred and less biased than any other. If we're allowed to point to a single incident, then I could just as easily (but wouldn't, because I'm acting in good faith) point to the NYT's 2002–2003 reporting about Iraq and WMDs which was so unbelievably mistaken and grounded in literally nothing that we spend a paragraph attributing it to falsely luring Americans into supporting an illegal invasion based on lies, yet Misplaced Pages (even in the days when that story was reasonably fresh) would balk at the idea of calling them 'marginally reliable', let alone 'generally unreliable'. Meanwhile, this one is literally just a typo in a single article – a bad typo, but one anyone with a brain could understand didn't reflect reality and which was quickly corrected. Reading some of the stories on the front page right now, they report on events similar to what would be covered in a magazine like the generally reliable New York and contain no obvious factual errors. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Option 2, mainly per u:BobFromBrockley. The Blackrock error was quickly corrected, so I don't hold it against them. Consider this quote from CANZUK Anglo-conservatives sometimes fantasize about reuniting the dominions ... where workers could be exploited freely. A not-insignificant percentage of the content supported by Jacobin is of similar nature. Alaexis_¿question? 21:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 A screenshot from Reddit detailing an error which was corrected is not reason to lower our consideration of the reliablity of the publication. WP:GREL is generally reliable, not always reliable. Admittedly the publication does contain a lot of opinion peices, however that is already covered by WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL. Notably, The Economist is similarly heavy on opinion pecies and community consensus is that it is WP:GREL. TarnishedPath 22:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 2 Jacobin is basically the left-wing equivalent to the right-wing British Magazines Spiked and The Spectator. Like these publications, most of its content is opinion orientated, and citing less opinion-focused sources should be preferred. It's clear that the current "generally reliable" rating is suggesting to readers of RSP that Jacobin's opinionated content is usable carte blanche without caveat, which I do not think is accurate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Some Jacobin pieces have openly pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories , as well as conspiracy theories about the Euromaidan which have not been retracted. The Green RSP rating has mistakenly led people to believe these pieces were reliable , Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

You should probably read farther than the headline. Simonm223 (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The pieces (which are both by staff writer Branko Marcetic) are strongly slanted, but you're perhaps right that saying they are "pushing conspiracy theories" is going a bit far. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

"The CIA bungled intel pre-9/11" is somewhat the opposite of a conspiracy theory since it literally attributes to incompetence what conspiracists attribute to malice. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

(Summoned by ping in this thread) Bad RFC / No listing just as in 2021. Or Option 2, it is a liberal analysis magazine, to be considered frequently as WP:RSOPINION. See you at the next 1-day social media hysteria. MarioGom (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but Jacobin is not remotely liberal. It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. MarioGom (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I find it really funny when Americans see somebody holding mainstream social democratic politics and start calling them extreme. Simonm223 (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1. Correcting a mistake is a sign of reliability. The normal caveats about bias/opinion and attribution apply, but not seeing enough to move it down to 2. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 The current summary at WP:RS/P acknowledges that Jacobin is biased and that editors should take care when using it, which is exactly how it should be. Bias and adherence to factual accuracy are two different things; neutrality is not objectivity and vice versa. We do not need to demote it purely for being biased. Agree with others that an RfC being started based on a Reddit thread of a screenshot of a tweet of an editor who made a mistake which was ultimately corrected is a bit silly. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 as per the analysis by Selfstudier, XOR, and Tayi. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 WP:GREL already has certain considerations and it doesn't mean that 100% of what is published can make it to WP. Editors are expected to use their judgement. The article in question is a WP:NEWSBLOG. I don't see any reason for downgrading them based on a reddit thread. Lf8u2 (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 This entire RfC appears to be politically motivated and is predicated on a correction of a sentence that mixed up "third largest" with "a third of". Many other mainline newspapers have made similar, if not worse, errors before. The question is whether corrections were made when such errors were pointed out. And the correction was made here, meeting requirements of reliability. This is likely also about an opinion article, which makes this even more pointless. Silver seren 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Weapons of mass destruction from the New York Times? Was that ever retracted? TarnishedPath 11:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
3. If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than Jacobin to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it.

It's not a matter of some particular instance about mistakes regarding mixing up "third largest" with "a third of" or whatever. Heck everybody does stuff like that. The NYTimes has has published more (unintentionally) misleading or plain-wrong charts than I've had hot meals. I mean, here we've got Nature finding that "among the 348 documents that we found to include the are 186 peer-reviewed journal articles, including some in BioScience, The Lancet Planetary Health, and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and 19 news articles targeted at a specialist audience." Imagine that. I would guess that that's largely because "puts indigenous peoples in a good light" trumps "is true" in the emotional hind-brain of the leather-elbow-patch set. It's not a lefty thing in particular, right-wingers are just as bad I'm sure.

Which just strengthens my point, there're no blinders like ideological blinders, so its not so much a matter of how many fact-checkers you have as in how you maybe are presenting facts which, while individually true, are cherry picked or incomplete or out of context or one-sided or otherwise misleading. It might not even be intentional, exactly. Mind-sets are like that. Better to stick with Time or other people who are more into just blandly attracting a broad readership rather than with people who have points to make.

They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine. As long as we include the qualifier. Herostratus (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Herostratus: not to backseat comment but if "They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine." isn't that a 2? I'm in much the same boat and offered a split 1/2, my understanding is that a 3 shouldn't be used for opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Backseat comments are totally fine. I live for them. I'm not sure about the details of our rule, but aren't all publications are completely reliable for their contents? If the News of the World says "the moon is made of green cheese" we can certainly say "According to the News of the World, the moon is made of green cheese" if for some reason that was useful. The ref is just so the reader can check that they did indeed print that. Similarly for any opinion or other statement. Since all entities are reliable for their own contents, I assume we are not talking at all about that. Why would we.

What we are talking about is: if entity X says "FBI stats say that African-American violent crime was up 50% in Los Angeles in 2024", can we say that in our own words because we can be confident that it is true because we know that entity X has a good fact-checking operation? Can we be very very sure that entity X would also point out if violent crime for all races was also up 50%? Can we be very very sure that this increase is not because the FBI started using a new definition of "violent crime", because entity X would surely point that out? Can we be very very sure that violent crime in the city of Los Angeles is steady and the increase is purely from Los Angeles County (or whatever), because entity X would surely point that out? In other words -- can we be very very sure that entity X would not cherry-pick some facts and leave out others because they are here to make points? We want to be careful about being led by the nose by these people. Herostratus (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the thing is our due weight policy says that due weight (noteworthiness) is apportioned based on the amount of attention given in reliable sources. I take that to mean opinion in generally reliable sources is worth reporting; opinion in generally unreliable sources isn’t. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not reliable for its own contents, having doctored its archives. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Option 1 The author's attitude certainly leaves much to be desired... but I don't think a single mistake that was quickly fixed – in a blog piece, which generally wouldn't even be cited except in very limited circumstances and with attribution per WP:NEWSBLOG – is a good enough reason to downgrade their reliability. Smallangryplanet (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Option 2 My opinion is unchanged from the previous RfC. It is absurd that we've opened up another RfC over a minor issue that was quickly corrected, all because a few neoliberal redditors got mad about it. I think citations to Jacobin should require attribution, but trying to tar them as unreliable over this one case is ridiculous. Log off Reddit, there is nothing worthwhile to be found there. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 2. I concur with other editors that this RFC should never have been opened. Please be more considerate of your fellow editors' time. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 2 possibly Option 3. I don't see that the source is any better than it was in 2021. Per Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d's previous comments and references from the 2021 RfC copied below as well as this recent incident. Yes, making a mistake and correcting it is good but when the mistake is so egreious and the author attacks people who note the error how much faith should we put in the source? Last time I also noted that per Adfont's media review (not a RS but still worth a look) this source is more biased than Breitbart!

Normally, we put these extremely ideological sources in the Option 2 category (e.g., Salon (RSP entry), Townhall (RSP entry)). Jacobin obviously doesn't report straight news, so it (i) always needs to be attributed and (ii) check to see if it complies with WP:WEIGHT. However, Jacobin has additional issues. Its stated political mission is to: centralize and inject energy into the contemporary socialist movement . So it is more in line with an advocacy group than a news source. Also, it has pretty fringe views. James Wolcott identifies Jacobin as part of the alt-left . It's pretty fringe-y on topics concerning Venezuela , the USSR/Communism , and anti-semitism , . I would avoid using Jacobin for those topics. But if you need a socialist/Marxist opinion on something, then Jacobin is definitely a good source to use. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Based upon Noonlcarus's comment, Jacobin does seem to frequently use deprecated/unreliable sources for facts. Some examples include Alternet (RSP entry) , Daily Kos (RSP entry) , Raw Story (RSP entry) , The Canary (RSP entry) , and the Electronic Intifada (RSP entry) .Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, when a source is this biased we have to ask if that level of bias is going to have too great an impact on both the weight they give various facts thus leading to questionable conclusion and their ability to verify otherwise factual claims as we saw here. I think that puts the source deep into the use with caution territory Springee (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

And yet you rated the Heritage Foundation at 2/3 below and didn't find any problem with their extreme ideological bent, saying in their defense that deprecating the foundation would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge. This is a group that is regularly equated in academic best sources with fascism such as in:

Neo-fascist trends in education: neo-liberal hybridisation and a new authoritarian order Díez-Gutiérrez, Enrique-Javier, Mauro-Rafael Jarquín-Ramírez, and Eva Palomo-Cermeño, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS). Sep2024, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p125-169
Pandemic abandonment, panoramic displays and fascist propaganda: The month the earth stood still. By: McLaren, Peter, Educational Philosophy & Theory, 00131857, Feb 2022, Vol. 54, Issue 2
THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY THINK TANK. By: Stewart, Katherine, New Republic, 00286583, Sep2023, Vol. 254, Issue 9 (note that the think tank that they call "The West Point of American Fascism" in this article is the Claremont Institute but that they refer to Heritage as participating in Claremont events.)
The Road Ahead Fighting for Progress, Freedom, and Democracy, Weingarten, Randi, American Educator. Fall2024, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p2-9. 8p.

So I guess my question is one of consistency: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the fascist-adjacent Heritage foundation? If not why do you believe that the Heritage Foundation is more valuable to the "goal of collecting knowledge" than Jacobin? Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

You are missing a major difference. HF isn't a media source, they are a think tank. Jacobin is a media source, not a think tank. I've argued that all think tanks should be used with great care and in particular we should generally not cite them unless an independent RS points to their work. So the question is can we cite HF when a RS mentions the views/claims/etc of HF with respect to the article topic. In that regard I'm suggesting we treat them more like a primary source vs a RS. Jacobin is different and the relevant question is can we treat them like a regular RS as we do with many other news media sources. If Jacobin publishes a claim about an article subject should we cite them? I argue they should be evaluated by the same standards we use for news media sources. By that standard it's strong bias etc means we should use it's claims and reports with caution and should question if they have weight to justify inclusion. In your post above you provided a list of texts but absent links I can't see what they say nor if their arguments are sound or crap but they don't impact the distinction I've made. Springee (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The list of texts are available via Misplaced Pages library which is why I provided bibliographical information rather than links as links to material on WP library don't work. With the exception of New Republic all are academic journals. And now please answer my original question: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the Heritage Foundation? Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

If you want to cite those sources to support an argument you should tell us what they say or at least why you think they support your position. As for your question, I already answered. It doesn't matter if the HF is more or less compromised because the purpose of each is different. When it comes to topics of automobiles Honda is more compromised than the AP but they also might be a better source if we are asking about stratified charge combustion in automobile engines. Springee (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

On this charge I will defend Springee. I don't necessarily agree with them but I'm not seeing the dissonance in their arguments, especially as they seem to be going 2/3 on both (there is not formal vote here but that seems to be the upshot of what they're saying). Their slighlty idiosyncratic argument about the purspose of the source being primary is also one which they've been making consistently for years. With all due respect I think you're being too hard on Springee. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I take the idea that a publication being openly social democratic is too biased to be reliable personally offensive. Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. But I will concede that Springee is being consistent. And I actually agreed that think tanks should be treated as primary sources. Frankly, were Springee to be more reasonable on the "political bias" overreach, we might otherwise be agreeing. Simonm223 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

We may not be disagreeing at all given we both are giving them a "2". I'm arguing that their bias is too much to make them a 1. The possible 3, the same score I gave them last time, is a concern regarding things like the issue that started the recent discussion. I was about to post something about really disliking the RSP's simplistic bucketing. It's really not a good system as we really should put more effort into asking if a source is appropriate for the claims being supported and when an encyclopedia should be citing strongly biased sources in general. If we need to use such a strongly biased source is the information DUE? Springee (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

We do agree on disliking the RSP bucketing system. My personal opinion is no news media source should be treated as a blanket "generally reliable" because reliability is contextual. However I do think that Jacobin is, from a global perspective, not in any way ideologically extreme. Social democracy is a normal left-of-center political position. The extreme-right shift of US politics over the last few decades makes them seem like outliers but that's the real bias problem right there. Simonm223 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their About Us page states they offer socialist perspectives and approvingly includes quotes describing them as supporting radical politics and very explicitly on the radical left, and sort of hostile to liberal accommodationism. Crossroads 22:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I would strongly advise against getting too side-tracked by having a conversation about "social democracy" vs "democratic socialism" (same goes for any arguments over distinctions between "left" vs "liberal" in this thread). I can say from experience that these semantics rabbitholes are shockingly deep, and they're not at all necessary or helpful for this RfC. All I'll say is that these terms are commonly used as synonyms by at least some people, and the "Ideology and reception" section of Jacobin (magazine) notes the political diversity of contributors, incorporating "everyone from social democratic liberals to avowed revolutionaries", so I don't think either you or Simonm223 are wrong on this. Different people are gonna use different terms and apply different meanings to each of them. Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. Where outside the United States are you talking about? The world where barely 20% of countries recognize same-sex marriage? Where sixteen countries have banned the burqa? Is it Japan, where the conservative Liberal Democratic Party has been in power since 1955? Or China, where a media outlet that is as critical of the Chinese Communist Party as Jacobin is of the Democratic Party would have long been banned, and their writers arrested? I think we all need a reality check here, especially if we want to represent reality in our articles. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

While I can't speak for them, I'm guessing they probably had in mind specifically other western democracies, as it's common for European countries to have a mainstream Socialist Party with an ideology listed as social democracy (to name a few: Spain, Portugal, France, Albania, etc).

