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

Revision as of 20:24, 2 April 2008 view sourceTheNautilus (talk | contribs)1,377 edits →Is the American Medical Association a reliable source?: nature of problem← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:02, 22 January 2025 view source Madnow2 (talk | contribs)23 edits →Global Defense Corp
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{short description|Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}}
	{{editabuselinks}}
			{{pp|sock|small=yes}}
	{{shortcut|]<br>]<br>]}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}}
	Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in . If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{tl|resolved}}.
	The ''guideline'' that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is ]. The ''policies'' that most directly relate are: ], ], and ]. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the ].
	If your question is about whether material constitutes ], please use the ].
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
			|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
	|maxarchivesize = 250K		|maxarchivesize = 250K
	|counter = 9		|counter = 465
			|minthreadstoarchivSee = 1
	|algo = old(21d)
			|algo = old(5d)
	|archive = Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d		|archive = Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
			}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__
	}}{{Archive box|auto=yes}}
			<!--
			------------------------------------------------------------------------------
			NEW ENTRIES GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE AS A NEW SECTION
			------------------------------------------------------------------------------
			-->
			------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	__TOC__ __NEWSECTIONLINK__
			==RfC: NewsNation==
	]
			<!-- ] 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: ]'''
	== ] vs. ] ==
			* '''Option 2: ]'''
			* '''Option 3: ]'''
			* '''Option 4: ]'''
			] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	I see that in , a cite from Antiwar.com was removed on the grounds of being self-published. It was removed from the bio of ], the main attraction at ], which is abundantly cited as a source all over Misplaced Pages. This seems ironic to me because I can see no structural difference between Antiwar and PRA. They are both highly opinionated commentary sites. Why is one better than the other? --] (]) 07:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
	:I also can see no difference. It appears to be a case of goose and gander. --] (]) 15:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
	Echos of the disparate treatment of ''Frontpage Magazine'' and MMFA and FAIR. But it's hardly news that Misplaced Pages editors have net group biases. But ] has a special history, as it seems it was a long-term project of SlimVirgin and a like-minded claque of admins to abuse and manipulate BLP policy to the detriment of NPOV in that article, among others. ] (]) 04:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::] ]] ] 05:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
	::Well, antiwar.com doesn't count as self-published. It might count as a source of dubious reliability; however, there is certainly no difference between quoting the editor of that site and the editor of Publiceye.com. I'd like to disassociate myself from Andy's remarks above, though, as I don't know the facts (also, its ''clique''). Certainly, if PRA is overused, people should feel free to remove it. ] (]) 05:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::Actually, does work in this context. --] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Heh, you're right. ] (]) 17:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
			===Survey (NewsNation)===
	::::::I don't see any conclusion here that PRA is an unreliable source. ]] ] 03:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light).
	::::::We were discussing self-publishing, actually. And we usually wait a bit before deciding there's no consensus. People check this noticeboard on irregular schedules. ] (]) 06:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
			**NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
	:::::::Some editors are pointing to this thread as a reason to deleted sourced material. I was simply pointing out that that is premature. ]] ] 08:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
			***In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the ], Coulthart said {{xt|"... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"!}} . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including ] and ], all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects.
	Did anyone have particular cases where they felt the PRA was used improperly as a source, for comparison? ] (]) 06:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
			***Writing in ''The Skeptic'', Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: {{xt|"Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."}}
	:Yes. PRA is ''overused'' as a source, and often in ways which violate ]. There are two persons who are professional anti-LaRouche activists, ] and ], who both have websites with arguably slanderous attacks on LaRouche. PRA is Berlet's website, and King's website has been discussed before on this page (].) (PRA, for example, features defamatory leaflets with instructions to print them out and distribute them at LaRouche events, not the sort of thing you would expect from a scholarly source.) These attacks do not appear in the conventional press, so these two persons have opened Misplaced Pages accounts (] and ]) to use Misplaced Pages to get greater exposure for their views. They are joined in this effort by ] and ]. The idea appears to be to use Misplaced Pages to "expose" LaRouche, since the conventional media are not doing this to their satisfaction. Material from the the websites in question is spammed into all LaRouche-related articles in violation of ] and ]. I think that use of PRA should be scaled way back to a level that corresponds to its notability, and never for material that conflicts with BLP -- I do not believe that PRA meets the standards required by ]. --] (]) 07:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
			***He wrote a UFO book titled ''Plain Sight'' which ] described as a {{xT|"conspiracy narrative"}} and a {{xt|"slipshod summary"}}.
			***The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for {{Xt|“espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”}}
			***The ] did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking {{xt|"Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary?}} while strongly implying the former.
			***The '']'' has described him as a {{Xt|"UFO truther"}} with {{xt|"little appetite for scrutiny"}}.
			***Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked ] investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians.
			**Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs:
			***In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the ''Washington Post'': ), the channel {{xt|"was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health"}}.
			***In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said {{xt|"... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing"}}. The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to ]'s analysis, a Boeing 737 .
			:] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage ] (]) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. ] (]) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' per Chetsford. – ] (]&nbsp;<b>·</b> ]) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative.] (]) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. Compare ]. ] (]) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' why are we putting ''any'' stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “]” syndrome. ] (]) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''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)===
	::Dennis King and Chip Berlet have been professional investigative journalists, and are the acknowledged experts on Lyndon LaRouche and his movement. They've been quoted at least dozens of times in the mainstream press. King is the author of the only full-length biography, which was published by a major publishing house, Doubleday & Co. Berlet is a longtime researcher for Political Research Associates, which also meets our standards of a reliable publishing source. Some editors have tried repeatedly to have these two authors considered unreliable sources and have never succeeded.(Isn't there a statute of limitations?) Yet they haven't proven that the authors have been factually incorrect in any straighforward reporting. The reason that they are used in all the LaRouche articles is that they are the leading researchers of the LaRouche movement. Their viewpoints on LaRouche are not different from all the other reliable sources, and are consistent with the usual reporting. What erroneous material has PRA published that shows they are unreliable? ]] ] 08:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
			*For purposes of clarification, the reliability of NewsNation has previously come up in two different RSN discussions and two different article Talk page discussions. Beyond that, however, it's repeatedly invoked to source UFO articles to the point that constant re-litigation of its reliability via edit summaries is becoming a massive time sink. ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::1. Who "acknowledges" them as "the experts"?
	:::2. It looks to me like King's website was rejected as a self-published source at ].
	:::3. PRA is loaded with what WP:BLP calls "a conjectural interpretation of a source," i.e., rampant editorializing and conspiracy theory. PRA might be acceptable in many cases for non-controversial material, but what King, Berlet and Will Beback have consistently done is use it as a source for a fringe theory that behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism, which has been noted by outside observers as a particular tactic of Berlet and PRA against all of their targets. As is noted at the beginning of this discussion, ''Activist ] has written that "Berlet is professional political hit man whose specialty is smearing anyone outside the traditional left-right categories as an extremist, at best, and a nascent Nazi at worst."'' This is why PRA should be used sparingly and with particular caution in BLP articles. Will Beback is completely mistaken to say that "Their viewpoints on LaRouche are not different from all the other reliable sources." --] (]) 15:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::1. Do you want me to plaster a talk page with all of he times that Berlet and King have been cited? I'll do so if that convinces you.
	::::::Being cited in an article isn't the same as being "acknowledged as ''the'' experts." I would be interested in seeing reliably sourced commentary that says they are "the experts." --] (]) 16:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::2. I don't see a consensus there. I see one editor piping in, but without a full understanding of our policies.
	:::::3. I don't think you are accurately describing my actions. The whole concept of "fringe theories" concerning LaRouche is a bit humorous, considering how many fringe theories he's come up with and how frequently he's describned as "fringe". Raimondo is hardly an objective commentator. ]] ] 20:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::How would you describe your actions? What is inaccurate in Niels' description? --] (]) 22:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::I haven't been advancing the "fringe theory that behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism". ]] ] 22:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::You have supported King and Berlet when they do it. --] (]) 16:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::Can you substantiate that accusation? ]] ] 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::For example, you have vehemently defended the use of King's book as a source. King's book is simply a very long essay defending this fringe theory. The mere fact that something has been published by a large publishing house does not make it automatically a suitable source for BLP. --] (]) 16:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::That book is the best, most reliable source we have for the life of Lyndon LaRouche. Being published by a major publishing house does, in fact, make it a suitable source for a BLP. I have certainly not sought to advance the theory that that "behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism". ]] ] 19:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::But the book you are promoting does advance that theory. --] (]) 21:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::::I wouldn't say that using the book as a source is the same as "promoting" it. I haven't written an article about it, or any other promotional actitivity. I have defended it's use as a source. No one has presented any verifibale factual errors on the book, and Niels Gade himself has confirmed facts from it. No one is suggesting that there's a more reliable 3rd-party source for the life of LaRouche. If you call using the book as a source "promotion" then are those editors who use LaRouche-published books and articles "promoting" them? ]] ] 00:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::I would say yes, if they are using them in articles outside of the "LaRouche-related" articles. King's book is a reliable source on King's views, and would certainly be acceptable in the article on ]. --] (]) 15:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::::I disagree. Using a reliable source isn't promoting it. The job of Misplaced Pages editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Dennis King and Chip Berlet's books and articles are reliable sources written by acknowledged experts on the topic of Lyndon LaRouche and his movement. Using their work is no different than using a NY Times or Washington Post article. Though, of course, I know you regard those as unreliable too. ]] ] 08:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::::Interesting. May I ask how you happened to arrive at this conclusion about me? --] (]) 04:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::::Am I wrong? Do you consider such mainstream media as the ''New York Times'', the ''Washington Post'', the ''Wall Street Journal'', or NBC to be reliable sources on the topic of Lyndon LaRouche? ]] ] 05:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::::::Yes to both questions, and I have said so explicitly. --] (]) 15:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	===Break===
	<unindent-Perhaps I misunderstood this comment of yours:
	*''Major publications are not above conducting dirty tricks campaigns where politics is involved -- this has been true for a long time, and not likely to change soon. ''
	It appeared that you were denying that major publications were a reliable source. What did you mean and in reference to which publications? ]] ] 23:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::I meant just what I said. We have to use major publications as a source, unless there are peer-reviewed journals or some other, stronger source available. As you may recall, in my request for arbitration I proposed that "when views have appeared in mainstream publications, those may be used as sources and would not be disputed (this satisfies the requirements of ].)" I emphatically disagree with your statement that using the websites of King or Berlet "is no different than using a NY Times or Washington Post article." This doesn't mean, of course, that I consider the NY Times, Washington Post or Wall Street journal to be infallible. Mature editorial judgment should be excercised with ''any'' source. --] (]) 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
			== Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] ==
	:Please do not say that I have "confirmed facts" from King's book, as if that makes it a reliable source. The book may correctly say that February is the second month of the calendar year; that doesn't in any way excuse the fact that it is full of outrageous, propagandistic speculation and innuendo. --] (]) 15:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
			This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] on the multiple issues regarding that article.
	::You have confirmed facts from the book. You have not offered any evidence that there are factual errors in it. The book meets WP's standards for a reliable source. However that book isn't the topic of this thread. It has already been discussed before and there's no need to keep bringing it up. ]] ] 18:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
			I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:<br>
	:::Just to put things in perspective, has anyone offered any evidence that there are factual errors in the LaRouche publications? I don't believe that this is the sole criterion for use of a source. --] (]) 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
			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>
	::::Clippings of factual errors promoted by LaRouche.
			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")
	::::*''On the talk show, LaRouche blamed the Soviet Union for engineering what he termed the the AIDS "conspiracy." "There is no question that it can be transmitted by mosquitoes," LaRouche said, citing as supporting evidence the high incidence of the disease in Africa, the Caribbean and southern Florida.''
			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.
	::::*''On the KGO talk show, LaRouche pointed to the "insect-bite belt," which he said includes Florida and the Caribbean. "In the insect-bite belt, we have a very large transmission of AIDS among poor people," he said. "The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta has been suppressing this evidence."''
			]: 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>
	::::*''Indeed, Secretary of State March Fong Eu said last week she would challenge in court "blatantly false" sections of the ballot argument for Proposition 64 submitted by LaRouche backers, including claims that "AIDS is not hard to get," and that potential insect and respiratory transmission of the disease and transmission by casual contact are "well established."''
			]: This is the version that Jav wants to keep
	::::Do you want to argue that he was correct? ]] ] 01:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
			Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand):
	:::::You aren't addressing Marvin's question. The issue is not LaRouche's personal opinions. The question is about fact-checking at ''Executive Intelligence Review'' or other LaRouche publications. Do you have evidence of factual errors in those publications? --] (]) 21:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
			*
	::::::We can spend more time investigating the LaRouche movement's claims about diseases if we ever seek to use the ''EIR'' as a reliable source. Of course, if you have any citations from ''EIR'' disputing LaRouche's incorrect statements then that might help their reputation. ]] ] 23:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
			*
	:::::::If ''EIR'' is accurately reporting an opinion by LaRouche, that does not discredit ''EIR'' as a source, regardless of whether LaRouche's opinion is credible or not. I asked you for examples of cases where ''EIR'' reported something as fact which turned out to be incorrect. You are applying a completely different set of standards to LaRouche publications than you do to the self-citing by King and Berlet. --] (]) 03:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
			*
	I don't have access to an archive of back issues of ''EIR'' or other LaRouche periodicals. Since no one is proposing using ''EIR'' as a reliable source, it seems like moot point. ]] ] 05:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
			* (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome)
	:I would propose using ''EIR'' as a source, judiciously and appropriately, just as I would use King and Berlet as sources, judiciously and appropriately. Alternatively, I would propose using none of them. --] (]) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
			*
	::Treating ''EIR'' as a relaible source would require overturning or altering an ArbCom case. ]] ] 00:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
			*
	:::Which arbcom case? If there are restrictions on the use of ''EIR'' as a source, the same restrictions ought to apply to PRA et al. --] (]) 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved:
	::::Interesting question. I'd like to know whether Misplaced Pages applies policy consistently. --] (]) 11:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			*
	:::::Could you please link to the arbcom case you mentioned? --] (]) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
			''']]''' 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">]&nbsp;] (])</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">]&nbsp;] (])</span> 06:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			== RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu ==
	===Other thread===
			<!-- ] 18:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740333680}}
	:::::::1. I have no problem with using King and Berlet as a source when they are cited by legitimate publications, because those publications may be expected to excercise some discretion about which of their theories are suitable for responsible publication. The Kronberg interview you mention below has not appeared anywhere, to my knowledge, outside of the PRA site.
			{{rfc|hist|bio|rfcid=5DC5768}}
	:::::::2. I see a consensus.
			The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (B and C):
	:::::::3. Actually, I think it is quite appropriate to compare LaRouche with Berlet as "fringe" commentators. In fact, both of them frequently describe their opponents as neo-fascists or proto-fascists. The difference is that I have not seen quotes from LaRouche plastered all over Misplaced Pages. The quotes from LaRouche appear to be confined mainly to the articles about LaRouche and his organization. I think it would be appropriate if quotes from PRA and Chip Berlet were largely limited to articles ] and ]. As far as Raimondo is concerned, would you say that he is less objective than Berlet? --] (]) 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
			* '''A: Geni.com'''
	::::::::2. Who are the participatns in this consensus you see?
			* '''B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley'''
	::::::::3. I'm not sure what the point is of comparing the reliablility of two sources. As for Raimondo, he appears to be more of a commentator than an investigative journalist. Michael Rubin of ] says, "Citing statements replicated in recent Mujahedin-e Khalq publications brings as much credibility as quoting from Lyndon LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review. Quality of sourcing always matters: Justin Raimondo is hardly a trustworthy authority." His footnote goes to an article titled "Justin Raimondo: An American Neo-Fascist", written by ]. Do you think he's a reliable source? ]] ] 23:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
			* '''C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav'''
	:This is ridiculous. You're now quoting FPM, unquestionably a fringe, unreliable source, to point out that another source is too fringe to talk about a third fringe source notable only for studying a fourth fringe source. Listen to me very carefully: ''theyre all unreliable''. Will, there's nobody else opposing that statement. ] (]) 13:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
			: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) ===
	::FPM is about as "fringe, unreliable" as ]. Perhaps you'd like to remove the hundreds of citations we have for CounterPunch at the same time you take on FPM? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
			* A: See "Geni.com" at ].
	:::Why? I'm talking about the problem's with Will's argument. I'm not using Twinkle to suppress links to FPM. ] (]) 07:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
			* B: See ], in particular ], where this RfC for the 3 sources in question was prepared together with @]. The other sources discussed there fall outside the scope of this RfC.
	::::I'm talking about the problems with ''your'' argument. FPM is no more "fringe, unreliable" than CounterPunch, and Misplaced Pages seems to have decided that CounterPunch is neither "fringe" nor "unreliable". ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
			* C: See ] (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::: Eh? When was this? ] (]) 05:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
	===Kronberg interview===		=== Preliminaries ===
	The dicussion above is rather vague and compares the position of one source versus another. On a more specific point: is there any reason why on PRA with Marielle Kronberg should not be considered a reliable source for her words? Does anyone assert that the interview is faked or altered? ]] ] 20:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:As long as this interview is not considered ] as is quoted only to show the opinions of Marielle Kronberg, and if the opinion of this lady is relevant for the Misplaced Pages article where it is intended to be added, I don't see any reason to avoid the usage of this interview as a source.--] (]) 20:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	::I have indicated elsewhere that I don't object to it appearing in one article, but spamming it into every LaRouche-related article is undue weight. --] (]) 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::If you don't object to the sourcing why did you just remove it from an article, claiming a sourcing issue? "the sourcing issues are discussed at WP:RSN#Antiwar.com vs. Political Research Associates. The only actual criticism is sourced to PRA. The rest of the paragraph is context." If there's no sourcing issue then please restore it. ]] ]
			: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)
	== Parodies ==
			::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? &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	Are parody news sources, like The Onion, SNL News, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report considered reliable sources for criticism of people or organizations? They cannot be easily rebutted because of their satirical nature. ] (]) 01:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			::These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	: They are sources only about themselves. If they are a canonical example of a notable or widespread form of satire regarding the subject, then they could perhaps be cited as an example thereof, but ideally only if there is an independent source identifying it as such. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			:Read Background: B. ] (]) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	::How about a third party using then as a source for criticism. For example. B criticizes A regarding some scenario, A responds to B about that scenario. C (The parody source) lampoons the scenario which makes A look stupid or relfects badly against A and subsequently makes B look good. B then uses C as evidence against in its criticism against A. Can the Paradoy source C be used as a reliable source for B to reflect the POV of B against A? ] (]) 01:44, 17 February 2008 (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)
	:::Having drawn a small flowchart on a table napkin, I am ready to answer you now: No, not unless D, a reliable secondary source, tells us that C is a notable expression of the reaction to A and B's conflict. Could we look at the specific example to see if I got that right? ] (]) 17:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
			=== Survey A: Geni.com ===
	Arzel, you wouldn't happen to be talking about this topic would you?
	() ] (]) 07:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)		:'''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 ===
	:Yes, that is the example. '''B''' is Media Matters criticizing '''A''' Limbaugh (who, don't get me wrong, I think is an arrogant jerk). '''A''' responds, claiming his word were taken out of context. '''C''' parodies the situation, which '''B''' uses to criticize '''A''' from a type of strawman point of view. My main problem with this use of a parody in this sense is that those that do parodies could be used as a reliable source in many situations to denagrate one side or the other. ] (]) 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate''', per background discussion. ] (]) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I certainly don't think that that would be an appropriate source for a genuine report on the disagreement between A and B. (Though I am sympathetic to the view that C's opinion of the disagreement might in itself be notable.) ] (]) 17:49, 20 February 2008 (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)
	::*My view is that Parodies are works of fiction, and cannot be treated as evidence of real-world evidence of notability. --] (]) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (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">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
			:'''Comment'''. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the ], Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". ] (]) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Deprecate'''. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; . --] 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			** This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site . And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. ] (]) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''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)===
	So, would the general concensus be that parodies cannot be used as a reliable source for describing a real-world situation. Or to put it more bluntly, parodies cannot be used as a reliable source of criticism against a real person, unless the parody itself reaches a level of notability itself, in which case the parody becomes its own story? ] (]) 02:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
			{{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} my apologies also. To be clear, I respect your concern, and I think I understand it. I think we've conveyed our concerns, and laid out some pros and cons, and background principles. I'm not stressed about that. I think its a point of getting the balance right. In practical reality the three sources should not normally be used, and I see no big disagreements. I just think the difference between the two categories offered is (or should be) meaningful, and I wanted to make that clear. I am not really disagreeing with any other specific point.--] (]) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			: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==
	== Help URGENTLY needed at ] / ] - Serious Problem has been ongoing for one week, don't all ignore this at once ==
			<!-- ] 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: ]
			— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	Help is urgently needed at ]. I have been having immense difficulties trying to explain ], ], and ] to a new user who for many days now has repeatedly removed a reference to the view of ], and replaced it with uncited, dubious OR statements that he refuses to cite. He has removed the citation requests I placed on these statements numerous times, holding his personal authority sufficient to make these claims. And every time I remove the uncited OR statements, he immediately replaces them again without any citation needed tags, and round and round in circles it goes for days without end. On the talkpage discussion, he insists that he doesn't need any sources, but that '''I''' am the one who needs to look up reliable sources contradicting him, if I want to remove these uncited statements. Everywhere I have turned for help, I am met with stony disinterest and "just get along" type advice, and the new user seems to be "learning" that all of this behaviour is acceptable and tolerable on[REDACTED] as long as few people are paying attention who will challenge him. Please help! ] (]) 18:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
			===Survey: ''Jacobin''===
	In addition to the above RS problem that is still outstanding and still needs attention, I now have an additional RS problem at ] with the same user who is blanking references, edit warring and accusing me of vandalism there as well. Please take a look at the references that I have added to that article and see if they look to be in order. Thanks, ] (]) 22:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
			*'''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">—&nbsp;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)
	:I have been editing History of Sumer, since reading the first paragraph here, and there are some indications of progress in defusing a fairly heated edit war. I don't have time to look at this other page though. ] (]) 22:28, 5 March 2008 (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. ] (]) 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. &#32;<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.&nbsp;
			: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.&nbsp;<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.
	:: Oops, maybe I was naively optimistic. Page is now protected. ] (]) 22:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::You've done really well though, Msalt. Hats off to your patience. ] (]) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (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.
	::::: Thank you very much! ] (]) 20:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::Great, now we have another problem with the same user blanking RSS he doesn't like at ] and adding the same identical ] as at the first article. I am sorry to say the whole situation seems to be getting worse, not better. ] (]) 00:29, 7 March 2008 (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)
	:::::This isn't the kind of problem that will just go away if everybody ignores it, folks. '''For about a month or two now, many articles pertaining to Sumer are being systematically dismantled, scholarly references are being chucked, and replaced with idiosyncratic, never-published OR arguments by a user who has thus far been held to a much lower standard than anyone else I have ever seen on[REDACTED] in my 3 years of editing.''' Who is this guy anyway? I was blocked merely for reporting ''his'' (not my) 4RR violation on one occasion, so from that I can gather it's someone pretty high up with the "connections"...? ] (]) 14:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
			::{{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)
	===Reference experts needed for above ongoing (3 week) problem===
			::::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)
	I have added the following reliable references to ] establishing conclusively that the POV does indeed, really, honest-to-god, actually exist and can be found in scholarly literature that the Sumerian Aratta may be connected with the Sanskrit Aratta. However, the same user has determined that this POV is inadmissible and cannot be seen on[REDACTED] because his POV is different; thus he has found what he considers fatal flaws with the arguments in each of these experts and apparently will not suffer any of this to be mentioned in the article ] at all, even though they are serious references from well known authors including ] and ]. Could someone please take a moment to click on each of the following pages and please verify that the scholarly discussion marked by the highlighted terms does constitute speculation that the two Arattas may be the same?? -- I feel this POV should not be excluded from the article on such facetious grounds as the say-so of one particular editor who seems to fancy himself the sole arbiter of such questions. Thanks, ] (]) 18:38, 21 March 2008 (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}}. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 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 ] 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. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 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)
	This represents only those sources I can find accessible through Google-books; there are a great many more scholarly references there that are not accessible except in "snippet view", so clicking the above research pages is only scratching the surface. ] (]) 12:18, 21 March 2008 (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)
	::I am still trying to get even one third opinion on these references that the user claims must not be mentioned. ] (]) 21:13, 23 March 2008 (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)
			*'''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)
			===Discussion: ''Jacobin''===
	:::Update: I am STILL trying to get even one third opinion on these reliable references that the user claims must not be mentioned. Dr. ] and Professor ] who are both considered quite mainstream can now be added to the list of experts that this user very haughtily has declared his own personal opinions and original POV to be superior to. The total silence from this board these last 3 or 4 weeks has been deafening, the two-man edit stalemate at ] continues and all attempts to find third opinions on the references have failed, so I can feel arbitration coming just around the corner. ] (]) 18:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
			*Seeing as there's substantial disagreement in the pre-RfC section above, I've gone ahead and launched this RfC. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::I'd say Mediation, rather than arbitration, would probably be the next step. While I can acknowledge that the statements above certainly seem, to my comparatively uneducated eyes, good enough to source content related to them, I am far from knowledgable enough to say that they might constitute a scholarly consensus. But the sources do look good enough for inclusion, at least to my eyes. If there are any others who are more expert in this area, I would welcome their input as well. ] (]) 19:11, 24 March 2008 (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. — ]&nbsp;<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 ]. — ]&nbsp;<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. — ]&nbsp;<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.
	:::::OK, I have now gone to Mediation cabal as a preliminary step. So far all he has to dispute these expert sources with, is his own opinions, it's not like he has come up with any sources at all to dispute them for him, so it should be a cinch whenever it finally comes time to lay our cards down. It's just that this stalemate has been dragging on for something like a month with no end in sight. ] (]) 19:34, 24 March 2008 (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.
	:::::: Mediation is an excellent idea. Having spent a little time there trying to calm things down, I urge Til Eulenspiegel to consider how s/he may also be responsible for some of the fighting. There is room for improved civility on all sides, regardless of who is "right" or wrong on content issues. ] (]) 18:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
			Our time would be better spent ensuring that RS policy is adhered to.
	== y!m ==
			] (]) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	Is ] a reliable source? I know ] isn't, since—akin to a ]—it's a user-generated production; but I was under the impression Y!M isn't. — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 15:27, 4 March 2008 (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. ] (]) 17:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	Section edit to prevent archival. — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 12:59, 5 March 2008 (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)
	:Without addressing Yahoo Movies, which I'm not all that familiar with, I would disagree with the suggestion that IMDb is an unreliable source. Parts of IMDb are user-generated without editorial involvement: the message boards, user comments, plot synopses (not to be confused with the plot outline or plot summary), parental guides, resumes, and FAQs for individual entries (as opposed to the FAQ for the database as a whole). But the rest of the content (as far as I can recall) is reviewed by the IMDb staff before going live on the web site. They do have editors who are full-time employees to review the user-submitted content such as the actual credits for the films. Obviously, IMDb does contain some errors even among the edited content, but the same could be said for almost any book, newspaper, or magazine. I would trust most IMDb content (other than the user-generated sections without editorial review) unless I had reason to believe the particular information was inaccurate. --] ] 05:10, 7 March 2008 (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.
	:: I'd always been under the impression that ] was an unreliable source, I was even told such at ] (]). But moreso, I need to know about the reliability of Yahoo! Movies as I've used it extensively as sourcing for several articles. — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 14:02, 7 March 2008 (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)
	:::As regards Yahoo! Movies, it looks like it depends on what aspect of Yahoo! Movies you were planning to cite. The content there ranges from articles from the ] and ], which are reliable sources, to user reviews, which are not reliable sources at all. It is true that someone at ] said IMDb was an unreliable source, but I disagree with that person. --] ] 18:59, 8 March 2008 (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've made heavy use of Yahoo! Movies' actor biographies, and basic film statistical information. Wherefrom is that information; is it reliable? — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 20:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::To check the notability of an actor (e.g. for an AfD discussion) I wouldn't rely on IMDB alone, since how the screen credits are listed may differ among sources. I'd trust the film's own web site more. If a film is reviewed in US newspapers, then metacritic.com will usually offer an excellent set of reviews in what we consider to be reliable sources. This is good information on films though often individual actors may not be mentioned. ] (]) 03:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: But I'm not really talking about IMDb, I'm asking about Yahoo! Movies here. — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 18:28, 12 March 2008 (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)
	Further section edit to prevent archival.<p>Does anybody know one way or another whether ]' biographical and film statistical information constitutes a reliable source? — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 12:29, 17 March 2008 (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. ] (]) 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 ==
	== CAMERA may not be a reliable source ==
			<!-- ] 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 was reading some quotes cited to the ], and I found a few problems related to the ongoing "Jewish lobby" headache.
			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.