I'm comfortable speculating this is their argument because it's one that's often repeated in American progressive-left circles. This argument is usually presented as follows: Bernie Sanders is viewed as the furthest left one can go in America, the things his supporters want are not radical to other developed countries (paid time off, universal healthcare, etc), therefore what is far left in America is only moderately left elsewhere.

Not saying I entirely agree or disagree with that argument, either how Simonm223 phrased it or how I interpreted it. Just saying I think they had in mind comparable democracies, not the entire world.

Vanilla Wizard 💙 16:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't feel the need to put a million qualifiers on a comment on a WP discussion board when all I really need to say is that the United States has an abnormal political compass compared to its peers. But also there used to be lots of socialists, for instance, throughout the Middle East. American allies killed most of them. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

This has become a discussion about Overton windows rather than the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Option 3 or 2 - Right-wing outlets that mix opinions in their articles, selectively choose facts to promote a political agenda, or sloppily misrepresent the truth have rightly been marked as unreliable ages ago. There is no reason to have a different standard for other political positions. And regardless of that, outlets that do that cannot be relied on (i.e. are unreliable) to present an accurate picture of the facts on a given topic, nor are their writers' opinions noteworthy in our articles. Op-eds from even mainstream papers like NYT, WaPo, etc. are routinely removed as sources; outlets like Jacobin that consist entirely of such articles should likewise not be used (and we have already done this for right-wing opinion outlets like Quillette). The green checkmark at RSP misleads editors into thinking opinions and claims published in Jacobin are more noteworthy than they really are. Crossroads 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Jacobin's raison d'etre is to promote socialism, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting. However, it may be used with caution for topics within its area of expertise (such as the theory and history of socialism, labor movements, and socialist cultural commentary), provided proper attribution and corroboration from neutral sources are applied. 2601:340:8200:800:30C1:6FF8:F57B:FCF8 (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
This is no more a good argument than it would be to state that the raison d'etre of X publication is to promote capitalism and the geo-political interests of the United States, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting.

I could apply that faulty argument to shitloads of mainstream US publications that are currently considered to be generally reliable. TarnishedPath 05:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1. Folks have said it well already so I won't belabor the point. I can't really imagine an occasion when I would cite Jacobin, but I consider them roughly a left-wing equivalent of The Economist or Reason (also publications I'd be unlikely to cite –– all three of these are usually rather predictable and tend to offer shallow analysis). I wasn't sure how we list those other two so I checked RSP just now and saw that they're 1s. Yes, OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument, but I was more interested in getting a baseline on where the community draws the line between 1 and 2. With respect, I object to Crossroads' comparison to Quillette, which leans heavily into platforming fringe ideas and displays little editorial oversight. (Interestingly, here's some solid reporting by Jacobin on a hoax published in Quillette, revealing the latter's abysmal editorial practices, courtesy of this past RSN discussion.) Generalrelative (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Personally I don’t see Reason and Economist as equivalent, and was surprised to see Reason green flagged for the same reason that I don’t think Jacobin should be. That is, whereas Economist is mostly reporting and some opinion, both Reason and Jacobin are mostly opinion and some reporting. The Jacobin piece on the Quillette hoax looks good to me, but everything else they’ve published by that author wouldn’t be usable for facts as they’re pure op eds. I’d put the Spectator and National Review in the category as Jacobin and Reason. (Whereas Spiked and American Conservative are worse, red flag territory rather than amber.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Additional considerations apply. As I indicated in the discussion above which I started, the mere fact that Jacobin thought it appropriate to publish a statement that Blackstone Inc. "owns a third of US housing stock" indicates that they do not do adequate fact-checking before publishing articles. Therefore, one should attempt to corroborate any facts they publish with more reliable sources before relying on Jacobin to support any factual statements in articles. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1. Our guideline on reliable sources is explicit that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. I may not personally love the political perspective of Jacobin, but they don't go out of their way to platform disinformation that flatly contradicts academic consensus about reality. Regarding Jacobin as unreliable on the grounds of its bias would require evidence that said bias leads it to regularly publish misinformation and untruths. I haven't seen this established.Moreover, the error brought up that somehow has sparked this RFC was both A) corrected in a timely manner, which is what we expect from a reliable source; and B) a case where context matters, as the original source was a book review of several books written by Mark Fisher. If cited, it should be cited to warrant information about Fisher or his books or the genre he wrote in, etc. The Blackstone number was Information provided in passing, and we already know that such info occasionally may not be reliable, and so we use our best judgment as editors, citing and reading a wide variety of sources and going to the best sources. For a topic like Mark Fisher, looks like Jacobin is a good resource. For Blackstone and housing, try an article from the journal Urban Studies. Not every source is perfect at every subject, but when a source has a known editorial staff, issues corrections to publications, and is grounded in reality, it's reliable, even if I wouldn't personally enjoy talking politics with the editor.Finally, when a piece published in Jacobin is an opinion piece, we can just treat it as such, per our guideline about opinion pieces in reliable sources. The Economist and The Wall Street Journal publish a lot of opinion pieces too, yet GREL they've remained. As the perennial list says of The Economist, editors should use their judgement to discern factual content—which can be generally relied upon—from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Option 3 or Option 2, long overdue for the reasons already set out in this thread. And frankly, the idea that a magazine whose name is derived from the people who instituted the Reign of Terror was ever acceptable w/o issue is offputting by itself. Just10A (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
For the record, the founder has said that in naming the magazine, he was thinking of The Black Jacobins, a book about the Haitian Revolution, not the French. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Not that that is relevant anyway when assessing reliability. TarnishedPath 01:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The Black Jacobins is named so because the author analogizes the actions of the Haitians to that of the French Jacobins. It's just adding an extra step (not to mention that the word has a known meaning on it's face, so it's mostly irrelevant.). Regardless, it's clearly derived, and it's frankly silly to even argue semantics. Just10A (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Just to be clear your argument about the name being relevant to reliability is literally arguing semantics. Your objection doesn't make any sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I was referring to the semantics of what counts as "derived from." And no, while the name clearly doesn't inherently reflect relevance. If a source called "The KGB Times" came up on the noticeboard for reliability, it's perfectly reasonable for a person to point out "Hey, I don't think it's reliable for reasons x,y, and z, andddd the name also doesn't exactly inspire confidence." That's all I'm saying. Don't twist my statement into something it's not. Just10A (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
That is arguing semantics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
If that's your benchmark, then practically everything is arguing semantics, including this whole thread. "Jacobin publishes words -> what are the meaning of those words? (semantics) -> can we qualify those meanings as 'reliable?'" Clearly distinguishing factors, and I'm not interested in arguing semantics about the word "semantics" with you like a 12 year old. My vote's been explained, get over it. Just10A (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Option 1/Keep the current RSPS summary I think a few people arguing for additional considerations are misremembering the current RSPS legend. Additional considerations doesn’t refer to things like weight, or bias, or that you need to attribute opinion pieces because those are all standard considerations that apply to all sources. The current RSPS summary already says (in part) Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'. I can't find anything that indicates that's not still a perfectly good summary. CambrianCrab (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Option 1* Jacobin is a biased source, something that should obviously be considered by anyone thinking of sourcing them for anything contentious, but their reporting has never been an issue in terms of establishing basic factual information about a situation. One writer for a book review making a dumb statement that was corrected by the source doesn't change that. BSMRD (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1: Nothing of substance has been presented to suggest that this source is not GREL. Most of the reasons being presented for MREL appear to be about bias, but that is not of direct relevance to reliability unless it can be shown that any bias directly impinges somehow on its reliability. That it provides a perspective from a rarefied position on the political spectrum is a moot point in terms of reliability. Arguably it is good to have sources from all different positions on the political spectrum for the purposes of balance, but that is, again, irrelevant to its reliability. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1/2: generally reliable, they have a correction policy. Bias for opinion pieces and essays should be taken into account, attribute accordingly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Bad RfC As on 25 July 2021. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 I previously commented in the 2021 RfC based on our guideline for use of biased sources. In particular I found this 2019 assessment by the Columbia Journalism Review persuasive. Most recently this January 4, 2025 article from the Columbia Journalism Review cites a Jacobin article from November 2024 positively. A major trade publication in the field of journalism still seems to find Jacobin worth citing as "demonstrat convincingly" how Harris lost the pro-labor vote in the 2024 election. Why should we not follow CJRs lead? The arguments seem to be (1) Jacobin recently issued a major retraction and (2) Jacobin has a left-wing bias. I could buy into (1) if they constantly issued retractions, but no one has shown that that is the case. (2) is contrary to WP:BIASED. Altogether, I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently from reliable but right-of-center-biased publications like The New Criterion or The Atlantic Monthly. — Wug·a·po·des 07:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 2 or Option 3: Not only is Jacobin an extremely biased, ideologically charged source, but their reporting has been called into question multiple times. At the very least, additional considerations do apply. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 2. This is not a WP:NEWSORG. Its stated purpose is "to foster class consciousness and build the institutions that can tame and eventually overcome capital". Compare to the missions of the NYT: "We seek the truth and help people understand the world."; or the BBC: "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain". The NYT and the BBC are both biased (every source is biased), but they do at least aim to deliver reporting. Jacobin, on the other hand, is an advocacy organisation. That doesn't make it automatically unreliable, nor does that make it solely a source of opinions, but that does makes it qualitatively different from the newspapers that others have compared it to - and that is an important additional consideration worth noting. For the record, I disagree that one incident of inaccuracy is enough to downgrade a source, particularly one that was corrected. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Just because I note that my earlier !vote wasn't posted in to this section, for the avoidance of doubt, whilst I think this is a Bad RFC because there's no reason for initiating it, I support Option 2 or Option 3 because it is strictly an opinion site and not one that should be relied on for statements of fact about anything but itself. FOARP (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 – Jacobin may be biased, but that has no bearing on reliability. They have many well-respected articles that have been cited by other reliable sources, have transparent editorial controls, and a demonstrated process for retraction and correction. I see a couple complaints above that Jacobin isn't a news organization; however, this isn't relevant to reliability. Just like The Economist, Jacobin publishes more retrospective, interpretive articles which for certain subjects can often be better than using contemporaneous news articles. Overall this is a very bad RfC given the creator's undisclosed connection to the previous overturned RfC (see comment by Tayi Arajakate) and a complete lack of any examples of actual uses on Misplaced Pages where the reliability is questioned. This is as far as I can tell a knee-jerk reaction to a single example of an error on an unrelated topic in an offhand remark inside a book review, and which wasn't even used on Misplaced Pages. An absurd reason to open an RfC. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 per Silver seren and Wugapodes (and thank you for providing actual reported information on their editorial process rather than speculation, heavy irony in this whole discussion). This whole saga is based on one correction? Really? Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 bias has nothing to do with reliability. Meanwhile, corrections are a strong signal of reliability. --Pinchme123 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion: Jacobin

Seeing as there's substantial disagreement in the pre-RfC section above, I've gone ahead and launched this RfC. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Pings to @Feminist, The wub, Thebiguglyalien, Super Goku V, Simonm223, FortunateSons, Oort1, Burrobert, ActivelyDisinterested, Hydrangeans, Vanilla Wizard, Iljhgtn, Selfstudier, Horse Eye's Back, NoonIcarus, Harizotoh9, and Springee: who commented above. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Additional pings to @WMrapids, David Gerard, Bobfrombrockley, Shibbolethink, Crossroads, Herostratus, Dumuzid, Aquillion, Gamaliel, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, BSMRD, Wugapodes, Ip says, King of Hearts, Chetsford, Tayi Arajakate, MPants at work, Jlevi, The Four Deuces, Grnrchst, Szmenderowiecki, Dlthewave, Jr8825, Thenightaway, Nvtuil, Peter Gulutzan, FormalDude, Volunteer Marek, FOARP, Sea Ane, 3Kingdoms, Bilorv, Blindlynx, Jurisdicta, TheTechnician27, MarioGom, Novemberjazz, and Volteer1: who commented in the 2021 RfC. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I think you should also disclose that the previous RfC was initially closed by you (back then under the usernames User:Mikehawk10 and User:Mhawk10) and the discussions that followed at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 6 § Jacobin (magazine) and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340 § Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability led to an overturn on grounds of it being heavily flawed and ostensibly a supervote, followed by a re-close afterwards. Especially considering your statement in the above section questioning that (re)closure now, which also partially forms the basis for this RfC. Those discussions might also answer your question on why it was (re)closed in the manner it was. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I've tried to ping everyone from the prior RfC and from the discussion above. This was done manually: I excluded 1 vanished account and I tried to ping people by their current usernames if they have changed names since then. If I missed someone, please feel free to notify them. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Per my prior comments about space constraints I've split this to its own section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I've just moved the RFC out of the discussion again. The RFC shouldn't be made a subsection of the prior discussion, due to ongoing issues with overloading on the noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment Editors should bear in mind that reliability does not mean infallibility. It merely means we can use sources where applicable. In this case, the impeached article is a book review, which combines a description of a book and the reviewer's opinions. The only acceptable use of a book review - whoever wrote it and wherever it is published - is in an article about the book reviewed.

Ironically, there can be no article about the book because it lacks notability. It was only reviewed in Jacobin. We are basically working to prevent things that will never happen. Under current policy therefore this source could never be used.

Our time would be better spent ensuring that RS policy is adhered to.

TFD (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Bad RFC because we should not be rating things just for the sake of rating things, but since we're doing this: Jacobin is clearly an opinion outlet, not a news outlet. We shouldn't be relying on them for statements of fact for that reason alone. FOARP (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Notwithstanding my !vote above I do agree this is a bad RFC because there's not ever been an example presented of Jacobin being used to source anything even remotely questionable during the RFCBefore discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, there was one example that generated the 2023 discussion which was Jacobin being used to source a description of the 2014 Maidan Revolution as "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests", so that's one occasion of it being used to source something questionable. It was also used by the same editor on the 9/11 attack page to source the claim that the CIA facilitated the attacks and intentionally withheld information that could have stopped the attacks.

That editor is now blocked (because of their conduct on this noticeboard I think?) but they used the green flag at RSP to justify their edits. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely a bad RfC, I rolled my eyes when I was pinged about this. Nothing fundamental has changed about Jacobin's editorial line or policy since the last RfC was opened four years ago. I can't believe we're hashing this out again because of a single reddit post. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The Jacobin author who wrote the nonsense claim that Blackstone owns 1/3 of US housing stock literally mocked the people who tried to correct him and the correction - which itself was inaccurate and weaselly - was issued only after social media pressure. This is an outlet that very obviously does not care one bit about fact checking if it gets in the way of producing click bait pieces. It’s exactly the kind of source we should NOT be using, especially as the whole media landscape is shifting that way. Volunteer Marek 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
They issued a correction. This is what we expect of reliable outlets. Your personal characterization of the correction as "weaselly" is your personal opinion on tone and has nothing to do with any Misplaced Pages policy. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Did this correction at least state what the correct % was? Like, the correction itself tries to make it seem like a minor overstatement rather than, you know, a completely wild exaggeration that tried to take advantage of general innumeracy. “I’m a billionaire!”. “No you’re not”. “Ok that was an overstatement”. Come on. It’s quite disappointing to see how many people are fine with misinformation, weak sourcing and “alternative facts” as long as it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. Whats even more disappointing is when these are people who are claiming to be building a factual encyclopedia. Facts are facts and garbage is garbage, regardless of whether it come from the left or right. Volunteer Marek 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes facts are facts and garbage is garbage but as long as we allow garbage like New York "Iraq has WMDs" Times to be treated as a reliable source I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently. Jacobin is compliant with Misplaced Pages's requirements. If you want to talk about tightening those requirements I'd be open to the discussion at WP:VPP. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Was the weapons of mass destruction bit ever retracted by New York Times? As far as I'm aware it wasn't. Perhaps we should be wasting community time and having a discussion about them? TarnishedPath 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah my point is just that a lot of editors are establishing a double standard where Jacobin is being held to a higher standard than what Misplaced Pages generally expects from news organizations. I would like it to be measured against the same standard as anyone else. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not the biggest fan of them because there's so much oped stuff but we've never thought that reason to downgrade The Economist. TarnishedPath 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. And that is kind of what I was getting at when I suggested the right venue for what Volunteer Marek was concerned about was WP:VPP. If we allow these kinds of sources then we allow these kinds of sources. I would be happy to restrict these kinds of sources more than we do but it has to be handled at a policy level rather than via exceptions to present policy. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

This does not appear to be an outlet generally characterized as producing click bait. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not the case that a book review can only be used in an article about that specific book. For example, they are frequently cited in biographies of authors, in order to demonstrate that those authors meet the relevant wiki-notability standard. And an article about the pedagogy of some subject could cite reviews of textbooks about that subject. XOR'easter (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The Heritage Foundation

Moved to WP:Requests for comment/The Heritage Foundation – Due to how large the discussion has become, and size constraints on the noticeboard, this discussion has been moved to it's own page. LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources for Chapel Hart

Hi, I am currently reviewing a GA nomination for Chapel Hart. I've never heard of the following sources currently being used nor can I find past discussions on them. As such, I would others' opinions on them.

Lazman321 (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The Texas Border Business link (now dead but available from the Wayback Machine) is a press release, you can find the exact same wording elsewhere . So it would be reliable in a primary way, as it's from the band about the band.
Southern Living appears to be an established magazine, I don't see why it wouldn't be reliable.
The drgnews.com article appears to be another press release, as the wording is found in many other sites. Oddly though I can't access any of them, as I get blocked by cloudflare for some reason. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll take this into consideration for my review. Lazman321 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Southern Living tends toward puffery, and I would avoid using them for controversial claims (although they mostly avoid making controversial claims anyway). I would accept an article by them as supporting notability. John M Baker (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

My assessment:

The https://texasborderbusiness.com/ source isn't labeled as a press release. Overall, the site looks like a low-quality free newspaper that lightly repackages any information they receive that they think would interest their readers (i.e., their advertising targets). Other sites label it a press release, and I'm sure these other sites are correct. That said, even if we treat it like a press release, press releases can be reliable for the sort of simple fact this one is being used to support.
The DRG News source is labeled as being from The Country Daily, which appears to be a media outlet/country music magazine. They might be part of https://www.cumulusmedia.com
Southern Living is a reliable source.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: TheGamer

OP has withdrawn the discussion. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 21:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

TheGamer seems to be either user-generated content, or slop listicles. Additionally, it seems to source it's content largely from dubious YouTube content, Reddit posts, or Twitter/X threads. However it is listed as a source in articles such as Flowey purely in relation to one listicle that ranks Flowey in relation to other characters. What is the reliability of this site?

Option 1: Generally reliable

Option 2: Additional considerations

Option 3: Generally unreliable

Option 4: Deprecate?

~~Link to previous discussion~~

Kayn su1 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Bad RfC. While begun in good faith, this RfC is malformed. The opening statement is not neutrally worded and brief as our information page about RfCs advises. I would also ask why the existing guidance about TheGamer available at the list maintained by WikiProject Video games isn't considered sufficient. If this is at root a page-specific concern about Flowey, as the opening statement causes it to appear to be, the matter can surely be handled better at Talk:Flowey. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind then. I'll delete the info on the Flowey page that provides no encyclopedic value. The reason I proposed this originally was because TheGamer's content has gotten worse and more sloppy since 2020.Kayn su1 04:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

GBNews can be reliable for group based child sex exploitation

Hello everyone, I am making the argument that whilst GBNews is generally speaking not a great source, it has some of the most stellar investigative reporters on group based child sex exploitation, aka rape gangs.

For example, Charlie Peters has written about this extensively, it is his main topic of writing for years. https://www.gbnews.com/authors/charlie-peters

I'd genuinely argue he is even as or if not more reliable on this topic than most trusted sources. If you want an insight into why I believe that, without going into just arguing over facts and analysis which I can do in the comments below this thread, read this anecdote from him being the only reporter who bothered to show up to one of the most prolific child sex abuse cases in British history for most of the hearing https://thecritic.co.uk/why-was-i-the-only-reporter/

Yes, GBNews is genuinely quite a sloppy publication, I'm not here to make an argument that it is not even remotely, but I think the summary ought to be changed from the first to the second.

There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable.

There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable. It is reliable for specifically group based child sex exploitation.

I am not sure if it is precedent to specifically name a reporter, but if that is the case then specifically naming Charlie Peters is important here. He isn't the only good reporter on child sex abuse at GBNews but I'd argue he's the best. In essence, I'd argue and make a fierce case that Charlie Peters of GBNews (and some other reporters), regardless of his employer, is easily one of the most qualified and leading reporters on this specific topic of group based child sex exploitation and I'd make a very long argument that articles specifically by him should be included and it would be worse not better for Misplaced Pages to include them. I am not arguing for Peters (and some other reporters) to be included for other topics at this moment, just specifically the topic of child sex abuse.

I hope I have formatted this correctly, thank you. NotQualified (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but it is the source we judge, not the writer, his work say in the Telegraph can be cited, not his work for GB news. Slatersteven (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, I am not saying Peters is the only good reporter. GBNews has some good reporters and they're specifically concentrated on this. I think GBNews is generally slop but I just wanted to cite a specific reporter as an example. I think GBNews' work and information on this very narrow subject is worth considering. NotQualified (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This seems backwards, WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require exceptional sources, not exceptions for terrible ones. _signed,Rosguill 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

GB News is persistently and relentlessly unreliable. We cannot make exceptions for a single reporter (and I say that as someone who believes Peters to be one of the better GB News reporters, though admittedly that's a very low bar). If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that weren't run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think more sensationalist reporting is going to make that page better. Let's leave GB News off it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, I'm being clear here I'm only talking about one narrow subject. NotQualified (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I was also being very specific to that one page as well. Simonm223 (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

So you're saying that, specifically on child rape, they're sensationalists. I agree with you that their titles would do better without the incessant capitalisations but their reporting on this isn't errant in any way. NotQualified (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

So you're basically just saying Peters is a racist and if I can prove he isn't racist you'll be convinced? Here he is covering a white rapist. https://www.gbnews.com/news/two-rotherham-child-abuse-victims-accidentally-left-out-court-rapist-sentencing-office-error NotQualified (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I absolutely did not say that Peters was racist, so don't do that again please. I was pointing out that GB News inevitably covers Asian grooming gangs, but almost never white ones. If Peters broke that mould I would be convinced. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I've just seen your userpage. That explains it. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

> Sources (some are invalid and blatantly biased for[REDACTED] standards but summarise info well. i'll find a proper source for them.

Not all the sources in my user page are valid at all, I've just added them to look deeper in later on to verify myself.