	* This CAMERA blog article , uses the term "Jewish lobby", and links to an op-ed piece in the Guardian which uses the term, which in turn links to the actual report, which does <I>not</I> use the term. See The closest the report gets is "An example of this would be remarks about the Israel lobby. No-one would seek to deny that there is well-organised support for Israel in Britain, but in some quarters this becomes inflated to the point where discourse about the ‘lobby’ resembles discourse about a world Jewish conspiracy."
			*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)
	*CAMERA quotes ] saying, in a speech in Boston:
			::Thank you, I'll take this into consideration for my review. ] (]) 23:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	:"People are scared in this country to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful, very powerful. Well, so what?...Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin...were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust."
			: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)
	This speech from Bishop Desmond Tutu was also reported by the BBC. Interestingly, CAMERA appears to have dropped a line from the middle of the quote. The BBC quotes him as saying:
			::My assessment:
	:"People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? '''The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists.''' "Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust."
			::* 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.
	CAMERA dropped the bolded text, which distorts the meaning a bit. Tutu was speaking against ] at the time.
			::* 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 ==
	So I'd suggest that using CAMERA as a reliable source for quotations is somewhat iffy. What comes out of CAMERA may not be what went in. CAMERA may be useful as a finding tool (they're powered by Google), but actual quotes should come from a less partisan source. CAMERA's output is mostly derived from other press sources, so if CAMERA has something, there's probably another source for it. --] (]) 17:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|OP has withdrawn the discussion. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 21:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:three little dots... make all the difference. The difference between reliability and unrelibility. They put in the elipses. Ergo, they are rleiable. Unreliable sources are the ones that omit material without elipses. The way the old Soviet Union used to airbrush purged politicans out of the photo] (]) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio
			<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: ]
			* Option 2: ]
			* Option 3: ]
			* Option 4: ]
			]</s>
	:IMO, CAMERA is generally a reliable source for opinions and interpretations, as long as they're attributed in the text to CAMERA. On questions of fact they are dubious at best, and certainly not appropriate for quotations of living people. &lt;]/]]&gt; 17:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
	:See also MEMRI above. Pretty much any quotefarm from an advocacy source should be double-checked with reference to the original documents. ] (]) 14:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
	:CAMERA is reasonably reliable, but one must recognize that they are an advocacy group. They're obviously not an academic source, or a major news outlet. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
	:] should be treated the similarly to organizations such as ]. Both have distinct ideological perspectives, but they usually get their quotations correct. -- ] (]) 22:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
			<span style="font-family:Kurale; color:#ff0000;">]]</span> 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			* '''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 ]. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 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.<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==
	I'd like to clean up one of those "In popular culture" sections and am looking for sources. I found an excellent article on the Onion's ], which--unlike ] itself--is not a satirical publication. Does this seem like an acceptable website to use as source when describing critical opinion about a pop culture subject?--] (]) 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
	*The AV Club seems to me to be a reasonably reliable source. I wouldn't have any problem with seeing it cited in an article about a pop culture subject. --] ] 02:07, 13 March 2008 (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.
	== Articles with no sources ==
			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
	Recently I have been giving more attention to patrolling new pages. I nearly always add an <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> tag to any article that has no references or external links of any kind. I am starting to get a certain amount of resistance and would like some guidance. These are the kinds of things I am hearing:
	* sports data that is "eminently verifiable" does not need a source
	* a place (small village) that is "inherently-notable" does not need a source. (I have noticed that a majority of new articles of this type do give an atlas or gazetteer as a source.)
	* articles without sources should go straight to AfD. This was from {{user|Otolemur crassicaudatus}} who used Twinkle to revert around a hundred of the tags I recently added, with no explanation until I asked what was up. The explanation seems inadequate and the action taken inappropriate.
	I believe providing sources for almost all articles is important. Articles I don't tag include disamiguation pages and some lists.
			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/
	I'm asking for suggestions. Is there a general rule of thumb for the type of article that never needs a source so I can save myself and others needless trouble? <font color="purple">✤</font> ] <sup>]</sup> 22:33, 9 March 2008 (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.
	:I will not offer an opinion as to whether mass-tagging of new articles is a good thing, but I find that the 3 responses listed above are, to varying degrees, misguided:
			<blockquote><p>There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable.</p></blockquote>
	:* Removing a request for sources while saying that boxscore data is "eminently verifiable" is ] at its best. If it's so verifiable, then your friend should have no problem verifying it. For example, if I wanted to find a reliable source for a ] boxscore, I might go to a .
	:* The more obscure the village, the greater the imperative for independent verification of its existence. Without such verification, it becomes easy to create hoaxes
	:* Hogwash. A request for sources is far more constructive than an AfD nom. Take it to AfD only if you believe sources are unlikely to be found.
	:Hope this helps.--] (]) 22:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Have you considered doing some basic google searches to see if ''you'' could add sources to these articles? That would be a much more constructive way to deal with the problem. ] (]) 13:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
			<blockquote><p>There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable. It is reliable for specifically group based child sex exploitation.</p></blockquote>
	:::This has spilled over to ] with apparently me as the villain. My response, which speaks to some of the comments raised above, is . <font color="purple">✤</font> ] <sup>]</sup> 17:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
			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.
	== Screen caps of end credits ==
			I hope I have formatted this correctly, thank you. ]&nbsp;] 19:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	Are these reliable? They change regularly and can vary by channel. For example NBC, ABC, and CBS all broadcast soaps which are rebroadcast on SOAPnet. The credits are different on the broadcast stations from what they are on SoapNet. So, are screen caps considered reliable? ] (]) 20:29, 10 March 2008 (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)
	:Since they are created by the show's producers, I can't see why the credits from the latest first-run episodes wouldn't be the most reliable sources possible for the names of characters and the actors and actresses that portray them. Unless there's a large body of evidence that can be posted on Misplaced Pages from the show's dialogue itself that contradicts the latest credits, those credits should be the most reliable source for information regarding television programs. -- ] (]) 17:16, 11 March 2008 (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. ]&nbsp;] 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. ]&nbsp;] 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. ]&nbsp;] 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 ]&nbsp;] 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. ]&nbsp;] 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. ]&nbsp;] 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. ]&nbsp;] 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. ]&nbsp;] 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." ]&nbsp;] 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. ]&nbsp;] 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? ]&nbsp;] 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. ]&nbsp;] 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. ]&nbsp;] 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)
	: The credits should reflect the attached show (similar to the "cite the book you're holding" standard -- base your edits on the paperback you're holding and tell us it's the paperback and not the hardcover edition). Being different on different presentations may be due to contractual, style, or editing differences. It's possible for the appearance to be different while having the same content; there are now advantages to using reformatted credits so they can be displayed in different formats (so the next show or commercials can fit on the screen during credits). I don't know how much detail is needed in articles; I don't know if movie articles describe all of the alterations made to fit a movie to broadcast TV or airline requirements. -- ] (]) 17:30, 11 March 2008 (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. ]&nbsp;] 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. ]&nbsp;] 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. ]&nbsp;] 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 ]&nbsp;] 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)
	::Can you please expandon or link to that "cite the book you're holding" standard please? It seems that KellyAna is making the assertion that anything you see on a television program yourself (or in secondary sources) is less important than the website associated with it. Thanks. -- ] (]) 18:20, 14 March 2008 (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. ]&nbsp;] 00:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''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)
			*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)
			*: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 ):
			*:* {{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 ==
	:::The "cite the book you're holding" standard basically means that, using KellyAna's soap example above, you would specifically reference the credits you are citing as being from ABC, SoapNet, etc., so that even if they differ for a given day for some reason, it is clear which source the info is from. In the case of books, obviously a page number referenced for a quote will differ from edition to edition, so noting the edition/ISBN would be crucial when citing page numbers. &mdash; ]<sup>]</sup> 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
			Is this sigcov , reliable for ]? ] (]) 09:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	: Seems like a violation of ] to me. ] (]) 18:32, 14 March 2008 (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 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)
	::Isn't a television screen capture a published source, just as a book is? -- ] (]) 19:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
			::Ok, thank you very much. ] (]) 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Not according to my understanding of the word published. Published by whom? A television station, cable or satellite company broadcasts a program, and a Misplaced Pages editor screen captures the closing credits of that program. Who is the secondary source? It seems like the epitome of original research to me. ] (]) 19:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::We can certainly cite the credits listed at the end of a television program... The airing of a program is considered ''equivalent'' to "publication", and the TV program itself is a reliable source for what is stated in that TV program. As to the NOR issue, citing something you see on a TV program is no more a NOR violation than citing a book or webpage you read. It isn't a conclusion or synthesis originating from a Misplaced Pages editor. ] (]) 19:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Well, maybe I'm misunderstanding ]. I didn't think I was able to use my own reading and interpretation of a book as a source for an article about that book. Of course you can cite a book in reference to the books subject, but that's not what we are talking about here. I guess I'll pose the question at ]. ] (]) 20:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::If a screenshot couldn't be used as a reliable source, how could any exist on Misplaced Pages then? How could anyone prove a screen shot picture of, say, Darth Vader was really accurate? Under your scheme it would all be original research. -- ] (]) 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: I think the discussion may be getting off track with this "other stuff exists" argument. I can't imagine a situation where someone would dispute the accuracy of . However, I definitely take issue with the proposition that a production's credits should automatically be considered reliable as a source for an encyclopedia article about that production. Many credits are fictitious, jokes, pseudonyms, etc. Who played the "Victim in the Field" in ]? If you went by the credits you would never have heard of J. Todd Anderson. ] (]) 20:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::The key word is "interpretation". Simple statements of fact (such as who played what role, who the director was, or where the show was filmed, etc.) about what appears in the credits do not involve any "interpretation". In fact, the similarity to a book or website is more exact here... unlike the rest of a TV program, the credits are in print format. We can ''read'' them in exactly the same way we read a book. No, looking at the closing credits is "Sourced based research" not "Original research". Now, if you were to go "beyond the source", and state (for example) that all members of the production team were of Irish descent, because everyone listed in the credits seems to have Irish names... ''that'' would be OR. Do you see the difference? ] (]) 20:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
			== Did Howard Dean get paid to give speeches promoting the MEK? ==
	OK, if we assume that referencing the credits is not OR, I am wondering about ]. If I were to state in an article that ] played ] on '']'' for a day on ] ] based on my viewing of the episode and noting the credits, is that verifiable if the episode will probably never be broadcast and never be available on DVD? Or is the threshhold that a copy of the program exists somewhere, and although an everyday person may not have the resources/access to confirm it, the possibility exists? Although we know that a source does not have to be available online to be reliable/verifiable, ] has more or less made the convincing argument elsewhere that if a website ''does'' exist, it should perhaps trump an "as seen on TV" reference (which is not so easily verified), regardless of which source is technically more accurate.
			{{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 ]?
	I am just thinking that as much as a screencap is obvious "proof" that could be used between editors to clarify a dispute, I doubt that in most cases a fair use screencap of credits would have an appropriate place within an article just for the purpose of such clarification. This actually is one element of the discussion that prompted ] and ] to dicuss the issue here. &mdash; ]<sup>]</sup> 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
			Sources:
	:Your question is good in a general sense, but in this specific case of ''Passions'', the episodes are available for up to online, a source already determined to be valid. -- ] (]) 18:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
			*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."
			*An editorial by ] in '']''.
			**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.”"
			*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."
			''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 13:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Yes, but months from now when the series is no longer airing ... I'm also looking at the bigger picture, there are several articles which reference things like "so-and-so noted his birthday as May 15 in the ] ] episode" which are not noted in the official site recaps, and so are not readily verified. &mdash; ]<sup>]</sup> 21:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::When a TV series no longer airs, it is extremely rare that it completely disappears. It may be available on Video, it may be accessible at a public repository such as a Museum of Film and Television. As long as ''someone'' could access it without undue difficulty (and that someone does not have to be "you"), the information is still verifiable. And as long as the information is still verifiable, the show itself remains a reliable source for such statements.
	:::Sure, it might turn out that the episode completely disappears for some reason, and if that happens (ie if the show becomes unverifiable) we would need to revisit the question of reliability of the source. But I think we should deal with that question when and if it actually happens.
	:::In this specific case, because it is available on line... we can probably recall it through Wayback Machine, which can retrieve the information that was on a web site on any given date... (''Truth in Advertizing'': I am not sure ''how'' Wayback works, never having used it, but I gather that it ''does'' work.) if so, then the show will never be completely lost. ] (]) 01:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::Wayback will indeed recover historical pages that have been archived by its bots, but you can't recover the kind of video material we're talking about, which is copyrighted and thus protected from this kind of archiving (I'm talking about the legitimate network sites and iTunes). Not to beat the hell out of this argument (too late, LOL) but obviously with a book, movie or a great deal of TV shows, a regular person could hit a library or a video store. The only place to find an outdated daytime soap episode (outside of a viewer's personal recording) would probably be the network and/or studio's own archive (assuming the Museum of Film and Television doesn't have every episode of the shows that have run daily for 30+ years). Obviously ''someone'' can access such tapes, but are they accessible ''enough''? I do think with non-controversial info not likely to be challenged, we can take information on good faith. However I'm not sure whether this level of verifiability could withstand a challenge, as is happening at ]. I personally am compelled to agree with Dougie WII and Blueboar that if it exists somewhere accessible to someone, it is verifiable. But again, is there some precedent or consensus somewhere with which we can back this up? &mdash; ]<sup>]</sup> 15:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Rare out-of-print books available in only a limited number of private hands and locked up in special areas of few libraries would still be verifiable no? -- ] (]) 17:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
			:@] 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)
	== ] ==
			::@], 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)
			:::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)
			::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)
			:::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 ] ==
	I wonder what people think of the sources used for this article about a now deceased Noah's Ark searcher. In particular,
	:
	:
	:Wyatt, Ron (1989). Discovered: Noah's Ark!. Nashville: World Bible Society Publisher's website;
	:Dawes, June (2000). Noah's Ark: Adrift in Dark Waters. Belrose, NSW: Noahide no information about publisher available
	:Deal, David Allen (2005). Noah's Ark: The Evidence. Muscogee, OK: Artisan Publisher's website
	These books appear to be books written from a Christian fundamentalist perspective, with a ] (and pro Ark finding) point to push. What could or should these be used for in referencing the article.--] (]) 02:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
			See. The link doesn't go to the source cited and I can't find that aource. ] ] 16:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	: I removed the scanned letter. You can decide about the usenet posting. As to the other three, you are correct, they are "written from a Christian fundamentalist perspective, with a ] (and pro Ark finding) point to push." But, aren't all "history" books "pushing" some agenda? Just because these are odious "creationist" books, and might offend empiricist, scientific sensibilities doesn't mean they aren't on point and help the article. I point you to ]: "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution." I think this applies here, and as they are buttressed by other sources I believe they are perfectly acceptable.
	: ] (]) 04:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
			:Found a Spanish Misplaced Pages article on the explorer. ] ] 16:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Thanks for your comment, Tuckerresearch. My problem is that this is not an article ''"about themselves".'' ie it is not about World Bible Society or creationism or whatever. And in fact, in this particular case, Fasold actually testified in a court case on an anti-creationist "side", , making the use of the book material very problematic in my view using this argument. But mine is just one view, and I am hoping that others can give guidance here.--] (]) 11:34, 11 March 2008 (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)
	:::''Discovered: Noah's Ark!'' is about the Durupinar site, and Fasold is a "main character" in the book. ''Noah's Ark: The Evidence'' is a biography of Fasold (actually, it is not well-written at all, it is comprised of cobbled-together bits of newsletters and news stories with chapter-sized segues of "biography" in between). ''Noah's Ark: The Evidence'' is about the Durupinar site and contains info about Fasold (I haven't read this one yet, just looked at bits and pieces). That is, at least, tangentially "about themselves" I admit, but you can't expect an article about a biblical "scholar"/"creationist" to be made up of stellar scientific sources. But, then again, their are notes about Fasold from ''Science'', and he "co-authored" a piece in about the Durupinar site in a peer-reviewed journal (''Journal of Geoscience Education''). I think these considerations should allow these three to stand as published sources for this subject. ] (]) 01:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
			::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''?==
	::For my two cents, I'm surprised that the alleged Fasold e-mail cited from a Usenet chat forum is being cited in any article on Misplaced Pages. With Fasold dead, there is no way to confirm that he actually wrote it, and even if he did write it, so what? It shouldn't be used as a reliable source for much of anything on Misplaced Pages. FWIW, ] (]) 05:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
			'']'' 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, ? — '''] &#124; ] &#124;''' 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. — '''] &#124; ] &#124;''' 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. — '''] &#124; ] &#124;''' 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 ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<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)
	:::I agree on the usenet posting, it was added by someone who wanted to torpedo the article. Whatever you think is best on that. Perhaps put it in a footnote in a highly questioning tone? ] (]) 01:40, 12 March 2008 (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)
			* ''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)
	::::Hey, if you are talking about the Usenet quote I added (with a link to it), I liked the guy (we were in email correspondence before he died) and I certainly didn't want to torpedo the article. There's no question that it was him, it's a direct quote from him and there is nothing comparable available. I normally wouldn't use Usenet, but anyone who knew him would be able to confirm it was him and it is one of his last statements about it. There is '''no''' email cited in the Usenet quote. I thought I was getting on with Tuckerresearch until he just accused me of trying to scupper the article, I said keep Fasold as a separate article and beef it up.--] (]) 19:01, 12 March 2008 (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. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<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 confused you with the other guy editing the article with a a name that started with "D" named "Dab". I apologize. ] (]) 03:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
			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 ] ===
	:::::::More outside opinions on the reliability of a Usenet quote and how to use the Creationist books would be gratefully received. ] (]) 12:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
			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 . —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<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)
	::Usenet posts are definitely NOT reliable. We have no way to verify that the writer is who he claims to be. We can not take the word of a Misplaced Pages editor that it was him (meaning no disrespect to Doug), as that would amount to Original Research. The books are a harder issue to give a definitive answer on... they do not seem to be the ''best'' sources, but they seem to pass the basic verifiability test. ] (]) 13:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
			::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. &#32;<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. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<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 ==
	::Since you asked for more opinions, I would like to second everything Blueboar just wrote, he stated my opinion very well! ] (]) 14:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
			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)
	:::Thank you very much for your comments. Re the Creationist books, I was wondering whether the best solution in the circumstances might be to attribute the information clearly. I am particularly worried about the following sentence, about this (as well as the peer-reviewed journal)] <blockquote>"Still, those closest to him note that before his death he believed the Durupınar site to be the location of the ark, including fellow ark researchers like Don Patten and David Allen Deal. His close Australian friend and biographer June Dawes wrote: He kept repeating that no matter what the experts said, there was too much going for the site for it to be dismissed. He remained convinced it was the fossilized remains of Noah's Ark."</blockquote>.
	:::The references given are from two of the books above. It seems to me that the sources of these retraction of the retraction claims needs to be at the very least signalled as coming from the Creationist camp. What do others think? ] (]) 14:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
			:It looks like just a big database. I would trust the first party sources for raw data more. ] (]) 10:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	== PMW ==
			::If in question use secondary sources.] (]) 02:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Fantasy Literature ==
	Is a reliable source on news reports (that may or may not be reported elsewhere)?
			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)
	The bulletin features headlines like "Abbas rejects Jewishness of Israel...proud to have taught terror to world" which is a very contentious allegation.] (]) 15:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
	: It seems to be a ], and should be used in that context. If the report on Abbas is correct, you should be able to find other sources that describes that assertion. ] <small>]</small> 18:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
	: For example{{quotation|"I was honored to be the one to shoot the first bullet in 1965 ,and having taught resistance to many in this area and around the world, defining it and when it is beneficial and when it is not... we had the honor of leading the resistance.We taught everyone what resistance is, including the Hezbollah, who were trained in our camps ." |Al-Dustur, February 28, 2008}}
			: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)
	:.. could be used as a source. ] <small>]</small> 18:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
			::This is the terms its staff work under:
	::So basically we can use it in conjunction with other sources, but not by itself? Also WP:SELFPUB says that the publication should not make claims about third parties, which the PMW does all the time, nor should the information be contentious, which it also is in the PMW.] (]) 12:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
			::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)
	== Blogs: Jason Matusow ==		== NASASpaceFlight.com ==
			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 am writing another question about OOXML. One Im sure I already know the answer to, but I need to point someone to the answer.
	], more specifically ] says that blogs are not reliable sources except in some limited ways, like if the blog is an interactive news article on a news site. I do not believe that The blog of Jason Matuso can be used as a reference for the ] page. But some anonymous editors and one registered user . The problem is that Jason Matusow is an employee of Microsoft, as such it is expected that he will have a pro Microsoft bias. The site has no editorial oversight. No fact checking by anyone. He is not a third party, he is involved. Not only that he gives opinions about things he didnt personally see. An admin has recently stepped in and removed this blog and others. Now someone is trying to add it again.
	The simple question is this, Can or should this blog be used as a reference and source for Misplaced Pages?
	Thank you in advance. ] (]) 02:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
			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.
	:To bring everyone up to speed, Kilz ] whether an open letter written by Microsoft was an acceptable reference. Some responses to his query include
	::"Documents published by Microsoft are reliable for showing what the opinions of Microsoft are, also probably for what Microsoft's actions have been. However, in the context of this article statements by software houses are primary sources. The article should not rely on them but be mainly written up from what has been said in independent media."
	::"A report in a completely independent news medium would be much better <nowiki></nowiki> for writing the article. However, you can use Microsoft's statements directly if you are careful and sparing."
	:Thanks, ] (] | ]) 03:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
			] mentions the site as a reliable source but the only criteria they give for its inclusion are that the source <br>
	::That has nothing to do with the question I asked. That question you mention was about an open letter on a Microsoft site. This is about a blog. Please do not post off topic comments in a section I started asking a question. Questions on reliable sources is exactly why this board exists. Since those that want to use unreliable sources wont ask, I have to if noting else but to make sure that I am looking at it correctly. This is the second time you have followed me to another area to post off topic statements. Please do not do so again.] (]) 03:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
			{{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)
	:::Kilz, please Assume Good Faith. My comments were not off-topic. I quoted a response to your previous question. That response was about
			::{{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)
	::::"Documents published by Microsoft..."
			:::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)
	:::Clearly documents have to be published by people. "Microsoft" is not an entity that can publish documents by itself. Therefore, "documents published by Microsoft" means "documents published by employees of Microsoft." The blog in question is published by a Microsoft employee.
			::::{{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)
	:::It is true that an open letter on Microsoft's website is different than an employee's blog. But, to add some more context: the blog you're asking about is . Jason Matusow is Microsoft's ] Manager. One can find interviews with him and statements by him in , including . Thanks, ] (] | ]) 08:25, 12 March 2008 (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? ==
	::: Also noteworthy is that Jason Matusow is not just an employee but a senior director on standards and interoperability within Microsoft. ] (]) 08:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::WalterGR, I did not come here to drag an edit war with me. I did not announce my posting here. I wanted the opinions of someone not involved with the ] page to answer my question, thats why its on this notice board. WalterGR and Hal and everyone else posting on the ] page please stop posting here so that I may get the answer to my question from a party not involved with the ] page. I feel that you are trying to delay the answer and are disrupting the work here. That he is quoted in newspapers is the same as Andy Upgrove who has a blog and is quoted all over. But as soon as he is suggested , he is shot down on ] A new question for the people who work on this board, isnt the reason blogs are not used is the lack of editorial control? I see it as a slippery slope, as soon as one blog is allowed 5 more will be used. Thats why an admin had to come in and ]. ] (]) 12:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
			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)
	== Mailing Lists Question ==
			: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)
	Recently a user has added a great dal of negative information to the ] article, and sourcing it to what appears to be a University of Wisconsin mailing list. Here's a few of the quotes and references:
			::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 ] ==
	"In 2005, in response to ongoing complaints about mismanagement and abuse at Hoofers, a Sailing club BOC member proposed a new Code of Ethics. However, the proposal was ultimately defeated when the Sailing Club president voted against. "
			I can’t find evidence it’s been published. ] ] 19:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	"The Head of Instruction is hired (and re-hired) by the club's governing body, the Board of Captains (BOC), some of whom are paid staff. They in turn are hired (and re-hired) <i>by the head instructor</i>. It is a system that invites abuse of power and borders on illegality. "
			: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)
	"It is a system that invites abuse of power and borders on illegality. "
			::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)
			:::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)
			::::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)
			:What's the context for this question? Where is it being cited/do you want to be able to cite it? ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 03:40, 19 January 2025 (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)
			:::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. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 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)
	I've brought this up on the article's talk page, but there appears to be an ] percolating on this page. I'd like clarification on the validity of the sources. It seems to be similar to a blog, but I'd like the opinions of more experienced editors. Thanks! ] (]) 07:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
			::@] 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)
			== ] ==
	:From ]: ''Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.''
			<!-- ] 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 ==
	:IMO, the user would need to have a very good reason to include self-published forum postings to the article, especially when they are of a negative nature. My inclination is to remove everything immediately and aggressively until reliable third-party sources can be provided. ] (]) 07:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
			{{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:
	:'''Second comment''': I just looked at the page. That whole "criticism" section should be removed per ], unless third-party reliable sources can be provided. <strike>In fact, I hate to say this, but most of the article strikes me as being original research. Granted, that's just my first impression after quickly skimming the page, but the fact that it's very detailed with very few (if any?) sources, strikes me as being more than a little suspicious.</strike> Sorry, strike that last sentence. They're not using the standard inline citations that I'm used to reading, so my eyes glanced over them. ] (]) 07:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
			* '''Option 1: ]'''
	::It is very clear mailing lists are not RS period. ] (]) 14:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
			* '''Option 2: ]'''
			* '''Option 3: ]'''
			* '''Option 4: ]'''
			] ] 10:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Re: question-->Answer ==
			:'''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)
	I believe the forum list redrocket refers to is a legitimate source of citations. Many different people's posts on that list are cited in the Hoofer Sailing Club article, and those posters are clearly experts on Hoofers. Further, as Redrocket correctly notes above, <i>much</i> of the Hoofer Sailing article is not referenced/cited at all. (Of course this is true for many WP articles because it is often difficult to find authoritative third party references for non-scientific subjects.) In fact, some of the best-referenced parts of the Hoofer article are the criticisms. Most of the rest of the article is "supported" by links to the Hoofer Sailing Club's own website, which of course is not much of a supporting reference for itself. Certainly a Forum open to anyone is more objective than the club's own website..!
			* '''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)
			== Hatebase.org ==
	Further, Redrocket seems to have a vested interest in seeing that the Hoofer Sailing Club article is as favorable as possible. That may indicate that Redrocket is a Hoofer himself, perhaps a Hoofer leader with a free club membership and lots of extra privileges. If so, then Redrocket may be biased, or worse, may be trying to exercise censorship in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For the article to be objective (NPOV), it requires criticisms along with all the happitudes. I am in the process of adding more supporting references. (] (]) 08:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
	:At this point, I have to ask who "Hoofer X" (sic) is? Realistically and following the basic official policies of Misplaced Pages, all sources should be ] to a publicly verifiable reliable source. Chat fora have no editorial oversight. They have no transparent institutions that are designed for fact-checking before self-publication. Therefore, they are not reliable. Worse, the source(s) in question hail from "Hoofer X" (sic) and his or her unaccountable (negative) thoughts on the Hoofer Sailing Club. Are we honestly going to argue that the anonymous negative musings of a poster to a chat forum are considered a reliable source for the article simply because...? One last comment: invoking the "First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution" in order to keep the e-mails as references suggests that you should re-visit the official policies and guidelines which have been established by the community of Misplaced Pages editors. ] (]) 08:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Cant agree more. Just read ], it goes into to great length to disqualify any chat rooms as RS sources. ] (]) 14:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
			Is a reliable source? ] (]) 19:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Indeed... mailing lists and chat rooms are NOT reliable. The article in question actually has a lot of problems. It does not come close to meeting the notability requirements set out in ]... almost the entire article is cited to webpages associated with the org. I have prodded it for deletion. ] (]) 17:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
			:Is there an ] for this? And/Or some context for the use case? ] (]) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:You have apparently mistaken Misplaced Pages for the United States government. "censorship in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution" does not apply to a private endeavor. Not that what is being done with the article is censorship, by any stretch of the imagination. Tortugadillo's repeated insertions of personal opinion and attacks is bordering on disruptive. <font face="Arial">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 21:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
			::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)
	::I particularly like this edit suggesting that I must be a "Hoofer leader" to disagree with his/her edits so much! It would be an awful long way to go for a sail and we have our own lovely Canadian lakes to enjoy!!! --] (]) 22:00, 12 March 2008 (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)
	== Magic Box? ==		== LaserDisc Database? ==
			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)
	A slight issue has been raised at ] about whether the is a reliable source for giving information on video game sales. The video game wikiproject deemed it reliable ], but we thought it would be safer if there was external confirmation of its reliability, or unreliability if it turns out that way. So, any thoughts? Thanks. ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
	::<copied from ].> ] (]) 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
			: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)
	*Bump. ] (]) 02:35, 14 March 2008 (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 ==
	::Who runs the site? At a first glance, I would say the "gaming news" section might be reliable... and anything published in the chat forums would not. However, to determine if the "news" section is reliable we would need to know how this information is compiled and if there is editorial oversight. ] (]) 04:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