If you're accusing me of being a right wing grifter so be it, I literally just added an article by Bindle to my user page smearing the right as racist grifters before I read this, I edited McMurdock's article and wrote how he kicked a woman four times, I try my best to be fair. I am not interested in just saying "Pakistani men rape and whites don't", that's absurd. The state has routinely failed children of rape. I'm arguing that GBNews on this topic is good. NotQualified (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I suppose even Bindel can be right occasionally. That's not the point though, I followed a few of your links and saw the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page - that's not good on a BLP, whether you are a right-wing grifter or not (I have no idea if that's the case). But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop. It would be incredibly problematic if we had to define sources as reliable or not depending on which journos were producing the material, especially as their material is routinely filtered through an editorial process which we have defined as unreliable in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand. I regret making my initial point on Peters specifically because you're right that specific journalists do not save a publication. I've been trying to change the position to accomadate this, and say something more so on the lines of "Generally speaking, their covering of child sex abuse is good, can we make an exception for this topic". Is your argument here from the context of me originally saying Peters was good or is your argument here that no matter how good the journalism is on child sex abuse, the rest of the publication is too sloppy to make an exception? " But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop"

> the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page

Is this on the word 'despite'? This was talked about on the talk page, I agreed it was a mistake. NotQualified (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, GBNews is generally slop, we can agree on that. I believe they have good journalists focusing on child rape. NotQualified (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

We can't separate the two, that's the issue. The Daily Mail has good journalists as well, the problem in using them is the venue they publish their work in. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree the Daily Mail is total slop as well, but if they had excellent journalism on one specific topic that would warrant an exception. That's what I'm arguing here. NotQualified (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat that as you have made clear that was not your intent, but I'm not trying to strawman you. I've misinterpreted what you're saying here as you calling Peters / GBNews / their audience racist (though that is not what you are saying), I am confused on what you exactly are you trying to say with the below. May you please elaborate?

"If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that weren't run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear." NotQualified (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

GB News is a right-wing channel (and, to be fair, it is transparently so); it tells its viewers what they want to hear. Much of the right-wing audience believes that child abuse is mostly committed by Asian gangs, because that's what right-wing narratives have told them, even if it's false. GB News doesn't actually say that is true, but it reinforces those ideas by focusing on such cases. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of calling them 'racist', but what exactly would you call the behaviour your describing, if not racist.

Yes, GBNews is obviously a right wing channel. I believe you can criticise nearly all political journalistic publications that aren't state funded of pandering to their audience. CNN, the Telegraph, the Guardian, Fox, etc. I find it all a bit obnoxious.

I do however have qualms with the idea that GBNews is, how do I put this, 'filtering out or downplaying' rape gangs when they are not Pakistani / Bangladeshi? You say the majority of these perpetrators are white, I believe that is true of CSAM online but I amn't sure that's true at least on a per capita basis for rape gangs though I have collated a lot of sources which I intend to read when I have the time, as you've noted on my talk page, so I'll be better informed to answer this in the future.

In essence, your hesitance or better put refusal to add an exception to GBNews on rape gangs isn't derived from a sense that they're journalistically or factually incorrect outright but rather they have underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. If I'm understanding what you are saying correctly which I'll need confirmation on as I do not wish to strawman you. NotQualified (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what GB News does (though I would not go as far as saying it is "factually correct" all the time). It is, however, understandably more careful with its narratives with this subject than it is with others (although it does publish nonsense like this, notably not by Peters). Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece that more falls under geopolitics. That wouldn't fall into what I, or the other user, is arguing to include.

If we can agree that at least nearly all the time they are factually correct on this very specific subject, and the wealth of information is enormous, we can just put a warning that GBNews has something along the lines of "accusations of underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias" in a general sense (but is better on this subject (and thus the exception being made) as you noted and I agree), but that if possible, should be substantiated with another source, but is still acceptable on this very specific subject, even independently, especially if there are no other sources available. That's reasonable, I believe. Thoughts? NotQualified (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, I have to admit, and I wouldn't vote in favour of it. Though I ask, could it be any worse that allowing the Telegraph, a paper which posts rabidly transphobic opinion pieces, to be used on trans-related topics (as was allowed in a recent RfC)? It's unlikely. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

As long as what is written is factually true, the agenda behind it just has to be made known to the editor beforehand to caution them. We shouldn't restrain facts and deprive people of them because we deem the authors morally repugnant. NotQualified (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment Whilst I agree that GB News should be approached with caution (and I wouldn't touch their climate change reporting with a barge pole), I think Charlie Peters is an exceptional reporter. I would generally trust what he has to say before, for example, The Guardian or The Times. I think that by barring his reporting on GB News we are probably barring the country's most pre-eminent authority on gang-related CSE. IT's worth bearing in mind that coverage of this topic has now become highly-politicised, but Charie probbaly brings the most balanced and fact-based perspective to the coverage of the issue. We could treat his reporting on GB News on this particular issue as an instance of expert WP:SPS. If other sources are reporting the same thing then fine, bit I honestly believe we would be devaluing Misplaced Pages's coverage by excluding him. The fact remains he is not interchangeable with other journalists at other news outlets, because he brings a wealth of research and statistics to the table, and has probably interacted with grooming gang victims more then any other journalist. Betty Logan (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I know this sounds silly but it is refreshing hearing more knowlegable Wikipedians explain what I'm trying to articulate so eloquently. I do want to be clear however that I think GBNews' coverage on gang CSE is excellent, not just Peters. The main contention seems not to be on if it is factual, no one here seems to be disputing this, but rather if it has underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. You can read my last comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269267836 as I try to Steelman what another user is saying to the best of ability. NotQualified (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Are there any third-party sources that validate the claim that GB News and Peters are the best sources on this topic? Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? How would that work? Are you asking if reputable sources cite GBNews regularly on this topic? If so, yes I've read many articles, especially the Telegraph, mentioning them if I recall correctly. NotQualified (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, according to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources,If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims. That seems to be one way it works. Normal editorial processes are that we use secondary sources to evaluate the significant views among published reliable sources, and UBO is in most cases relatively weak validation for other claims. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

If you're going to start an RfC on this topic (which would be required to carve out an exception for GB News), it would be far better to present such evidence as opposed to a simple opinion of "I think it's reliable". Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure there are any sources out there that flat out stipulate that Charlie Peters is the best source for this topic, but he is increasingly becoming the "go to" source in this area. The New York Times report how he "broke" the latest story about the Government declining the national inquiry into CSE in Oldham, and other news outlets have approached him to co-author their articles, presumably for his insight, such as The Telegraph and The Spectator. Deadline profile him here—it is worth bearing in mind he was a specialist in this area before working for GB News, having made a documentary about the Rotherham cover-up. Maggie Oliver—a former police detective who blew the whistle on the cover-up in Greater Manchester and now works with survivors—holds his journalism in high regard. In reality, as NotQualified has noted, other news outlets have re-used facts first reported by Peters in their own stories, so there is no way to really avoid his core reporting. Part of the reason for this is because other news outlets have not dispatched their own reporters to cover trials and sentencing, so they are dependent on those that have. For the record, I do think there is a difference between the core facts as reported by Peters and the framing of these stories by GB News in its broadcasts. Betty Logan (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If other sources have reported on the details, then they should be used. That way editors waste less time arguing about the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You get less depth and less nuance from news outlets which repackage his work, usually for sensationalist reasons. Peters has interviewed the survivors and their families extensively. He attended the trials and the sentencing. If other news outlets are happy to re-use his material I don't see why it should be any issue here. Betty Logan (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Any other source is going to be less sensationalist and so less controversial. The issue is doing the simple option so as to avoid wasting time arguing over which source to use rather than something more useful. GBNews is by it's nature always going to be controversial, so using a different source for the same information is the best option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

That is an ad hoc approach which only works for one news story at a time. Simply put, what if other sources don't. This is why it is important the exception is carved out. NotQualified (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If a single news source is the only source that picks up a detail, that probably goes to show that detail shouldn't be included (WP:WEIGHT / WP:BALASP). That other news sources decide not to include certain details may well be because they do not believe the details are important, or that they are presented properly. I would say it goes to shows why there shouldn't be a exception given. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested this statement can be applied to any source in any discussion... Alaexis_¿question? 21:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, choosing the least contentious source to support a detail is always a good idea (regardless of the article). Arguing other a contentious source when others are available isn't a good use of editors time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The New York Times says No British media outlet has revived the grooming scandal with the zeal of GB News, a hard-right cable news channel that went on the air in 2021, a decade after The Times’s investigation into grooming gangs. which does not exactly sound like a ringing endorsement. It instead sounds rather more like exactly the sort of unduly represent contentious or minority claims we're supposed to take care to avoid. If a primary source has been published in multiple places, I see no compelling reason why the reliability of GB News even needs to be discussed, and it seems like nobody wants to use the secondary parts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Surely that's a WP:WEIGHT issue to be determined in the context of what is being written, rather than a WP:RS issue. Betty Logan (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Even if it isn't a "ringing endorsement", it does sound like NYT agrees it has the largest wealth of knowledge on this issue, which is one of the reasons I'd argue it's critical to allow. If that knowledge was erroneous, I'd obviously agree it shouldn't be included, but that knowledge as discussed on this talk discussion seems to be virtually always correct.

> If a primary source has been published in multiple places,

And what if it isn't. Misplaced Pages as a whole suffers. NotQualified (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

And what if it isn't.

WP:VNOT and WP:NOTNEWS, even were it to be considered reliable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Other sources are reporting on Peters “breaking” the story in that he revived a myth that was taken up by Elon Musk who then intervened in uk politics and got far right grifters competing with each other for his attention, making Peters’ “reporting” noteworthy, but not reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

post sources NotQualified (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

A few examples:

FT: “How a handful of X accounts took Elon Musk ‘down the rabbit hole’ on UK politics… In the past week, Musk has also amplified posts on the grooming scandal by former prime minister Liz Truss, former Labour MP Kate Hoey, former Reform politician Ben Habib and people linked to broadcaster GB News.”
Yahoo News: “News of Philips's rejection letter was then reported by GB News on 1 January, sparking an intense debate about whether such an inquiry was needed. This was picked up by Elon Musk who began posting prolifically about the issue, levelling harsh criticism at the government and at one point calling for Philips to be jailed for rejecting the request.”
BBC: ”Debate around grooming gangs was reignited this week after it was reported that Phillips rejected Oldham Council's request for a government-led inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation in the town, in favour of a locally-led investigation. The decision was taken in October, but first reported by GB News on 1 January.”
BBC Verify: “In one post, Mr Musk alleged that "Gordon Brown committed an unforgivable crime against the British people" and shared a video clip from campaigner Maggie Oliver appearing on GB News. In the clip, Ms Oliver alleged: "Gordon Brown sent out a circular to all the police forces in the UK saying 'do not prosecute these rape gangs, these children are making a lifestyle choice'."… But BBC Verify has carried out extensive searches of Home Office circulars issued across that period and found no evidence that any document containing this advice exists.”
New Yorker: “The onslaught began on January 1st, when Musk responded to a report by GB News, a right-wing cable-news channel, which said that the country’s Labour government had rejected a national inquiry into non-recent sexual abuse in Oldham, a town just outside Manchester, in northern England. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the actual story is more complicated than that.”
NYT: “No British media outlet has revived the grooming scandal with the zeal of GB News, a hard-right cable news channel that went on the air in 2021, a decade after The Times’s investigation into grooming gangs… Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform U.K., an anti-immigrant party, has praised Mr. Peters, saying he had “really reignited this story” and demonstrated that “these barbarities have taken place in at least 50 towns.”… The cumulative effect of Mr. Musk’s inflammatory posts has been to energize Britain’s populist right.”

BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I’m just here to say that a source being generally unreliable doesn’t mean they can’t be reliable in specific circumstances. That is, if you want to make a case that a specific subset of GB News output is reliable enough to support statements in a specific article, you can make that argument on the Talk page of the article and it doesn’t need to be carved out as a formalised exception on WP:RSP. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with this, both "generally reliable" and "generally unreliable" are not absolutes. Either way you may be required to convince other editors (on the articles talk page) that a specific source should, or shouldn't, be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Considering that there is quite a lot of academic material on this subject that isn't currently being used in these articles I'm somewhat reticent to start making exceptions for generally unreliable news media organizations out of some sort of belief we are missing sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The specifics would be a discussion for the articles talk page, but in general I'd agree. Less news and opinion sources, and more academic sources would be an improvement for many articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If other sources do not follow though with a story, there may well be reason why, and one of those is they can't confirm them. This is what they are RS, they do try to fact-check before publication. So if a reputable publication does not report it I have to ask the question why is the only source reporting this an iffy one? Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment, this was also my interpretation when reading the thread, and surprised no-one else referenced the obvious here: If Charlie Peters is such a respectable journalist (let's assume he is for the sake of argument), then why is his work not published in respectable and reliable sources such as The Telegraph that he previously worked for? While trying to avoid a discussion on this journalist career path and choices in life, it does seem remarkably odd that there aren't reliable sources reporting his coverage indepth. This makes me suspect that it's because it's much easier to publish for GB News than it is other news orgs that do fact-checking and thorough reviews. Baring in mind, its not just WP that considers GB News as generally unreliable, there is rough consensus among UK journalism that it is a trashy tabloid-like source. So why is such a respectable journalist writing such great contributions for a trash can? Without intending to speculate much further than I already have, it could be because what he writes for GB News isn't as reliable as what he has written elsewhere. Generally if there were topics that I would say GB News was specifically unreliable for, it'd be along the lines of Reform Party coverage (it's a quasi-primary source at this point), and contentious topics such as the far-right riots, Tommy Robinson, and grooming gangs. Feel free to accuse me of a broad stroke, but I'd otherwise consider GB to be generally reliable for entertainment and culture topics (similar to NYP). CNC (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, it isn't just Peters, I'm arguing that generally their coverage on group based child sex exploitation is good. Peters has written under multiple papers. I do not know why he works for GBNews particularly right now but he brings spectacular journalism to it. NotQualified (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Nah. If there's news that doesn't suck it'll show up elsewhere. Per CommunityNotesContributor, that it isn't showing up elsewhere raises an eyebrow - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Strong disagree with OP. In fact, i’d say that the fact that the Telegraph has taken up Peters’/GBNews’ reporting might lead us to the rule that the Telegraph, is not reliable on this highly contentious topic. Example: here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/04/grooming-gangs-scandal-cover-up-oldham-telford-rotherham/ Peters and a co-author claim to catalogue the “cover up” of the grooming scandal “to preserve the image of a successful multicultural society” — yet every single factual claim in their article is taken from a pre-existing primary source (a 2010 W Midlands police report, a 2013 sentencing report, the 2014 Rotherham Jay inquiry, the 2015 Rotherham Casey report, the 2019 Manchester police report, the 2022 Telford Inquiry and the 2022 national independent review) that to my mind prove that far from a cover up this has been extensively investigated and publicly addressed for well over a decade. There is no actual investigation here; they rely on the investigation done by others and use it to spin an inflammatory conspiracy theory. I think it might be time to downgrade the Telegraph not upgrade GBNews. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Regarding this article, is it usual for reliable sources to correct the content of articles without referencing a change? This was first published on January 4th, and modified by January 8th with attribution to GB News added (can verify with copyscape):
- "In Jess Phillips’s letter to the council, revealed by GB News, she said she understood the strength of feeling in the town, but thought it best for another local review to take place.
- "The state must leave no stone unturned in its efforts to root out this evil. As one victim, told GB News, "..."
It's good they corrected the article with necessary attribution for unverified claims, however it took 4 days to do so, and they failed to reference such changes in the article, including the original date. Not a good look imo. CNC (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer

Is this sigcov , reliable for Draft:BRYTER? HelixUnwinding (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The first link goes to a summary of a detailed software review by Friedrich Blase, the “Innovator-in-Residence” of the Ontario Bar Association. It looks like Dr. Blase, whose LinkedIn profile references writings on legal technology, might qualify as a subject matter expert, so I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. The second link goes to a blog, which would not be a reliable source. John M Baker (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much. HelixUnwinding (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Did Howard Dean get paid to give speeches promoting the MEK?

Hogo-2020 and I have bit of a dispute here: can we list that Howard Dean as among the American officials who received either cash payments or some other form of compensation for making speeches promoting the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran? Sources:

A telephone interview with Ben Smith (journalist) that was published on a newsblog on Politico. Smith writes that Dean "said that while he's given paid speeches for the group, his advocacy is pro bono."
An editorial by Glenn Greenwald in The Guardian.
- The editorial links to a Christian Science Monitor article, which writes "Mr. Dean confirmed to the Monitor that he received payment for his appearances, but said the focus on high pay was “a diversion inspired by those with a different view.”"
An article in Salon which says "Dean himself has acknowledged being paid but has not disclosed specific sums". Dean's advocate responded to that article, according to Salon, saying "On the issue of the MEK, he is not a paid advocate. He was paid for a handful of speeches, but has not been paid for his advocacy."

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent I don’t think the reliability of any of these sources would be in question by most editors - this seems a bit more of a content dispute on the surface. The Kip 01:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@The Kip, well Hogo argues that the guardian piece is an WP:OPED, the politico piece is a WP:NEWSBLOG and there's no consensus for salon at WP:RSP. These are all WP:RS-based arguments.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The issue at hand is whether a couple of op-eds provide sufficient evidence to justify adding to Misplaced Pages that a politician was paid for making speeches. Then, there's also the question if this would be in line with WP:DUE. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

There are two issues here, neither of which is really a WP:RS issue directly (but they touch on how different types of sources can be used and the considerations that come with them.) First, since those are all either opinion pieces, interviews, or quotes, they would have to be attributed if used; they can't be used to state facts in the article voice - looking over the article history, it previously said In 2012, Seymour Hersh reported names of former U.S. officials paid to speak in support of MEK, including former CIA directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss; New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. If the listed sources were all you could turn up for including Dean in that list with that sort of wording, it's not enough for that specific wording - you can't say as fact that he was paid, and cite an opinion piece from Greenwald to support that. (That said, is there a problem with citing the CS Monitor article directly? Citing it via an opinion piece by Greenwald seems weird; the Greenwald piece is a weaker source due to being opinion.) Either way, second, as is often the case when dealing with largely opinion sources published in RS / WP:RSOPINION venues, is the WP:DUE issue - the question is then whether Greenwald etc. are noteworthy enough for their opinions about this to be in the article, or whether the sum of all of them is enough to put it over the top, or the like. --Aquillion (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I should add, looking at the discussion, it feels to me like this is a result of a dispute over previous wording that probably reflected the broad strokes of what the sources support but which wasn't quite correct in terms of both the specific source it relied on and how it summarized it - finding individual sources for every person in that list, yet trying to retain it as a list whose original version was really an inaccurate paraphrase of a different source, is going to constantly run into problems like this and may produce WP:SYNTH issues. I would suggest discarding that list and instead reconsidering what the section should say from the top, after reviewing the best available sources individually. Why this list of people? Why those specific names? Just because they were in the Shane source, which doesn't say they were paid? I suggest going back to the drawing board, looking at the relative level of coverage for each and whether it's something we can use for fact or just attributable opinion, then deciding who to cover and how to cover them based on that. --Aquillion (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that this is solid advice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Those are great points. It would be great if you can help discuss on that talk page.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Aquillion thanks for your input. Understand the point about CS Monitor. But my next question is this: Ben Smith, a journalist working for a reputable source like POLITICO, wouldn't just fake or distort an interview. Smith isn't stating his opinion, he's giving the results of the interview. To me Smith is a stronger source than CSM because CSM doesn't actually say where they got the info from. In either case, is the CSM source enough to state it without attribution or would it also require attribution? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Stumbled across this. The Christian Science Monitor investigation into the MEK paying Dean and many others (which I happened to edit). https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0808/Iranian-group-s-big-money-push-to-get-off-US-terrorist-list . I don't understand the dispute here. Dean is on record in this article admitting he was taking their money.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Is REAL, Journal of Almería Studies an rs for Bering Strait

See. The link doesn't go to the source cited and I can't find that aource. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Found a Spanish Misplaced Pages article on the explorer. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I found a link to the pdf but the article is in Spanish which I don't read well. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223 @Doug Weller My Spanish is at a passable level, from a first glance I’m not seeing anything outlandish/indicative of unreliability but I can take a deeper look a bit later. The Kip 01:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The journal isn't peer-reviewed, so it's not a top quality source, but it is a serious journal, in the sense it is something we would usually accept as reliable in general. The writers seem reasonable-ish. However, it's not a good enough journal that an outlandish article would become reliable. I'm reading the article now, and a couple of things strike me as a bit off, but maybe it's just because I've been drawn to it here. Will give a bit more info later today.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, the article appears to be claiming Lorenzo Ferrer Maldonado completed a crossing of the Northwest Passage in 1588. Between February and March. This is an extraordinary claim, I don't think the source is good enough to state that in the article.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

And if I'd checked, I'd have found out that he made up the story although it was taken seriously 200 years later. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The article is really odd, it is drifting towards the genre of x was actually Spanish/Catalan/Indian/Hungarian and the Masons hid the evidence of how they built pyramids so they could continue Akenhaton's religion. They use a photoshop reconstruction of how a woodcut of Ferrer might have looked and suggest a Spanish conspiracy to hide the fact they had discovered the Northwest passage, so the English and Dutch couldn't use it. They also claim that "Anglosaxon scholars" now accept Ferrer's claims, but fail to cite them. Valeriano Sánchez Ramos seems to be a quite decent local historian of eastern Andalucia, whereas Alfonso Viciana Martínez-Lage is more of a general writer but has published some academic stuff. I can't quite make my mind up if this is a sort of folie à deux, or whether they are publishing an academic joke.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

They managed to get published in Boletín de la Real Sociedad Geográfica (Tomo CLX (2023), p. 115). But still I wouldn't give it much weight unless there are other scholars that concur with them. Alaexis_¿question? 21:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm really surprised at that, I would have to say this is covered by WP:FRINGE. It is hard to understand how the editorial team might have accepted for publication an article which suggests an ice-free passage existed in the winter of 1588. You need specialist ships, and often icebreakers, to do it in summer today.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

That someone was able to navigate the northwest passage at that time is definitely bthe type of exception claim that WP:EXCEPTIONAL talks of. This would require multiple high quality sources, so this source alone would not be reliable for the claim. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Pirate Wires?

Pirate Wires describes itself as an "American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." It doesn't shout "reliable source" to me (feels more like a group blog), but could somebody else take a look at this and help me determine if (a) its articles, or (b) its claims about itself should be cited in articles or BLPs, as was done here? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn’t this be an aboutself citation anyway? I would be more concerned about primary/OR here in that case.

Regarding the source: they are likely to be pretty biased, but according to the page linked, they seems sufficiently reliable for this, unless someone can dig up large-scale issues I missed. Employees, proper funding etc. all seem to be fine. FortunateSons (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of as of January 2025, his profile at the online publisher Pirate Wires lists him as a senior editor? I just wanted to make sure PW was something worth mentioning at all, or if it was more akin to 'he's the senior editor this super-serious blog' and name-dropping a site that bore no mention. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure, but think being descriptive is fine for “articles about Misplaced Pages” and stuff, “critical“ is probably better coming from a specific source, even if it’s obvious. With everything else, it’s probably a question of DUE, not RS. FortunateSons (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd eschew calling out any of his particular articles over others, since there's... no reason to, right? Without reliable third-party sourcing, they're no more notable or inclusion-worthy than his others. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a case for BRD, but it seems like a reasonable option FortunateSons (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Pirate Wires has a strong right wing "libertarian tech bro" bent to its coverage, unsurprising given its links to Peter Thiel. The way it frames events is often strongly slanted, sometimes to the point of being misleading. Take for instance the recent story claiming that the WMF had been taken over by "Soros-backed operatives" . I would argue that this framing is conspiratorial and hyperbolic. I think it might sometimes be usable with caution for uncontroversial facts, but more objective sources should be preferred. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's a Business Insider story on Pirate Wires that gives a good sense of its ethos . Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Invoking George Soros conspiracy theories to attack an organization is not a good start for Pirate Wires, a new publication that does not have much of a reputation at this point. Definitely not generally reliable, and I would avoid using this publication for claims about living people. — Newslinger talk 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a "group blog", it just has a niche audience in the tech industry. It is certainly more factually based than Fox News. The article you linked is using it problematically though. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Words of the founder Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Solana is the founder and operator of Pirate Wires, so maybe it's wise to consider his pieces in particular self-published. No idea the level of editorial rigour other contributors are under though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Pirate Wires should be considered Generally reliable. The information that they publish, though perhaps from a libertarian or right wing political slant, is generally truthful/accurate and therefore should be considered WP:GENREL unless someone is able to provide substantial evidence and examples that disprove this. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
It's Mike Solana's blog. Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have an evidentiary basis for your claim? I ask because I was recently described in a Pirate Wires article as a member of a powerful pro-Hamas group, and while this was entertaining in its foolishness, the important point for RSN is that it was a factual error. The article contained many inaccuracies about various things, and it was clear that no attempt had been made to avoid errors and erroneous conclusions. So, using it for BLPs might be unwise, and the notion that it is "generally truthful/accurate" seem highly questionable. Of course, I only have one data point, so it could be an outlier, but I doubt it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. I was not happy about Pirate Wires being used for that whole fiasco. But as for the evidence look above at the link Selfstudier provided in which Mike Solana says, "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever." Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously his personal thing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

What "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" are you referring to? Can you cite specific examples please and quote from the source directly? Also, are there other reliable sources which then criticize PW for "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" or is that WP:OR and/or your own conclusion being reached? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Considering that comment and the fact that founder Mike Solana is the chief marketing officer of Founders Fund, Pirate Wires has a major conflict of interest with all of the individuals and organizations associated with Founders Fund, and is a non-independent source with respect to all related topics. — Newslinger talk 03:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Pirate Wires is trashy far-right culture wars content. It is at best a group blog - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Marginally reliable, there seems to be a pretty wide spread quality wise because they seem to allow their writer a loose leash. This means that some articles are very good and some are very bad. Personally I've found them solidly reliable for the more wonkish techy stuff but have a lot of issues when they start to cover politics or culture/society in general. Crypto seems to be the only blindspot within their otherwise area of expertise, their crypto coverage is just awful and should be avoided like the plague. When used I would attribute and I would strongly advise against any use for BLP not covered by ABOUTSELF. I agree that pieces by Solana should be treated as self published and that coverage by Pirate Wire is not to be considered independent of the Founders Fund. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Need context before coming to RSN

At this point, the source is used in only 7 articles in mainspace. . in general, RSN really shouldn't be used to approve sources ahead of time, editors exercise their own discretion, debate merits of source in the talk page of article, and come here if the same source is debated over and over again, or if reliability is still at issue. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Per ~~Slatersteven~~ its founder describes it as a WP:SPS - it should be treated accordingly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Not me. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh dear did I misread? OOPS should be per Selfstudier apologies. I will strike above. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not WP:SPS and its founder merely said things along the lines of "I am not bought and paid for nor a mouthpiece for any billionaire" etc. Now I do not know the veracity of that statement for sure, but I do not see that Mike Solana declared Pirate Wires to be SPS or a blog. It has numerous other independent journalists and appears to run as a full-fledged journalistic organization like any other, with their own right leaning or right-libertarian bias of course. But bias is not a reason for a source to otherwise be deprecated or considered SPS or anything else, it is just the nature of nearly every source that some bias to one direction or another is to be expected. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

But they don't have any indication of editorial controls, or a fact-checking process, or any of the things that an WP:RS would have; neither is there any reason to think they have a particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A statement like "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever" makes it pretty clear that it's not structured the way we'd expect a RS to be structured. I'm with the editors above who describe it as a blog - there's just nothing here that even has the shape of an RS. The fact that the person who runs it sometimes also includes guest posts by other people doesn't change the fact that there's no editorial board, no source of fact-checking, and most of all no reputation. Like... what makes you think that it's a WP:RS, according to the criteria we use? Where do you feel its reliability comes from? --Aquillion (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah by that criteria this is a SPS, one guys blog is still one guys blog even if they let their friends post. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Usage in Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages

Is the Pirate Wires piece "How Misplaced Pages Launders Regime Propaganda" by Ashley Rindsberg a reliable source of claims for the Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages article? Rindsberg has published other content about Misplaced Pages on Pirate Wires, including "How Soros-Backed Operatives Took Over Key Roles at Misplaced Pages". — Newslinger talk 04:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

It's at best, usable for the attributed opinion of Rindsberg only, but even then, it's obviously polemical and partisan. There's lots of right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages that I personally find disingenuous, but inevitably an article on "Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages" is going to have to include some partisan sourcing, but not framing it as fact is essential. I am unsure whether Pirate Wires is prominent enough a publication that it would be due to mention in any capacity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't even think its usable for that... Can't find anything that suggests that Rindsberg is a subject matter expert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources in that article should have some leeway, as Misplaced Pages is obviously going to be criticised by such sources. But I totally agree with Hemiauchenia that framing is key. This is the opinion of a hyper partisan source, framing it as fact is wrong. Whether it should be included or not is a discussion for the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

It is more or less a group

blog that mostly publishes opinion, including eg antisemitic Soros conspiracy theories. Any Misplaced Pages editor reading their coverage of this project will immediately spot multiple falsehoods and errors, and also personal attacks on names editors based on these inaccuracies. At best on a par with Quillette. In short, not reliable for this topic, and if this topic is a guide to how robust its general reporting is it’s probably not reliable for anything. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Both unreliable and WP:UNDUE. Rindsberg's views on any topic are quite irrelevant to anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree fully. Unreliable and undue. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

almost certainly no. the article attacking[REDACTED] has falsehoods and even ignoring that and arguing its an opinion piece we could use with attribution , it goes at it from a very marginal POV … there are more useful opinion pieces from more reliable outlets out there.Bluethricecreamman (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

How is it used by others or is it even used by others? If sources have cited their work then I think we can as well. However, I would be very cautious about using it as an independent reference. Very cautious to the point where I would generally say no. Perhaps in a case where it's spot on topic (ideological bias of Misplaced Pages) but then only with attribution. Speaking generally, these sort of sources are always difficult as they may provide very good information but other than editors reading the text and using their own common sense, OR, etc, we don't have a good way to judge the quality of the output. BTW, this is also why I think "use with caution" may not be specific enough. Some sources are more like "use with caution but probably OK" while others are more like "use with extreme caution but there is probably a case where it provides more than about self content". Springee (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Pirate Wires itself is notable as it's had coverage in other notable outlets but its viewpoint about Misplaced Pages per se might not have been documented in RS yet. But I'm confused -- Why are some of these other media outlets' self-published viewpoints included without them necessarily being considered RS themselves? Manuductive (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The term self-published refers to sources without adequate editorial oversight, which includes most group blogs. Well-established news outlets are not self-published sources. — Newslinger talk 14:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Imo Having Misplaced Pages articles that discuss whether Misplaced Pages is reliable, biased, antisemitic, etc is silly. We're all too inherently conflicted as Misplaced Pages editors to give a sober assessment of these topics and what is/isn't due to include. These topics are best left to scholars. That said, Pirate Wires is a lot less established than these other publications you mention. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Outright rejecting Pirate Wires because it's "right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages" and has "a very marginal POV" is the issue with WP:RSN that the piece is trying to critique. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

But it does affect WP:DUE weight (which requires balance between sources, and which is the real concern for something that, as a WP:SPS or a website with no reputation, would obviously be opinion at best.) The article already contains a large number of right-wing sources with a similar perspective; does this piece add anything to them? My feeling is that articles like this are subject to problems where editors try to do this nose-counting thing where they add dozens of opinionated or biased sources saying the same thing because they feel it's a really important perspective - but that's not how opinion is really meant to be used. If we have twelve sources that are fundimentially similar saying the same thing, they ought to be condensed down to a single sentence or so saying "a bunch of sources said X" (unless some of them are individually noteworthy on their own merits somehow, eg. if they're an opinion from a significant expert, but that obviously isn't the case here.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chess makes a perfectly valid point. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It's being rejected because it's a random tech guy's blog - not because it's right wing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

One thing @Hemiauchenia said I half-agree with. The question of Misplaced Pages bias is one best answered by academics - which we should document appropriately and neutrally - the opinion of Ashley Rindberg on a blog with no editorial board is not a notable opinion, again, not because of its left-right bent but because she's just some person with a megaphone. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It is your opinion that it is a blog. That itself would need evidence and probably an RfC. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, Ashley Rindsberg is a man. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Evidence has already been provided. In this thread. The founder brags about having no editorial board on twitter dot com. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Getting neither the gender "she's" nor the spelling "Ashley Rindberg" correct shows me you may not have looked into this very much. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh do stop. That's an awful lot to take from a bloody typo. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's a freebee for all the people looking to say Misplaced Pages has a left-wing bias. This is what a reliable source accusing Misplaced Pages of a left-wing bias looks like: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.2020.1793846 Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Two can play that game. https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased Iljhgtn (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The Manhattan Institute is a think-tank with no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it is obviously not a WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This too, in addition to my comment below. Frankly I'm finding this interaction very strange. Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I should add that the Manhattan Institute was discussed previously here; the discussion was never closed or added to WP:RSP but by a quick nose-count the total unreliable + deprecate opinions outnumbered the "unclear" opinions almost two-to-one (and there were almost no people saying it was GREL.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

What game? I literally provided a source accusing Misplaced Pages both of left-wing bias and of bias against women at the same time. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't actually require an RFC for every individual dispute; and sources certainly do not automatically default to reliable. Just doing a quick nose-count in this discussion suggests that it's extremely unlikely that an RFC on Pirate Wires' reliability would support your contention that it is reliable - numerous issues have been raised, especially regarding its lack of editorial controls and its lack of the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that RS requires. We can pull it through an entire RFC if you really think it's necessary but I think your time would be better-spent looking for more clearly reliable secondary sources covering this, if you want it in the article. This would also turn things back to the more fundamental WP:DUE problem I mentioned above - this looks identical to dozens of similar pieces posted by people with similar opinions; given that it's published in what's at least a low-quality source compared to the ones already in the article, what makes this one significant enough to highlight? --Aquillion (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

For disclosure, I originally wrote the Mike Solana article. I think the answer is no to this question specifically, and similar questions generally.
Pirate Wires is an advocacy media outlet. Its writing is in a punchy tone -- a tech-ish form of gonzo journalism -- that blends opinion with explanatory reporting. They don't do spot news. So there's just no utility in using it for encyclopedia-writing.
That's not to say it's either good or bad, merely that it doesn't serve the limited purposes for which we use sources here. (It ran a widely cited interview with Jack Dorsey and I don't think anyone believes they made-up the interview. But if we need to cite that interview in an article it can be referenced to any of the numerous RS that, themselves, cited it through précis', versus Pirate Wires directly.) In any case, anything it publishes that is encyclopedic will be covered in a second, more conventional RS and we should reference the second source. Anything not referenced in a pass-through outlet is probably undue. Chetsford (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

CEIC data

I often see this site being used as a source for country-list data. They appear to be professional, but I'm not sure if they're considered a proper secondary source. They do not appear to be the same CEIC as the one owned by Caixin, as they say they are owned by "ISI Markets". Wizmut (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks like just a big database. I would trust the first party sources for raw data more. EEpic (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

If in question use secondary sources. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Fantasy Literature

I see this source around a lot and I would like to have it settled for whether it is OK to use for reviews. It looks good to me and not promotional or any of the typical sorts of issues that plague these kinds of websites, but I am not sure, and I would like to know before I use it on pages, and sometimes books are cited to this at NPP and I am unsure how I should judge it. I would judge it as decently established but it looks to me to be straddling the line between online review publication and blog. It's used on about 160 already. Anyone else have any thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

It has the appearance of a blog. It has a sort-of staff:. I'd be hesitant to use it for WP:N purposes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This is the terms its staff work under:

Basically they're unpaid volunteers who become voting members of the staff. They are expected to review an unspecified but regular number of books in order to maintain their membership. It isn't clear that there's much in the way of editorial oversight beyond a pledge not to plagiarize review material. Considering their concentration on volume of reviews and appearance of loose editorial standards I'd be hesitant to use this group to establish the notability of a book. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

So just for notability purposes it is unusable or is it something that should not be included on pages that are notable? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd say unusable for notability purposes. I'd likely leave it off other pages unless it had something significant to say that better sources didn't. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

NASASpaceFlight.com

Looking to see if we can come to some consensus on NASASpaceFlight.com's use as a reliable source in articles related to SpaceX, specifically in its use in Starship flight test 8 and Starship flight test 9.

At a glance, to me the site seems to be a bit fan-sitey and seems to glean a lot of information from rumour and speculation based on photos and video they've taken from the perimeter or via drones flying over SpaceX facilities. I also see no evidence on the website of any editorial oversight or fact checking policies.

Talk:SpaceX Starship/FAQ mentions the site as a reliable source but the only criteria they give for its inclusion are that the source
"should already have a Misplaced Pages page (notable enough to be created) and have reliable sources covering them (notable enough to be mentioned)." which I think we can all agree is not valid signal of reliability. RachelTensions (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:RS calls for "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". A Google books search appears to show WP:USEBYOTHERS, and even use by NASA. They appear to have some editorial staff, but there's no editorial guideline I could find. Obviously the forum section wouldn't be reliable per WP:USERGENERATED.
Given how often they are used by other sources I would think they should probably considered generally reliable. Is there any specific instances that are of concern? After all generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there any specific instances that are of concern? After all generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable. Nothing in particular, mostly just looking to see if coverage of events from this source would constitute sigcov in reliable sources for the purposes of WP:N. RachelTensions (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

This is probably a reliable source, but WP:SIGCOV isn't just matter of reliability. Notability is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:SIGCOV isn't just matter of reliability. no, but coverage in an unreliable source does not count for WP:GNG. That's why I'm seeking opinions on whether this source in particular is reliable. RachelTensions (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I've found their written news reporting to be generally reliable however their coverage of SpaceX in particular often comes off as promotional (you very rarely see the controversies or criticisms found in other sources reflected in their work) but that may be more self-censorship to maintain their inside access to SpaceX than objective promotion. I would not touch their forum or youtube channel with a 10 foot stick but thats surely besides the point of this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I would not touch their forum or youtube channel with a 10 foot stick but thats surely besides the point of this discussion. well, maybe not exactly besides the point. There are several citations to their YouTube channel in the articles I've mentioned (and similar articles). What in particular about their YouTube channel do you believe is less reliable than their website? RachelTensions (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

In general I find the stuff on their Youtube channel to be much more speculative and clickbaity as well as of a generally low quality. Often its just one of their people flipping between a bunch of pictures from the day before and speculating live about what they might mean. It also doesn't appear to be subject to the same standard of editorial review, its not the same standard of writing and analysis (much of it appears unscripted and I haven't seen them make corrections after the fact). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

How restrictive is the TRT World „Turkish Government conflict of interest“ unreliability?