			Is reliable for use in articles about music (such as songs, albums, artists, etc.) ] (]) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Handbook of Texas? ==
			: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)
	Is the Handbook of Texas (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/) a reliable source? It's an online archive from the Texas State Historical Association, and their articles do provide bibliogaphies, presumably of sources. I want to beef up the ] article. <font face="Arial">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
			== Global Defense Corp ==
	: Note that article ] exists. -- ] (]) 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
	::We do cite the ] a lot, and it has been discussed at ]. There is even a template {{tl|Handbook of Texas}} for citing it properly. (Creation discussed ]). See for instance which converts an old-style Handbook reference to the new form using {{tl|Handbook of Texas}}. I personally believe the template is better, since it avoids an unwanted extra link to the home page of the Handbook's site, and instead provides a link to our WP article on the Handbook. For what the resulting citation looks like see Ref 1 of the article on ]. ] (]) 18:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
	To my knowledge, it is reliable, and it has passed FAC before (can't recall where). But ... please don't use that citation template, as it doesn't return a complete citation (no last accessdate). Do you have quick plans for ]? ] (]) 19:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Not quick. I do plan on doing some work on it this evening. <font face="Arial">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 21:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Have you seen ]? ] (]) 22:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Yes, thanks, that why I thought I would tackle Ms. Hogg. <font face="Arial">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
	*I would definitely consider the Handbook of Texas Online a reliable source. It's published by a scholarly historical association, with co-sponsorship from various universities and a board of academic advisors. The only problem is that it's a tertiary source like an encyclopedia. --] ] 05:10, 14 March 2008 (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
	It is the epitome of historically reliable. ] (]) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (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.
	== Personal Websites and Blogs ==
			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.
	I see these are 'largely not acceptable'. However, when the person who owns the website is an acknowledged authority within his field, eg a well known archaeologist, historian, or anthropologist, with loads of peer-reviewed publications, etc, do I assume that their blogs or websites are acceptable? As an example, . I hasten to add that I agree with the policy, but when the owner of the site has the qualifications, peer review, etc....--] (]) 19:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
	: See ]. If you can demonstrate that you are using the blog from an expert published by secondary reliable sources in the field to cite something in that same field, they can be used within reason. ] (]) 19:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
	::The only thing I would recommend avoiding here is citing such a source when it disagrees with a clearly reliable source. And the reason is that certain less-than-scrupulous "experts" use their personal publications to make claims they couldn't sneak past peer review. ] (]) 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Agreed! (That's why I said "used within reason".) ] (]) 20:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::I'd go further than when it disagrees: if it makes a claim that seems a little out of the ordinary and is not ''substantiated'' by a reliable source, I would be wary of using it. ] (]) 14:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
			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.
	== ] a RS for history? ==
			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 .
	Well this encyclopedia, the "National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh", has some articles, particularly those written about the ] have an editorial tone which seems to be Bengali nationalistic in nature
	*Article on ] -
	**"the Pakistani military junta was bringing more troops to Bangladesh and at the same time wantonly killing innocent civilians all over the country. This clearly showed that they were totally insincere about handing over power to the elected representatives of Bangladesh. No sooner the talks failed, the genocide began"
	**"Several hundred people chanted the slogan Joi Bangla which lasted for about 15 minutes. But soon guns silenced them. The army moved into the city before scheduled time and started the genocide. The military forces killed everybody in sight on the footpath and destroyed everything on their way. "
	***Did they literally kill and destroy everything??
	*] -
	**"...started with the student unrest of 1968 against the tyrannical rule of ayub khan, President of Pakistan."
	*] -
	**Hagiographic language in the article, such as use of "martyr". Words like "martyr" and "freedom fighter" are used repeatedly on Banglapedia.
	*] - , "freedom fighters"
	*] - - "Hemayet Bahini (a group of freedom fighters led by its commander Hemayet Uddin) and the Pak army was held at Ramshil Union. Hemayet Uddin was given the Bir Bikram title for his heroic role in this battle."
			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.
	And so forth. Does this cheerleading style make this encyclopedia a non-RS for Bengali history? Opinions? ''']''' ('']'') 03:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
	:I asked Blnguyen to post here. I think these issues alone demonstrate that Banglapedia should not be considered a reliable source. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] </span><sub>(])</sub> 04:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Oh dear, horribly POV language here indicates that it probably shouldn't be considered RS. '']'' <small>(])</small> 08:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
	::From ], the test is, is it a
	::* Academic source {{GAList/check|y}}
	::* Third party scrutiny {{GAList/check|y}}
	::* Respected mainstream publication {{GAList/check|y}}
	::* Is it a wiki {{GAList/check|y}}
	::* Is it a Questionable source {{GAList/check|}}
	::It is not very obvious that it fails ] because of the above. It is obviously a POV source so we can use it as long as it is attributed. But when it is in conflict with a clearly RS source you cannot use it to counter the RS source. We should keep in mind, western encyclopedia’s such as Britannica as used without any question. How are we sure that they don’t have a bias ? just food for thought ] (]) 12:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::If it is indeed a wiki, then it ''is'' obvious that it fails. Wikis (even Misplaced Pages) are not considered reliable sources. ] (]) 12:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::Sorry, I meant the negative to mean that it is not a wiki, as you can see from ], its contributers are all eminent scholars of Bangladesh, some internationally well known. It's effort and working plan is no different than any encylopedia project except their language requires further refinement. ] (]) 12:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Using Banglapedia in Bangladesh related issues is similar to using ] in Catholic related articles. Use it with a grain of salt and attribute when saying controversal facts.] (]) 16:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Calling someone a martyr is a matter of point of view, not fact. However, the article should say "xxx from Banglapedia says..." in regards to a controversial statement (ex. martyr). <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] </span><sub>(])</sub> 20:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: Exactly see ] ] (]) 21:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::However, there are legitimate issues when we start writing stuff like "According to xx of Banglapedia, ] had a tyrannical rule." The statement is attributed, but that would not make it neutral in that case. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] </span><sub>(])</sub> 21:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::The initial question was, is it RS? The answer is it is borderline RS. Then how you use it in any article depends on the context. Obviously what you just pointed out will not be acceptable even if it came from say Britanica which is clearly RS. ] (]) 21:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::Brittanica would not make a statement like that. There are some inaccuracies with that encyclopedia, but there are no neutrality issues. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] </span><sub>(])</sub> 02:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::I'd only use it where there's absolutely nothing else, and then with a disclaimer (per Nishkid at 21:06). ] (]) 05:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::We are digressing away from the original question. Is it RS or not. The short answer '''is it is'''. Whether it uses NPOV langugae or not, can be be used in any sentence or not is not the purpose of this discussion or this board. Alwaysr remember for a source to be RS, it has to be verifiable. To be verifiable, it has to pass a few tests (I have listed them above). Neutral language is not one of the requirements of verifiable source test because all sources have some sort of POV. Some show it like Bangapedia and others hide it very well under neutral langugae. Thanks] (]) 12:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
	:I think the source can be used but should be attributed, and claims from the source should not be presented as facts.] (]) 12:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
	== The Nation article re: ] ==
	{{Discussion top|1=Per Blueboar, this has gone about as far as we can go. Consensus demonstrated that ''The Nation'' is reliable enough for BLPs. ] (]) 14:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)}}
	On the follow paragraph below, is the source from ''The Nation'' reliable for what it is being used for? Another user said because the author of the article does not have other articles online published and is not a scholar, that it is an unreliable source. And obviously the article, like many on Fox News, is written with a bias--but that doesn't make it unreliable for the context it is used in. I just need more opinion as to if the source is unable or not.
	<blockquote>According to journalist Kristine McNeil in '']'', Pipes has anti-Arab views.<ref name=McNeil>McNeil, Kristine. "". '']'' (]). Retrieved on ].</ref> He said that the customs of Muslims immigrants are "more troublesome than most,"<ref>Pipes, Daniel. "". '']'' (]). Retrieved on ].</ref><ref name=McNeil/> and has referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers."<ref>Pipes, Daniel. "". '']'' (]). Retrieved on ].</ref><ref name=McNeil/>
	{{Reflist}}</blockquote>
	Thanks.—]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
	:In addition to violating ], it violates ]. Something this poorly sourced might be all right for a ] article, but not for a living person, when it contains potentially defamatory material. <font color="green">]</font> 01:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
	I would allow the McNeil column to be used as a representation of what some of Pipes' critics think about him rather than as a representation of what Misplaced Pages thinks of him. The ''Nation'' column does include the quotes from Pipes that are claimed to be there, and the reader can verify that those quotes actually came from Pipes' columns by referring to the columns themselves, which are linked (one to Pipes' own web site, and the other to NationalReview.com, where the column was published). However, I would rephrase the passage as follows:
	<blockquote>In a column in '']'', writer Kristine McNeil described Pipes as having "anti-Arab" views.<ref name=McNeil>McNeil, Kristine. "". '']'' (]). Retrieved on ].</ref> McNeil cited columns in which Pipes described the customs of Muslim immigrants as being "more troublesome than most"<ref>Pipes, Daniel. "". '']'' (]). Retrieved on ].</ref><ref name=McNeil/> and referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers".<ref>Pipes, Daniel. "". '']'' (]). Retrieved on ].</ref><ref name=McNeil/>
	{{Reflist}}</blockquote> Note that McNeil's bionote on ''The Nation'' web site describes her occupation as "writer" (as opposed to "journalist"), and my proposed rephrasing is intended to indicate that this is all based on McNeil's characterization of Pipes' comments rather than our own. --] ] 05:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Excellent work, M90. ''The Nation'' is a reliable source, and material from McNeil's piece may be used without violating ] as long as the attribution is clear and accurate (as you have done). ] (]) 10:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Yep, that looks acceptable by wiki standards.] (]) 12:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Clearly acceptable :) ] (]) 13:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::Wow, is it ever not acceptable, drive-by ditto-heading aside. Metro, would you consider saying "Writer Kristine McNeil does not believe in ], preferring to explain biology in terms of ]" in the evolution article? Why not? She is, after all, a writer, who actually managed to get one article published in a partisan magazine six years ago. You see how silly it looks? Is she any more of an authority on Pipes than she is on evolution? As far as I know, she isn't. <font color="green">]</font> 23:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::If it was an article - one of not very many - actually published in a reliable source discussing evolution itself as opposed to mentioning it in passing, then yes.
	:::::Please be civil about community input. "Drive-by ditto-heading" is people taking time out to review a problem and give their opinion. It is reasonable in such a situation to accept that the community seems to disagree, and attempt to either change its mind or to move on, instead of being rude. ] (]) 23:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::In addition to what RR said, there is a mature and robust scientific consensus behind the theory of evolution, which has stood for at least 85 years (to put it conservatively.) Thus, it would be a violation of NPOV to dote on this or that contrarian writer, even if they ''were'' an expert on the subject matter (cf ].) There is no such robust consensus behind the claim that Daniel Pipes doesn't habitually bash Arabs and Muslims. In fact, a number of reliable sources have reported on his being called anti-Arab or Islamophobic; , , , etc. To say nothing of and , which are notable enough sources even without the more reliable Western papers. Clearly, Pipes is an extremely controversial figure who has been accused by many Arab and pro-Arab sources of being an outright bigot. WP's biography of him should reflect that, while not taking sides in the controversy. &lt;]/]]&gt; 23:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Note I don't like the rather vacuous phrase "Anti-Arab", nor do I really believe it is applicable in this case, but as I have subsequently mentioned (and provided) on the article talkpage, there are several academic sources that use the phrase in Pipes' context as well. ] (]) 00:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::(edit conflict) I’ve been neither rude nor uncivil. I don’t believe people posting “yeah me too” in such a situation is useful. I would say, further, that false allegations of incivility ratchet up the temperature and also, given that you just responded to me on the Daniel Pipes talk page with an edit summary of “rot” – actual and obvious incivility there -- you might consider practicing before preaching in future.
	:::::::As to the substance of your points, we have more than enough sources which are critical of Pipes. We don’t need any fringe ones. And that you would be willing to publish a non-scientist’s view as a legitimate criticism of evolution is troubling; it suggests to me that you fail to understand some core policies.
	:::::::Eleland: I’m all for reliable sources, whatever they may say. Kristine McNeil is not a reliable source: does anyone here want to dispute that? <font color="green">]</font> 00:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Pipe's listing of dangerous academics was a political act and within the realm of politics, I find the source in question reliable. But also make sure to include the possible praises Pipes has received from his friends for doing this and give it a balance. --] (]) 00:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::You just heard five independent editors disputing that; forgive the bluntness, but what is your <personal attack deleted>? &lt;]/]]&gt; 00:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::I'll actually not forgive the "bluntness" if it's all the same to you. Five users? You mean 4 POV-pushing editors and a drive-by amen can overturn core policy? News to me. And you haven't answered my question. <font color="green">]</font> 00:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::Core policy hasn't been violated; you haven't made a case that it is even affected here. The Nation is considered a reliable source; please re-read the footnote to ] that deals with the various meanings of "source". This McNeil person, whoever she was, nevertheless was considered a notable opinion by a reliable periodical, and her piece was subject to editorial control and fact-checking that we expect. Also note that this is far from a marginal viewpoint, however incorrect it may be. (Ample evidence has been provided here and on the article talkpage.) Please also explain who precisely are "the four POV-pushers" here. It would be nice for those of us with no opinion to know. ] (]) 00:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::The Nation is indeed a reliable source (allbeit one with a distinct political slant). How one phrases the information (so that it comes across in a NPOV manner) can be worked out in the article talk page... but the information itself comes from a reliable source. ] (]) 00:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::One more time, show of hands please: who here thinks that ''Kristine McNeil'' is a reliable source? On ''any'' topic? <font color="green">]</font> 21:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::I think you might be misinterpreting ]. It's not the ''writer'' who's the reliable source, it's the ''publication'': a "reliable, third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." You might not like what the writer has written, but the piece in question is clearly one that has successfully made it through the publication's editorial process. As such, it counts as a reliable source. -- ] (]) 01:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	:: Not only was McNeil's article considered noteworthy by a reliable periodical (The Nation), the article is also included as reference in Mearsheimer and Walt's "The Israel Lobby", a controversial yet nevertheless serious and reliable source. ]. ] (]) 22:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::Bernard, thanks for that. Can you say in what context they referenced her work? Also, do you believe she is a reliable source? And if so, why? <font color="green">]</font> 22:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Kristine McNeil is certainly a reliable source for ''her own opinion'', and the fact that the opinion was published in the ''Nation'' makes it notable. In my opinion, ]'s phrasing complies with all the sourcing, attribution and ] requirements. ] (]) 23:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
	::But by that standard, all published writers everywhere can be quoted in any article, BLP or no, as long as we make it clear it's only their opinion; we must have a higher standard, I think, especially in a BLP. <font color="green">]</font> 23:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::: No, that is a ] ] argument, becuase ] is just ''one'' criterion for inclusion of content and not everything that can be reliably sourced deserves to be in an article. Some other guidelines that we need to consider are:
	:::::* ]: for example if McNeil had written an article in the ''Nation'' on ], it would most probably be undue to cite her opinion in the[REDACTED] article since we have so many other, ''more notable'' opinions and sources available. AFAIK, this is not the case in this instance.
	:::::* ]: if McNeil had made wild, out-of-the left-field or potentially libelous claims (such as "X is a drug addict" or "Y is a Arab spy") we would require multiple, unimpeachable, factual (i.e. non-opinion pieces) sources before even considering inclusion, and we would not simply phrase the content as "McNeil thinks Y is an Arab spy" etc. Again this does not seem to be the case.
	::::: The above list is simply illustrative, and not exhaustive. Hope that makes the picture clearer for you. Cheers. ] (]) 02:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Actually, McNeil ''does'' make "wild, out-of-the left-field potentially libelous claims". She writes, e.g., "Pipes is also a regular contributor to the website of Gamla, an organization founded by former Israeli military officers and settlers that endorses the ethnic cleansing of every Palestinian as 'the only possible solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict." GAMLA does nothing of the sort and Pipes is in any case not a regular contributor to GAMLA's website. Since the ''Nation'' 's fact checking process was clearly not applied sucessfully to this article this article should not be considered reliable for the truth of any factual claim made in it. That said, the ''Nation'' 's website is a RS for the content of the article, and to the extent that the article is mentioned in secondary sources (e.g., claims are made and attributed to it) we can mention its content. But only in the context of supplying the evidence that it is a tendentious piece of crap. ] (]) 11:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	::: IronDuke- The reference to McNeil in The Israel Lobby is one of four references attached to the following paragraph:
	::::"The Lobby also monitors what professors write and teach. In September 2002, for example, Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes, two passionately pro-Israel neoconservatives, established a website (Campus Watch) that posted dossiers on suspect academics and encouraged students to report comments or behavior that might be considered hostile to Israel.94 This transparent attempt to blacklist and intimidate scholars prompted a harsh reaction and Pipes and Kramer later removed the dossiers, but the website still invites students to report alleged anti-Israel behavior at U.S. colleges."] (]) 23:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks again, Bernard. I would say 1) Walt & Mearsheimer are incredibly hostile to people like Pipes and 2) Even they do not appear to be using flagrantly loaded owrds like "Anti-Arab". <font color="green">]</font> 23:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Anyone who wants to go on record supporting a "Writer" with no discernible qualifications other than one article in a partisan opinion magazine six years ago please feel free to sign below. <font color="green">]</font> 00:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::IronDuke, I can see clear consensus here. 6+ editors have told you that the nation article is a reliable source. It is time that you respect consensus.--] (]) 00:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	::The source here is '']''. To say that this article is merely Kristine McNeil's "own opinion" is saying that ''The Nation'' lacks editors and standards. ]'s wording seems like a good compromise toward Wikipedians who do not like what McNeil is saying. / ]<small> ] ]</small> 01:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Indeed, by publishing McNeil without severe editing ''The Nation'' indicated it has very low standards, and needs to be treated as a highly questionable source. ] (]) 11:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	::OK folks, it is time to stop this. The question has been asked and clearly answered. The Nation (and by extension the McNeil article) is reliable. You don't have to ''like'' the answer, but that answer isn't going to change. I suggest that we '''close''' discussion on this topic. ] (]) 12:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	=== Apologies ===
	Hi all:
	As I have recently been threatened with a block for posting here from an administrator with whom I have had frequent disagreements in the past, I can no longer comfortably contribute to this thread without the risk of what I think would be a huge, drama-creating incident that would drain far more resources than it would be worth. I’d like to both thank everyone who came here and contributed thoughtful and thought-provoking responses to what I wrote, and apologize for my inability to freely reply. <font color="green">]</font> 23:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	{{Discussion bottom}}
	== Odd quote ==
	I'm actually kind of embarrassed to bring this somewhat trivial here, but I'm involved in a stale dispute and would require some "official" clarification on the quality and use of a quote.
	The text in question is a passage in the ] article which reads:
	<blockquote>Other articles of the Hamas Covenant refer to fighting the Jews. According to ],
	<blockquote>"Like other Islamists, the Hamas uses antisemitic language, full of hatred towards Jews, ever since its foundation in 1987. In its Sacred Covenant , there are frequent references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which would have gladdened the hearts of Hitler and Goebbels. It is difficult to see what any of this has to do with spirituality, works of charity, dialogue or the search for peace."</blockquote></blockquote>
	As I state in the article ], this quote has several problems:
	* The quote presented does not substantiate the claim that "ther articles of the Hamas Covenant refer to fighting the Jews."
	* The quote itself is factually false, since the Hamas Covenant refers to the ] exactly ''once'' (check it out ).
	* The source itself is heavily parsed and the quoted statements appears in an ], and is hence probably ''not'' part of the statement to the ].
	* The original, unedited statement is itself not catalogued by the ]. The only two documents in which the author, Robert Wistrich, is mentioned are .
	The most pertinent problems are the first and the third. The first is trivial and regarding the third, the quoted text is part of an ] stretching, in the source, from "Not only that..." to the end of the quote and is therefore presumably not in the original, which was read at a meeting of the ].
	Now, judging by the language in other ellipses in the text, it is probable that ] himself penned those lines. If this is effectively the case, however, the source should be rejected as self-published, since, as the initial page of the itself states, ] is the director of the ], which published the document in question.
	Any thoughts? Am I completely wrong in this assessment?
	Cheers and thanks, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 14.03.2008 08:30</small>
	::All I can say is that something as egregious as Hamas mentioning the Protocols in its charter is likely to have been covered by many, many considerably more reliable sources. Replace this reference with one of those, and nobody has a leg to stand on if they want to object. ] (]) 14:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Well, that's already in the article (Hamas' mentioning of the Protocols), which is why I didn't think this quote was necessary... Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 14.03.2008 14:44</small>
	::::Oh, I know why its necessary. Someone ran a google search for Hamas antisemitic to justify keeping "antisemitic" in the lead. That's how Misplaced Pages works in these areas.
	::::I think you have made a sufficient case that this quote is from a self-published source by an acknowledged authority. Whether that qualifies it for inclusion in the article then becomes an ] issue. ] (]) 14:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Ok, thanks for your input :) Anybody else want to weigh-in? Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 17.03.2008 11:20</small>
	== Emporis ==
	Hi. Is http://www.emporis.com/ a reliable source for building data? Thanks. ] (]) 09:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
	:They make their living by providing accurate data, so we have to assume that they have an inbuilt sytem to check their facts. But it is not an academic source so how they collect data and how it is scrutinized for accuracy is not transparent for others to judge about unless someone else says so. Hence I will use it but attribute it to the website. ] (]) 17:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
	== The Skeptic's Dictionary ==
	*http://www.skepdic.com/
	* Is this a reliable source? Specificly for the ] article, is ? '''] ]''' 19:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
	:I believe this question (about the Skeptic's Dictionary as a source) has come up before here, though I haven't looked through the archives. It would be worth seeing what people said last time - I seem to recall that the Skeptics' Dictionary was borderline acceptable so long as it was attributed in the text ("According to the Skeptic's Dictionary...") But that was on a different article - this situation may be different. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 20:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
	::The article cited seems to me to be hopelessly inadequate as a summary of what is both a political movement and an academic current. Try academic writers instead. Mary Lefkowitz is suitable to use but is at one pole of the argument and needs to be balanced, e.g. by Martin Bernal. Vijay Prashad might be a useful source also Henry Louis Gates Jnr or if you can find anything by Stuart Hall (cultural theorist). Wikiproject Critical Theory might have some leads. ] (]) 18:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Link to the above discussion: ]. ] 19:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Martin Bernal has some valid and well-researched observations on classical ]. On classical history itself, he is ], although extremely entertaining. I would not use the Skeptic's Dictionary to say so; his books have been extensively and negatively reviewed. ] <small>]</small> 20:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::: I can't find the discussion, but basically what was said was that Robert Caroll is a published academic and indeed the Skeptics Dictionary is also a published book by a respected publishing house. This makes it by Misplaced Pages definition a reliable source. You can't take a source apart and say you can't use it for this but you can use it for that. And policy (not guidelines) says "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source." What was suggested in the discussion is that when used it would be best to write 'Robert Todd Carroll, in his (or maybe the) Skeptics' Dictinary, says...' So he may be right or he may be wrong, but either way, it doesn't matter, it can't be excluded. Where it is put is another matter. Please note that I am not saying he is wrong or right on this, just that using it is definitely allowed by Misplaced Pages policy, see ].--] (]) 06:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Carrol is an academic and the book is published. It's contents may be right or wrong, but I can se no reason why it should not be citable. ] (]) 09:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I would think that few sources should have a blanket approval as a reliable source -- and that in most cases they should be evaluated regarding quality and accuracy and expertise. In my experience, regarding a topic that I'm familiar with, Carroll's coverage of that topic was problematic, mostly relying on the sort of sources that Misplaced Pages disallows. Even as we were debating whether specific information from Carroll could be used in this specific article, Carroll removed the problematic material from his web site. I'd use Carroll with caution, and I'd look closely at the sources he uses. ] (]) 15:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::''You can't take a source apart and say you can't use it for this but you can use it for that.'' -- actually, the policy says exactly the opposite: '']'' ] (]) 16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::As so often, there seems to be confusion about whether a source is citable as a legitimate academic opinion or whether it's citable as an accurate source of facts. The only issue is whether Carroll's is a citable opinion, not whether he is right. By the way, his main source on this topic is quoted at the top of the article, the very well respected critic of Afrocentrism, Clarence E. Walker. As for his having "removed the problematic material from his website", what do you mean? It still says what the quoted words say it says. ] (]) 19:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Carroll is not a creditable source. His specialty is philosophy, where he advocates atheism, scientific skepticism, and critical thinking. He is not a reliable source for african historiography, so he isn't reliable for this particular article. '''] ]''' 05:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::So you answer your own questions now do you? What he 'advocates' is irrelevant. ] (]) 11:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::I offer my opinion into the discussion. Is that allowed (even if I did start the thread)? '''] ]''' 06:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	== CIA World Factbook and US Department of State ==
	I am inquiring whether the following tertiary or secondary sources are valid or "reliable" for use on Misplaced Pages, specifically in the article ]. Two users, ] and ], have been pushing their POV by keeping these sources in one part of the article but removing it from another part. Here are the following links to the sources in question: and .] (]) 22:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Wow... It has been some time since someone asked about these sources... you ask a question that used to pop up a lot. In any case... These are certainly considered reliable sources. The best way to handle the dispute is to directly attribute any statements. ] (]) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
	::'''The source was taken out because it was being used on the lead to state things not supported by the article, by ]'''. The source is being used once on the body of the article to illustrate how the ethnic groups on France are described on the CIA factbook, and that's all. Thus, using it as the sole source for the lead was giving it ], specially since it was being used as an excuse for deleting the references to norman ascentors that appear on another part of the article and that epf's doesn't seem to agree with and calls POV and unsourced, because he says that normans are not part of the french ethnic group (which brings us again to the controversial and disputed problem of defining the ethnic group).
	::Also, '''the reliability of factbook is put on doubt for the especific topic of ethnic groups for France, not for all the rest of stadistics which are probably trustable, but are not actually used on this article'''
	::Also, I made the argument on the talk page that '''the "french ethnic group" topic is a controversial and disputed issue, and that we should find secondary verifiable sources, and not a tertiary source that doesn't indicate sources''', like the CIA factbook. If the factbook is really right, it should be easy to find secondary sources supporting the statement, like, for example, the ones used by the factbook, but this has not happened yet. This was brought out by me when I discovered that all 3 sources provided as support appeared to be copied verbatim from the factbook itself. Given that's is a controversial and disputed topic, '''Per the ], we should be discussing the survey methods with sound secondary sources, none of which are provided neither by the factbook, nor by epf'''.
	::'''In other words, this is more of a content issue and lack of secondary sources than a reliable sources issue''', and the reliability of CIA factbook on ethnic groups should be evaluated on the context provided. --] (]) 12:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Enric... no need to shout (ie no need to put things in '''bold'''). Now, as to your comments... remember that reliability is not the same as factual accuracy, and it is especially not the same as "truth". You can not call a source "reliable" for some facts, but not others. It is perfectly acceptable to question whether a reliable source is factually accurate or not, but please don't invoke WP:RS to do it. The question was: are the sources considered reliable?... and the answer is a definitive "Yes, they are". What you are arguing about are follow-up questions: Should the sources be used in the article and, if so, are they used appropriately?... the answer to those questions are not really in the scope of this notice board, and should be discussed at the article talk page. ] (]) 18:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::Agree, but just to note that while the CIA factbook is RS it is also a tertiary source. Its comments on French ethnicity seem to be very cursory and introductory in nature. There should be much more comprehensive secondary sources available. ] (]) 18:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Again like Blueboar suggested, that would me something you have to hash out in the talk age of the article or take it to mediation if it fails. ] (]) 22:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::OK. Thanks for the advice, and sorry for bolding --] (]) 12:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Are Lawsuits Original Research When Text From Them are Inserted Into BLP's? ==
	Is it appropriate to use text from a lawsuit that was made against someone who is the subject of a BLP in their BLP? I believe that the contents of lawsuits would constitute orginal research. If the contents of lawsuit complaints could always be taken at face value then there would be no such thing as frivolous lawsuits. Also, a lawsuit complaint is designed to clearly represent the plaintiffs POV only and are often written to embarrass and threaten a defendant into settling. In a civil case they can contain hearsay and can take as an extreme POV as allowed by law against the defendant. I don't think they should be allowed. ] (]) 23:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
	:It's not original research, but it can inherently violate ] for exactly the reasons you state. A lawsuit should ''never'' be included in a BLP unless it is covered by secondary ]. In such a case, content should be lifted from the secondary source itself, and not the lawsuit. One can still make an external link to the lawsuit in this situation (so long as it's not hosted by an attack site, which is often the case). ] (]) 23:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Agree that the issue is whether the source is sufficiently ] to ]. A lawsuit has issues similar to quoting a blog or personal website because court papers are only the view of the parties, not the view of a reliable expert or authority on the subject. Agree it's best not to mention at all unless a reliable source (e.g. a newspaper or law review) considers the lawsuit notable. If the lawsuit has been covered by reliable secondary sources, I believe it can sometimes be OK to use the judge's final decision (or the decision of an appelate court) as a source for some additional details. Even here one has to be careful not to go beyond what the judge actually determines, many kinds of decisions (like summary judgement decisons) accept one party's view of the facts and do not actually evaluate them. Best, --] (]) 18:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
	::And a judge's finding can be overturned on appeal. For this reason alone we should not quote directly from lawsuits. 22:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::We have had this question before... Official court documents are considered reliable for statements about what is contained in the document. There are numerous ways that one can verify them (at worst, someone can go to the court house and obtain copies). The key is to clearly attribute any statement, and make it clear who is saying what. A lawsuit is a notable event. If a lawsuit has been filed against the subject of one of our articles, I would think it appropriate to mention this in the article. And it would be appropriate to cite the Complaint (or the Reply) in doing so. However, we must remember that what is stated in a Complaint or a Reply are NOT fact... they are allegation and response. Thus we need to ''attribute'' any statements taken from such documents. I see nothing wrong with saying something like:
	:::*"According to the Complaint filed by Joe Schmoe on August 21, 2004 in the Northern District of Ohio, 'Mr. BLP molested small kittens' <nowiki><cite to Complaint></nowiki>. In his Reply papers filed on November 3rd, 2004, Mr. BLP stated 'I never did' <nowiki><cite to Reply></nowiki>. The case is still before the court."
	:::This said, we must be carefull to cite the actual court documents, and not some third party who may take snippets from the court documents out of context. This is one of those rare situations where citing the primary source is actually ''better'' than citing a secondary source. ] (]) 13:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::But if no secondary source has believed Joe Schmoe, is this Undue Weight? In particular, if ''Schmoe v BLP'' has been thrown out as frivolous, the ''judge'' doesn't believe it, and we have an obligation to say so. ] <small>]</small> 20:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Reliable source or no? ==
	I'm looking for sourcing re: the ] controversy. Is this a reliable source? Thanks!] 16:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
	:The organisation clearly has a viewpoint and agenda but would seem to be reliable for the chronology of how the controversy played out unless it is contradicted by another account. Best to make sure you attribute to FAIR everything you use from the webpage. ] (]) 18:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
	:We really don't have a better source than a Mormon apologetics site? (I assume it's that FAIR - the link won't work for me right now). ] (]) 19:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Not the one you're thinking of. This FAIR is a liberal organization with no Mormon connection. --] ] 04:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
	: Since is heavily referenced, you could go to library and track down the sources they use and use them yourself. ] (]) 19:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
	::You don't even need to do that. Sources like articles from the New York Times are online. Just take the quotes they use and run them through Google and you can find the original sources. --] (]) 19:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Self published / Google video? ==
	I'm working on the ] article and there's currently a citation of a Google Video (it's the last paragraph in ] section). What's the consensus as to the reliability of this source? Should it be allowed as a statement of the author's belief, or removed as unencylopaedic? <font color="006622">]</font><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 19:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
	:I can't see how it proves anything. Someone made that video - that's all we know. We would need a separate reliable source to say that it was "Pilots for 9/11 truth" and that it was the named person. If we have a separate source backing up the provenance of the video then I think it should stay. If not then it might be some guy in his basement who doesn't believe that stuff but is trying to wind us up. On the other hand it might be worth leaving in the article as an example of the sort of thing that exists - without attribution. ] (]) 19:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
	:I would be very careful about linking to ''any'' Google/YouTube video. We usually don't know the copyright status of such videos; see ]. -- ] (]) 01:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	== ] Election Central ==
	Problems at the ] article. Kessler's in the news currently for a story he wrote about Barack Obama; that rebounded pretty badly and then ] turned up and removed the criticism section from his own bio. (The section was pretty badly sourced and overly negative at the time.) The website Talking Points Memo Election Central picked up on this, and someone wrote a post/article, which was then cited in the Kessler article. (Following all this?)
	I came along to the article in response to a complaint and did some cleanup. Most of my changes have stuck, but objections have been raised on the talkpage to my removal of the TPM-EC article about Kessler and WP.
	These objections are:
	*TPM - specifically its main contributor and editor ] - won a ] last month.
	*"We wouldn't treat the blogs or opinion columns on WashingtonPost as reliable sources either, but that doesn't mean we automatically dismiss all their news reporting. Can you direct us to a Misplaced Pages guideline that everything published by TPM Media, which does employ a small staff of paid journalists and editors and has won a journalism award (as noted above), is to be dismissed as a blog here on Misplaced Pages. Or is that simply your personal view? "
	*"I'd like to point out that this wasn't published at TalkingPointsMemo exactly, but at TPM Election Central. Election Central is considerably less blog-y and more news-y than TPM proper. Is there really any bright line difference between an online-only magazine like Slate or Salon and TPM Election Central? The piece in question was written by a paid professional journalist and Election Central is described as a "website" in his bio rather than as a blog."
	As this is too much information for my brain when St. Patrick's Day is barely over, I'm bringing it here for advice. ] (]) 23:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
	:The WP editing seems like a very low-level event of marginal significance to Kessler's notability as a whole; I also think that Kessler can hardly be faulted for removing a section sourced to various left-wing blog postings and open publishing sites. The "controversy" section as it stands now, with reference to the "hate sermon" gaffe and subsequent retraction, is better-sourced, and appropriate. It's our job as Wikipedians to write neutral biographies, it's not the job of our biographical subjects to salvage neutral biographies from cruft and dross. You handled the situation correctly. &lt;]/]]&gt; 03:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
	:*Um, TPM is hardly an "open publishing site." Nor is it really a blog, under the "online diary" meaning of the term. Whether or not it is left-wing really has nothing to do with it. ] (]) 03:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
	::I was thinking of , which removed a "controversy" section sourced to "TPM Muckracker," Daily Kos, and a semi-reliable blog affiliated with ''The Atlantic''. Kos is the "open publishing website" I had in mind. Oh, and TPM calls itself a blog. Of course left-wing has nothing to do with it, centrist or right-wing blogs are no more or less reliable. &lt;]/]]&gt; 00:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:*The question here on the Reliable Sources noticeboard is whether TPM Election Central is a reliable source. Whether the material itself is sufficiently noteworthy is a question for the article talk page, and has nothing to do with source reliability. ] (]) 08:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
	:I tend to believe TPM as a whole is reliable ''for most purposes''. This bright line between blogs and non-blogs is fuzzier all the time, with news sources like ] using a blog-like publishing format (] despite a history that predates blogs and, in point of fact, the web), while ] regularly publishes rumor and tripe (such as the laughable claim that the space station is run on Windows NT) and continues to be treated as reliable, with only minor formatting differences from blogs. My point being that it is not the blog format ''per se'' that is, or should be, the issue. In the case of TPM it was a one-person blog in 2001, but in 2003-2004 moved to NYC offices and hired a staff. In a strict sense the main TPM page is still a "blog" roughly half written by Josh Marshall, and half written by David Kurtz or another employee, posts that mainly point to TPM-owned sites like TPMMuckraker. If you squint you could call any of them blogs (exception: Parts of TPMCafe, a forum, with some blog material to spark discussions) simply because they post stories "when ready", but my local newspaper does that now too. It's a bit of a strain to call TPM self-published, since Marshall appears to have investors and acts as a professional editor and publisher. Simply put I don't see how TPM fails any reliable source metric you care to use, unless you don't want your reliable sources touching the word "blog" with a ten-foot pole, which seems like a backwards way to go about making those choices. (Heck, I see people wanting to throw out the ] -- one of the oldest newspapers in the U.S. -- as a reliable source because it's a ]. Others merely want to exclude all alternative newspapers.) --] | ] 04:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
	I suggest reading this recent about Talking Points Memo. Among the highlights:
	*TPM won the ], one of journalism's highest honors, for "tenacious investigative reporting."
	*the NYT refers to the website as a "news operation"
	*the NYT describes "a style of online reporting that greatly expands the definition of blogging"
	*the NYT describes "a newsroom in Manhattan and seven reporters ... including two in Washington" (paid journalists)
	*the NYT describes Marshall's activites as "full-time online journalism"
	*the NYT makes a distinction between Marshall's liberal "personal blogging" and the nonpartisan "reporting" that happens on the site (much of it at TPM Election Central)
	Sounds like a pretty clear case for reliability to me. (More reliable in this case than the Bill Kristol column that started the whole thing.) ] (]) 09:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
	::As the line between journalism and blogging increasingly blurs, we are going to get questions like this more often. For a long time we held firm to "NO BLOGS". Even the websites of major news organizations were not considered reliable, because they were in blog format. About a year ago, this began to change. More and more Misplaced Pages Editors made the valid point that news sites are reflections of what is printed in the print edition of the paper, or of what is aired on the TV broadcast (in the case of sites like BBC.com). We began to differentiate between "blogs" and "news sites that used blog format". For the news sites, we also differentiated between reporting and opinion pieces. The reporting is now considered reliable in almost all cases... the Op-ed pieces are considered reliable ''only'' for statements about the writer's opinion (and should be clearly attributed as such).
	::Pure blogs (ie those that do not have a print or broadcast equivalent) are still in the "No blogs" category. The problem with blogs like TPM is that the line of seperation between reporting and opinion is still blurred. It is still too difficult to distinguish between the parts that are "Journalism" and the parts that are "Opinion". I suspect that the consensus to not allow ''any'' blogs will eventually change... but it is going to take ''time'' for that consensus to change, and we are not there yet. Blogging is still a new form of journalism, and we do not have a consensus on what makes one blog acceptable and another blog unacceptable. Until we reach such a consensus we can not allow blogs... even a highly reguarded blog such as TPM. ] (]) 14:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::*We certainly do allow some web sites that don't have print or broadcast equivalents. Slate and Salon for example. Ironically enough, also NewsMax. Plus sites like Media Matters. And so on. Format is irrelevant to reliability. The issue is journalistic standards and editorial oversight. The news parts of TPM demonstrably have both. The basic problem is with your statement that there is a problem with "blogs like TPM". Define blog. I'd say it's essentially a self-published op-ed piece. The reason we don't treat blogs as reliable sources is the same reason we don't treat Bill Kristol's NYTimes editorial as a reliable source. It has nothing to do with publication format, and everything to do with journalistic standards and editorial oversight. The news parts of TPM clearly have both -- it has paid journalists (real ones with real journalism backgrounds); it has won a major journalism award; it is describes as a "news" site by the NYTimes; and Marshall is a real editor with experience as the associate editor of a major news magazine. Where does it fall short of any reasonable standard? Yes, it has opinion pieces and we should not allow those any more than we allow any opinion piece (newspaper op-ed, or self-published blog). However the news part has as much or more credibility as a great many other sites we routinely allow. The dividing line on reliability should not be, and demonstrably has not traditionally been, solely publication format. ] (]) 00:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::But TPM's ''sources'', which they usually link to, are a different question (it would be civil to include a reference to TPM in the process of citing them). In this case, if I follow correctly, they assert that Kessler's own blog said something; which it did. See ] for mroe. ] <small>]</small> 17:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::No, there's no reference to Kessler's own blog. TPM is asserting (a) that the article history shows a change by a user that appears to be Ronald Kessler (he has confirmed himself as such on the talk page), and (b) that a TPM reporter called Kessler on the phone and interviewed him about making those changes. Item (a) can be verified by checking the article history. The reliability question goes to item (b): Do we believe that TPM's reporter picked up the phone and called Kessler? I think the answer is clearly yes given the general reliability of the ''reporting'' aspects of TPM, as confimed by the Polk Award and NYT story. ] (]) 20:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::For clarification, we are evalutating the reliability of . ] (]) 20:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::This seems a reasonable limitation of ]. In effect, we are using TPM only to confirm that ] is indeed Ronald Kessler, and since he uploaded his own image, asserting that he was indeed RK in the process, this seems small. see ] and its history. ] <small>]</small> 20:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
	←I agree with Blueboar, regretfully. Without some scientific process to gauge how TPM's writing is influenced by the real or perceived needs of their readership, it's hard to know where to draw the line, and we've dealt with that so far by not drawing the line at all. I invite people to join the discussions at about ways to measure how accurate a source is. Generally the discussion there is about ways to implement ], as early as next month, but the same methods could apply to any source, such as TPM. ] requires me to say: I hope we will find a way to better judge our sources at Misplaced Pages, because TV news sucks, and TPM doesn't. The announcer on CBS News on Logo last night said that the number of casualties in Iraq just reached 4000. TPM would never make any one of the many mistakes in that statement: they wouldn't confuse deaths with casualties, or imagine that deaths of contractors, or allies, or enemies, or civilians don't count. - Dan ] (]) 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Visual Novel News sites. ==
	Per the discussion at ], I'm trying to figure out if http://www.visual-news.net can be considered a reliable source with regards to news about the existence of unauthorized translations of various visual novel-style games (like ] and ]). I believe this site to be a reliable (if small and specialized) gaming news site, as opinion seems to be relegated to a separate review section. (Alternatively, would it be appropriate to cite the translator's web site?) — ] (]) 00:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Article subject-provided translation of subject-provided clippings ==
	{{resolved}}
	] is sourced almost exclusively to clippings hosted on the article-subject's site (www.isha.com) of Spanish-language clippings (most of which appear to be from obscure Latin-American glossy magazines -- thus themselves of often murky reliability), with translations into English provided by the subject's website. Can these be considered to be a reliable source within[REDACTED] policy? Does the potential for severe selection bias, due to the fact that the article-subject would generally provide the most favourable clippings, affect this assessment? <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
	In (yet another) wholesale rewrite of this highly-unstable article, all the above-discussed sources have been replaced, rendering this issue moot. The replacements aren't wonderful (Spanish-language magazines) & only infrequently support the material, but that's an issue I can handle on my own. I would therefore like to close by thanking this noticeboard for the deep and detailed insights it offered. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 07:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Google Books ==
	Is it acceptable to cite an otherwise WP:RS-worthy book that you only have access to via Google Books preview? The library the book came from and the date it was scanned are noted in the preview page - should that be included in the cite template somehow? I'm talking about full page previews, of course, not the 'snippet view' that only gives you a few lines. -- ] | ] 18:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Yes, of course. Indeed, if it was not even on Google Books, it would still be usable (unless I am misunderstanding your question). It is not a necessity that other people can view the work on the web, or we would never be able to use scholarly books that aren't fully searchable in HTML. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 18:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Oh, I understand that a book doesn't ''have'' to be available online - I'm wondering if I'm allowed to cite a book that I've never physically held in my hand, but have accessed through Google Books. -- ] | ] 18:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Certainly, as long as you are not taking information out of context--that you have enough pages of the book available to understand the context of the bit you want to use, in order to use it accurately. Cite away! --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 19:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::Great, thanks. -- ] | ] 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Prof. Patricia Jasen ==
	Dr. Patricia Jasen, Professor of History at Lakehead University, in Thunder Bay, Ontario, wrote a paper entitled, ''"Breast Cancer and the Politics of Abortion in the United States."''
	On one hand, the paper contains a considerable amount of useful historical information about research into an hypothesized link between abortion and breast cancer ("ABC"), and numerous citations to other sources, many of which are certainly ].
	But, on the other hand, the paper contains numerous severe inaccuracies, and editorializes strongly for a particular POV: namely that the pro-life movement is characterized by a strategy of violence, and that the supposed ABC link is mainly just a political strategy of right-wing fundamentalist Christian political activists.
	My question is: can such a paper be considered a ] for Misplaced Pages articles?
	Here are some examples of the inaccuracies in the article:
	1) ''"...the coalition was founded with the support of Concerned Women for America, a national right-wing Christian organization <u>which defines itself as</u> anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-feminism and anti-sex education (as well as anti-Harry Potter)..."
	:But that is not at all how CWfA defines or describes itself. It is a misleading caricature, not an honest description. CWfA's <u>actual</u> self-description is , and their measured position on Harry Potter is, "CWA takes the position that parents know what is best for their children. ... Scripture speaks strongly about the occult, so parents should explore the Harry Potter books themselves to decide whether they’re appropriate for their children."
	2) ''"The evangelical leaders Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell gave their support to the violent strategies of such groups as Operation Rescue."''
	:In fact, Operation Rescue has never employed violence, and neither Robertson nor Falwell have ever supported violence.
	3) ''"Conclusion... As the conflict intensified and anti-abortionists replaced violent strategies with a more acceptable “woman-centred” approach, they adopted the “ABC link” as a means of fighting abortion in Congress, state legislatures and courts of law."''
	:Actually, there is no evidence at all that <u>any</u> abortion opponent has ever switched approaches from violence to promoting the ABC link. Although a few pro-lifers have been guilty of violence (and others have been victims of violence by pro-choicers), Jasen's characterization of abortion opponents as having a strategy of violence itself does violence to the truth. Incidents of violence by pro-lifers have always been rare and isolated, and universally condemned & renounced by all the leading pro-life organizations, including even the most radical/hardline organizations, such as Operation Rescue.
	4) ''"in the early 1990s... the anti-abortion campaign had reached a stage in its increasingly violent history when new strategies were needed"''
	:Actually, violence by abortion opponents has always been rare, and had nothing at all to with the ABC issue.
	5) ''"...supporters of direct action rose to prominence , first employing tactics, such as sit-ins, inherited from the tradition of civil disobedience, but moving on by the mid-1980s to clinic break-ins and bombings."''
	:Actually, no one who committed or supported clinic break-ins or bombings has ''ever'' been prominent in the pro-life movement. Not even one person. Jasen just made that up.
	6) ''"Before abortion was legalized, the Roman Catholic hierarchy had been the force behind most of the lobbying but, following Roe v Wade, they were joined by increasingly militant, and increasingly numerous, Protestant fundamentalists dedicated to the anti-abortion cause."''
	:But the "fundamentalist" label is inaccurate. Protestant pro-lifers are mostly evangelicals, but they come from many Christian denominations, not only (or even predominantly) fundamentalists.
	7) ''"...by a majority of Americans had come to accept the right of adults to seek early abortion."''
	:Actually, polls have consistently shown that most Americans think that abortion should be permitted only in special cases, such as rape, health complications to the mother, or fetal abnormality. The poll numbers today are not much different from what they were in 1988. Gallup polled Americans Sep. 25-Oct 1, 1988, and found that 24% supported unrestricted abortion, 57% said abortion should be permitted only in special circumstances, 17% said abortion should always be prohibited, and 2% expressed no opinion. By Jasen's math, 24% is "a majority."
	8) ''"Within a year of the publication of Daling's report, legislation had been passed in two states and proposed in several others, either directing authorities to investigate the cancer link or taking the form of “Women's Right to Know” acts requiring that women be advised of a possible cancer risk."''
	:That makes it sound like the ABC link is the motivation for "Women's Right to Know" laws, but that is not so. Actually, the ABC link is of very minor importance in "Women's Right to Know" / "Informed Consent" laws and bills. These laws and bills always require that a wide variety of information be given to women by abortion clinics prior to an abortion, including information about fetal development, legal rights, alternatives to abortion, available social services, and the medical risks of both abortion and childbirth. Information about the evidence for an ABC link is a very small part of all that, and these laws and bills always require that all information supplied be unbiased and accurate.
	9) This example is less obviously inaccurate, but it is the most insidiously misleading. After describing a study which found an apparent link between abortion and subsequent breast cancer, Jasen wrote,
	::''"interpretation of such figures would also be complicated by the fact that cancer patients who had never had a completed pregnancy were being compared with a control group of parous women."''
	:The reason that is misleading is quite technical, so please bear with me. "Parous" means "having given birth." Jasen's implication is that the appropriate control group to compare with women who have had abortions, when trying to determine whether or not abortion leads to an increased risk of breast cancer, is nonporous women -- i.e., women who have never given birth.
	:That is wrong. The ABC debate is over the relative risks of the two choices available to pregnant women: to give birth or to obtain abortions. That means only parous women should be included in the control group of women who did not obtain abortions. Otherwise you would be comparing apples to oranges: women who had been pregnant to women who had never been pregnant.
	:The reason that is important is that women who never have a full term pregnancy are well known to be at substantially increased risk of breast cancer. In fact, the later in life a woman has her first full-term pregnancy, the greater her risk of subsequent breast cancer. So including nonparous women in the control group, as Jasen implies should be done, is a way of distorting the results to justify understating the increased risk of breast cancer which results from an abortion obtained before a woman's first full-term pregnancy.
	So how does ] apply to a paper like this? ] (]) 01:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Has the paper received any published reviews? --] (]) 01:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	::The paper is certainly reliable for an attributed statement reguarding Prof. Jasen's opinion on the matter. And where her opinion is contested, counter statements expressing the opinions of others can and should be included. But we should note that the good professor is a PHD in ''History'', not a doctor of medicine. For statements of medical fact she is less reliable. Where her opinion is countered by medical experts, I would lean in favor of the medical experts. ] (]) 01:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	:It appears to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and can certainly be used. If there is specific contradictory information in equally reliable sources, they can be contrasted as differences of opinion. However, the personal blog-style "]" you performed above has no relevance to the reliability of the source. In at least one case, you're arguing against your own rather than against the actual paper. &lt;]/]]&gt; 01:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Thank you for improving my vocabulary. (BTW, it's a journal of history, not a scientific journal.) ] (]) 04:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::The paper was published in a respectable, peer-reviewed journal by an academic. NCdave's personal objections to the paper's word choice are not relevant to its usefulness as a source on Misplaced Pages. It's a reliable source, as Misplaced Pages defines the term. The attempt to impeach the source as a whole based on editorial arguments and semantic hairsplitting isn't appropriate. I'm sure you can imagine the result if we allow editors to discard reliable sources because ]. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 21:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Documentary ==
	I have a documentary, composed of interviews from published academics and experts, and a little bit of filler material in between. Is this a reliable source? I can list out and name all the experts interviewed, and what they published.
	I've been told this isn't good enough because the producer of the documentary isn't an academic. ] | ] 03:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	:If you want to quote what the ''academics'' have directly said during the interviews, it would be acceptable as a reliable source; however other details may not be used. If there is an online link to the documentary, it would be useful to provide that as well. --] (]) 05:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	::I did quote what the academics said...but have been told I can't use this as a source because the citation format cites the documentary and not every academic individually. And there is a link to it, but I was still told it isn't good enough. Not only that, the article lost featured status because one person (the FAR closer) decided that the documentary wasn't a reliable source, but never gave me a chance to fix the cites (no one else has an issue with the source, the FAR was for other things, and that wasn't even brought up). This seems a bit extreme to me, but I suspect because of the content, the decision was biased. ] | ] 08:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::When citing the documentary, I think you should mention the relevant minutes (e.g. min 15-18). This makes it completely verifiable. Otherwise, it seems clear to me that there is no legitimate ground for removing the quotes. --] (]) 08:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::You know his exact words were that it was an unreliable source and that that wasn't even "debateable." Its verifiable as it is...anyone can get the documentary and watch it. I have to say that after the way this has been handled, I don't much feel like spending more time trying to improve the project only to have one person's ignorance turn it all to waste. All the crappy drama here doesn't bother me, but this just makes me want to quit. ] | ] 09:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::What is the name of the article? Can you please provide a link to the FAR? You might also want to notify the FAR closer regarding the discussion here.--] (]) 19:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::He insists it isn't a reliable source. You can see for yourself on my talk page. A link to the source is here: http://imdb.com/title/tt0498445/ listing all the cast, (note the Dr. titles). I think because this deals with pornography he can't conceive that people involved in it are sources. The FAR was hugely messy...it was a content debate, none of which even applies to how it was closed. Link to that is here ...see the closing though...that's the important thing. ] | ] 04:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Link on amazon with review by seattle times movie critic: and describing the film makers here "They are also the makers of the world-class documentary series Pornography: The Secret History of Civilization (C4 and HBO)" you can note that it was made for Britian's Channel 4 and also broadcast on HBO. Here you can see that they are documentary filmmakers of some repute...having won multiple awards for their documentaries, giving them a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. ] | ] 05:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::And here we have an abstract from a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL that uses it as a source. "Museum and society was launched in March 2003 as an independent peer reviewed journal which brings together new writing by academics and museum professionals on the subject of museums. It is both international in scope and at the cutting edge of empirical and theoretical research on museums. museum and society is edited by Gordon Fyfe (Keele University), Kevin Hetherington (Open University) and Susan Pearce (University of Leicester)."] | ] 05:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::And here another academic who quotes it . ] | ] 05:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	Seriously...some help here people? I am not on crack. ] | ] 05:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Here - it is used as a source again and discussed in a peer reviewed journal "One local expression of this new-found prominence of previously illicit sexual material on mass market television in Britian has been the Channel Four television series "Pornography: the secret history of civilization" This series is remarkable for its portrayal of professional pornographers as a visionary vanguard involved in the championing and expansion of popular taste (against the obstacles put in their way simply by puritanical and prejudiced social forces.)" ] | ] 06:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	Having looked at the links you provided, including the fact that the series aired on ] and is referenced (approvingly) in academic literature, I agree that the documentary qualifies as a reliable source for wikipedia, but may need to be used with care. Here are my comments and suggestions:
	* The documentary may be presenting a POV (''"series is remarkable for its portrayal of professional pornographers as a visionary vanguard"''), so its content should be attributed and not stated as fact (depending of course on what exactly is being referenced).
	* Similarly, if the documentary contains interviews with scholars, the scholar should be cited by name in the article, either in the maintext or the footnote (using Harvard referencing may help here). Something like, "Prof. xyz in Rodley et al (2006a)" with 2006a-> Segment 1 etc
	* It may be a good idea to create a[REDACTED] article on the documentary and then wikilink to that page, rather than the page of the publishers. That way the reader knows why he should trust the information attributed to the documentary.
	* Are there other examples on[REDACTED] where a TV documentary series is used as a reference ? I can imagine ]'s ''Cosmos'', ]'s ''Power of Myth'' or the many ]'s series being used as sources. All those series have associated print publications, but it may still be a good idea to look if and how the documentaries themselves are referenced.
	Please note that I haven't seen the doc. myself, so some of the above comments are based on a guesstimation of its content (I am imagining a series of interviews; snippets from historical works; and a voiceover). Anyway, I hope that helps. ] (]) 02:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Yes, that's pretty much what it is. Thanks for the input. It was never used to back up opinions on professional pornographers and such as that isn't what the article it is used in is about, just used to cite the facts extracted from the academic interviews. ] | ] 05:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Masculinity for Boys ==
	An editor is particularly keen to use this document . in a number of articles related to sexuality. The booklet is entitled "Masculinity for Boys, Resource Guide for Peer Educators, Published by UNESCO, New Delhi, 2006". As this indicates it is published through UNESCO, but the second page clearly states, "The opinion expressed in this documents are the reponsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of UNESCO New Delhi".
	The text of this document is full of grand ''ex cathedra'' assertions. For example:
	:"The masculinity with which boys are born is natural masculinity. This is given by nature. However society has created a mechanism by which it does not acknowledge this masculinity."
	:"modern heterosexual societies take sexual exploitation of men to new heights - often with official sanction. Grown up boys and young men in the west are required to strip naked before female doctors, nurses and officials"
	:"Now ragging in the West almost always involve boys being forcibly stripped by girls (with the backing of male seniors) or being forced to masturbate in front of them".
	I could add more passages, which seem to me to be very...eccentric. The general argument seems to be that it is natural for men to bond with other men, and to sexually desire them, but that the western distinction between "gay" and "straight" identity causes confusion for boys, who are also being sexually humiliated by over-assertive women, who are given power by this "heterosexualised" culture. In India traditional models of gender and sexual behaviour do not involve these problems, but India is being tainted by Western ideas.
	However, my personal opinion of course is not a good reason to reject a source which has at least some claim to authoritative status via UNESCO. Any thoughts on how to evaluate this source? ] (]) 19:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	::If its not a position paper by UNESCO Delhi, it doesn't have the UNESCO stamp. I don't see an author's name, so its totally unreliable. It doesn't appear particularly well-researched to me either. ] (]) 20:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
	::: Given the prominent UNESCO disclaimer and unknown authorship, I don't see how this document can be regarded as a reliable source for the subject. A little web sleuthing ''suggests'' that it was written by Alok Srivastava of "Youth Alliance for AIDS removal" (YAAR, an Indian NGO), but even if that proves to be true, it does not help in establishing the documents reliability. I think its use on[REDACTED] in not warranted especially since innumerable scholarly books and articles are available on the subject. ] (]) 21:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
	*I would strongly avoid use of this document because (1) the author is anonymous, (2) the publisher disclaims endorsement of the views expressed therein, and (3) its claims are contentious. --] ] 07:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	An organisation like UNESCO doesn't just publish anything. If it has given its name to a document, and has published it using its own money, and is using the book in several of its programmes, and has gone out of its way to advertise the book on its websites as well put the entire text out on the net on its own website -- it is not an honour that it gives to many of its documents -- then it would be foolish or outright questionable to question its reliability.
	Several UNESCO websites claim quite clearly that "The publication has been brought out jointly by UNESCO New Delhi and YAAR (a New Delhi based NGO working with youth), which deals with the issues of gender and sexual health of youth of India." Do you think UNESCO would give its name just to any document and risk its credibility. I would say, if UNESCO has given its name to something, then even if its seems an outright lie, one has to take it seriously.
	Then again, its a general policy to put a note on books published by UNESCO that the views expressed in the document are of the author(s), even then the above fact holds true that if UNESCO Delhi didn't trust fully that the contents are 100% true, they won't publish it without at least editing out the doubtful points. (] (]) 16:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
	The document clearly states that the book is the result of a series of Consultations held with young people. It cannot be relegated to the opinion of one or two authors. UNESCO doesn't usually pay for publishing personal views or ideologies of people, especially if they are disconnected with reality.(] (]) 16:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
	The above mentioned book is being used extensively not only by UNESCO and UNIFEM in their various projects, at least in India, but also by several other social intervention agencies, including Jagori, SAATHI, YAARI-DOSTI etc. The Hindi version of this book called, "Mardanagi, purushon ke liye ek Margdarshak" is being used widely as well. (] (]) 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
	The group YAAR has been working with men on the issues of gender and sexuality for several years with important agencies such as UNESCO, Government of India, Government of Netherlands, Various state governments in India, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and several national and local level agencies of repute in India. The organisation has a grasp on the core issues and has a respectable position amongst NGOs in India. It has presented several papers in national and international conferences (including on this issue of sexual identities vis-a-vis men) and several of these abstracts are available on the net (e.g. http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102241127.html
	Addressing the issues of male-to-male sexuality in India)
	Its work has been acknowledged by several documentations, even on the net, e.g. by this one entitled:
	“Oh! This one is infected!”: Women, HIV & Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific Region.
	Paper commissioned by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, from ICW 2004
	By Susan Paxton, with Alice Welbourn, P Kousalya, Anandi Yuvaraj, Sapana Pradhan Malla and Motoko Seko.
	Excerpt:
	"Examples such as the YAAR project, working with young men in schools in Delhi to explore gender and sexuality issues, should be more widely disseminated."
	Its members have been invited to present papers at international conferences and even to facilitate workshops on gender and sexuality issues. E.g., K.Vidya from YAAR was invited to South Africa conference of IPAS to facilitate a workshop on Gender. http://www.iwtc.org/ideas/9a_gender.pdf.
	In fact, one report on a set of workshops conducted on male gender and sexuality with adolescent boys in Delhi received world-wide publicity and is today stored in several universities and libraries all across the world. It can be read at this site of UNIFEM:
	www.unifem.org/campaigns/csw/documents/MenAndMasculinities.pdf
	(] (]) 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
	It's true that the book isn't about anthropological study or a scholarly research. However, it doesn't become invalid because of that. In fact, there are limits/ gaps of scholarly researches, which can only be filled by action researches such as those conducted by intervention agencies working at the grassroots level. The scholarly researches are severely limited because of several factors, and may be too much quantity oriented -- meaning concerned largely with statistics (like the Shivananda Khan's study that says 72% truck drivers in north pakistan have had sex with other men). However, the researches/ evidences presented by intervention agencies working at the grassroots level can be extremely important, since they have a reach where scholars cannot go. And this is where the UNESCO document is extremely important -- for its empirical evidence, which is invaluable. So stop questioning the validity of the document.(] (]) 16:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
	And then, its not as if this document is the only one I've used ... or even the primary one. Whatever is being quoted from this document in the article, has been validated by several other references (provided here) -- including anthropological studies, newspaper and other articles, published papers in reputed international conferences/ universities, etc. The UNESCO document is unique only because its gives the 'qualitative' picture or the 'EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE' of the stuff that all the other scholarly references have clearly enumerated, but more as quantitative data. (] (]) 16:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
	:: to say it's not a reliable source is an understatement - it should be removed on sight. --] (]) 17:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::I hope this is not a personal discomfort with the book? By the way, unsigned remarks don't count.(] (]) 03:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC))
	:::: No it's professional discomfort - I'm a academic and it offends me to see such crap used as a source here, it fit for toilet paper and that's about it. Don't attack me as a person again or I'll move to have you blocked. --] (]) 11:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Please keep your professional issues with yourself. I'm afraid, we're here as just editors helping out Misplaced Pages. You've no right to question a source like UNESCO. You can discredit this UNESCO document academically, and then discredit it here. I doubt you will be able to do that, since this document does not claim to be an academic work and thus is not bound by academic rules. What this book does claim, is to be based on years of social work, actual ground level work with youths of India on gender and sexual health issues, and bring to us enormous wealth of empirical data, which has also been valued in the academic circles. (] (]) 05:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC))
	:: Oh and it's massively overcited in article - that needs some major clean-up.
	I don't see the issue here. It is commonplace to have that disclaimer. It clearly is a UNESCO paper. And while there are many scattered Anthropological studies easily accessed by a google search, the field of anthropology itself admits to having lagged behind in their studies of this topic and that it has become an issue within that community to remedy that. No one anthropological study has put it all together in one document as has UNESCO. I can't help but wonder what is so threatening about this information to have it undergo so much undo scrutiny. ] (]) 05:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	:It does not "put it all together in one document as has UNESCO". What 'anthropological research' states that in 'the West' men are 'almost always' forced to masturbate in front of girls during 'ragging'? It is unreferenced drivel, and profoundly misogynistic drivel at that. Nothing is more vivid in this document than its author's pathological fear of women. Serious sources - of which there are indeed many - say nothing like this. ] (]) 11:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	:: leaving aside the fact that it's dire - no author is identified, no sources are presented within the document - it's unreliable by our standards. What about it says "anthropology study" rather than "ravings of a crackpot" to you DezNChris? --] (]) 11:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Again. No bibliography; prominent disclaimer; un-named author = not reliable. ] (]) 13:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::UNESCO is all the name you need. Besides, Alok Srivastava of YAAR NGO has been listed as the main author.(] (]) 05:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC))
	::This guy has massive WP:OWN issues that need to be dealt with - he's seems intent on just reverting anyone who tries to clean-up articles that contain that document (and other unreliable sources). --] (]) 18:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::The final word hasn't been said yet, so don't be in a hurry. You can't just dismiss a UN document. I think, first we should wait for more people to comment and then the issue may have to be referred to administrators. (] (]) 02:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC))
	::The book doesn't claim to be based on anthropological research. The book is based on action research. Apart from the ground situation in India, it also talks about the perceptions amongst the male youth regarding different issues of masculinity. Ragging is known as hazing in the West, and it is not uncommon for guys to be made to masturbate in front of girls. There have been several such cases in India recently, as our society is heterosexualised and hostels made common for girls and boys. There are several evidences (not researches but personal accounts and pics) available on the net for that. The idea is totally against the Indian ethos, and so the anger of Indians to a forced Western practice is understandable.
	However, the merit of the book is about the various case studies that it has presented, and the empirical evidences. I am only quoting the document for facts for which other resources (e.g. anthropological studies) are available. It gives a much more detailed and empirical information about those issues.
	Besides, like I said, the editors here are not supposed to review a book for its validity as a reference. That is dangerous. We have to go by the rules. And as per the rules, UNESCO is a valid source. Whether or not we agree with the information.
	It works both ways, I have to withhold or delete a lot of information that some aggressive elements in LGBT don't personally like, eventhough it is common knowledge across the non-West, just because no references from reputed sources was available. But, when they're available, you can't dismiss it because you don't agree with the content.(] (]) 02:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC))
	:We're still on this? ''Masculinity for boys'' appears to be very idiosyncratic. It cannot be considered a reliable source. If other sources can be cited for points currently sourced by ''Masculinity for boys'', those sources should be swapped in. Otherwise those points are effectively unsourced and should probably be removed.
	:It would be interesting if there were some scholarly evaluation of this document as representing the views of a particular culture, but as presented it appears to be the ambitious opinion of a single author. UNESCO Delhi funded this, but gives no evidence of peer review or oversight, even an editor's name. What would be (to use ]'s term) "dangerous" would be to accept ''Masculinity for boys'' as a reliable source. / ]<small> ] ]</small> 02:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Masculinity is convinced that there is an International Gay Conspiracy, which is really, to confuse matters more, an unwitting part of a wider "heterosexual" conspiracy to construct rigid separation of gay and straight identities in both Western and non-Western cultures. It is therefore 'dangerous' for those who promote this ideology on Misplaced Pages to have this fact revealed. Supporters of this gay/hetero ideology therefore have to 'suppress' the evidence. In fact there are many genuinely good sources that do discuss the legitimate aspects of the issues to which he is referring, but in a balanced and measured way, without resorting to wild hypoerbole and conspiracy theory. We have already included these ] and it would be good to be able to progress on this without having efforts at NPOV destroyed by the promotion of fringe theories. I wonder if this issue would be worth raising on the Fringe Theories noticeboard? ] (]) 09:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Edg, again, we as editors are not supposed to give our own opinions about the references if they come from a valid source. If the cultural values of others seem idiosyncratic to you -- and if these 'idiosyncracies' are being given a place in a UNESCO publication, and is widely being used in a specific culture, then you have to give repect to it, and live with that 'idiosyncracy', till you discredit it using a valid platform. Misplaced Pages is not a valid platform to discredit a UN document.
	::Also, this is not an academic work, so there is very little academicians can do to discredit this. You don't need peer-review of books in this field. Your credibility is judged by the platform that supports you, and agencies that use your work, and this book is doing excellent on those counts. This is based on action research and social work, and only through this platform can this book be discredit, which is almost impossible, because this book is based on solid ground level facts.
	Then again, there are numerous other sources provided for things quoted from this book, which are scholarly works, the references from this book are only used as empirical evidence to back up those more academic sources, which I guess is perfectly valid. There might have been an issue, if this was the only source used, and things claimed in this book were countered by other scholarly references or even unsubstantiated by them, which is not the case. Whatever is said in the quotes taken from this book has been reverberated by several other important academic works.
	(] (]) 05:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC))
	:::If it's not already obvious, I should point out that 124.30.94.10 is ], not a separate editor. ] (]) 09:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Tend to agree with the above. --] (]) 03:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Paul, your personal vendatta against the book is clear from the your baseless accusations against the book/ author. Had the author been misogynic, UNIFEM would not have included his book or his name on their website, nor would they use it in multitudes of programmes they conduct with men.(] (]) 05:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC))
	Is this still being argued ?! Lets compare how this report compares to an unarguably reliable publication from UNESCO.
	{| class="wikitable"
	!
	!
	!
	|-
	| '''Disclaimer'''
	| "The opinion expressed in this documents are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of UNESCO New Delhi"
	| "The analysis and policy recommendations of this Report do not necessarily reflect the views of UNESCO. The Report is an independent publication commissioned by UNESCO on behalf of the international community. It is the product of a collaborative effort involving members of the Report Team and many other people, agencies, institutions and governments. '''''Overall responsibility for the views and opinions expressed in the Report is taken by its Director'''''." (emphasis added)
	|-
	| '''Authorship'''
	| align="center"|???
	| with acknowledged qualifications and expertise in the field.
	|-
	| '''Peer review, or editorial oversight'''
	| align="center"|???
	| from UN multilateral agencies, bilateral agencies, non-governmental organizations, civil society groups and networks, individuals from developing countries with an '''''expertise in basic education issues''''', and directors of UNESCO institutes. (emphasis added)
	|-
	| '''Bibliography'''
	| align="center"|None
	| align="center"|600+ citations
	|}
	Hope this establishes what a reliable '''''publication''''' from UNESCO looks like, and curtails further arguments along the lines, "UNESCO is a reliable '''''source'''''" . Clearly these two reports represent two extremes on the reliability scale, and as is the consensus of all uninvolved editors above, the "Masculinity" report fails wikipedia's ] guidelines and is not an acceptable source for[REDACTED] (and that judgement is independent of the ] issues raised by its content). ] (]) 06:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Citing on-line EB as a source ==
	I was under the impression that WP was generally trying to avoid citing to on-line EB as a source - otherwise WP simply becomes "EB lite," and editors will not do the real work of finding and citing primary and secondary sources. Is there a guideline/policy that addresses this question?
	Second, on-line EB is paid, and I was under the impression that WP was steering away from paid sites. Again, any guidelines/policies on this topic? Thx! ] (]) 21:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Having to pay is not an issue. As for our generally avoiding citing other tertiary sources such as the EB? yes... as a broad general concept we prefer to cite secondary sources. But it is understood that there are times when the best source is a tertiary one. So... while citing to the EB is discouraged, it isn't prohibited. ] (]) 23:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	Thanks - is there a WP policy/guideline somewhere that sets out that tertiary sources are to be avoided if primary or secondary sources are available? ] (]) 23:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	: See ] (although the current version does not seem to have any recommendations against tertiary sources). ] (]) 01:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Does EB still publish a paper version? There are certainly plenty of (older) paper editions of it in public libraries. -- ] (]) 00:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	== ] on qumsiyeh.org ==
	Is ] and his personal website http://qumsiyeh.org a reliable source? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	:He is an activist a board member in the "Association for One Democratic State in Israel/Palestine" which is a political advocy group who work to undermine Israel's ] ] (]) 10:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Or, of course, he is a tenured scientist at Yale who happened to write a book praising a ] to the Israeli-Palestinian issue apparently favoured by a fifth of Israeli citizens. Whatever. Either way, not a particularly notable figure for this problem, though his website claims he has written "over 30 op-eds" on the issue, and his book was published by a ], though one with a distinct "socialist" POV. Quotable whenever that particular POV needs to be expressed, I suppose. For facts, not so much. ] (]) 20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::No way.
	1) he was never tenured at Yale, he was merely on the clinical research faculty
	2) he was fired, for sending racist political messages over his Yale email
	3) he was a professor of genetics, which gives him no authority on foreigh affairs
	4) several of his op-eds were followed by published corrections on the editorial pages that ran the op-eds, because his facts on palestine are bad ] (]) 15:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio
	:Unless you cite all that except 3, I'll have to redact it from this page per ]. ] (]) 18:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	:: How about for (1) and (3) (Associate Professors are not tenured at Yale)? (2) and (4) may have some basis . ] (]) 19:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	:: Addendum: "racist" seems to be charges of Anti-Semitism in a campus brouhaha . ] (]) 19:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	:(ec)Associate Professors can be tenured at Yale. See . Whether or not he is, I don't know, though he might very well not be. (Update: according to the Herald, he wasn't at the time of the brouhaha.)
	:About the Yale Herald report, he sent "an e-mail to a Yale anti-war group listing the membership roster of the Yale Friends for Israel and labeling it a pro-war cabal." If that's a racist political message.... *Sigh*. People seem to think that if they use words like "racist" to describe things like that its OK with our policies. Whatever. Since this page now has the actual facts on it, I don't need to redact American Clio's edit, ] is ] with him/her. (Note 4 is still open.) ] (]) 19:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	:documenting the corrections newspapers have had to print after publishing a Mazin Qumsiyeh op-ed. http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=22&x_article=1019] (]) 20:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio
	:There was another flap about Qumsiyeh's bad facts. Here Professor Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum , calls Qunsiyeh's writing anti-Semitic :
	Anti-Israel Screed in Official Magazine of Davos Forum
	Update: The head of Davos apologized and indicated that the viewpoints in the article were contrary to Forum's mission and values. More
	_________________________________________
	New York, NY, January 25, 2006 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today condemned the publication of an outrageous anti-Israel screed that appeared in the official magazine of the World Economic Forum in Davos, and urged the organization not to give legitimacy to such extremist approaches in the future.
	The article, "Boycott Israel" by Mazin Qumsiyeh, an extremist anti-Israel activist, appeared in the current issue of Global Agenda, the official magazine of the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Qumsiyeh is the head of Al Awda, an organization that supports terrorism and advocates for the abolition of Israel.
	"The article is full of outright false statements about Israel, Zionism and Israeli policy towards the Palestinians and crucial omissions regarding the situation on the ground, Palestinian attitudes and actions, and Israeli public support of Palestinian statehood," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "Moreover, it is permeated with anti-Semitic insinuations of Jewish craftiness, control of the media and American and international policymaking."
	In a letter to Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, ADL called positions presented by Qumsiyeh, "…well beyond the scope of acceptable discourse."
	"We find it hard to believe that Global Agenda would include an article calling for the dismantlement of the United States, or that the Davos meeting would convene a panel questioning the legitimacy of Egypt, Venezuela, or France," Mr. Foxman said. "Yet, Mr. Qumsiyeh's denial of the State of Israel's right to exist and his appeal for international actions to counter the state and Zionism – bald calls for the elimination of Israel – are given legitimacy through the imprimatur of the World Economic Forum."
	http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4852_62.htm] (]) 20:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio
	*The Yale e-mail incident, acccording to the Yale Herald:
	Sat., May 24, 2003, Mazin Qumsiyeh, an associate pro fessor of genetics at Yale, sparked a controversy that is still raging.
			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/
	GETTY IMAGES
	Qumsiyeh's email puported to show an overlap in student membership in a group which the war in Iraq and one which supports Israel.
	After many students had already left for the summer, Qumsiyeh sent an email to all Yale Coalition Peace (YCP) members, an anti-war group, in which he linked Jewish support of Israel with support for the then current war in Iraq.
	In the email, Qumsiyeh wrote that "the U.S. occupation of Iraq illegal and immoral (sic)" and that the YCP should "continue to challenge the hegemony of the U.S. on the Arab world." Although such opinions are certainly acceptable and even welcomed at a university that encourages the exchange of ideas, Qumsiyeh closed his email with a chilling statement: "I include here the list of members of Yale Students 'for Democracy,' the pro war cabal . . . I think you will find the list informative. Note that there is significant overlap of this list with the 'Yale Friends of Israel' listserve."
	Qumsiyeh then listed the Yale email addresses of 64 students, which contained students' full names, whom he claimed belonged to Yale College Students for Democracy (YCSD), a group that supported the war in Iraq.
	However, the people he listed belonged not to YCSD, but to the Yale Friends of Israel (YFI) itself.
	http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=2377
	the articl econtinues. The reason why this was widely viewed as an expression of anti-Semitisam is that Qunsiyeh accused Jewish students who belongec to a pro-Israel group of being automatically pro-Iraq War.
	But, Anti-Semitic or not , it certainly demonstrates the Qumsiyeh plays fast and loose tithe fatcs and evidence.] (]) 21:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio
	:Relax, it was decided long ago that he wouldn't be used for facts.
	:Meanwhile, CAMERA again. I suppose them being all over ] is unsurprising. I'm beginning to think that 90% of our problems would go away if we just banned all these damn quotefarms and advocacy sources, all these op-eds and opinions and articles based on "controversial" terms. I'm sure its beginning to bore everyone to have to make the same comments about the same type of sources all the time. So: listen up people dealing with Israel/Palestine/Islamophobia/Anti-semitism: CAMERA, MEMRI, CAIR, PalestineMediaWatch, Electronic Intifada, '''are all unwelcome''' as sources, OK? Any articles structured around their quotefarms are likely to have major, unfixable POV problems so '''nobody do that either''', OK? Not to mention that they are '''unreliable sources even for quotations''', OK? And just because I've left Abraham Foxman and Juan Cole and Robert Spencer and suchlike others out '''that doesn't mean that you can add their random opinions either'''. Nobody here should care what various partisan hacks think, because they're completely unencyclopaedic, they're advocates, not analysts, and '''nobody will care what they thought a hundred years from now'''. Is everyone now clear on this? ] (]) 23:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	:The CAMERA article collects instances where newspapers that have run Qumseyah's op-eds have aubsequently run corrections of bad facts cited by Qumsiyeh. ] (]) 11:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio
	::And '''nobody is suggesting we use him for facts!''' But meanwhile, can everyone just '''lay off quoting CAMERA, who are as unreliable as everyone else, plus they're using us to host their theories and quotefarms!''' (Note - minus the CoI this applies to all the other advocacy sources mentioned above and elsewhere on this page and the archives. The reason they are here all the time is '''that they are all crap.''' ] (]) 12:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	== ] or www.blackcommentator.com ==
	Are ] or www.blackcommentator.com reliable sources regarding Israel? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Hmm... I don't know about reliability... but my Norton anti-virus flags it as a potential scam site (in fact, including a link to it made Norton flag ''this'' page as a potential scam... removing the "http:" prefix seems to fix that problem). For this reason, we should probably disallow it. ] (]) 13:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Dunno about reliability, either, but it's a site for advocacy of afro-american rights, so it will be very biased and POV when treating those topics --] (]) 14:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::It is clearly advocay site of more than just one subject. ] (]) 16:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::Oooops, you are right, I misread their "about us" page. Well, anyways, it makes no claims for fact checking, only for advocacy, so it still wouldn't be reliable --] (]) 18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
	That's an interesting question you've raised, Jay, but it has no bearing on the dispute which you are presumably referring to. The original wording, over at ] was, "Some critics who use the analogy extend it to include Arab citizens of Israel," citing Dixon as one such critic. The current wording is, "Several critics, including Bruce Dixon." Thus, it is not a question of whether Dixon is a reliable source for facts on Israel, but of whether he's a critic who uses the apartheid analogy wrt Arab-Israelis, which of course he is. And the source in question was a reprint of the Dixon article on the much better known and respected Electronic Intifada, the largest Palestinian news site which the ] calls the "Palestinian CNN," rather than the obscure www.blackcommentator.com - you kept editing EI out and blackcommentator in. This posting is typical ]-ing behavior, I'm afraid, of the sort which has plagued AoIA for ]. &lt;]/]]&gt; 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:On the contrary, Eleland, it's quite relevant. If a "critic" is non-notable or non-reliable then we don't quote him or use him as a reference, it doesn't mean we throw ] out the window. Why on earth would we care what ]'s opinions are regarding Israel? I'm sure you could find a thousand blogs that say all sorts of negative stuff about Israel, but they don't go in the lead of Misplaced Pages articles - or are you now proposing that we can also use ] as a source for the lead of the article? After all, he too says "It is racial Apartheid, in fact, far more draconian than the Apartheid of South Africa, for at least the Blacks were given in theory the right to self-rule in their own homelands." (see www.davidduke.com/general/the-hypocrisy-of-jewish-supremacism_12.html) As for Electronic Intifada, that's the site the ] calls a "cyberpropaganda" site which "may contribute to a better understanding of the Palestinian cause," but "is too biased to be of much use to mainstream publications" - it is ''not'' a "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." There are a couple of "good enough" sources for the purposes of the claim in the lead already, adding inappropriate sources really doesn't help. And your posting is the typical ]-ing and policy abusing behavior, I'm afraid, of the sort which has plagued AoIA for ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Let me get this straight: you're comparing one of the longest-term critics of the DLC and former colleague of Barack Obama's to ''David Duke''? ] (]) 07:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::I have no idea who Bruce Dixon is, that's why I brought him to this board. Is he notable? Is he a reliable source? What's your view? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::I don't think he's a reliable source, though he may be a valuable opinion for a particular sort of of thinking. But the point is that if you compare people about whom you know nothing to neo-Nazis reflexively, nobody is likely to take you very seriously. ] (]) 08:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Good thing I don't "reflexively compare people about whom you know nothing to neo-Nazis" then, isn't it? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Wait, David Duke isn't a neo-Nazi now? ] (]) 23:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Well, if you want to exclude all "cyperpropaganda sites" from Isr-Pal articles, it's an interesting proposal. But clearly this is not what you're proposing.
	::Nobody is claiming that EI is a reliable source for contentious claims of ''fact''. We want to include its ''attributed commentary''. The JPost reviewer praised EI. The JTA reviewer criticized it while acknowledging that it is useful for understanding the Palestinian cause. Lots of sources are criticized by other sources, often in much harsher terms than the JTA used. For example, the editor-in-chief of Ha'aretz dismisses CAMERA as a "McCarthyite" group issuing "tendentious statements and comments" not worth responding to. Yet you're currently ] built solely around one article from CAMERA, and you've never argued to delete citations to MEMRI, JewishVirtualLibrary, etc. This is ] ''par excellence'', and your lamebrained mimicry and ''non sequitors'' about David Duke don't change that. &lt;]/]]&gt; 11:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::You are making a distinction that is nowhere reflected in actual policy; if a source is not reliable, then we can't use it, even for opinion. For example, an editor argues that we can use Stormfront as a source, not for fact, but merely for their own opinion regarding the race of ancient Egyptians. However, as a number of other editors later pointed out to him, if a source is unreliable, then we don't quote its opinions (outside, perhaps, its own article). Misplaced Pages doesn't reproduce the opinions of non-notable, non-reliable sources - or at least it shouldn't. Also, the source for this claim really is Bruce Dixon, not Electronic Intifada, but in any event, are either noted for third party fact checking? Regarding the Ouze Merham article, the last time I added a source to the article it was the ]. And, in my personal experience, Electronic Intifada is significantly less reliable than CAMERA, but that's just my personal experience. Regarding MEMRI, you keep claiming they're particularly unreliable, but you have As for the Jewish Virtual Library as a source, I don't know why you're bringing it up - I don't recall having any discussions about it recently. In any event, people can certainly disagree about the relative reliability of sources (obviously no source is 100% reliable 100% of the time, while even a stopped clock is correct twice a day), but there's hardly a need for this vitriol and rancor about it. Finally, if you don't want to have your own words fed back to you, I'll make you a deal; stick to discussing whether or not sources are reliable (which is the purpose of this board), instead of insulting other editors, and I won't mirror your words back to you. Fair enough? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::IS there somewhere where I can !vote in favour of Jay's proposed exclusion of all cyberpropaganda sites? ] (]) 12:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::What is the term used to describe falsely attributing a proposal to someone who hasn't actually made that proposal? I believe it's trolling, isn't it? In any event, if you are indeed keen on removing all cyberpropaganda sites, here are several hundred articles you can start on: ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::No, Jay, its called a "joke" in this context. Look up the word if unfamiliar with it. <small>That was also a joke.</small> And believe me, I remove CounterPunch wherever I find it unless it is hosting an article by an avowed expert. (Though I don't see how it is cyberpropaganda, merely biased. Also the difference between MEMRI/CAMERA and WorldNetDaily.) May I point out that accusations of trolling and diverting attention from the subject in this manner are not generally considered good practice, to put it mildly. ] (]) 08:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I wasn't "diverting attention from the subject; if anything, your proposal to "!vote in favour of Jay's proposed exclusion of all cyberpropaganda sites" was. And of course, my reference to "trolling" was a "joke" in this context, exactly as your statement was - and just as funny! ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	== FromOccupiedPalestine.org ==
	Is http://FromOccupiedPalestine.org a reliable source? It appears to be someone's personal website. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
	:this is a blog by http://jonelmer.ca/bio. ] (]) 10:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
	::It seems to serve as a repository for newspaper articles, most of which are reliable sources.
	::That being said, we can't link to it under ]. ] (]) 20:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::I agree. That said, editors might be able to mine it as a source of citations (but referencing them to the original publication, not to this website). -- ] (]) 23:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::Only if they read them from the original source; there's no guarantee the material on this blog is unedited. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Good point; it might be useful in pointing to reports on newspapers' websites, but any quotes should come from the original newspapers, not from the copies on this blog. -- ] (]) 00:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Singh ==
	In article Singh one user name ] is making up names and Not providing Refs for Claims. User does not seem to be educated in that field and is making up names. see Rajputs used Kumar and Kumari and that Gurkhaboy is Making up Names like Kunwarani which does not make any sense and not related at all. --] (]) 03:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
	*It would probably be better to discuss this on the article's talk page at ]. This noticeboard is for judging whether certain sources are reliable enough to use as references. But if no reference is provided, there is nothing to judge. All editors involved with the article should be expected to provide references for the claims they insert into the article. --] ] 08:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Rotten.com ==
	I'm looking for some feedback about rotten.com, specifically its section, regarding whether it's a reliable source.
	It seems to me that this falls under the category of self-published websites. While the site is reasonably popular and has been mentioned in various newspaper articles, the library articles are written by an unknown person and there is no evidence of or reputation of fact checking and such. A question: how exactly do we go about distinguising between a popular website which is not considered reliable, and one which is? (Such as slate.com) --] (]) 17:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
	:If it's for a "pundit" reference or external link for some pop-culture topic, that's one thing. But not for BLP articles. Which article was this in reference to? ] (]) 02:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Any article, actually. I've removed the rotten.com references from about 50 articles. If it's basically nothing more than a self-published website, then it isn't acceptable as a reference for any article, other than ] itself. Or so I believe. If a rotten.com webpage says "Ronald Reagan liked to wear green socks", why is this any more reliable than if I put up a geocities webpage claiming the same thing? --] (]) 10:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::I don't believe Rotten.com is self-published. While citing Rotten is not the same as citing the ''Wall Street Journal'', I feel that it is appropriate to use in some areas. For example, the "teabagging" article cited both a book and Rotten to back up some punditry about teabagging happening in some movie. The book was citation enough, but the Rotten article seemed to function as a "footnoted external link" providing additional perspective on the topic. ] (]) 23:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::Actually, Murdoch fired all the people at WSJ who knew what they were doing, so WSJ has more in common with Rotten.com than it used to. - Dan ] (]) 18:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::If Rotten.com is not self-published, then who publishes it? From what I can see it is particularly unreliable. Regarding Slate.com, is an indication as to its reliability and editorial stance. Now, what do we know about the editors of Rotten.com? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::According to our article on it, it's published by "Soylent Communications". At any rate, it appears to be a "them", not a single author. That said, it might not be reliable on every topic, but if all you want to use it for is snarky comments about a movie, i.e. "The humorist website Rotten.com characterized ''Rochelle, Rochelle'' as 'X, Y, Z'", I don't see a problem with that. It's like citing ''MAD Magazine'' as a source. ] (]) 03:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::No, in this case, there doesn't appear to be any semblance of reliability or editorial oversight - to the extent that we don't even know the name of the author or authors. ] is not a publisher, it's a web-hosting service - and it too is completely anonymous, leading back to a Post Office box. Your comparison to '']'' is not apt; we know exactly who publishes ''Mad'', who the editors are, who the writers and illustrators are - in fact, most of them are fairly famous, with their own often lengthy Misplaced Pages articles. Rotten.com is essentially an anonymous personal website, practically the worst kind of source imaginable; it should not be quoted anywhere except in the article about Rotten.com, and even then with extreme caution. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::From the article on Soylent, "It is also the hub of several websites maintained by the company." It sounds like they are more involved with the content than simply hosting the web site. I also don't believe there's anything wrong with having anonymous or pseudonymous authors. ] (]) 04:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::It "sounds like" they are more involved with the content than simply hosting the web site? Enough speculation. We know nothing about Rotten.Com, not its authors, not its editors, not who publishes it - nothing at all. It is an anonymous personal website, period, and completely unsuitable as a source for anything. It's the same as using http://www.bushisantichrist.com/ as a source - except that http://www.bushisantichrist.com/ is probably a better source than Rotten.com, since we at least know the author is "R. Stephen Hanchett". Please review ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Aerobatic Teams web site - Why the site is bloked ==
	Hello,
	My name is Alexander, and I'm the owner of the Aerobatic Teams web site http://aerobaticteamsDOTnet. My site is dedicated to Modern Aerobatic Teams, like yours same section. Why my site is blocked to adding links. This is not spam, because my site is relevant to[REDACTED] Aerobatic Teams section.
	Exaple: in you Blue Angels page http://en.wikipedia.org/Blue_Angels have External link http://www.funonthenet.in/articles/airshow-san-francisco.html which is relevant with this thematics, but my Blue Angels http://www.aerobaticteamsDOTnet/BlueAngels.html is relevant too, but my site is blocked. Also my page is more informatible then this page, but this page not blocked, only my site.
	How can I receive rull from you to adding links to all aerobatic teams pages in Misplaced Pages? As you can see my site is not commercial.
	I know that you media is not web site promotion tool, but you are education organization and peoples must have access to more inmormation that needed. My site is education site and have education role about Aerobatic Teams past and present. For that reason I think that must have link to my site in you Aerobatic Teams pages.
	You passed a lot of unuseful site links, but not mine.
	Can you help, and help to aerobatic teams fans to learn more about this teams joining to my site.
	Thanks
	Alexander<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. {{ #if: 18:40, 22 March 2008 | The preceding ] comment was added at 18:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC).}}</small>
	:You can see the reason . <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">]</font>&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;]]</span> 00:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	== justice4lebanon.wordpress.com ==
	Is justice4lebanon.wordpress.com a reliable source? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	:It self-describes as a blog, has a self-admitted ulterior motive, and provides no information even suggesting the existence of any form of review. Short of some exceptional reviews from mainstream sources or proof that its writers are some kind of experts, I wouldn't even consider it. ] (]) 22:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	::It also sets off my anti-scam alert (using Norton). ] (]) 23:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
	:I totally agree. http://justice4lebanon.wordpress.com/about/ lacks any info on who's actually running it. -- ] (]) 00:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Fan translated games ==
	In an attempt to resolve a dispute for classifying ] we were trying find 3rd-party sites. Would a site like meet the criteria?] (]) 05:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Does it have any fact checking methods used to prove its reliability? ]<sup>]</sup> 05:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Looks like there is at least some attempt through forum posting and some referencing to other pages. It also possible, and quite probable, some of it came from 1st-hand experience by going to the website, downloading and installing the patch. Not sure if it's up to the level you would consider good enough though.] (]) 07:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::I am no expert of this, as you can see, it is the first time I came here. However, the site seems to be a ''self-published'' source, in which, it lacks enough fact-checking in terms of usual[REDACTED] standard. However, the terms are in the grey area if you ask me. It is not the most reliable source, yet it is obvious that if the steps were followed, one could verify the facts in a very easy manner. So it might not be most reliable, but at least it is verifiable. (If what you say here is true.) The problem might then move foward to ''is it notable or not''. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::I believe it might meet the qualifications of presumed under ], though it's hard to say.] (]) 16:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I don't think notability really factors into it. The games we're talking about it all have spawned anime, which is enough to make them notable... we just need to be able to show that an English translation exists, per ]. — ] (]) 03:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	::What do you think of the legality issue and whether such a site, that provides links to game hacks and unauthorized translations for distribution, meets ]. ] (]) 16:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::The legality of the patches without games has still to be decided. Those that supply the game along with the patch, or a patched game, are an entirely different matter. We had this discussion on the ] page. Also, as this is the only site really with a published source that isn't primary or a forum, it's why I posted this one.] (]) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::] isn't the policy here, ] is. And I'm not sure it applies to a site that merely links to sites that violate copyrights. Where does that end? (Is there a way to cite a website without linking it?) — ] (]) 03:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::] shouldn't really apply here as I intended to use if as a source material, not a link, if possible. But yes, the site does not directly link to the the patches, just the sites. So if this site shouldn't be used simply on that basis, it would be nice to know how many links removed a site needs to be since it's theoretically possible from some of the sources to simply link-jump to much more blatantly illegal material here.] (]) 06:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::As an aside, the one-step away is the reason all AniDB links were removed. They didn't link directly to the files, but to the fansubber groups and pretty much said "want illegal fansubs, go get here." The difference here is Jinnai argues that no court case has actually deemed patched or hacking a game to translate it is illegal, so the same rule doesn't apply. Irregardless, though, as Pytom pointed out earlier, the site also completely fails ]. ] (]) 15:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::I believe is does fall under self-published soruces as per ]. The only exceptions might be #2, but I believe #2 was refering to the claims themselves being contriversial in their PoV, and no one here is claiming that their is an issue with neutrality of the site. As long it is used strictly for citing that these works exist and their progress, nothing else.] (]) 17:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Self-published applies to the official sites and documentation, not a directory site, like that link appears to be. ] (]) 18:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::Can you show me where? I read all the section of questionable sources and saw nothing that says the site cannot be a directory. Just that it had to meet specific criteria, which it does.] (]) 02:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::Could also be covered by expectional claims, ie "...apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;" which mainstream media would never cover. Whether it is important or not, is, I will admit, highly debatable, but important is to some extent dependant on where you are and who you ask. Certainly to everyone at large this might seem trivial, but for the English gaming community this might seem important.] (]) 02:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::No, it can't as it isn't a necessary claim to make at all. The site still fails ] on all levels. ] (]) 18:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::] is not policy. ] is. And everything on that page meets the standards of Misplaced Pages's verifiability for self-published sources as posted. Mainstream media won't cover this and this site atleast attempts to have a level of independent review on it, plus it's quite easy to verify this oneself as pointed out below. There is a reason reliable sources isn't policy, but only a guideline.] (]) 17:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	One article where this has been coming up is at ]. I'll note that nobody here is disputing the existence of the translation. One can easily verify it by going to the translator's web site , the list of visual novel translations
	, and news sites devoted to the topic. So I think the question is, what should we include in the article to source the statement "An unofficial translation patch for Tsukihime was release on November 5, 2006."? I'll note that this has nothing to do with the notability of Tsukihime, which has been established by it spawning both Manga and Anime. — ] (]) 19:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Help please ==
	On the section above. Please? ] | ] 06:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Please? I'm going to ask every day until I get some help. The person who originally answered is on wikibreak. ] | ] 20:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	== the film itself ==
	For the purposes of propagating an ]'s ], can the film itself (a ]) be used as a ] the that actor's work? — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 16:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)<p>Also, how pertinent is the accessibility of the source? If a film itself is referenced as a source for a fact, are others expected to rent the video (if available) to corroborate that sourcing? — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 16:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	:For a blunt statement of fact as to whether an actor appeared in a given film... Yes, the film itself can certainly be cited as a source. This looks like yet another misrepresentation of ]. I can not stress this enough: WP:PSTS states quite clearly that Primary sources ''are'' allowed in Misplaced Pages... They have to be used with caution, and there are limitations in ''how'' they can be used, but there ''are'' acceptable uses of primary sources. This is one of them.
	:As to accessibility... The fact that someone might have to rent the video to verify the citation does not matter. The ''ease'' of verifiability is not reason to disallow a source (an apt analogy is having to go to a bookstore and purchasing a book to verify a citation). Nor is cost (Misplaced Pages articles often cite to pay-to-view websites, and even public libraries may require paying for a library card to access material). What matters is that it can be verified. Indeed, assuming that the film is not rare, and is available at the average film rental outlet, it is actually likely to be ''more'' accessible than many print sourses that are cited. ] (]) 17:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	::I wasn't stating that as a primary source, I didn't think it acceptable; contrarily, I came here asking such. However, if a reliable secondary source '''is''' available as opposed to using the primary, that is much preferred then? Also, is there any mechanism to prevent the false citing of unavailable primary sources aside from two editors arguing that "it is there" and "no, it's not" ? — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 18:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Secondary sources are definitely preferred, if there is one. As as to your second question, it depends on what you mean by "unavailable". Is it "unavailable" because you can't find it ''right now'' (by, say, a quick google search)? Is it unavailable because in it isn't in the average library/film repository or book/video store? Is it unavailable because there are only two copies in the entire world and they are both in private collections? What do you mean by "unavailable"? ] (]) 13:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Say somebody has cited a primary source for a hard fact; to use my above question: citing a film to say that somebody performed in it. If I can't find that film available locally (my ] or ] doesn't have it) and I can't corroborate that fact otherwise, should it just be left alone? Or is there a tag or something that can affects saying "this was cited by one user, but could not be corroborated by another"? — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 14:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::: {{tl|verification needed}}? &mdash; ] (]) 14:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: Exactly what I was looking for, thanks! — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 14:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::I suppose that tag might work, although I think it is meant more to indicate that a ''statement'' needs to be verified rather than a request for the ''citation'' to be checked. If you do add a tag, I would follow it up with a comment on the talk page explaining what you are looking for (a third party to obtain the film and look at it), and when you add the tag include an edit summary pointing to that talk page discussion.
	::Remember that WP:V does not say that something has to be verifiable by any one particular editor (ie you) ... simply that it has to ''be'' verifiable. There are a lot of ways to do this... if it is rentable ''somewhere'', if it can be purchase ''somewhere'', or if it is publically available ''somewhere'' it is verifiable. Have you thought about asking the editor that wishes to include the information where he obtained ''his/her'' copy of the film? ] (]) 17:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Sure, I rented it first from ], then I bought it from ]. ] is ''not'' such a rare film. See ]. ] (]) 23:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	== A reliable newsgroup posting ==
	Newsgroup postings are considered lower than dirt as a reliable source here on Misplaced Pages. I think this case is an exception to the rule. In late 1994, the Intel ] played out mailing list and in the newsgroup comp.sys.intel. The posters were acoumplished scientist and engineers from major companies. While Intel was claiming the bug was minor, the readers of these newsgroups found out how serious the defect was. (I followed the posting at the time and was amazed at their quality.)
	Tim Coe, a FPU (floating point unit) designer at Vitesse Semiconductor, read the reports of the Pentium division errors and was able to reverse engineer the cause of error. He wrote a C program to predict the errors. He did not own an Intel CPU, so he went to a local computer store to check his results. His error predictions were correct. He posted his results on the newsgroup, comp.sys.intel, on November 16, 1994.
	*{{cite newsgroup | title = Re: Glaring FDIV bug in Pentium! | author = Tim Coe | date = 1994-11-16 | newsgroup = comp.sys.intel | id = | url =http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.intel/msg/cf554906a5080c44?dmode=source | accessdate = 2008-03-24}}
	The original newsgroup posing can be found on Google groups. Here is a web site that has a good copy of Tim Coe's posting and some other valid links.
	His work was reported in the technical press at the time and here is a report from the MathWorks newsletter.
	*{{cite web | last = Moler | first = Cleve | authorlink = Cleve Moler | title = A Tale of Two Numbers | work = The MathWorks News & Notes | publisher = The MathWorks
	| date = Winter 1995 | url = http://www.mathworks.com/company/newsletters/news_notes/pdf/win95cleve.pdf | accessdate = 2008-03-24}}
	Tim Coe later wrote a paper in the peer reviewed journal, IEEE Computational Science & Engineering
	*{{cite journal | last = Coe | first = Tim | coauthors = Mathisen, T.; Moler, C.; Pratt, V. | title = Computational aspects of the Pentium affair | journal = Computational Science & Engineering, IEEE | volume = 2 | issue = 1 | pages = 18-30 | date = Spring 1995 | doi = 10.1109/99.372929 }} "The Pentium affair has been widely publicized. It started with an obscure defect in the floating-point unit of Intel Corporation's flagship Pentium microprocessor. This is the story of how the Pentium floating-point division problem was discovered, and what you need to know about the maths and computer engineering involved before deciding whether to replace the chip, install the workaround provided here, or do nothing. The paper also discusses broader issues of computational correctness."
	Can the Tim Coe's original posting to the newsgroup, comp.sys.intel, be used as a reference?
	-- ] (]) 02:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	It appears that Andy Grove, the Intel CEO, responded to this newsgroup. -- ] (]) 03:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:I've already commented over at ], but I don't see any need to suspend our usual disapproval of forum postings as sources. If any reliable sources actually reprinted the forum postings, it would be OK to use the reprinted versions. The notability of the people who posted doesn't make Usenet into a reliable source. ] (]) 03:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::I was thinking of saying that Tim Coe wrote a journal article based on his findings that he originally posted in the internet newsgroup, comp.sys.intel. Andy Grove, President of Intel, wrote a big check to refund the customers and also posted a response to the newsgroup, comp.sys.intel. The article could explain how this was an early case where the internet allowed customers to force a large corporation to admit to a defective product. The newsgroup was an important factor and was reported in the press at the time. The current article has the vague statement that the problem was "verified by other people around the Internet". It doesn't name them or give details of how the problem was verified. -- ] (]) 03:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::If these events lead to papers being published and press reports, citing the newsgroup seems entirely unnecessary. ] (]) 18:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	I got a copy of the ''IEEE Computational Science & Engineering'' paper today. In a sidebar, the journal editor states how important the internet was in uncovering the Pentium bug. The article mentions several specific posts to the newsgroup by various individuals. For example, "… reporters for major newspapers and news services had Xeroxed copies of faxed copies of ] posting." The newsgroup "comp.sys.intel" was part of the story. "At the height of the frenzy a month later, over 2000 messages a week were being posted to comp.sys.intel." All of the facts about the newsgroup posting can be referenced by traditional reliable sources. The 2 or 3 most significant posting themselves can be noted with a proper citation, <nowiki>{{cite newsgroup}}</nowiki>. -- ] (]) 01:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:There is precedent for using professional mailing lists as references. If the details are otherwise confirmed by reliable sources I see nothing wrong with referencing the USENET post. It's a primary source. ] (]) 03:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Travel sites ==
	Hi. Are references to tourism sites whether they be the likes of ] or ], government tourism sites such as www.goisrael.com - an Israeli government site, or www.visit-tlv.com - a municipal site, or sites such as www.TravelGuides.com or www.telaviv-insider.co.il good enough to cite about sites or cultural events etc/general facts about the city. To what extent can they be used? Thanks. ] (]) 09:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Yes, they are reliable by or rules. However, they do have limitations. We have to remember their purpose, which is to give a very quick overview of the site and events discribed, and to encourage tourists to visit them. They will gloss over many facts (especially negative ones), and editorial review may not be the best. If information listed on a tourism sight is contrary to what is stated in more scholarly works, we should defer to the scholars. ] (]) 14:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Thanks for that. ] (]) 14:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Etymologocial sources ==
	Sometimes it's hard to find the ] of words, especially in a (suitable?) online format. ] is a paid subscription. I'd like to submit the following two sources for scrutiny on reliability:
	*: often posts his sources for etymology research.
	*: several sources are given with full disclosure. ] ] 12:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:The fact that the OED is pay-to-view is irrelevant. The Word Detective site seems reliable due to the fact that it is an online version of collumns that are published in various newspapers. Since we would be able to cite the printed collumns, I see no reason to challenge the on-line version. Online Etymology Dictionary is questionable... it is a personal web-project run by an accademic. The reliability would thus depend on the reputation of the author. I would say that to use it, you would have to establish that the site has been reviewed or cited by reliable third parties, and that ''they'' found it to be accurate and reliable. ] (]) 13:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:: The only reason I mentioned that OED is PPV is that it makes it harder to get a cite. Off the topic, how does one get a cite for something to which they don't have access? I hope I'm not coming across snide, that is not my intention, but that's a hurdle which I've bumped into many times already, and I haven't found a solution.
	:: As for the second site I listed, the ] does have a Misplaced Pages entry which lists some of the places it has been cited. I know Misplaced Pages isn't a reliable source of itself, but the sources in that article are. I also checked Google books and a number of cites appear for the site (no pun intended). I won't list them, unless some examples are requested. On second thought, maybe I can just cite them in the article given. ] ] 14:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::OK... having taken a look at the article, and the reviews mentioned, it probably can be considered reliable. As to your question on "How does one get a cite for something to which they don't have access"... Options are to ''get'' access (ie subscribe), find someone who has access and ask them to cite the material, or look for another source. If you are planning to do a lot of editing on Etymological topics, it probably makes sense to subscribe to the OED (it is considered the best)... but that is up to you. ] (]) 15:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	== V2rocket.com ==
	Is RS? ''']''' (]) 12:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:I get a "site does not exist" error message when I search for it (on both Google and Yahoo), which leads me to think that it is not. Did you put the correct link info? ] (]) 13:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Yes. My confusion here is that the site has no scholarly text. Which is why I think it may not be RS. ''']''' (]) 14:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::The link works for me. Anyway, it's your classic good-looking site that unfortunately provides zero information on who wrote what, what their sources were, and whether any kind of review is exercised. If you'd very much like to use the content from that page, I'd suggest you email the guy who maintains the website, and ask him what his sources were. ] (]) 14:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Use of rickross.com and religionnewsblog.com as external links/convenience links ==
	(The following has been transferred from ] as per the request of ].)
	A number of Misplaced Pages articles currently link to and . With respect to rickross.com, talk page consensus on ] a few weeks ago was that the site appeared to be in breach of ]:
	:''Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable '''as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Misplaced Pages and its editors.''' This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright.''
	Our concern was based on rickross.com's copyright disclaimer:
	:
	Some of the material hosted on rickross.com is for sale online by the legitimate owners. Example:
	Religion News Blog has been mentioned as a similar case; in particular, on the Prem Rawat talk page as a suitable external link. Here too it seems that copyright owners' permission is not routinely sought:
	:
	The Religion News Blog also carries a rather large amount of advertising.
	Please advise to what extent these two sites should be linked, or existing links to them removed.
	Note that the Prem Rawat article is also subject to an ongoing Arbitration Case ({{RFARlinks|Prem Rawat}}).
	<font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	* ] is a commentator frequently referenced by others, so I don't see we should have a problem discussing what he says in context and attributing it to him, with links to his site to back that up. The blog looks to be a link to avoid, on the face of it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	**Thanks for your feedback. I understand the point about quoting Rick Ross himself. However, this is not at issue; the copyright question arises because of the large number of press articles and other copyrighted material hosted on the site, evidently without a proper process of seeking permission from the owners. Instead, the states that rickross.com will take down any copyrighted material if the copyright owners complain in writing. Rather than licensing the material, as required by ], this seemed to me to shift the onus from the site operators to the copyright owners. In other words, the onus is now on the owners (1) to become aware of the infringement and then (2) to write in to ask for their material to be taken down. As it is, the status of any document hosted on the site seems unclear; it may be the case that the owners are aware of their material's presence on the site and do not object, or it may be that they are not aware (yet) and will complain at a future date. At any rate it seems to me that where the same material is available on the legitimate copyright owner's own website (e.g. nytimes.com), it would be preferable from a copyright point of view to link to the copy at nytimes.com, rather than the one held at rickross.com. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::* Hmmm. My usual take on sites that play fast and loose with copyright is to exclude on principle, but here we have a notable individual who may be quoted as an authority. It should not be a problem to link to that content which is unequivocally Ross' own, attributed to Ross, if a compelling case can be made for the relevance of his opinion. Better, of course, to link to a reliable secondary source that describes Ross' views and places them in context. I am not a fan of primary sources in biographies, other than the subject's own site as a source for uncontroversial facts. Any copyright violating material may not be linked, period. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Starting at the top of , what would be your view on link, present as ref. 1 in ] (permalink: )? I wasn't able to find the article on the Daily Telegraph website (note that this is the Australian Daily Telegraph, not the UK one), although there were articles on the subject present there (and hosted for free). This specific article, however, did not seem to be there. Now, what to do? The thing is that I believe many editors consider rickross.com a very valuable resource, which often has detailed material not available elsewhere. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::Looking at the citation on Kenja Communication, I see the problem.
	::::The citation is worded: "''Secrets of sect in sex case''. The Daily Telegraph, The Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey (May 25, 2006). Retrieved on 2007-02-08."
	::::It ''should'' be worded more along the lines of: "''Secrets of sect in sex case'' by Brad Clifton, The Daily Telegraph, Syndey, Australia May 25, 2006 - ''as hosted on:'' , Retrieved on 2007-02-08."
	::::This would make it clear that the Rick Ross site is being used as a convenience link to the Daily Telegraph story, which is the actual citation. Now... the question becomes: is Rick Ross's site an allowable convenience link? Does he need permission permission to reprint the story that appeared in the Daily Telegraph, and if so does he have it? If the answer to that is that he did need permission, and did not obtain it, then his site can not be used. We must omit the link to Ross and simply cite the Daily Telegraph without the link. This obviously requires someone double checking to make sure that the story in the Telegraph actually exists and says what Ross said it did... but this should not be all that difficult... I am sure that we could find a Wikipedian who lives in Sydney and whould be willing to go to a library and check the May 25, 06 Telegraph for us. If Ross does not need permission to reprint the story... or if he does, and obtained it... then there is no problem. ] (]) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::: The (Australian) Daily Telegraph article exists and is correctly quoted on the Rick Ross website. I confirmed that through a Lexis-Nexis search; it appeared in the "Local" section on page 13 in the State edition. Is there any suggestion/evidence that Rick Ross misquotes attributed news articles, or is it only a matter of him (possibly) not having licensed the copyrighted content ? If it is the latter, the solution is simply not to link to his site as a convenience link for hosted newsarticles. ] (]) 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Thanks for checking and verifying the article's existence. There is no assertion that I am aware of that any news articles on rickross.com have been misquoted. There may be a quibble as to how selective the choice of articles hosted is; on the for example appears to be a record of a couple's divorce proceedings, with the only link to Rawat being the fact that one of the couple had once, years prior to the marriage, been a follower of Rawat. article reports on the opening of an enquiry, and there is no corresponding article reporting on the enquiry's findings (which appear to have been that the organisation was in order, from checking the UK charity registration website). But this may partly reflect the fact that newspapers and courts tend to focus more on negatives than on positives. The scholarly also present on the Prem Rawat page was, I believe, actually written by a follower of Rawat's. So far the consensus seems to be then – do not use either of these sites as a convenience or external link, but verify the articles' existence and credit them (and link to them, where possible) directly. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: The consensus you state makes sense to me. Does the Rick Ross website have any ''original'' content ? If so there ''may'' be a case for using it as a referenced source or external link in ''some'' cases; if it only hosts links/extracts from news sources, then it is advisable to cite them directly (after verification), and use rickcross.com only as a convenient resource for ''editors'' (as opposed to readers.) ] (]) 20:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::I haven't found much material on the site that to my mind would qualify as an encyclopedic source. I think most of the texts on the site are taken from elsewhere. Plus there are the pages where Mr. Ross is offering his services to worried families. But I agree with the principle that any original material on the site written by Mr. Ross or his associates could and should be linked to, if it's pertinent to a topic covered in WP. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 21:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::: ]. Do not link to material that violates copyright. Cite the original source, and if it's not online, too bad. we are allowed to cite treeware, after all. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	<deindent><br>
	One final thought for now: It may be a good idea to email Rick Ross (info@rickross.com) and ask him (politely) if he has licensed the information on his website and if he can provide an ] verification. We may be able to short-circuit this whole debate if he replies in the affirmative. Any volunteers experienced in the process ? ] (]) 21:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Considering the wording of the disclaimer and the absence of copyright acknowledgments I think it highly unlikely that any such licenses exist. I get the feeling the database of news articles is really designed to bring in customers, because looking for original material by Mr. Ross on the site I realised that rickross.com is also a ''commercial'' site, offering expert witness and intervention/deprogramming services complete with hourly rates: as well as selling DVDs and soliciting donations . All of which makes me less inclined to consider it a suitable source for linking to in WP articles. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	My view is that whenever possible, we should link to original sources. However, if those sources are hard for an average person to reach, then also linking to existing excerpts or full copies on the web is reasonable as long as we believe the copies are uncompromised. The owners of newspaper archives presumably are aware of the web, and I'd expect that they see no value in going after people promoting their work, especially when those people have a scholarly purpose in doing so. Respecting the property of others is certainly important, but I don't believe we must respect someone's property more than they themselves do, especially given the centrality of verifiability to our work. Thus, I'd consider both sites an acceptable backup source for linking. ] (]) 23:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Well, let's thrash this out. Well over a hundred articles link to the site; if these links are to be removed (or redirected to legitimate sites), there should be a good reason to start this work, and it should be backed up by solid community consensus. Personally, I don't see how these sites can be compatible with the copyright policy outlined in ] and ]. In addition I have the feeling that the purpose of both sites mentioned here is not just scholarly, but also commercial; and if the above reasoning by {{User|William Pietri}} were to be applied to any site that infringes copyright, then there would be no copyright-infringing sites on the net at all. Because then we would have to assume that the ongoing presence of such material on a site generally implies the legal owner's consent. Any other views? <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 00:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	::For the record, this is to say the least not the best characterization of the Rick Ross site links. Rick Ross is a well known expert on groups that many consider cults with huge publicity budgets churning out uncritically reviewed material. The purpose of these Rick Ross links and similar sites devoted to such groups is to provide a ready reference to hard to find published information on many such groups, not to sell services. Misplaced Pages's restrictions on critical external links have become such that original, critical material by Rick Ross would not be suitable because it is critical, and now you want to restrict linking to Rick Ross as well because he even collects information on these groups although the claim isn't that the information isn't sourced and there is zero chance of derivative liability for Misplaced Pages. Meanwhile, you can't even put in an article a general statement that critical information can be found on the internet anymore because advocates will demand that you provide anm attributable source for even that or it is "original research", which is absurd. The fallacy here is that there simply isn't a large body of scholarly, NPOV secondary sourcing, only a large amount of primary soured proponency and much less secondarily sourced, published material, simply due to limited interest, and Misplaced Pages simply doesn't function well in such niche areas. Misplaced Pages's increasing inability to address the underlying problem with NPOV in such cases by keeping these articles limited in scope for balance results in almost every article on such groups presenting a skewed view. This is just another "cure" that will make the problem worse. Not much point in editing Misplaced Pages anymore. Bye. --] (]) 03:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:: Although I don't know much about religionnewsblog.com, I disagree strongly that a substantial purpose of rickross.com is commercial. The Rick Ross Institute is a . I am of course not saying that any infringing of copyright is ok, but I am saying that there are cases where copyright owners may find non-profit use of limited amounts of their work acceptable and even welcome, and that this is plausibly one of those cases.
	:: We should certainly try to be good citizens and follow the law, but we are not obliged to act as copyright police or to take hard-line positions on IP, especially when it would reduce the quality and verifiability of our encyclopedia. When we have no more official option, linking to web-posted copies of referenced articles on legitimate non-profit sites is not illegal, does not hurt the commercial value of the original work, and is beneficial to us and our readership. I believe we should continue the practice as is. ] (]) 04:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::I was going to weigh in here, but after reading the most recent above comment by {{user|William Pietri}} (as well as his previous comment), I don't think I could have said it any better than that. ] (]) 10:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::As to newspapers' copyright policies, here are the relevant pages from the New York Times website: There is nothing there to indicate that unauthorised reproduction of their articles on websites like the ones discussed here is welcomed by them. The same applies to Associated Press: and I believe most other newspapers. In my view, the fact that editors like or applaud the work that the owners of a particular website do cannot be material here: that is an argument that would be open to any editor, with any site they link to. As regards the not-for-profit status of the Rick Ross Institute, Mr. Ross does use the rickross.com site to advertise his professional services and those of his associates, as outlined above. An American Professor of Sociology has described rickross.com as an . I still think that linking to the newspapers' own websites, where this is possible, is preferable and more in line with WP policy, and that simply referencing the article without the link (possibly with a note in the ref that the copy cited was found on rickross.com) is the right thing to do in those cases where the article is not available any more on the publisher's own website. Interested users can still find the article online by googling for its headline. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 14:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::: That nonprofit institutions take in money is not proof of commercial activity; every nonprofit takes donations, and many sell DVDs and services. Your quote is from 2003 and about the late 90s, and so appears to predate the creation of the nonprofit. If you think the Rick Ross Institute is violating its nonprofit status, you should talk to the IRS, not a Misplaced Pages noticeboard.
	:::: If you've spent any time in a large American corporation, that newspaper has no lawyer-written policy approving web posting of excerpts or articles should be unsurprising. But that doesn't mean that they actually mind their material being re-used as a non-commercial public good. Standards in Germany may be different, but in the US, the doctrine of ] is an extension of the core of copyright: a limited, temporary grant of property rights to promote the creation and publication of intellectual works. Rick Ross is probably within the legal and moral boundaries of that, and we certainly are. I agree that referencing the original newspaper whenever possible is the right thing to do. However, when I weigh reduced verifiability against a token gesture of extreme deference to a publisher that may be perfectly happy that people are using and discussing their work, I feel that verifiability wins out. That is especially true given that, as Dseer points out, rickross.com has articles about organizations that in many cases work very hard to present and promote a one-sided view of themselves.
	:::: And just to be clear, I'm not saying that Rick Ross is necessarily a reliable source on anything other than the views of Rick Ross. He's clearly partisan, so I don't think he personally should be cited except in a "critics say" kind of way. But if he's the only guy with a web-accessible copy of a text that we are citing, we should not place unnecessary barriers in the way of verifying Misplaced Pages articles based on those texts. ] (]) 19:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I am quite certain, judging by the Disclaimer quoted above and the sort of material hosted, that rickross.com does not operate within the realms of fair use. Just try getting one of these NY Times articles that he hosts uploaded to with a fair-use rationale and you'll see what I mean. Re your concern for ]: my suggestion is either to link to the publisher's website or to omit the link to rickross.com, but state that the copy of the article viewed was that found on rickross.com. That should be done anyway – see ]. (I don't know what the status is if the copy viewed and cited infringes a copyright – perhaps we'd have to raise this in another forum.) In either case, then, verifiability would be ensured. Readers either get the original article, on the publisher's website (preferable in any case), or they can look for the article on rickross.com, since our reference tells them that we found it there. As for the site being non-commercial, I don't think you understand that Mr. Ross makes his living as an "intervention specialist" or deprogrammer, and as an expert witness in court cases. In other words, these pages advertise the professional services by which he makes his livelihood. So in what sense is the site non-commercial if it advertises his commercial, for-profit services? Surely, the business idea is that people surf to the site to read up on the group that a member of their family has joined, and then at least a small proportion of them will click on "Getting Help", where Mr. Ross's services are available at the quoted prices. See ]. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 20:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: No offense, but the determination of fair use is made by judges, not by Misplaced Pages's policies, which are and should be much more stringent than what is legal in the US, which in turn may be stricter than what a particular rightsholder allows. That someone makes a living at a non-profit endeavor does not make it suddenly for profit, and neither does providing services. Most educational institutions, for example, are non-profit, but certainly charge money for services, and just as certainly provide a living to their employees. Do they put up their websites partly because the will attract paying students? Surely. But that alone does not mean they are suddenly a for-profit institution, or that other material on that site would suddenly fail the first part of the US fair use test.
	:::::: Making readers and editors go the extra step of searching the web for a reference whose location we describe doesn't benefit anybody, and it harms the encyclopedia. If we are going to use the article and say where we saw the material, then we should link to it. ] (]) 23:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Well, I can follow your reasoning, but there remains the fact that the links to these sites appear to be a clear breach of our above policies. And the same argument could be made for any other site hosting unlicensed public-interest material. I've left a note on ] to see if we can get some editors with a clearer understanding of WP copyright policy to comment on the matter. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 00:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''' Many news websites have links and advertisements to items they do not own the copyright to, or host items for sale. They are still acceptable on Misplaced Pages. However, if an item is a blog, it should not be allowed, except as opinion (and chances are this is reflected in legitimate news websites). I believe the policy deals with things like linking to excerpts of ''Harry Potter'' on a website that does not have permission to use it. If the text that you are linking to is rightfully used by the website, then it should be okay. If not, well, there you go. ] (]) 03:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	I think this is a pretty straightforward situation. If a website illegally hosts infringing material, we should not link to them. Policy makes this clear (], among other places). Additionally, simple legal realities preclude us from linking to such sites. Contributory infringement requires both a reasonable belief that the infringing party should have known the material was in violation of copyright (which is apparent for news "scraping" sites of any sort) and a material contribution to the infringement (which linking from a top ten website would almost certainly qualify). IANL, but a law degree is not required to see why linking to such sites should be vigorously avoided. ] (]) 05:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Since Misplaced Pages is largely affiliated with the open-source community and copyleft, I think we should clarify here: F*** copyright law. People seem to pull out claims of copyright infringement in content disputes, just to push their point-of-view. I.E., a while back, some images I'd uploaded to Misplaced Pages were deleted by some annoying people because I used copyrighted Misplaced Pages logos, in the images. Thus, they argued, "That's in violation of copyright." Yes, but is Misplaced Pages going to sue itself? Is anybody going to somehow use my images, pulled from Misplaced Pages, in a way that harms Wikimedia financially? Later, I found images which had done the same thing, elsewhere (used copyrighted Misplaced Pages logos in images uploaded to Misplaced Pages) which remain untouched. Sometimes, Wikilawyering actually involves real laws, not just made-up ones.
	:::So, the relevant question isn't, "Is this in accordance with the letter of the law?" but rather, "In reality, will Misplaced Pages get sued?" The second question is particularly important since the government itself often ignores the law and the answer to the second question is no. The legal culpability for linking to ''another'' website which violates copyright law is minimal, if not entirely non-existent. Much less, the legal culpability for the ''Foundation'', which delegates editing responsibility to the community is minimal, if not non-existent. Technically, it could be argued that knowingly linking to a site which knowingly links to a site which knowingly links to a site which infringes on copyright is "copyright infringement," but such a ridiculous argument would be thrown out of court. The internet, period, is rampant with copyright infringement. The only way to completely avoid this would be to avoid secondary sources, especially sources like blogs and self-published websites. ] (and all policy, period) isn't like legalist dogma which we pedantically follow, literally, because we all somehow think policy was somehow written on stone tablets, by God, or we have some kind of undying love for copyright law. It's simply practical, pragmatic steps we take to keep Misplaced Pages functioning and to avoid getting Wikimedia sued. In this case, Wikimedia is ''not'' going to get sued from citing Rick Ross and I suggest e-mailing the Foundation for clarification, if you're still concerned.
	:::With that said, what Rick Ross and religionnewsblog.com do could certainly be construed as fair use. If a company thinks they're infringing on copyright, they can issue a DMCA takedown provision very easily and Misplaced Pages will respond accordingly. Until then, this is just wikilawyering, literally. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 15:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::This has to be the most sensible post I've seen on this topic - thank you Zenwhat. ] 22:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::Reproduction of entire works for public distribution is not anything close to fair use. However, it is classic infringement. You may wish to say f*** copyright, but copyright is a reality and numerous people depend on it for a living (writers, artists, etc). Is there a good chance we won't be sued? Sure. Does that make violating the law or encouraging the theft of someone else's work correct? F*** no. Also, contributory infringement for linking directly to infringing works is not an obscure technicality unlikely to result in court enforcement, but rather a legal reality upheld by courts in the United States. ] (]) 16:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	::: In this case, I believe that rickross.com is not doing anything illegal or morally wrong. First, copyright is not an absolute right, and not all copies are illegal, as section of the law on ] makes clear. As the US Constitution says, copyright exists, "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Further, not all uses of somebody else's property are crimes. When the neighborhood children sit on my porch after school, they are indeed on my land, but if a neighborhood busybody called the police for trespassing, I would be outraged. We certainly shouldn't link to people who are engaging in wholesale, for-profit violation of actively marketed intellectual property, and I think nobody would suggest otherwise. But there is a complicated spectrum here, from obvious piracy to sharing abandoned works to educational fair use to simple quoting. We must be responsible citizens, but equally we must not be extremists or prudes. ] (]) 16:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::Wholesale copying for broad distribution is not even remotely close to fair use and asserting otherwise is simply ludicrous. I agree there is a whole spectrum of use involved in using copyrighted materials, but I disagree that the use by rickross.com constitutes anything but obvious wholesale infringement. ] (]) 16:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Then it's a good thing I asserted the opposite. Sorry if my writing was confusing, but "wholesale copying for broad distribution" is one end of the spectrum I'm pointing at, and fair use is close to the other end. Rickross.com is far from the ugly end of the spectrum. It is a legally registered non-profit with an educational purpose collecting small portions of the original salable works, and only those portions related to its mission. Those articles bear no commercial ads. They do not charge for access. The value of the original work seems unharmed. I'm no lawyer, but that sounds like fair use to me.
	::::: Back in the days before the Internet, any serious public library would maintain files like this on topics of local interest, and would happily let you read and make copies of articles in the files. This is a functional modern equivalent. We should make use of it to increase the verifiability of our articles when (and only when) we cannot link to the original publisher's version. ] (]) 17:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::"Wholesale copying for broad distribution" is exactly what rickross.com does, so your position comes across as more than a bit incoherent. Whole articles are considered single whole works (just as a whole essay or whole short story from a book is a whole work), not "small portions". Since many of the news services charge for archive access, it most certainly is harmful to the value of the original work in those instances. Regardless, there's a big difference between making private copies from legitimately purchased materials (such as your library example) and publishing the material publicly on a website (which is equivalent to handing out thousands upon thousands of copies for free). Also, the for-profit or non-profit legal status of a venture does not affect the status of infringement. It only affects the fiscal culpability of the offending party. ] (]) 17:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: As you'd expect, I disagree that my position is incoherent. ] is the kind of thing I mean by "wholesale, for-profit violation of actively marketed intellectual property". I agree that we should stay far away from that end of the spectrum. If there are articles in the rickross.com database that people are actively trying to sell, then yes, let's link to where they are on offer. But otherwise, I see what he's up to as no more sinister than archive.org, which we happily link to. Indeed, much less so, as his collection is surely less than a millionth of theirs. ] (]) 19:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::I believe that there's no real comparison between a web-archive that is cautious to move within the law, has solid academic respect and endorsement, obeys robots.txt and readily complies with the wishes of rights holders, and an advocacy site that republishes news articles without permission. ''In my own view'', your position is logically and ethically flawed (as I've detailed in my responses). Since we are apparently operating on different assumptions and standards of analysis, we will just have to agree to disagree. ] (]) 19:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::Note e.g. , and – ? <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 19:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::: Archive.org may be many things, but they (and Google) have not been legally cautious. I know people who worked on it, and they definitely saw themselves as breaking new legal ground. As "The Internet Archive has been involved in the debate over the future of copyright in cyberspace since its formation in 1995." Like archive.org, rickross.com offers to remove any material on request of the rightsholder. The only obvious difference is "solid academic respect" which is not, as far as I know, an excuse under the law for wholesale distribution of other people's copyrighted works. By your own arguments, we should pull both sites; I believe we should pull neither. ] (]) 20:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::I think you will find that a lot of people, including Jimbo Wales and probably quite a lot of others don't agree that the criterion should be 'do we get sued'. That is why for example, we respect the copyright laws of countries like Bhutan, even though we are not legally required to (hint: try reading ]). Indeed the very essesence of the copyleft and open source movement is that while the current copyright regime may be flawed, we need to work within it an do our best not to violate it. ] (]) 18:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	If people wish to change our policy on linking to sites with unlicensed copyrighted materials, they should attempt to get consensus to change ] and ]. If people disagree with the copyright regime, they are free to petition the copyright office and elected officials. Unless the policy is changed, links to such sites should be removed without serious debate. ] (]) 17:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	:: I have a strong concern that some editors are using valid copyright concerns to remove ANY links to sites with critical information about religious groups they favor. Red herring arguments such as "they make money off of this website" confirm my concern -- the New York Times makes money off of their website; should we be banned from linking to it?
	:: I think there is a high value in linking to external websites that simply keep tabs of news stories on whatever issue an article is about, in this case controversy over religious organizations. They should include links, or make their own summaries, instead of simply violating copyright of course. It's best is they are scrupulously fair, but it's not necessary (and not Misplaced Pages policy) to force external links to meet all of our very strict requirements, such as BLP, no OR, etc.
	:: How about this alternative to RickRoss.com, et. al.: It seems reasonably fair and a site that summarizes copyrighted material instead of copying it. I know that the word "cult" is fightin' words for some, despite the disclaimer on their front page ("Read This First (disclaimer). Both Cults & Isms are listed here. Not every group mentioned on this site is considered a destructive cult. Some are 'benign isms' — different but not emotionally or socially destructive.") We can avoid that word in any case by simply referring to it as CAIC, and linking directly to the page about a certain group or figure, for example . <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:16, 27 March 2008</small><!-- Template:Unsigned2 -->
	:::''it's not necessary (and not Misplaced Pages policy) to force external links to meet all of our very strict requirements, such as BLP'' Note http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#External_links <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 01:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::This issue has been hashed out at length before, with no clear resolution. See ]. If anyone seeks to remove links to articles hosted on Rick Ross's website they should be sure to not delete the articles as sources - we don't need hot links to use newspaper articles as sources. Instead they should reformat the citation so that it lists the bibliographic information about the article so that interested readers can look up the reference on their own. ]] ] 20:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	Concerning the ] rationale, there is a somewhat similar case described here: ] <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 20:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	:I have written to the New York Times and Associated Press copyright/permissions departments to seek their advice; when and if I hear from them, I shall report back. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 20:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	After thinking about this further, here's my view. From ], we are allowed to link to "internet archives", but we don't define what those might be. I can find two obvious ones in use: archive.org and webcitation.org. Both take previously published material and offer it to anybody on the web who cares to ask for it. Both have policies where they will take down material on request. Neither asks for permission in advance. Both are non-profits, and do not put advertisements on the archived material. They do solicit donations and/or offer services. Rickross.com appears to meet all these criteria. Religionnewsblog.com claims to be non-profit, but I haven't confirmed that. They also run ads, but I didn't see requests for donations or offers of services. Otherwise, they fit these criteria. So I would say that both of these sites appear to qualify as internet archives (albeit with RNB possibly closer to the margin) and so should be kept. ] (]) 16:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	:For more info: the term ] is wikilinked in ]; archive.org has official recognition as a library. Not sure it solves this issue, but there it is, FWIW. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 17:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	:: Ah, excellent point. I was thinking mainly of the US ] criteria when I was comparing things, as that is the legal hole through which they appear to be driving their multi-petabyte truck. The Internet Archive indeed recently (June 2007) became an officially recognized library as part of seeking some federal funding, so that's indeed an interesting difference. They appear not to have done anything more than they were doing before, however, so I don't think that helps us with a ] for internet archives. ] (]) 22:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Both archive.org and webcitation.org are automatic (bot) archivers and obey robots.txt and provide information on how to block them via robot.txt. The archive pages precisely and do not reformat or modify pages. They only archive from the internet. Do these apply to rickross.com? From what I can tell, the answer is no. The pages there are 'archived' manually by the site owner (so robots.txt becomes irrelevant), they are reformated for the site, and I'm not even sure if he only archives from websites. I don't think rickross.com is what we mean when we say ]. I would suggest if people find stories online that are relevant to an article, they submit them to webcitation, rather then relying on some more dubious website ] (]) 18:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	== RfC on including personal blog in the article on ] ==
	See ]. ] (]) 19:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Is discoverthenetworks.org a reliable soure? My instinct is to say no. <font face="Arial">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 20:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Activist site; okay perhaps to represent a minority view, but not as the main source for an article. (Note that ] redirects to ]. David Horowitz is widely described as a "conservative activist", "right-wing political activist", "conservative crusader" in mainstream newspapers; on (kind of the mirror image of discoverthenetworks.org, it seems :-)), he is .) <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 21:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Proper link between two sources ==
	I'm working on ] and have a question about linking two sources. states that ] was a student at Georgetown in the 1960s before being expelled for participating in a Sit-in. The list of lists a St. Claire Bourne as a member of the Spring 1961 pledge class. I'm not that concerned about the difference between St. Claire with an e and without an e as shows him with the e, but having done work as St. Clair Bourne. Is this enough to fit the reliable sources for Misplaced Pages given that *theoretically* there could have been two different St. Claire Bourne's at Georgetown University at the same time. Yes, I know that this is *significantly* less likely that two Joseph Brown's there at the same time, but I'm trying to bend over backwards here... Thank You.] (]) 03:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:The obituary uses both spellings of the name. However, making this connection feels like the ] form of original research to me, and thus should be excluded on those grounds. YiLFS, ] 02:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	== RS? ==
	Can anyone tell if the following RS or not?
	*
	*
	I want use these for geographical location related articles. ''']''' (]) 09:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Using ], it kind fails some tests such as as academic, third party review but it is borderline on is it a mainstream publication , it is definitely is not a wiki. So if I have to use it, I will attribute it. But it should not be used to contradict any facts that are supported by RS sources. Just my opinion. ] (]) 23:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Further Discussion of the Nation ==
	(clipped from ].)
	:::I suggest we don't. Not on that note. I've just pointed out that McNeil performed a guilt-by-association slur on Pipes in which she got her facts wrong. How this article, or by implication '''The Nation''', can be considered a "reliable source" when their unreliability is proven beyond doubt is beyond comprehension. ] (]) 22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::Please, we're done discussing this. I judge from a look at your contributions that this is probably related to your efforts at ] or whatever that article is, but I think this issue has been addressed. ] (]) 22:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Again, I had just pointed out that McNeil performed a guilt-by-association slur on Pipes in which she got her facts wrong just before your premature attempt to close. This hasn't been addressed. I don't know what Obama has to do with this. ] (]) 12:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::It was presumably considered irrelevant to the overall reliability of the Nation. What an article on Obama has to do with it is evident by looking at your contributions. Unless you have something new to add, I don't think there's anything further to say. ] (]) 14:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	:If you have a serious issue with a particular article that was printed in ''The Nation'', and how it is used in a particular Misplaced Pages article (and it seems you do), then that is something that should be discussed on the ''talk page'' of the[REDACTED] article in question. Go to your fellow editors at the ] article, explain your problems with the McNeil article, and try to reach a consensus on it. If the consensus of your fellow editors is that the McNeil article should not be used... then ''don't''' use it. All we can say at ''this'' noticeboard is that '''''The Nation'' is considered a reliable source'''. That determination isn't going to change. To continue to beat this dead horse after this determination has been repeated several times by multiple editors is counter productive... and is starting to become a ] violation. ] (]) 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
	::There are degrees of reliability, of course, not absolutes. ''The Nation'' is generally considered reliable, but it's not, for example, a peer reviewed journal. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Also, I would note that even the most enthusiastic readers of ''The Nation'' would not consider it a source that espouses a neutral point of view. The reason I indicated above that it could be used in the ] article was because the article's writer (McNeil) made certain claims about things Pipes had written, which could be confirmed as things Pipes had written from looking at Pipes' own columns. Furthermore, the ''Nation'' article was being used to illustrate what Pipes' critics say about him -- not to report neutral facts. It may be that McNeil also stated other claims about Pipes which were not true, but those other claims were not going to be incorporated into the Misplaced Pages article. --] ] 09:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::By the way, if a source was intended to be used in Misplaced Pages only to provide neutral facts, then contentious claims in the source ''would'' taint the source and make it a poor source to use even for the non-contentious claims. To put it another way, suppose a source said, "George W. Bush was born in Connecticut, has two daughters named Jenna and Barbara, and planned the September 11, 2001 attacks." I would not cite that source even in support of the statement "George W. Bush's daughters are named Jenna and Barbara"; I'd look for another source instead. --] ] 09:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::The false claims have in fact been been incorporated in the article, off and on. And should be, since the fact that they are both made and false is relevant context to the other criticisms by McNeil that are quoted. The claims that Pipes is "notorious" and "anti-Arab" are undermined by the double falsehood engaged in by the same author to link him to ethnic cleansing, and that ought not be concealed. Consider if your example had instead read "George W. Bush shirked his duties in the National Guard and planned the September 11, 2001 attacks." Merely quoting the former assertion, arguably merely a POV take on true facts, misrepresents the flavor of the source. The fact that critics in venues as semi-respectable as the ''The Nation'' are allowed, unquestioned, to demonize Pipes in ways unmoored to facts is a very legitimate subject in a section dealing with the criticisms made of him. ] (]) 22:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::For Pete's sake... just attribute the view in the text, as we usually do for reliable sources which have a somewhat subjective perspective. As in, "''The Nation'' wrote X about Y." If other reliable sources have disputed what ''The Nation'' said about Pipes or whomever, then the following sentence should read: "But source X said Y." Many literate adults are familiar with ''The Nation'' and its viewpoint; those who are not can click on the wikilink and see it described, in the first sentence of the Misplaced Pages lede, as "the flagship of the Left." What's the problem again? ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::The problem, again: ''Actually, McNeil ''does'' make "wild, out-of-the left-field potentially libelous claims". She writes, e.g., "Pipes is also a regular contributor to the website of Gamla, an organization founded by former Israeli military officers and settlers that endorses the ethnic cleansing of every Palestinian as 'the only possible solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict." ''
	::::::''The Nation'''s POV is not what is at issue here. It could be both highly biased and reliable as to facts. But in this case it isn't. ''GAMLA does nothing of the sort and Pipes is in any case not a regular contributor to GAMLA's website. Since the ''Nation'' 's fact checking process was clearly not applied sucessfully to this article this article should not be considered reliable for the truth of any factual claim made in it. That said, the ''Nation'' 's website is a RS for the content of the article, and to the extent that the article is mentioned in secondary sources (e.g., claims are made and attributed to it) we can mention its content. But only in the context of supplying the evidence that it is a tendentious piece of crap.''(quoting self, 11:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC))
	::::::As Jayjg says (what a phrase, coming from me) "There are degrees of reliability, of course..." Blueboar's "All we can say at ''this'' noticeboard is that '''''The Nation'' is considered a reliable source'''" is nonsense. We can, indeed must, use ''The Nation'' in describing the emanations of Pipes' critics, but then we must note that venom directed at Pipes in that venue is not well fact checked. ''] (]) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I request a bit of clarification here from ] on why, considering his argument ''here'' against the nation as an RS, why he has repeatedly advocated ''for the use of'' a Nation article on the Obama campaign page, and why he has reverted back to that version even when other editors' consensus found the text obsolete, if there is such a problem with the Nation? ] (]) 22:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::As usual, without diffs or specifics it's pointless to attempt to reply to 72etc's vaporings. What text is "obsolete"? ] (]) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::As usual, you don't seem to realize people can look at your edit history andy... first I want you to deny it happened and then you can have your diffs. this is the Hayes article we're talking about here, in case you're wondering... ] (]) 00:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::I have no idea what you think you've said that I'm supposed to deny. The Hayes article is also a piece of crap, now that you mention it. I've said so before, so it is clear that you haven't been taking things in. Nothing new about that. ] (]) 10:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Again... The Nation is a reliable source. It is a notable publication with extensive circulation and editorial oversight. It is no less reliable than the New York Times, Newsweek, US News and World Report, or any other major periodical. The fact that it has a distinct political slant does not negate its ''reliability''. The fact that a given article in The Nation may contain statements that are deemed inaccurate does not negate its reliability (the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is Verifiability, not "Truth"). Thus, it '''may''' be used as a source in Misplaced Pages articles.
	:::Now, questions about whether any source '''should''' be used ''in a particular Misplaced Pages article'', and questions about ''how'' it should be used (for example: should it be used in support of a statement of fact or only in support of a statement of opinion) are legitimate. But these have to be decided at the ''article's talk page''... not here. So... stop being POINTy. Take this argument back to the talk pages of the articles involved. ] (]) 13:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::I've already pointed out that what you are saying is nonsense, and repeating it doesn't make it any less nonsense. "The Nation is... notable publication with extensive circulation and editorial oversight. It is no less reliable than the New York Times, Newsweek, US News and World Report, or any other major periodical."? Really? I don't think so. It appears to do very little fact checking of assertions that align with its biases, as shown by the example I've provided. And the Hayes article 72etc mentions also fabulated an importance to a nonentity named Andy Martin, unsupported by any fact, to perform a convenient smear. Do you have any ''evidence'' that it does fact checking, or are you just pulling an assertion out of your rear end? ] (]) 09:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Andyvphil, you've made your point, and consensus appears to be against you. My recommendation is that you accept that and move on. We are all sometimes in a minority of one. ] (]) 11:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	What do people think about the reliability of this court transcript of a witness hosted on Robert Latimer's website? I don't have any reason to doubt its authenticity but would like to know if we should be using it given that I can't actually find it on a more independent/reliable source. --] (]) 01:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	:I would say no... nothing indicates that it is a "true" copy of the original. It does not even indicate basic information that will be found on any official transcript... such as the case name or the date. I note that a few lines are highlighted or underlined... this would not be the case on an official transcript. All we can say in an article would be that Latimer's website prints something that ''appears'' to be a re-typing of part of a court transcript where the witness said X, and that is definitely not reliable. Sorry. ] (]) 03:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	::(the following was posted by IP user 70.66.167.249 in the discussion below... I assume that it was simply misposted and have moved it ] (]) 21:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)): If any of you have doubts as to the veracity of the court transcript, you need only to refer to your local library, a place where they have books available for reading by the public. If they don't have it on hand, they will certainly bring it in for you. Any respectable law library, such as McGill University, will certainly have it available.
	:::The problem isn't actually the court transcript, but the copy of it that is found on Latimer's webpage. If someone cites to a verifiable copy of the actual transcript (as might be found in a respectable law library) that would be fine. ] (]) 21:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::I actually have access to McGill's law library and it isn't available through them electronically or on the shelves. Not sure where that leaves us. Can I also clarify one additional thing? I believe that for an editor to use the transcript as a source we must actually have seen and verified a reliable version of the transcript, not just that on Latimer's website. In order words, we can't just cite a verifiable copy of the transcript unless we have actually seen that copy in some way (electronically or physically). Is this correct? --] (]) 21:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Correct. Whoever adds a citation must have seen the document they cite too. That is part of ]. ] (]) 22:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: From what you are saying, it appears that there is no transcript of the trial and that Dr. Dzus never did testify. Supporters of Robert Latimer just made the whole thing up to fool the public. If that is the case, you should delete all reference to this transcript hoax, and while you are at it, everything else that could in any way be interpreted as favourable to Robert Latimer. If you are going to have a public lynching, which would obviously be your first choice, don't stop halfway :::::
	::No... this is not what I am saying at all. All I am saying is that we can not use the version of the transcript that is on Latimer's Page, as that version is flawed (it is incomplete and with non-original markings). In all of this, I am assuming that there ''is'' a clean verifiable copy of Dr. Dzus's testimony somewhere out there that we ''can'' cite to. All we need to do is locate it. Has anyone tried seeing if there is a public record at the court where the trial took place, or contacting a court reporting service? It does not need to be available on line... just accessable to the public. ] (]) 00:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Just to clarify, not just "accessible to the public", but also accessed/verified by the editor who adds the citation to the article, as Blueboar mentioned previously before. --] (]) 01:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::Here is how the information could be accessed, I believe.--] (]) 01:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	What are you trying to use the transcript for? Primary sources like court transcripts need to be used with great care, particularly on BLPs are they can easily lead to OR, UNDUE etc. You may want to read ] about the use of primary sources. I would take particular clear if you are trying to advance a position, whether negative or positive, which is not already supported by a secondary source. If the primary source is simply be used to back up the secondary source then fine. ] (]) 18:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	== ] LLC blogs ==
	{{resolved}}
	* ] (]) 02:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Right... could you explain that a little more please? ] (]) 12:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::If your question is whether we can link to sfist.com in the ] article ... the answer is Yes... In that article, it essentially falls under ]. The article is (in part) about Gothamist LLC. sfist.com is included in a list of "city centric" blogs that are run by that company. I am not sure if listing all of these blogs is appropriate (it slightly smacks of turning the article into a promotion for the company and its various blog sites), but that is a different issue. If we ''are'' going to include the list, it is appropriate to provide a link to each of them as verification that they exist and are indeed owned and run by Gothamist LLC.
	:::If your question is whether sfist.com can be used as a source in any ''other'' article, then I would say Absolutely Not. In ''other'' articles it falls squarely under our "No blogs" rule and is unreliable. ] (]) 13:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::Nothing to add other than to affirm what Blueboar just said. Sfist.com could not, however, be used as a source for other articles. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 15:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::Wow, Blueboar, how did you read his mind? ] (]) 18:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::It's just another of my psychic Super Powers. No biggie. :>) ] (]) 20:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Relata refero, thanks for the bite. Blueboar, thank you for answering my question, which I apparently could have been MUCH more clear on. ] (]) 23:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
	== The Philadelphia Trumpet ==
	Would '']'' be considered a reliable source for a statement on Middle Eastern politics? It is a monthly news magazine published by the ]. I have to admit I'm no expert on the PCoG, but my understanding of it is that it is a fairly fringe-y religious organisation (according to a ''Watchman Expositor'' profile, it is an "American-born cult" with about 6,000 members -- ). I feel that this would have to be considered a non-mainstream source - what ] would call a "]" - and that Middle Eastern affairs would be outside its area of competence. It strikes me as being rather similar to contemplating the use of a ] magazine as a reliable source for a statement on Scientology's pet hate, ]. I would be interested to know what others think. -- ] (]) 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Probably not the best source - certainly not at the level of a newsmagazine like '']'', or even '']''. It does seem to have a fairly high circulation, assuming the figures are accurate. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	::I am extremely skeptical of those figures. It seems highly ] that a fringe magazine for a 6,000-member cult has higher circulation than '']'', '']'', or '']'', just to name a few. Cults have a reputation for exaggerating membership and publication figures (with Scientology, for instance, they often buy books ''en masse'' off the shelves and then re-sell them, to juice their sales figures). ] 15:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Those figures are extraordinary. 300,000 copies ''per month'' for an organisation with 6,000 members works out at 50 copies per member. It's most likely that those reflect free distribution copies rather than commercial sales figures (Scientology's ] works in much the same way - they give them out on the street). Be that as it may, it occurs to me that a good way of assessing its reliability would be to see whether anyone else quotes it as a source; bear in mind ]'s requirement that sources should have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I've done a search of news archives and Google Books but found negligible use of the ''Trumpet'' as a source. The few sources I did find used it mainly as a source on the PCoG, which is fair enough given that it's the official organ of that outfit, though I was amused to see that one source described it as "hopelessly fundamentalist"! It seems to me that if other reliable sources are not citing the ''Trumpet'' as a source for information on general issues, we should not do so; I've found nothing that suggests it has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." -- ] (]) 22:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	== CounterPunch ==
	I've come across a few references to '']'' which, I note, has from article space. I see from this page's archives that CounterPunch's reliability has been discussed briefly before, but I'm unclear as to what the general view is of this source's reliability. Any thoughts? -- ] (]) 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	:It has a strong political agenda and bias. It's probably about as reliable as ], which would be its counterpart on the right. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	::My expsriance froma personal angle: ] is a valid source for opinions but not for facts. ] (]) 04:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::I prefer to remove links to CounterPunch unless the individual writing for them is notable enough in his or her own right. Jay's comparison to FPM is apt. ] (]) 07:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::None of these should be used as sources in contentious articles related to political/social topics, unless the author is particularly well known and their opinion is likely to be of substantial interest in and of itself. ] 15:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Agreed. ] (]) 15:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Exactly how I approach it. ] (]) 19:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Ditto. &lt;]/]]&gt; 20:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Agree with ]. It depends on who writes there. In itself it cannot be called a reliable or unreliable source (the same goes for mainstream papers though). One might add that, contrary to what was asserted, it doesn't have a 'strong political agenda', except for those unfamiliar with it, since the views expounded in its pages can not be affiliated with those of any political party. Its regulars include an (ex?) economist who was an undersecretary for the Reagan Administration (e.g.Paul Craig Roberts), former analysts for the C.I.A., libertarians, ex-Wall Street Journal journalists of repute, historians of repute, senior officers of the American military (Col. Dan Smith), many academics, etc. It opens its pages to what are called fringe views, but also to quality analysts from all areas of controversy. It is equally critical of the Democratic Party as of the Republican Party. It has a strong record for quality reportage on certain key issues that has proven, in retrospect, more accurate of the inside-stories in matters like WMP in Iraq, the politics of the war on Terror, and the invasion of Iraq, prescient on the present economic crisis long before 'mainstream' newspapers starting to talk about possible sub-prime problems and the structural dangers of derivatives-trading. It is, yes, highly critical of Israel, but most of that material comes from varied voices within Israel or the north-American Jewish world, from Uri Avnery to Michael Neumann. It does not have a 'line', however, since its regular commentators have disagreed quite vigorously on a one or two-state solution. In short, Counterpunch is what is called a muckraking magazine, hosting a great diversity of prominent critics, academics, writers and journalists, from Diane Johnston, Gore Vidal, Uri Avnery, Ralph Nader, Paul Craig Roberts, Robert Fisk (one of the West's best writers on Lebanese affairs and history), Oren Ben-Dor, Frank Menetrez, Gary Leupp, etc., to name a few off the top of my head. The comparison to ], is completely off-key. If it has an agenda, it is in getting informed reportage from around the world that is not on the Front Page, and cannot be qualified as a 'left' wing mirror of a right-wing rag, for the simple reason that many who write for it are far too critical of the ideological or political left to be denominated under that vague and lazy rubric. What applies to it, applies to all sources: a judgement of quality, which can vary as much there as it does in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, mainstream papers which have proven to be far less reliable as sources on several major events of the last decade than Counterpunch.] (]) 21:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC).
	:::::::Nishidani's point about the heterogeneity of views and reputations on offer is well taken. I agree, too, that some of the sources most reliable by our standards have shown themselves to be somewhat problematic recently when it comes to the bigger picture. (Read ] for gory details.) But the difference is that (a) CounterPunch prides itself on heterogeneity and giving space to marginal views; by focusing on the things in which they were right about facts, we would be subject to ], and would not get useful information about the ''probability'' of them being right about facts. (b) As a self-defined muckraking magazine, it cannot be expected to hold itself to the same standards of fact-checking and confirmation using multiple independent sources that newspapers we consider reliable by our metric at least nominally honour. (c) As a magazine devoted to heterogeneity of views and reputations, it cannot be immediately assumed that publication in it makes the opinion of the contributor notable by our standards. Its strength as an unaffiliated, "independent" voice is a weakness as far as meeting the criteria here are concerned. ] (]) 23:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Applying the ] criteria of having "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", is CounterPunch cited as a reliable source by other reliable sources? -- ] (]) 00:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::Indeed a good point. In the end, that's all that matters. We must all resist the natural tendency to see publications we agree with as inherently more reliable and neutral (really, any mag that publishes Chomsky, Fisk, and Churchill is left-leaning, and these days paleoconservatives have more in common with the left on major foreign policy issues than anyone on the right). I agree with those above we should only reference an article in this mag and others like FPM if that article's author is notable in his own right (e.g. Chomsky for Counterpunch, Pipes for FPM). - ] (]) 05:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Since when is ] notable in any way similar to ]? Chomsky has a very wide and international notability in several areas of scholarship and political commentary, whereas Pipes certainly does not. Do you mean that within arch-conservative cultures Chomsky is regarded as a wackjob the way that Pipes is amongst those of the far left who even know who is? While I get the similarity here on Misplaced Pages in terms of perceived POV lets not delude ourselves about the notability of minor ideologues (vs. quite major ideologues).] (]) 11:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::To quibble a minor issue in Merzbow's point above: Fisk's main output is for '']'' which isn't left-leaning but centre. OK, UK centre = US far left, but we have to live with that. ] (]) 10:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Unsure about this source ==
	appears to be on the edge of what may or may not be acceptable for the content. It is a transcript from a radio interview of one of the principals that seems to confirm the content. However the tricky part is the transcript and website ''appears'' to be self published by the producers of the radio show that is no longer in operation.
	From ]:
	Also '''Infectious venulitis (IVN)''', this term was used to describe an outbreak at the ] in ], ] by ]. <br>
	] or not? Thanks. ] (]) 00:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
	== FreeRepublic ==
	FreeRepublic.com is by and large an unreliable source because it is a self-published source (blog). However, it does have a reprinting service where users add articles to the site from reliable sources that they find interesting followed by frequently lengthy comments on the article by the readers of the website. As an example, is used as a source in ]. Can the reprints on freerepublic be used as a reliable source, or does the reputation of FreeRepublic and the following comments by the readers of the site eliminate the reliableness of the source. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
	*Since the original newspaper and article publication date are provided with the FreeRepublic article, it would be better to find a way to look up the original article (even though it's no longer available free online) rather than relying solely on the convenience link at FreeRepublic. --] ] 07:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
	* Cite the original source, not the reprint. Misplaced Pages is not a method of ] to Free Republic. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Thanks for the responses. I wasn't considering adding links to the site (I've been slowly going through the externals links to it and removing them), just ran across a user that was repeatedly adding a link to an article on the site and was claiming it was acceptable to use it, so I came here for clarification. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Linking to copyrighted articles reproduced in FreeRepublic is not allowed because they are copyvios. - ] (]) 00:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::Should the site be blacklisted then? Particularly the http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news portion of the site. That seems to be where the reprints are kept. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I don't see why not. ] (]) 15:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Good idea. I know the site pretty well and even have written on the forum, but I hadn't thought of the problems. If it should be blacklisted, how does that get done?] (]) 06:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
	Note that the topic of FreeRepublic.com came up in the fair use discussions above, under ]. I believe these are essentially similar cases. Our article on ] has details of a copyright case against FreeRepublic.com: ] (they lost). I would cite the original articles only. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 08:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
	:FreeRepublic is notably different from RickRoss.com. From my viewing, it appears the RR.com includes the full text of articles, with little or no commentary. FR.com mostly posts excerpts, sometimes with commentary interleaved, and always with highly partisan, non-expert commentary following. ]] ] 19:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Further, the problem of FR being used for citations has come up so often that blacklisting appears to be the best solution. ]] ] 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
	::I agree that the commentary adds significantly to the problem, making this a more clearcut case. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 19:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::It's essentially just a forum. It's not a reliable source in any way, shape, or form (like its arch-nemesis, ]). - ] (]) 00:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::I added it to the ] back on the 31st, but it still hasn't been acted upon. I just asked for a status check. One thing, www.freerepublic.com itself should probably be whitelisted as the site itself is notable and it should be okay to include a link to the site on ]'s article. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	== Dictionaries in general ==
	To what extent are general-purpose dictionaries considered RS with respect to inherently complex topics? For example, in the current ] article, several respected dictionaries are used as examples of "historically accepted" definitions of insurgency. My sense is that the space limitations of a dictionary make a definition there much less reliable than a discussion, of the same word, in a peer-reviewed report, journal, or monograph. Is there any guidance here?
	Note that I understand that certain "dictionaries" are actually specialized monographs, encyclopedias, or textbooks. Here, I'm referring to things such as Merriam-Webster or the OED.
	] (]) 19:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Dictionaries are reliable tertiary sources. We try not to use them too heavily, but comparing/contrasting a couple of dictionary definitions should be fine near the beginning of an article, to explain what a word means. ] (]) 04:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	== accesshollywood - Reliable source? ==
	I am just wondering, is it a reliable source?
	It has lots of users.
	http://www.accesshollywood.com/
	Thank you. --] (]) 01:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	:You'll have to specify an aspect of it. Some or many of the news items it publishes are in fact republications from reliable sources. Other parts of the site contain blogs (unreliable). ] (]) 02:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	:: Ok, what I meant was. Articles submited by their staff, not bloggers. For example, http://www.accesshollywood.com/article/8864/three-rising-stars-land-coveted-high-school-musical-3-roles/ Is this a reliable article? --] (]) 02:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Well, given that ] is itself notable, there seems to be a system of editorial oversight present, and its parent company (]) is a reliable source, I'd assume it to be reliable in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary. ] (]) 02:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::In the Great Scale of Celebrity Gossip, Access Hollywood is more ], less ]. ] (]) 15:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	== US Supreme Court cases and sourcing issues ==
	There's a debate going on over on ] (see section "]" and start reading where it says "I've seen some situations recently") about the manner in which statements about decisions of the United States Supreme Court can or should be sourced. The other editor and I had hoped to attract some outside perspectives on this issue (as an alternative to going back and forth on the article talk pages or simply descending into an edit war), but so far no one other than the two of us has chimed in.
	Originally, the argument seemed to be over whether certain kinds of statements, supposedly based on the content of a court opinion in a case, were valid on their own or should be considered "unsourced". That's why I first brought up the question on WP:ORN. Now, though, I'm wondering whether maybe the point at issue would be better characterized as where the line should be drawn between reliable and not-so-reliable sources.
	If some people who hang out on this noticeboard might take a moment to hop over to WP:ORN, read what's already been said there on this issue, and offer some guidance, I think we would both be grateful. Or, if people here think that this topic really ought to be discussed here instead and want to move it to this forum, that would presumably be fine too. Thanks. ] (]) 04:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Holy Books or Book Summaries ==
	Do Holy Books count as Reference for an religous article and is it possible to insert text straight out of Holy Books and then summarise it into an article ? Or would Actual Pictures from an holy book be listed as an reliable source? i mean the text mentioned in a holy book should have the right to be inserted into an holy article and the text is the absolute truth. so do Actual Text and Actual Photos straight out of holy books become an reliable source or is an Summary Book from somebody else point of view better ? so either Holy Book or Summary of Book from an author which are reliable, Or are the two of them reliable sources? please let me know before i make movements and get into conflicts. --] (]) 05:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	:The original text of a religious scripture is a ] for articles on that scripture, so we would try and avoid using it. Although reliable, the use of "summary" books or other work discussing the scripture in question would be preferred, especially if published by a well-known press. Please see ]. ] (]) 09:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	*In many cases, articles about religious subjects need to cite ]. See, for example, ], where the point of the section is to describe the narrative of Jesus's life as the New Testament describes it. (This doesn't mean that Misplaced Pages officially accepts the truth of the New Testament -- just that it is relevant to describe what the New Testament says.) Saying that "the text is the absolute truth" is only true for believers in the particular religion -- it is not a ]. Descriptions of the summary of a religious text may also be useful as reliable sources for describing the teachings of that religion. I am not sure which holy books you are thinking of that contain actual photos, given that most religious texts predate the invention of photography. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages could only use such photos if they are no longer in copyright or if they are freely licensed. If you have a particular text that you want to cite for a particular point, please provide further details and someone may be able to advise you further. --] ] 09:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::For the background to this see ]. Mohun is a sock of DWhiskaZ. ] (]) 12:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	: "Actual photos" apparently means scans of textual illustrations in books, such as can be seen in this of the article in question. This is more than a little dubious. First, since the purpose is to show text, the text can be quoted directly. Second, in this particular case, the "photos" in the source book are of poor quality and possibly not sourced themselves to reliable versions -- for example, not only has a typo, it also betrays a non-standard numbering in the "original" source from which the illustration was made for the book. ] (]) 14:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Corporate Page Problem ==
	Having a problem on this article: ] which is a corporate stub. The article was started as essentially a copy and paste of press releases. I went through and remove most of the corporate PR from the article and trimmed it down to the basics. However two users are constantly reverting the edits. Am I off track here? I can't see any justification (in my mind) as to why the content deserves to be on Misplaced Pages. All it talks about is business transactions and visions, throwing figures in there, with no references what-so-ever. The only reference in the entire article is something I added based on a recent development (where the company got into serious legal trouble). I am questioning as well the motives of those editing the articles repeatedly. ] (]) 12:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Self-published sources are acceptable, though for style - not RS - reasons, the article should not sound too press-release-y. For the other issues, have you looked at ]? ] (]) 12:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	== reliability check ==
	I'm fairly sure that http://www.edbrill.com/ will not constitute a ], but I want third-party corroboration before I take that back to the article. Thanks! — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 13:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Looks like a personal blog to me. As such, it is not RS. ] (]) 15:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	== IMDb - again ==
	Hello, I'd like to reopen discussions on the reliability of IMDb. Whilst posts etc are user generated, the majority of factual edits are first moderated by internal editors. You can't just ADD information willy-nilly, it takes a while, and sometimes your input isn't accepted. Why isn't it considered reliable? Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#y.21m ] (]) 13:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Low impact journals used to POV-push ==
	At ], pro-fringe editors have been insisting that certain sources from extremely low ] journals are acceptable for inclusion in the article despite not having received any notice from the scientific community. I insist that we only use papers from high impact-factor journals and comments from notable astrophysicists. I beleive that pandering to the fringe elements in the way that is being done for the last year in article space is a violation of ]. What do you think about the sources? Should low-impact sources be used when high-impact sources are available?
	] (]) 14:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Consistency across the whole encyclopedia is important here. In general, greater weight should be given to high-impact publications. But it is also important to remember that there may be systemic bias in the impact factor calculations. This was recently discussed in the UK higher education community, in relation to the question of how metrics can be used in assessing research quality for funding purposes, so it is a serious consideration. So long as they are peer-reviewed, papers in relatively low-impact journals can still be excellent and non-controversial sources for WP in many different subject areas. ] (]) 15:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	::I certainly agree that high impact journals should be given substantially more weight... but am hesitant to rule out low impact journals completely. That said, SA raises a valid point... the line between low impact and Fringe can be a bit blurry. Ultimately, I think we have to decide such issues on a case by case basis. ] (]) 15:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	::This is not limited to natural science articles; political science and economics articles have similar problems. For example, the most often cited "journal" in all of comparative politics on WP is the ]. This has an impact factor of - well, nothing, as it isn't even considered a journal, and is left out of the ]. In other words, its a non-person. If someone publishes an article in journal X that gets the MEQ all excited, it wouldn't matter. And yet....
	::What can one do about it? People who prefer the "appearance" of legitimate scholarship ("look! it calls itself a journal! And people sit on a board! Some of them have degrees!") will clearly use these things. If they wish to push non-mainstream views, in pseudoscience or pseudohistory or political advocacy, such apparently above-board "journals" are of great use. <span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 15:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Middle East Quarterly is a very special case because academics have gone into print to argue that it is not an academic journal. There are, however, some very respectable journals that are not listed by WoS. Perhaps it is more common in the UK for journals to go unlisted. I would say that if it is published by one of the major houses, e.g. Taylor & Francis, University of California, then it should be considered RS. ] (]) 15:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	In tightly-knit communities like astronomy and cosmology there are only a handful of journals that really get notice. ], ], ], ]. Then there are the journals that are the journals that are ignored. These are the journals the fringe-promoters want to see used, even though we have journal citations from the more credible journals. It's not like this article is hurting for sources. It looks to me like someone is shilling for discredited crackpots like Paul Marmet. I have made this argument, but it falls on deaf ears. No one wants to hear that their favorite crackpot is really a crackpot and so shouldn't be included at Misplaced Pages. So here we are. How do I convince people that these sources are no good? ] (]) 15:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	:We might have to discuss the journals that you do not consider credible on a case-by-case basis. What are their titles? Who publishes them? Who is on their editorial boards? ] (]) 16:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	:BTW even in a talk page you should not refer to someone in the terms that you have described the person you mention above. See ]. If someone's writing is outside mainstream science, then that is all you need to say. ] (]) 16:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	Here's the list:
	# Astrophysics & Space Science
	# Physics Essays
	# IEEE Trans. Plasma Science
	# Physics Letters A
	# Astronomy and Astrophysics
	] (]) 17:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	: I don't know about the rest, but ''IEEE Trans. Plasma Science'' is certainly no fringe-theory outlet and has a decent reputation within the field . Impact factors should be judged within the relevant field, and I can't think of a single journal published by reputable professional societies such as IEEE, APS, AMS, SIAM that would qualify as a fringe journal, even though traditionally the covered topics have relatively low impact factors especially compared with journals in medicine and biosciences. While I wouldn't vouch for the accuracy of every paper in ''any'' journal, we should be careful that we don't paint with too broad a brush. ] (]) 18:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	::No, IEEE Trans. Plasma Science is definitely the most fringe of them all in terms of cosmology and astronomy. Aside from being listed only in the noise at the site you give for plasma physics and fusion, they routinely publish papers by ] and other way-out-there fringers who believe in all sorts of nonsense with regards to astronomy. I think it's because the editor in chief has trusted all the cosmology publications to be reviewed by Perrat and Eastman. I've sent them a request for information but they have replied that they believe in , and that's what I should refer my questions to. So they're conspiracy theorists in charge of IEEE's journal. However, the rest of the community ignores it. If you look at actual papers dealing with astronomy published by that paper, their citation rate is close to nil. ] (]) 18:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Is that ''Physics Letters A'' or ''Phys. Rev. Letters A''? The latter is notable, ''and clearly not reviewed for content''. I don't know about the former. &mdash; ] ] 19:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::That would be . ] (]) 14:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Published by Elsevier. I think we have to see it as a bona fide academic journal. Otherwise, what criteria will we have for deciding what counts as an academic journal? Its impact factor seems to be respectable, but then of course there is a question of impact ''in what field''. This will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. I also think it is going to be highly problematic classifying any IEEE journals as crackpot - it might enable a quick fix now but overriding criteria as to what counts as RS will store up problems for the future. ] (]) 14:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Case-by-case basis is the way to go here. Certainly there's no grounds for suggesting that a journal with an impact factor of 8 is automatically a better source than one with an impact factor of 3. Impact factor is, as has been noted, an imperfect metric. On the other hand, there is a real issue at times with obscure journals being used to "rebut" the conclusions of major mainstream bodies. Examples include vaccines and autism, where the ] review was "rebutted" by the ], a non-PubMed-indexed political organ. Interestingly, this same journal has been cited at ] to critique the findings of the National Cancer Institute and World Health Organization. But now I'm on my soapbox. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 16:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: I think that it would be too much to brand an IEEE journal WP:FRINGE (at least, I have no qualms citing some of their other publications for solid state). It does seem reasonable, though, that an engineering plasma journal would be "fringe" (little ''f'', on the outskirts of) to the cosmology field. (Nobody takes ] seriously.) I think publishing journal needs to be viewed as a necessary but not sufficient condition for academic respectability - there are plenty of papers in PRL that I would feel uncomfortable citing.
	:::::: Physics Essays, on the other hand, looks like it should default to not RS, to be included only on a case-by-case basis. My institution does not subscribe to PE (maybe it is one of the database services, I did not check), so I would not want to blacklist the journal without further discussion. - ] ~(])]~ 17:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	For clarification, the issue is not whether these journals are "academic". They are. They simply are so fringe as to be questionable for citation sources for major content in the article. I'm not comfortable even having them simply cited as they direct readers to simply awful papers when there are much better ones available. Certainly if we write an article on ], citing to IEEE Plasma Transactions makes sense to give an idea what the people who believe in plasma cosmology say, but in the ] article, the notability of the topic is derived from Zwicky and Tolman's interest in the idea in the mid-part of the last century. It is an obsolete theory and has only been "resurrected" by fringe elements grasping at straws. Their efforts have gone unnoticed by the mainstream community including people that usually pay attention to such things (e.g. ] whose critique of tired light cosmology refers to earlier versions and not the Marmet, Accardi, Masreliez nonsense). ] (]) 20:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	== Are author/publisher bios reliable sources? ==
	I regularly come across WP articles on authors or musicians where the primary source for the info is the author's homepage or the publisher's bio. Often, my online searches fail to turn up additional info or even confirming sources. My question: Is a author bio (particularly one probably written by the author) a reliable source? I debated posting to the ] but this is really a reliability question. It seems to me these sorts of author bios aren't remotely independent of the subject. If the info was republished in a RS like a newspaper or mag article or a valid online source, that would probably work but trusting what is, for all practical purposes, self-reporting?. I have doubts.
	I guess my main concern is that there is also a question of notability if they don't have at least '''some''' significant RS coverage. Input? Cheers, ]] 17:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	:It's not reliable, per se, but you just treat it like any ]. ] (]) 18:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Yes. In other words, if it's being used for something like confirming the real name of someone, where they were born, etc, it's probably fine. If it's being used exclusively to support the claim the person won a Nobel Prize, probably not. ] (]) 18:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Encyclopedias ==
	Hello, does this book 'Encyclopedia of Hinduism' become an Reliable Source ? and if so would there be any rejections for it ? is there an certain company that i could only provide as Ref.
	because i noticed in many wiki articles they just have books (not encyclopedias) from authors point of view and doesnt seem to be fair to other books and information that could be provided in articles.
	and my libray has many encyclopedias from old books and new books and many different publishers. could you provide me with proper guidelines. --] (]) 18:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Can you provide some information about the publisher, editors, contributors etc, a link to an online description, or at least the ] ? It is difficult to judge the reliability of a source based solely on the title. ] (]) 18:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Sure easily no problem here
	Book Name - Encyclopedia International
	Copyright- 1974, 1973, 1972, 1971, 1970, 1969, 1968, 1967, 1966, 1965, 1964, 1963 by '''Grolier Incorporated'''
	Copyright - Grolier Incorporated 1974
	Copyright in Canada - Grolier Limited
	Encyclopedia International
	Includes bibliographies
	1. Encyclodeias and Dictionaries
	AE5.E447 1974 031 73-11206
	ISBN 0-7172-0705-6
	'''Note''' - Its just One of my Sources for information, and it also covers some areas i will be investigating in and has over 30 books. is it considerd reliable ?
	--] (]) 20:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Well that seems to be a somewhat obscure and outdated tertiary publication that according to World cat is directed towards a "Juvenile" audience. As such it doesn't appear to be an appropriate source for wikipedia. Do other editors want to chime in ? ] (]) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	Whats the difference if its based on 1970 or whenever, its still actual Encyclopedia that holds enough information to calim what i need on articles. --] (]) 21:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	*One problem is that the book you have referenced is the ''Encyclopedia International'' instead of the ''Encyclopedia of Hinduism''. In other words, it's a general interest juvenile encyclopedia, instead of a subject-specific encyclopedia as suggested above. --] ] 14:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Essentially, my take on it is that an encyclopedia should be where we ''start'' our research on a topic, not where we end it. A high quality encyclopedia will have references to show where it got ''its'' information. We should read these references and cite them, rather than citing an encyclopedia which summarize them. Good research is a multi-step process. ] (]) 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
	== Shofar ftp archives ==
	In the article ] a paragraph was very recently introduced that uses the following as source (text from the reference given):
	*German newspaper editor outlining the claims of Polish atrocities against minorities
	My question is, is this a reliable source? Can I too use this and similar material to source articles?--] <sup>]</sup> 20:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	:It purports to be a translation of the affidavit by ] at the ]. Given that the original source the volumes of ''Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression'', (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office; 1946. Office of United States Chief of Council) are all in the public domain, I see no reason to doubt that this is an accurate reproduction of the original report. Fritzsche is, of course, a reliable if primary source on Nazi propaganda. <span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 08:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
	:: Yes, definitely on both counts. It may be preferable in some sense to link to the (page with pdf) distribution, but the text appears to match. It should, of course, be kept in mind that this is a primary source, but it is certainly reliable and citeable. - ] ~(])]~ 23:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
	== Are Forbes and International Herald Tribune reliable sources? ==
	As silly as it sounds, I need input from the wider community as to whether ] and the ] are reliable sources? There is a long-running dispute on ] where ] claims that '''The IHT is not an authority in deciding for SIA who its parent company is''' and in relation to Forbes, '''The only reliable source on a company's structure is obviously the company's own publications. And they simply do not show such a relationship'''. If others can look ] for more information and provide their input that would be great. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	* Yes, they are reliable sources for business topics. If they have published incorrect information, then the company needs to take it up with them and request a correction. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	*Ditto, in the absence of reliable sources to the contrary, info published by the IHT and Forbes is reliable. If the company's literature contradicts this, include a note to that effect as a caveat. Attribution/transparency is always a good move in sourcing disputes. <font color="404040">]</font> 23:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	*I agree with Jehochman and Skomorokh. Not only are Forbes and the IHT reliable sources unless there is evidence otherwise, but there isn't even a contradiction between them and the company's literature. indicates that it is majority owned by Temasek Holdings (Pte) Ltd which is consistent with what Forbes and IHT say. --] ] 01:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' Thanks people. The SIA annual report states the following, '''Singapore Airlines Limited ("the Company") is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, incorporated in the Republic of Singapore.''', meaning that SIA is the subsidiary, Temasek is the parent, so no caveat would need to be placed, because even the company acknowledges this relationship. --] <sup>]</sup> 10:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	== The HistoryMakers ==
	Is a reliable source for information about its subjects? ] (]) 03:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
	: Specifically, biographical information. ] (]) 19:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
	== A new way to sneak in unreliable sources? ==
	I've been engaged in 'debate' (with someone very heated) about a particular source used for the ] article. The other party involved seems to have written most of the article (he did its 3rd edit) and says he used this source to write it -- see . It's not just that the source is a Swedish UFO web page, it is that the article itself is also very bad. The stuff about its discovery and Gray is well sourced elsewhere, the stuff at the bottom about someone called Thatte is apparently fictitious, or at least I cannot find any references to anything there except the word Maitravaruna which seems to mean priest.
	I removed it twice and he put it back giving me some abuse. He's now created a new section on "World Wide Web sites that were used by some editors in the construction of this article." which he seems to think gives him carte blanche to add any links he wants so long as he has used them in the past for information.
	While I'm at it -- some of the other links I'm not sure about. Youtube? http://www.answersingenesis.org? The Unmuseum?
	And the images - a bit OT here - how do I check whether they are licenced?
	I'm pretty new here and still coming to grips with what meets policy/guidelines and what doesn't, so any help is appreciated especially as I hope to spend more time improving articles (such as the Terracotta Army one) then sorting this sort of thing out and want to practice what I preach. {{unsigned2|05:59, 1 April 2008|Dougweller}}
	: The information in the article from the Swedish UFO web page apparently came from "Teknik i Forntiden (a book in Swedish), by Henry Kjellson and C-A Matsson. Amateur Astronomy and some other articles" (see the bottom of the article), which appear to be reliable sources. You could also try emailing the chairman of UFO-Sweden (Clas Svahn, clas.svahn@ufo.se) and ask if he could put you in contact with the article's author (Anders Persson) so that you can ask where the info about Thatte etc came from. (The article mentions that the Thatte info came from an Indian technical publication called "Shilpa-Sansar". You may want to ask someone who knows Hindi about that publication.)
	: Keep in mind that the article was originally written in Swedish before being translated to fairly poor English -- it makes a lot more sense in Swedish. I haven't bothered to check what the article is/was being cited for in the ] article or what its relevance is. This is a general comment about the article from the Swedish UFO site. –] (]) 22:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
	: YouTube is not considered a reliable source according to ] You may want to read ] for additional examples of what are and aren't considered reliable sources. –] (]) 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	::The problem is that the other editor doesn't care. He writes about 'septics' and says "Ignore all rules. Period. J. D. Redding 14:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)" I'm sure the article on the Swedish site makes better sense in English, but the bottom stuff about Thatte I can't find in English or any other language so it's not exactly Misplaced Pages material or reliably sourced.
	::How can Matsson, Kjellson and Persson, all involved in UFO stuff, be reliable sources?] (]) 20:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	== Email from an official source ==
	{{resolved}}
	Is an email from an official source, in my particular case an embassy or ministry of foreign affairs, a reliable source? Over on the ] page we're trying to gather the positions of as many countries as possible and since less media-friendly or geographically distant countries do not announce their positions on Kosovo, it's often necessary to email them and ask. I can see this becoming a dispute as it becomes a more common practice for us to do so, thus I seek an opinion from this page. ] (]) 16:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
	:No, personal emails are not absolutely NOT reliable. What's more it would be a ] violation to add information gathered from such a source to an article. ] (]) 17:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Agree with Blueboar. You can ask the country reps. if the they can point you to '''published''' documents (press releases, quotes in newspapers etc) where they have stated their position in the Kosovo situation, and cite those published documents; but you certainly '''cannot''' cite any personal communication. ] (]) 17:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
	== Award databases ==
	Is the official website of a sports tournament or a film festival considered to be a primary source as mentioned in ]? Can the award database of such a website be used as reference for a ] about awards?
	This issue was raised on ] by ]. It does not only involve this list, but also lists that are already featured, such as:
	*]
	*]
	*]
	My reasoning was the following:{{quote|For a sports tournament such as the 1928 Summer Olympics the authority of the organization is decisive in recognizing medals, and therefore I believe that the medal count can be based on these sources.}} in which "these sources" refers to www.olympics.org and the official report of the 1928 Summer Olympics, written by the Dutch National Olympic Committee.
	I would appreciate your feedback on this issue. Best regards, ]] 10:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	: To me, ] says ''care should be taken when using primary sources and the information garnered from those should be verifiable by secondary sources, which Misplaced Pages articles "should rely on"''. Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, in which case can someone let me know. -- ] ''<small>@</small> 13:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	::First of all, I think we can agree that the topics on which these lists are based are notable. Secondly, these lists serve as sub-articles to the main articles about the topics. The question would be if it is OK to have a sub-article based on primary sources to complement the article based on secondary sources. Databases ''can'' contain indiscriminate information, but I think that if one can establish the criteria for certain types of information to be important, it can be brought in. For example, I am pretty positive that the general notion of medal counts is accepted in the mainstream, whereas a compilation of all Olympic athletes' height and weight may not be types of information as indisputable. In the cases of the examples provided above, I doubt that the information would truly be challenged. I do not see what kind of controversy these particular lists could foment. There are probably examples of lists where primary sources would be questioned, but I don't think these are a problem. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">]</font> (] • ]) - 16:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	== Wikibooks, wikisource : RS??? ==
	I am Ga reviewing ]. Need help to decide are these RS:
	* retrieved 9 Mar 2008
	* retrieved 2 Mar 2008
	--] (]) 14:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	: According to ], wikis are not considered reliable sources. –] (]) 17:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Wikisource is not a normal wiki... It contains material quoted from other sources. So... While ''it'' should not be used as a source... the material posted on it can be. Cite to the original work, and link Wikisource as a convenience link. ] (]) 17:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	==Is the ] a reliable source?==
	In the article on "]" also commonly known as "megavitamin therapy", it is disputed whether a statement from the AMA Council on Scientific Affairs dealing with Alternative medicine is a reliable source to which we can attribute criticism of alternative medical systems that use diet and nutrition: particularly the discussion of systems that, as the report says, "promote dietary supplements beyond the Recommended Dietary Allowances". ] (]) 17:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	:I'd say since its issued by a reputable and well-kown organization in the field in question, to which many people in the field look for professional guidance and standards, it would be reliable in the conext you describe. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	::The AMA is most definitely a reliable source. ] (]) 17:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::That said, it should be noted the webpage you linked to was actually a tertiary source, so you may find even better sources by hunting down its own, which were well indicated. ] (]) 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	::This Misplaced Pages article has a large number of links to the primary literature, which poses its own challenges. I was trying to find as an authoritative mainstream overview of the field to cite in the lead. ] rejected a direct quote of the ] from dealing with the subject of "orthomolecular medicine" in general, since he argued they had no expertise outside cancer. This was the best alternative I could find. ] (]) 17:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::This user has indicated that he may refuse to accept any consensus that forms on this noticeboard . I get the feeling this is headed irrevocably towards dispute resolution process. ] (]) 17:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I have made repeated attempts to offer that balance and report all sides rather than promenitently promote POV. You are repeatedly making (not so?)subtly unfair & provocative statements with undertones that suggest that you want to target me in some way. That needs to change.--] (]) 20:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::Funny thing is that AMA has been cited for anti-competitive behavior about disparging competitors before, the specific page does cite other fields by name but not "orthomolecular" anywhere - an WP:OR violation, and has had highly flawed (but slowly acknowledged, 20+ yrs) attacks on this area, orthomolecular medicine, since Pauling demonstrated a number of embarrassing or serious scientific errors in their methods and publications. Favoring a compromised medical faction to pre-emptively settle or deprecate scientific disputes with flat contradictions this supposed "RS infallibility" is inappropriate.
	::::Blind credibility to economic competitors with repeatedly demonstrated bias and error fails WP:V in multiple ways. WP:V, UNDUE weight, bias, and WP:OR are crucial issues here.--] (]) 18:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I would suggest that any peer-reviewed article, as opposed to editorial, in an AMA journal, is reliable. If an editorial clearly states the position of an author in that debate, it is authoritative in terms of that position. The ''New England Journal of Medicine'' is very good about making biases clear. Policy papers of the AMA, however, are quite another matter. Membership has dropped to about a third of American physicians, and a good number of the members do not participate in AMA politics, but join for journal and other discounts.
	:::::Your mention of Pauling, however, does concern me. Now, I have read more of his work on chemical bonds than in medicine, but I have not seen, and they may exist, well-designed randomized clinical trials of his theories in medicine. I have seen things he wrote that seemed essentially anecdotal. I'd really like to see some independent review of Pauling's demonstrations of errors, before I would be ready to accept Pauling, Nobel Prize and all, as a reliable source in clinical medicine. If Pauling was a co-investigator with qualified clinical researchers, with a research protocol approved by an Institutional Review Board, that would be an excellent start. ] (]) 18:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Many of Pauling's comments about rigor in handling and representing data, as well as his critiques of his opponents, have been quietly acknowledged or adopted over time, without (much or any) credit. In a number of cases, Pauling doesn't have to be right on his hypotheses to show his (AMA, too) opponents were wrong or even grossly out of line in terms of scientific conduct and method.--] (]) 18:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	::The source you cite claims that: "''But the approach taken by some alternative practitioners encourages what many consider the excessive use of health foods and dietary supplements, often of a proprietary nature and meant to enrich themselves while promoting several myths:<sup>4</sup>
			2. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/07/11/rostec-nebo-m-radar-is-it-a-scam-or-propaganda/
	::# it is difficult to get the nourishment one requires from ordinary foods
	::# '''vitamin and mineral deficiencies are common'''
			3. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/12/28/russian-su-57-will-carry-four-missiles-in-the-internal-weapons-bay/
	::As a found that selenium supplementation far above the RDA reduced the rate of some cancers by approximately 50%, it would appear to me to be unwarranted to include this pronouncement by the AMA as anything other than an opinion, which '''must '''be contrasted with other, competing, belief systems.--] (]) 18:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::Surprisingly, that study was published in the ], which seems to be somewhat ironical. It actually failed to show a reduction in the kinds of cancer the study was designed for, but some indication that some other kinds may be affected. It clearly states that a followup-study is necessary before a final conclusion can be drawn. Anyways, this is not any indication of wide-spread selenium deficit - chemo will help many cancer patients as well, but few people claim a lack in cytotoxins.--] (]) 19:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
			4. Radar Horizon. (n.d.). www.ssreng.com. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www.ssreng.com/pdf/Radar_Horizon.pdf
	:::It is an "opinion" in the sense that ''any'' summary of medical evidence is an opinion. As the opinion of the AMA, it carries suitable weight to be included in an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure what the complaint is; the whole article consists of describing "other, competing belief systems". ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
			5. Butowski 2021, pp. 78–82
	:::: I couldn't agree more! My concerns was that it must not be cited in such a way that it could be construed to be an authoritative pronouncement, which is exactly what will happen if care is not taken so that the phrasing precludes any leap to conclusions.--] (]) 19:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
			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/
	← I would caution against the approach that '']'' invalidates the AMA's position on everything. ]'s fabrications don't make the ''New York Times'' an unreliable source. The question is not so much whether the AMA is infallibly correct, but whether it is a useful representation of mainstream medical/scientific opinion, which for the most part it is. Hence it is a ], ''as Misplaced Pages defines the term'', regardless of our ''personal'' opinions of its reliability. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
			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/
	:My position is that I have a neutral acknowledgement that there are significant disagreements, some highly critical and some more neutrally stated in the next to last sentence. The single paragraph designed to good faith represent all sides without overpowering the article with POV that has significant flaws (& attack), in the vein suggested by the uninvolved editor , ''Furthermore, the paragraph could be accurately summarized simply as "This controversial field needs more scientific research to support its claims."''.--] (]) 18:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
			8. When Israel bombs Syria, Russia turns a blind eye. (2022, January 3). thearabweekly.com. Retrieved January 22, 2025, from
	::This isn't the place to discuss the article in general, but to decide if the AMA is a reliable, notable and mainstream source to which we can attribute an opinion on this form of alternative medicine. ] (]) 18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
			https://thearabweekly.com/when-israel-bombs-syria-russia-turns-blind-eye ] (]) 15:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::"mainstream"? the medical one, yes, not necessarily the Scientific one. "notable" yes. "Reliable" case by case, it is a trade organization beholden to its politics and concentrated financial concerns, where WP:V has too frequently punched holes in its WP:RS on matters of competitors and orthodoxy. Again, the WP:OR , and the particular pedigree of the material (many highly partisan sources, not a peer reviewed paper AFAIK).--] (]) 19:47, 2 April 2008 (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)
			== Should we trust ] for statistics ==
	The AMA is unquestionably a reliable source (as per wikipedia's use of the term), and in most instances also a noteworthy source. Just need to be careful that any AMA opinion/recommendation is properly attributed to the organization in the main text itself. ] (]) 18:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
			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;
	:The current version of the lead says ''"However, the scientific and medical consensus is that the broad claims of efficacy advanced by advocates of orthomolecular medicine are unsupported, with the ] saying that the idea that most diseases can be prevented by nutritional interventions is a myth."'' Is this direct attribution acceptable to everybody? ] (]) 19:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	:: Yes, that is fine as far as sourcing and attribution are concerned. It would be a problem if the article stated, "'''X''' is a myth." instead. ] (]) 19:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::Of course more comments in ] would be most welcome. ] (]) 19:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::It is a temporary fix. Having named the other nutritional groups, it is still offtopic or OR, whether or not AMA or the webpage is WP:RS. The specific webpage for that text looks like just partisan opinion inadequately noted or structured, misrepresented as some kind of "nutritional" authority where drugs and nutrition have different evidence bases.--] (]) 20:24, 2 April 2008 (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."
	The '''American Medical Association''' is an excellent RS for describing the mainstream POV in medical science. The different wording (''orthomolecular'' vs ''dietary supplements in excess of RDA'') is not troubling: the former is an "in-term" among those who ascribe to high-dosages, while the latter is a more mainstream description of the same phenomenon. Therefore, the AMA is not only a reliable source in general, but it is also reliable in the context of this article. <font color="#0000b0">]</font><sup><font color="#b00000">]</font></sup> 20:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
			The question is should we trust it?
	== Encyclopedias in Answers.com ==
			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)
	Is it okay to directly cite Answers.com except obviously for its Misplaced Pages mirror? I'm having a {{diff|Agitprop|202843155|202845987|debate}} with ] over it. --]<sup><small>(], ])</small></sup> 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Unless the host of the content is suspect, it's utterly irrelevant. The actual source is whatever Answers.com is mirroring from. ] (]) 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)		: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)
			::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)

---

Latest revision as of 20:02, 22 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

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

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

Start a new discussion

---

RfC: 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. BarntToust 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Chetsford. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage. Compare WP:ROLLINGSTONE. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 why are we putting any stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “broken clock” syndrome. Dronebogus (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: Misplaced Pages proposals Politics, government, and law Media, the arts, and architecture 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)?

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

— 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. Silverseren 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:

1. 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
2. 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
3. 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.)
4. 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)

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.

• 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

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

Kaynsu1 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.Kaynsu1 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:

1. 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)
2. 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:

1. 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)
2. 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)

• 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)

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)

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?𝔓𝔓 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? 𝔓𝔓 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)

Categories:

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