How broad should this restriction be interpreted? For example, does it include topics such as Kurdistan, Israel and the current conflict in Syria? FortunateSons (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I would have thought it applies very strongly for Kurdistan and Syria, as Turkey is in open conflict in those areas. Israel might depend on the context, Turkey obviously isn't a uninterested party but it's not Iran. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

To be clear it would be reliable for statements of the Turkish governments official views in all cases. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course, I‘m just asking about reliability for facts, because I saw some less than great statements, particularly in the I/P area. Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Basically agree with ActivelyDis. I think TRT World is pretty good on non-domestic issues on the whole, but not for anything Kurdish. Israel is fine. Probably not good for Syria as Turkey is a belligerent party there, although I’ve never seen it actually publish anything questionable on Syria apart from Kurdish-related stuff. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Is “Zannettou, Savvas "A Quantitative Approach to Understanding Online Antisemitism". a reliable source for Happy Merchant

I can’t find evidence it’s been published. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not up for reading it right now, but it's been published, and the correct citation is: Zannettou, S., Finkelstein, J., Bradlyn, B., & Blackburn, J. (2020, May). A quantitative approach to understanding online antisemitism. In Proceedings of the International AAAI conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 14, pp. 786-797). Google Scholar shows a few places where it can be accessed. If it's kept, the references to it in the Notes section should change "Savvas" to something like "Zannettou et al." FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I should add that the Zannettou et al. citations that currently exist in the article are preprints, which generally are not RSs, per WP:PREPRINT. The other citation was also subsequently published in conference proceedings. Conference proceedings might or might not be reliable sources for specific content, depends on the conference and the content. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

It's important to keep in mind that most of the preprints people link to as sources were eventually published; we just link to the preprints as courtesy links because they're usually what's available. PREPRINT even mentions this. --Aquillion (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but in that case, you still need the correct citation for wherever it eventually appeared, and if there's a link to that final version in full, then you should link to the full final version rather than a preprint draft. In this particular case, the citations themselves were not for the final version, and the final versions are both available in full elsewhere. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

What's the context for this question? Where is it being cited/do you want to be able to cite it? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hydrangeans I'm a bit confused by the question - did you look at the article? It's cited several times there and as I can't find evidence that it's been reliably published I don't think it should be used. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry; that's my bad. I was running on low sleep and shouldn't have been on Misplaced Pages, and I read your prose where you don't include a link but glazed past the header text where you did include a link. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

See https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/7343/7197 GordonGlottal (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed another one, also apparently never published."Zannettou, Savvas, Tristan Caulfield, Jeremy Blackburn, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Michael Sirivianos, Gianluca Stringhini, and Guillermo Suarez-Tangil. "On the Origins of Memes by Fringe Web Communities." arXiv.org, September 22, 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.12512." Doug Weller talk 08:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I provided a link to the published version of that one in my second comment above. The citation is Zannettou, S., Caulfield, T., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Sirivianos, M., Stringhini, G., & Suarez-Tangil, G. (2018, October). On the origins of memes by means of fringe web communities. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018 (pp. 188-202). There's an alternate citation at the top right of the copy where it says "ACM Reference Format." FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion ACM is reputable, but I seem to have forgotten that we can use published conference papers, but not papers simply presented at a conference. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'm following. Both papers were published in conference proceedings. FWIW, even preprints are published in WP's sense of this term, which is only "a source that is made available to the public in some form." Even if there are no conference proceedings, it's possible to use a conference paper that was presented, as long as the presenter has made it publicly available (e.g., via something like arxiv.org). But all of this only establishes that the paper is published and therefore verifiable, not that it's a RS for the content in question. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean when is a paper submitted to a conference run by a reliable organisation an RS? When submitted? If published as part of the publication of the conference papers? Doug Weller talk 15:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

A paper that's been submitted to a conference should be treated like a preprint. A paper that appears in conference proceedings is more likely to be an RS, but that will depend on whether the conference is one that reviews all papers in a way that's similar to peer-reviewed journals, and — as always — on the WP content that it's being used as a source for (a paper can be an RS for some content and not for other content). Assuming that the papers do substantiate the WP text, I'm guessing that they're RSs (Google Scholar indicates that they've been cited over 200 times). FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

It is published, Conference proceedings of Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), volume 14. AAAI has been around since 1979 with respected associations. Submission to a conference is not sufficient to meet any standards. Acceptance by a reputable conference after peer review (some conference talks are invited and not peer reviewed) is a good indicator of reliability though not a guarantee (the conference paper may well be revised between acceptance and publication in a proceedings and even then might in the long run not be considered reliable). As it stands, I would say reliable for the use of Happy Merchant online unless other sources can be found undermining its reliability. Erp (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I would consider a paper published in the proceedings of a respected conference a reasonably reliable source. If it was contradicted by peer-reviewed research or, even better, a peer-reviewed meta-analysis of available literature I would give it a bit less due than those sources. But I'd say that yes, at its base, this looks reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all. I'm really cross with myself for not checking on Google Scholar - ironically I've just done that with another paper. I would have saved you all a lot of time if I had done that. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hawar News Agency

Should we be using articles from the Hawar News Agency, especially in relation to the (geo)political side of Rojava? This also includes articles in the scope of the Syrian civil war. It has ties to the SDF, which means there is a significant conflict of interest here; ~~I should also add that the YPG/YPD/SDF heavily censor narratives critical of theirs, which raises concern over its reliability.~~ I want to get community consensus before I do anything, especially because the article in question (Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria) is related to a CTOP. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 19:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

(Copying this response from the talk page of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria:) Of course we have to use Hawar, simply because it is one the most prominent news sites from Syria. It shouldn't be used as the sole source for contentious issues (unless it cites claims), but for basic facts such as local election results, regional policy decisions, etc. it is one of the only sources available. It is also used as a source by academic researchers such as in The Kurds in the Middle East: Enduring Problems and New Dynamics, The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts, Soldiers of End-Times. Assessing the Military Effectiveness of the Islamic State, and Statelet of Survivors. The Making of a Semi-Autonomous Region in Northeast Syria.
(The following part is new, written for RSN:) These are books written by experts on Syria, released by reputable publishers such as ‎ Oxford University Press, and they have seemingly deemed Hawar to be a partisan, but useable source. Speaking from experience as an editor who has been active in editing articles on the Syrian civil war for ten years, I would also note that Hawar was previously discussed by editors and similarily assessed, as it is fairly reliable though should be used with caution in especially problematic fields such as casualty numbers (where partisanship becomes a major problem). Applodion (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Having read through the article you linked it doesn't show that media is heavily censored. A relevant sentence would appear to be:
"In the current situation, the journalists we interviewed usually stress that, on the one hand, they enjoy relative freedom of expression. The PYD did not forcefully close those it considers as antagonistic media. Reporters can move freely in the region and cover a wide array of issues. Additionally, journalists from international or regional media are also generally allowed to operate freely. However, they also say that there is always a tension with the authorities in power and there are red lines that cannot be crossed."
As well as:
"Gradually, they seem to have adopted an editorial line that is less critical, if not supportive, of the political system in Rojava. This support, according to some local journalists, is not due so much to direct imposition from the authorities, but rather to their own convictions and, even more important, to the feeling that doing otherwise would be very unpopular in a conflict-ridden context."
So it doesn't sound like they have the most freedom of media, but it appears a long way from heavily censored. Restrictions on reporting matters that could effect security are common in areas of conflict (and even outside of them).
Hawar News Agency has some WP:USEBYOTHERS and would probably be covered by WP:NEWSORG. Issues of bias (WP:RSBIAS) and opinion (WP:RSOPINION) don't immediately make a source unreliable. In general I would agree with Applodion, reliable but caution should be taken for issue where it's bias or censorship of security matters may effect it's reporting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with above, helpful to understand its bias, but this means to use with caution and understanding rather than preventing use. CMD (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with the above. If we are citing it for contentious claims, then it's better we provide attribution. Unless OP or someone else can come up with credible sources that question the reliability of Hawar, I don't see any reason to worry about its inclusion. Looking over the article, it seems most of the citations to it are for easily verifiable facts (i.e. changes in AANES leadership, recognition by the Catalan parliament, etc.), rather than anything contentious. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

If we consider TRT sub-optimum in relation to Rojava and the Syrian war because of its affiliation to the Erdogan government (see above on this noticeboard), the same should apply to Hawar. It’s fine for reporting the statements by AANES/PYD/SDF or uncontentious facts, but it should always be attributed and triangulated for anything at all contentious. I’d rate it above Al-Masdar and below the SOHR for reporting facts about eg battles in the Syrian war, but like them is a weak source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there anything to show that Hawar is not independent of the SDF? I couldn't find anything making an explicit link. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: "Misdirected US strike killed 18 allied fighters in Syria" from the Associated Press: "On Thursday, the group held funerals for 17 of its fighters in the border town of Tal al-Abyad, the SDF-linked Hawar news agency said...". 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 22:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

That would indicate a need for caution. Whether to the level of TRT I couldn't day. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Being censored is a WP:BIASED issue and a reason to use a source with caution (with attribution for anything remotely contentious), but it doesn't automatically render them completely unreliable. The big question is whether they're yielding to pressure to publish things that are actually inaccurate rather than just one-sided. If not, they can still be used with caution - we'd want to cite better sources when possible and avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to a source with a clear bias, but there's some advantage to having sources that are close to conflicts. And a major problem with removing sources simply for being subject to censorship is that it could produce systematic bias by removing every source from a particular region; I'm not familiar with the Syrian press specifically, but in other regions with similar censorship, there's still a difference between sources that carefully report as much as they can get away with and as accurately as they can within the restrictions of government censors, and sources that full-throatedly broadcast misinformation to support the party line. --Aquillion (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: LionhearTV

Moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Sources § RfC: LionhearTV – Royiswariii, 19 January 2025 00:55 (UTC)

I want your comments about the reliability of LionhearTV, I can't determine whether it is reliable or not, on New Page Sources, the Lionheartv is in the unreliable section, but, despite of that some editors still using this source in all Philippine Articles. So let's make a vote:

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

Royiswariii Talk! 10:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Deprecate. The Philippines has plenty of WP:RS to choose from. If you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find refs for something or someone and have to use this, I'd say consider against and don't add it to the article. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: For better understanding and context, especially for editors unfamiliar of this topic's origin:

LionhearTV is a blog site, as described on its "About Me" page, established in 2008 and functioning primarily as a celebrity and entertainment blog. The site is operated by eMVP Digital, which also manages similar blog sites, such as DailyPedia and Philippine Entertainment.

In addition to these blogs, LionhearTV organizes the RAWR Awards, which recognize achievements in the entertainment industry. This accolade has been acknowledged by major industry players, including ABS-CBN and GMA Network. Like other awards, the RAWR Awards present physical trophies to honorees.

A discussion about LionhearTV’s reliability as a source took place on the Bini (group) talk page in September 2024 (see Talk:Bini (group)/Archive 1 § LionhearTV as a reliable source). The issue was subsequently raised on the Tambayan Philippines talk page (Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 52 § Lionheartv) and the WP:RSN (Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 452 § LionhearTV). However, these discussions did not yield a constructive consensus on whether LionhearTV can be considered a reliable source. The discussion at Tambayan deviated into a debate about SMNI, which was unrelated to the original subject. Meanwhile, the sole respondent at the RSN inquiry commented, It may come down to how it's used, it maybe unreliable for contentious statement or comments about living people, but reliable for basic details.

At this moment, LionhearTV is listed as unreliable on Misplaced Pages:New page patrol source guide#The Philippines as result of the no consensus discussion at RSN.

AstrooKai (Talk) 13:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Lionheartv is one person operation. How can there be editorial discretion on that case? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm more surprised on how a single person actively manages three blog sites and one accolade, with the accolade even giving out physical trophies to its winners. Like, how is he/she funding and doing all of these? AstrooKai (Talk) 14:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

It's immaterial on how we determine WP:RS. What could be very important that other WP:RS missed out on that only this blog carries? If it's only this blog that carries articles about something, it's not very important. This blog is the very definition of WP:RSSELF. I'm surprised we're having this conversation. A blacklist is needed. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Option 3. There's something about its reporting and organizational structure that is off compared to the regular newspapers. Borgenland (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Though, I find it strange and concerning that reputable sources copypasted some of LionhearTV's articles:

LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts/ (December 8, 2024)
Sunstar: https://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts (December 10, 2024)
LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2025/01/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 11, 2025)
Manila Republic: https://www.manilarepublic.com/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 14, 2025)

These are two instances I found so far where other sources copypasted from LionhearTV. But I saw other instances where LionhearTV is the one who copypasted from other sources, such examples include:

LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-im-okay-to-cinemas/ (December 30, 2024)
Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/showbiz/music/2024/12/29/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-i-m-okay-to-cinemas-0948 (December 29, 2024)
LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/06/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game/ (June 27, 2024)
Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/starmagic/articles-news/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game-22637 (June 24, 2024)

I honestly don't know about these editors, they just copying each other's works. Probably cases of churnalism. AstrooKai (Talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Option 3 - As much as possible, LionhearTV and its sibling sites under the eMVP Digital should not be used as sources when more reliable outlets have coverage for a certain event, show, actor and so on. Even if a certain news item is exclusive to or first published in a eMVP Digital site, other journalists will eventually publish similar reports in their respective platforms (refer to some examples posted by AstrooKai). -Ian Lopez @ 15:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

What I fear in these kinds of low quality sources is that people will find something very specific about someone, e.g. "This person was seen in a separate engagement vs. the others in their group," and this low quality source is the only source that carried this fact, and since this it is not blacklisted, this does get in as a source, and most of the time, that's all that's needed. We don't need articles on showbiz personalities tracking their every movement as if it's important. Blacklist this. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about moving RFC to RSN
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@AstrooKai, @Borgenland, @Howard the Duck, if you don't mind we can move this discussion to Noticeboard to get more opinions and votes on other experienced editors. Royiswariii Talk! 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC) Support. Borgenland (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC) Support. Though, I suggest finishing or closing this discussion so that we don't have two running discussions that tackles the same thing. If we want to construct a consensus, we better do it in one place. Alternatively, we first seek consensus from the local level first (by finishing this discussion) before moving one level up (the RSN). AstrooKai (Talk) 16:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about moving RFC to RSN

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@AstrooKai, @Borgenland, @Howard the Duck, if you don't mind we can move this discussion to Noticeboard to get more opinions and votes on other experienced editors. Royiswariii Talk! 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Borgenland (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Though, I suggest finishing or closing this discussion so that we don't have two running discussions that tackles the same thing. If we want to construct a consensus, we better do it in one place. Alternatively, we first seek consensus from the local level first (by finishing this discussion) before moving one level up (the RSN). AstrooKai (Talk) 16:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Option 3It's a blog. That means WP:SPS applies. This means it might be contextually reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF or under WP:EXPERTSPS (with the usual condition that SPSEXPERT prohibits any use of SPS for BLPs) and so I don't see any pressing need for deprecation, but this is very clearly a source that is not generally one we should use. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, the person behind this blog is not a subject matter expert. Like, we don't even know who this is. (One subject matter expert in Philippine showbusiness that I know of that runs a similar blog is Fashion Pulis, and I event won't even use the blind items as sources there lol) As explained above, once this gets to be used as a source, it won't be challenged and people just accept it as is. This is a low quality source that has to be blacklisted. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah that's fine. I was just saying that, in general, those are the only two avenues to use someone's blog. Simonm223 (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hatebase.org

Is hatebase.org a reliable source? GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there an WP:RFCBEFORE for this? And/Or some context for the use case? FortunateSons (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I have checked and I can't find any previous discussion, hence why I opened this one. There is an article about the site. I intend to use it to expand list of slurs articles. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I’m not making a statement on the source, as I’m not familiar with it .Then this doesn’t require an RfC, just a normal source discussion, if you’re concerned about reliability. Do you mind removing the descriptor from the title? And best of luck! :) FortunateSons (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I just added it because I saw some of the other discussions had it. I am removing it from the title. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

That happens, don’t worry about it! Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

used in 4[REDACTED] articles, seems highly premature. use best judgement until it can't be resolved in an article's talk page between editors, and needs wider[REDACTED] community feedback. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I wish this were otherwise because it looks like a really interesting website but it uses user-generated content. Which is a problem from an RS perspective. Simonm223 (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

None of the uses are for anything other than Hatebase itself, and as the site was been retired since 2022 it's unlikely it will see much more use ('retired' as it's been closed to editing, all user data deleted, and may go offline at any point, so not quite closed but very close). As most of the supporting data is gone, and what there was was user generated, I don't think it could be used as an RS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

LaserDisc Database?

I'm working on adding citations to the home media section of King Kong (1933). I'm looking for a source that supports the sentence "Image Entertainment released another LaserDisc" . I've found the laserdisc in question on LaserDisc Database here. Can I use it as a source? The "register now" box states that users can "submit" new Laserdiscs, which implies some editorial oversight compared to other websites with user-generated material (although it looks like there may be just one editor). My other options are worldcat or interlibrary loaning the original Laserdisc. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The bottom of the page has "Disclaimer: The data on this webstite is crowd-sourced..." and from the page you linked it's unclear what amount of checking is done before any submitted updates happen. Worldcat is the better option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

oops, I missed that. Thank you for the advice. I'll use WorldCat if I can't find a news article. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Usage of AirPlay Direct for music articles

Is airplaydirect.com reliable for use in articles about music (such as songs, albums, artists, etc.) GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Per their about page they are not a normal news source, but a promotional platform. Their articles, etc are likely based on press releases and information from the subject of the article. So they might be reliable as a WP:PRIMARY source within the limits of WP:ABOUTSELF. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Global Defense Corp

Global Defense Corp should be deprecated as it is a incredibly unreliable source which frequently fabricates information they are incredibly biassed against Russian technology to such an extent as to lose all objectivity here I will share just a small snippet of the blatantly false information they have spread over the years

1. they've claimed that Azerbaijan using either an Israeli or Turkish drone was able to destroy a Armenian nebo-m radar which is impressive considering Armenia doesn't even have that radar or has at any point Displayed any interest in buying that radar there evidence for this is a footage of Azerbaijan destroying a p-18 radar and then claiming it's the nebo-m and they didn't just claim this once they've claimed it at least twice in two different articles.

2. in this article you can see a picture of the SU57’s internal weapons bays but what they don't tell you is that this picture is CGI at no point do they communicate this in fact they claim it's from the Sukhoi design Bureau even though it's not.

3. in this article they talk about how the S 400 range decreases against objects at low altitudes  which is true but fail to explain that this is true for all radar guided Sam systems thanks to an effect known as radar horizon where objects at low altitudes are able to hide behind the curvature of the earth and therefore can only be detected at certain distances but not only do they not explain this to the reader creating a false impression that this is an issue unique to the S 400 but they even claimed that Turkey accused Russia of fraud because of this. which is weird for several reasons one Russia has at no point claim that the S400 range does not decrease with altitude but also because it implies Turkey believed the S 400 could defy the laws of physics they also have no source of this claim and no other articles on the Internet claim this.

4. In this article they claimed SU57 lacks sensor fusion which it doesn't and then just ignore that low probability of intercept radar is a thing .

5. in this article they berate the S 400 for not intercepting Israeli F35’s in Syria but forgot to mention that Russia and Israel were long believed to have an agreement in the Syrian civil war to not engaged each other.

There bias is also evident in just in the words that they say frequently attacking Russian equipment with ad hominems such as cooling the S 400 ,another lame duck missile system, or starting there articles with stupid Russians or Russian equipment exposed. they also lack of any transparency no one knows who owns the website none of the articles say the names of the people that wrote them making the website Even more suspicious but despite all of this they are still frequently cited all the time on Misplaced Pages.

Sources 1.https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/02/01/turkey-exposed-fatal-flaws-in-russian-made-s-400-surface-to-air-missile/

2. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/07/11/rostec-nebo-m-radar-is-it-a-scam-or-propaganda/

3. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/12/28/russian-su-57-will-carry-four-missiles-in-the-internal-weapons-bay/

4. Radar Horizon. (n.d.). www.ssreng.com. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www.ssreng.com/pdf/Radar_Horizon.pdf

5. Butowski 2021, pp. 78–82

6. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2022/01/24/sukhoi-su-57s-x-band-n036-byelka-and-n036l-1-01-l-band-radars-are-not-what-you-think/

7. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2019/09/22/over-hyped-s-400-and-s-300-surface-to-air-missile-failed-to-detect-f-35i-adir/

8. When Israel bombs Syria, Russia turns a blind eye. (2022, January 3). thearabweekly.com. Retrieved January 22, 2025, from https://thearabweekly.com/when-israel-bombs-syria-russia-turns-blind-eye Madnow2 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Do we use them? Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The S 400 Misplaced Pages page has 20 citations from them and the su 57 Misplaced Pages page has four. Madnow2 (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that they're generally unreliable but I'm not so sure I'd chalk it up to bias rather than incompetence. They seem to be suggesting that the news they publish is a sideline to their core business of international security consulting... But they're spamming the cheapest ads on the internet alongside that content suggests that this is their primary income. To me it looks like a vanity site, I also suspect they are ripping stories off or using generative AI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I will agree with you that they are incompetent But I think you can be incompetent and bias, some mistakes they've made such as having a image of the SU57 that is CGI on the web page and claiming it was a picture taken by Sukhoi I could see that being a result of incompetence but stuff like claiming Turkey accused Russia of Fraud over the S 400 because its range decreased against objects at lower altitude I have a harder time believing is just incompetence specially since the mistakes that they made seemed to always understate Russian equipment’s capabilities I have never been able to see and correct me if I'm wrong any incidents where they have overstated a piece of Russian equipment’s capabilities and yet I have seen dozens of mistakes in the opposite direction which suggests to me it is not random error. but quite frankly if their biassed or not I think is irrelevant even if we somehow conclude that they do have a neutral point of view there is still no way they could be considered a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards as they do not meet the other criteria mainly the one which is in quote ‘Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy’ there is no universe where they pass that one and as a result they cannot be considered a reliable source something which you agree with this alone should be enough to get the website Deprecated irrespective of if their bias or not. Madnow2 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the one thing that seems to be universally agreed on is that this is not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I would agree, that regardless of whether it's bias or incompetence, it all adds up to unreliability. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Should we trust Social Blade for statistics

Certain pages about certain living subjects contain an infobox template that really emphasises view counts and subscriber statistics. However, that data is often sourced from Social Blade. Here's what WP's page about Social Blade says;

"An official YouTube Twitter account, @TeamYouTube wrote that "Please know that third party apps, such as SocialBlade, do not accurately reflect subscriber activity." Social Blade's Twitter account responded to that tweet, commenting "We don't make up data. We get it from the YouTube API. We rely on it for accuracy." Social Blade's community manager Danny Fratella suggested that YouTube content creators may notice subscriber and view count purges more due to a higher accessibility to data-tracking tools like Social Blade."

The question is should we trust it?

Plus, why do pages about gamers and vloggers place so much emphasis on what appears to be arbitrary, trivial information that is prone to fluctuation?𝔓 𝔓 15:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It is WP:PRIMARY - I don't think WP:SELFPUB applies since it is drawing its data out of an API but I'd say it's a marginal source. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It certainly isn't a source that I would trust but it is frequently cited in certain articles to populate value statement parameters such as subscriber count, view count, like count etc in this template. My understanding is that WP:PRIMARY sources shouldn't be used to verify value statements? 𝔓 𝔓 17:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Prior discussions for reference; Aug 2021, Jan 2024, June 2024, RFC June 2024. The general opinion appears to be that it's marginal at best. Personally I doubt how reliable their data is, if it's available from the original source that should be used and if it's not available from the original source I wouldn't trust it. They also have 'rankings', which are worthless for anything other than the opinion of Social Blade. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: EurAsian Times

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

Misplaced Pages proposals
Politics, government, and law

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The EurAsian Times (used to have its own article but it was apparently PRODed) is cited in several hundreds of articles, mostly pertaining to Russian military hardware and South Asian issues, but not exclusively. It was mentioned a few times on this noticeboard but only on a surface level.

In light of all this, how would you rate the EurAsian Times?

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

Thank you. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 22:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) PS: it is the first time I create an RFC, I hope it is not malformed

Survey (EurAsian Times)

Discussion (EurAsian Times)

Previous discussions at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 458#Eurasian Times (2024) Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 399#The Eurasian Times (2023), and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 389#EurAsian Times (2022). It looks like there's already consensus that it's unreliable and an RfC is not necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

flightconnections.com

I wonder if flightconnections.com is a reliable source. Examples of it use are on Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport and Los Angeles International Airport. In both cases WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT asks for airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE. I have doubt if flightconnections qualifies as reliable. The Banner talk 02:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: