| Revision as of 15:36, 2 December 2008 editJayen466 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,646 edits →Hustler magazine a reliable source for World Affairs?: add link← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:17, 23 January 2025 edit undoActivelyDisinterested (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users50,615 edits →flightconnections.com: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{short description|Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}} | |||
| {{editabuselinks}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}} | |||
| {{shortcut|WP:RSN|WP:RS/N|WP:V/N}} | |||
| 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 ]. This noticeboard is '''not''' a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content. | |||
| This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles. General questions about articles, including "''which sources in ] are reliable?''" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested ]. | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 465 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchivSee = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(8d) | |||
| |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}} | |||
| __TOC__ __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| == Add new questions at the bottom of the page, not below here == | |||
| <!-- | <!-- | ||
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ||
| Line 29: | Line 15: | ||
| --> | --> | ||
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | |||
| == == | |||
| How reliable is this site? --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white</span><small> ]</small> 13:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Mixed... parts are reliable, and parts are not. Much will depend on exactly what you are trying to use the source to support. ] (]) 14:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The site is mostly opinion columns. It looks like the columnists are mostly mainstream and respected, but they provide opinion, not investigative journalism. They're facts are usually going to be correct, but not always. Since they are simply offering opinion on news they've read, you should be able to find a better source for any information you find there. So if you find something on that site that you think is worth mentioning, it's probably correct information but you should really search for that same information from another source - and if the information is correct you should have no trouble finding it. ] (]) 14:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The news is usable (almost all from AP, in fact.) And news makes up a lot of the site. Since the articles '''are''' AP, they are citable. They are not "simply offering opinion on news they've read." Opinions are ... opinions, and generally marked as such. When citing them, treat them as opinion. Townhall.com is more reliable than Salon, not as reliable as The NY Times. But even the NY Times can be unreliable -- what you are claiming in a RS is that the facts are generally right and subject to editorial oversight. If you look for AP, you will likely find the exact same articles. ] (]) 14:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Collect is right. I missed that there were news articles on the page. The columnists have a significant presence and should be treated as I described above. But the news articles are as reliable as their source. ] (]) 14:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::But AP's own site, or their links to papers which republish the articles, are preferable; readers should not have to make this analysis before accepting the source as reliable. ] <small>]</small> 00:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * I think this was concerning the blogs part some seem to be by some quite notable journalists and political brains. ], ], ], ] --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white</span><small> ]</small> 00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **As always: Blogs are reliable primary sources for the blogger's own views; secondary sources are preferable. ] <small>]</small> 00:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Music genre cofounder and website == | |||
| This RS question is whether ''']''', the cofounder of a notable niche music genre, '''"spacemusic"''', can be disqualified as a secondary source expert, and have his radio production company's website (= expert's book) reclassified with primary source usage restrictions (results in removal). | |||
| The radio production company is '']'' established 25 years ago (35 including the original ''Music From the Hearts of Space'' show on ]). HoS was historically played on more than 250 USA public radio stations on a scale of 500. This description of Stephen Hill's expertise reads: <br> | |||
| <small>"Hill, who coined the term "spacemusic" more than 20 years ago, hosts the "Music From the Hearts of Space" music program, syndicated on 250 National Public Radio stations, including San Francisco's KALW 91.7 FM, which airs two hours of the program at 10 p.m. Sundays. In addition, Hill's Hearts of Space Web site (www.hos.com) provides streaming access to an archive of hundreds of hours of spacemusic artfully blended into one-hour programs combining ambient, electronic, world, New Age and classical music."</small> | |||
| The claim as I understand it (maybe I don't), is that a justified primary source reclassification, along with other sources properly reclassified as primary, would cause a synthesis/OR violation in the article titled . The further result would be that the cofounder's detailed analysis, opinions, and other website information would be mostly removed from the article about the genre he cofounded. | |||
| The campaigning editor says his most contentious objection is that the name of the genre is a "commercial entity's branding drive". Presumably, he objects strongly to a previously unnoticed form of commercial spam in the Misplaced Pages article, and a great wrong should be righted by minimizing it. If I correctly understand it, I can only describe this position as extremist. | |||
| Spacemusic genre is a case of limited circle fame. Its current USA public radio fans are thinly scattered, but dedicated to its support through public radio fund drives. Its niche music sales amount to less than 1% of the commercial market, so very little is written about spacemusic in major USA music publications dependent on commercial advertising. | |||
| (The rest of the 102 sources to be considered for reclassification as primary, and then removed for synthesis/OR, should be handled separately to avoid noticeboard overload.) <br> | |||
| ] 15:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I suppose all this would give some reason for caution in using these sources, and particularly a reason to be careful to try to double-source things and to give all sides where sources disagree, but it sounds to me like Hill would be a perfectly reasonable source. Where he is writing about his own work in fostering the genre, or about his own show, he's primary. Where he's writing about the musicians in the genre, it would seem to me that he is secondary, just like any music critic. - ] | ] 17:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with ] on all three points - multiple sources are always recommended when there are differing published views on a topic. On the primary/secondary question - Hill would be a primary source when writing about himself and his own radio show. On third-party topics such as music styles, record albums, musicians, the radio and music business, etc, he'd be a secondary source. I'd say that within his area of expertise, there's no reason not to use his work as a reliable source. --] (]) 20:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Just to be clear about the encyclopedia-margins deletionist effect of what you are both saying: | |||
| Stephen Hill and his Hearts of Space website were previously treated as expert-based secondary sources via WP:V(]). The Misplaced Pages art/music reasoning has previously been that the founder of an art/music genre knows subjectively more about what he/she created than anyone else as a matter of expert opinion. You are changing that. | |||
| What a secondary source says can be combined in a point-by-point source-provable editorial analysis. In this case, since there are so few other mainstream sources, many or most of them are presently combined with Hill's previous secondary source expertise to write the article. | |||
| But a primary source has fewer rights in an article than a secondary source. What a primary source says cannot be combined with other sources for a standard article editorial analysis, even if every point made by article editors can be proved through analysis of the primary sources. | |||
| Art/music experts normally have secondary source rights under WP:V(]). You are now removing Hill's secondary source rights, so you are in effect declaring that he is not an expert on the genre he founded. (Yes, you deny that, but the denial is cosmetic.) Since he is no longer an expert on his own work, his dominant presence in an article about his own creations constitutes undue weight, which can be removed by his opponents (and as already declared, ''will'' be removed by the campaigning editor). | |||
| The big names in creativity won't be affected at Misplaced Pages, but if one's creative work is notable, yet limited circle famous with few mainstream sources, this appears to be a significant deletionist change at the margins of Misplaced Pages. The effect is that a marginal creator's expertise is henceforth trumped by a marginal rival's expertise. I assume that hundreds of articles will eventually be affected as the art/music opponent class finds out they can now marginalize their rivals by de-experting and de-weighting them through primary sourcing. | |||
| Are you sure you want to go there? ] 00:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :No, that's not at all what I meant. I'm surprised you interpreted it that way, did I write so unclearly? I do not see any problem using Hill as a reliable source for the music article noted above. He is a ''primary source'' only about the events he observes in and about his personal life, like when someone writes an autobiography. I would consider him to be a reliable ''secondary source'' for his writings about music, including the topic of the article in question. --] (]) 03:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::(Roe 03:05): ''"did I write so unclearly?"'' | |||
| ::What you wrote first was (Roe 20:14): ''"Hill would be a primary source when writing about himself and his own radio show..."'' and ''"...within his area of expertise, there's no reason not to use his work as a reliable source."'' | |||
| ::There's a contradictory overlap between those two statements. Since the ''"spacemusic"'' genre-of-genres is mostly defined by his radio show, your 20:14 statement causes Hill to be mostly removed from the genre article due to a newly-defined lack of secondary source expertise about his own radio show <small>(using the Milo 00:49 reasoning above)</small>. | |||
| :: What you wrote second was (Roe 03:05): ''"He is a ''primary source'' only about the events he observes in and about his personal life, like when someone writes an autobiography." | |||
| ::Ok, that works if we define "personal life" as those factors having an insubstantial connection to Hill's notable creative work. | |||
| ::(Roe 03:05): ''"I do not see any problem using Hill as a reliable source for the music article noted above."'' ... ''"I would consider him to be a reliable ''secondary source'' for his writings about music, including the topic of the article in question."'' | |||
| ::Reliable secondary source creative expertise includes more than writings. The campaigning editor has made an issue out of Hill's verbally broad definition of the ''"spacemusic"'' genre-of-genres, which includes segue assemblies of certain slow-paced contemplative pieces found within up to 30 standard genres. The only exact definition of ''"spacemusic"'' is the collective example of 850+ archived shows created by Hill's expertise, along with his late cofounder Anna Turner and his production associates. | |||
| ::Per the top question, does Hill's reliable secondary source expertise also cover his HoS.com website that may include publishing the writings of others? Hos.com holds the 850+, 25-year Hearts of Space radio show archive, and its historic playlist server is used to help determine the notability of ''"spacemusic"'' genre-of-genre artists. Is HoS.com, a reliable secondary source? ] 07:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, maybe the way I wrote my first reply there could have been some ambiguity, so I have gone back and modified it to change an "and" to a period, to better split the two separate ideas I was noting. I hope that makes it more clear. As I've tried to say, my view is that Hill is a notable expert and reliable source. I would apply that to his writings and radio show including its website, archives and playlists. I re-read the spacemusic article tonight and I don't see any problem with the way Hill or his radio program are referenced in the article. I'm basing that view on what I've learned about Hill and the radio show since this inquiry was posted, and on my understanding of the policies. --] (]) 12:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <small>.]</small> | |||
| ::::The problem is that "space music" is ''not'' a musical genre and Hearts of Space did ''not'' invent it. The term existed for decades before the 1970s - and particularly in Europe has a very specific association with ] - and ''not'' the sort of contemplative music broadcast by Hearts of Space in the United States. None of this is currently ] within the article - which overabundantly relies on HOS as a primary source. | |||
| ::::In the context of the Hearts of Space radio show, "space music" is merely the catch-all marketing term uniquely applied by the show's producers to ''all'' of the broadly low-key, relaxational, contemplative music which they typically broadcast - irrespective of genre; much of it is ], ] or ], and the rest rest is classical, cool jazz, celtic, world or contemporary instrumental music. | |||
| ::::It is important to note that while many other radio programmers, music retailers and music reviewers also make use of the term "space music" - ''none'' of them use it in the same over-arching manner that HOS does. | |||
| ::::The suggestion that "space music" is 'exactly defined' by a set of playlists from a single radio show (HOS) is not only ], ''for which no citable sources exist'' - it is complete raving nonsense. Musical genres are defined by characteristics inherent to the form and structure of music itself; they are ''not'' simply conjured out of thin air by radio producers. | |||
| ::::A piece of classical music by Arvo Part does ''not'' suddenly, inexplicably instead become part of a genre called "space music" simply because it got played on the Hearts of Space show. A jazz piece by Jan Garbarek does ''not'' suddenly, inexplicably instead become part of a genre called "space music" simply because it got played on the Hearts of Space show. A piece of celtic-inspired music by Clannad does does ''not'' suddenly, inexplicably instead become part of a genre called "space music" simply because it got played on the Hearts of Space show. | |||
| ::::Thus, while the HOS website is a reliable primary source for data about the radio show, the various musical genres from which it's producers draw, and the producers' opinions and philosophical approach to music - it is ''not'' and cannot be the sole primary source for the entire article subject - which should properly be about a lot more than merely the self-descriptive terminology one radio show uses to broadly characterise its "sound" - further to which it is ''entirely inappropriate'' to liberally cite the show's playlists throughout the article as if the mere fact of doing so "proves" that "''every piece of music that's ever been played on Hearts of Space is part of a musical genre called 'space music''' ". | |||
| ::::Such an asertion is specious and misleading, and it - and any variations of it - simply ''cannot'' be insinuated into the WP article on this subject. --] (]) 15:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::When there are multiple reliable sources that disagree, that does not change the reliability of each individual source. In that kind of situation it's important to mention the various viewpoints and not focus only on one, as noted in the ] policy. Attribution can help to provide context between multiple reliable sources that differ. That said, most of the above discussion describes an editorial content dispute, not a question of determining whether or not a particular source is reliable. This noticeboard is not the appropriate forum for resolving complex editorial matters. For that there are various options of ] available that may be able to help, such as ]. --] (]) 19:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::IMO the validity of Hearts of Space as a ''primary'' source is not a matter of dispute - although one other editor has disagreed - hence the need to gain clarification via this discussion. The article's broader issues are certainly content and policy-related, as you correctly point out. The article currently lends ] to the primary source; it does so by ] an ] theory - largely from the fallacious interpretation of multiple citations drawn from the primary source. Informal dispute resolution has already been initiated with the intention of addressing the longstanding opposition to the rectification of these issues. --] (]) 00:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <small> and .]</small> | |||
| :Let's be clear that Hill has significant commercial interests and arguably has a vested interest in seeing that this label is utilised as a branding device. Hill has published nothing on this subject but we do have verifiable secondary sources that discuss the topic, notably who offers a view regarding Hill and the space music domian in general - in the context of the subject as it is expressed in the current ] article. The statement above ''Hill, who coined the term "spacemusic" more than 20 years ago'' is misleading, <s>not verifiable</s>, and is in actuality false.Be aware also that a number of the cited sources contradict themselves - swinging from 'space-music' as genre descriptor to 'space music' as category of musics. Hill states that all music played on his program, irrespective of era, ethnic origin, or extant definitions, is 'space music' (ranging from ] to ]), this statement is backed up by nothing other than the brief statements on the Hearts of Space website, it's a deeply personal view. In terms of offering a qualified secondary perspective on this, Lanza, the musicologist, is the best bet, not the radio producer and record label boss. Also, note that a number of the statements attributed to various cited sources are synthetic, the first two sentences in the lede being the most problematic. ] (]) 09:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::What is your source for making the claim of, '' "The statement above ] ... not verifiable, and is in actuality false." ''? | |||
| ::If you think the statement is not verifiable, how do you know it's actually false? | |||
| ::Since they already verified it, are you seriously claiming that The San Francisco Chronicle is not a reliable source?? | |||
| ::If you are challenging the San Francisco Chronicle's reporting of the facts, what is your evidence to the contrary? | |||
| ::If the San Francisco Chronicle's source on the quote is Stephen Hill himself (reporter Sande can be asked), and you can't prove the statement is incorrect ''exactly as written and spelled'', then you have potentially committed ] - potentially a covert defamation of Hill's veracity and professional expertise. If so, it's also a WP:BLP-talk violation, and you could be required to retract the statement. | |||
| ::So how do you explain your self-contradictory and worrisome comment? ] 09:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The SF Chronicle article cited above is entitled ''"The sky's the limit with ambient music"''. The article's opening paragraph states ''"spacemusic, also known as ambient..."''. The article goes on to note ''"a prime mover in the ambient/spacemusic genre..."'', and ''"the best description of what we do is contemplative music"''. This does not support your ] theory that spacemusic and ambient are somehow different genres, and that Stephen Hill invented spacemusic. The assertion that Stephen Hill invented the term spacemusic 20 years ago is clearly false, as numerous other sources already cited in the ] article confirm that it was in use by others at least 20 years before Hill started using it - as you should know, given that you added those sources yourself. All the other statements in the SF Chronicle article are not false. Your highly selective synthetic ''interpretation'' of them is false. --] (]) 12:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry, to clarify, what I should have said is that Hill ''did not'' coin the term ''space music'' almost 20 years ago; therefore the journalist writing for the SFC, is wrong. The relevant literature does not support the thesis Milo is presenting, but that is not the even the point, the point is the article is breaching guidelines on ] and this will be evident to anyone who cross checks the content against the cited material. ] (]) 22:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You struck one problem claim, ok, but your more dangerous claim of "is in actuality false" still stands. Therefore you are still at the previously stated potential risk of libel per quod and a WP:BLP-talk violation for the post of Semitransgenic (09:44). | |||
| :::::''Semitransgenic (22:44): "should have said is that Hill did not coin the term space music almost 20 years ago; therefore the journalist writing for the SFC, is wrong."'' | |||
| :::::A further self-contradiction. We agree that the term "space music" <small>(two words in English)</small> was a term in use for other kinds of music prior to 1973. But SFC reported that Hill ''"coined the term "spacemusic""'', and exclusively used that term spelled "spacemusic" <small>(one word in English)</small> throughout the article. | |||
| :::::A reminder that you were the one to raise the issue of branding: "''"Any music with a generally slow pace and space-creating sound image can be called spacemusic"'', this is actually a commercial entity's branding drive,..." . | |||
| :::::If you can't prove SFC's statement is wrong, exactly as "spacemusic" is spelled <small>(one word)</small>, and Hill is SFC's source for the statement, then you are now potentially facing a second count of libel per quod and a WP:BLP-talk violation for the post of Semitransgenic (22:44). | |||
| :::::You are still challenging the San Francisco Chronicle's reliable reporting of the facts – what is your evidence to the contrary? ] 03:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Libel?? LOL : ) yawn...you are a dreamer. Yes ''the SFC is wrong'', Newspapers are often wrong, about lots of things, often intentionally so. And yes, I do have evidence. Fact check: The term 'space music' was in existence long before Hill ''coined it''. But, this is not a forum, nor is it the place to discuss content disputes so let me reiterate: ''"the point is the article is breaching guidelines on ] and this will be evident to anyone who cross checks the content against the cited material."'' please deal with this fact Milo rather than attacking editors who disagree with your views. ] (]) 13:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ←Let the record show: | |||
| #Semitransgenic refuses to discuss the distinction between the two spellings "spacemusic"/"space music". For brands, a minor spelling difference greatly matters, and he originally claimed that "spacemusic" <small>(one word in English)</small> was a "branding drive". | |||
| #Yet, he has persistently challenged the San Francisco Chronicle's fact reporting reliability, apparently based on his self-contradictory implication, that "spacemusic" <small>(one word)</small> is not different from "space music" <small>(two words)</small>, and therefore "spacemusic" can't be a brand of "space music". He wants to have it both ways. | |||
| #He has presented no valid evidence that the San Francisco Chronicle article's reporting by Sande is unreliable or excludable from citation. He doesn't agree with it, but asked twice, he can't say why without either generalizing or contradicting himself. | |||
| #He treats concerns about libels that might ruin other people's reputations as a joke. | |||
| This thread was again and again bloated with claims about non-sourcing issues. Since they were off-topic at this noticeboard, I ignored them. Now Semitransgenic yawns and claims to be attacked. Experienced editors will recognize these distractive ploys that herald a thread to be ended by gainsaying last-worders. | |||
| To summarize from the top post: <br> | |||
| <blockquote><small>'''''This RS question is whether Stephen Hill, the cofounder of a notable niche music genre, "spacemusic", can be disqualified as a secondary source expert, and have his radio production company's website (= expert's book) reclassified with primary source usage restrictions (results in removal).'''''</small></blockquote> | |||
| The RS answers are: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| *Stephen Hill is a notable expert as described under WP:V(WP:SPS). Hill's reliable secondary source expertise covers his writings and radio show including its website, archives and playlists. | |||
| *Hill's comments on his personal life, meaning those factors having an insubstantial connection to Hill's notable creative work, are reliable primary sources. | |||
| *Additionally, the article by Steve Sande, quoting Stephen Hill and others with analysis of this music, is an article that can be cited as a reliable source.</blockquote> | |||
| ] 03:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Milo, you are very confused, '''read the article, read what ''you'' have written in the article, ''you'' interchange ''space-music'' and ''spacemusic'' throughout''', but now, because the flimsy tissue of lies that you call '']'' (what??) is disintegrating, you want to reconstitute definitions so they substantiate your diabolical delusions. Yes, yawn, it's boring, tiresome, and your lecturing and ''educating'' is really quite patronising, so please, stop, we have all had quite enough. So for the last time, let me get this across to you: your ], ], ] thesis is indefensible, and this is something you should come to terms with. ] (]) 10:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I contributed to, but mostly did not write the current article. It was not my decision to interchange "space music" and "spacemusic", but for consensus I let it pass. The version of the article I referred to at that link was deleted by another editor long ago. I was gracious about it since I wanted to collaborate to produce a better article. ] 12:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::But Milo, in this very ] you refer to ''space music''?? so do please forgive me for finding this inconsistent of you. It all seems rather disingenuous and we would be better served here if you stopped entertaining yourself at our expense and instead made a genuine effort in resolving this matter. ] (]) 13:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's an obscured research issue embedded in the second paragraph (]): ''"... points that seem most important. First is the issue of Hill-Turner space music versus other kinds,...".'' "Spacemusic" and "space music" sound about the same on radio, so I wrote it down as two words. I expect others did the same. ] 00:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"''obscured research issue"''? you mean ]. Sorry but this is again disingenuous. You say you heard the term on the radio and wrote it down as two words yet your to the article demonstrates you had knowledge of the ''Hearts of Space'' website so were very clear on the issue - as posited by Hill - but you still explicitly use the term ''Space music'' throughout. ] (]) 16:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::''""obscured research issue"? you mean WP:OR."'' | |||
| ::::::Lose the sophistry. | |||
| ::::::''"were very clear on the issue - as posited by Hill"'' | |||
| ::::::No. Hill didn't discuss his "spacemusic" spelling on the website. Creative spellings are routine in popular music "biz" writing, so I didn't notice until it emerged as a research issue during 2007. ] 22:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Therefore: the SFC is wrong. Thanks for confirming this. ] (]) 22:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :That doesn't follow. Hill didn't discuss his "spacemusic" spelling. "Discuss" means ''"b: to present in detail for examination or consideration"'' <small>(M-W.com)</small>. Not discussed doesn't imply that "spacemusic" isn't mentioned by that spelling. My recent search of HoS.com displayed 155 hits on "spacemusic" <small>(one word)</small> and 11 hits on "space music" <small>(two words)</small>. The 11 hits on the two word spelling appear to be quotations including album titles. | |||
| :The earliest preserved, dated usage of the "spacemusic" spelling is the HoS website's intro announcement for Hearts of Space radio program #003 of 1983-01-12. That's consistent with the 2004-01-11 SFC report statement reading: ''"Hill, who coined the term "spacemusic" more than 20 years ago,..."''. ] 05:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps, but you are insinuating that Hill's neologism - following the transference of a contraction into a compound word - makes him the ''co-founder'' of a ''genre'' but ''space-music'' and ''spacemusic'' refer to exactly the same thing - in the same way that ''space-craft'' & ''spacecraft'' mean exactly the same thing; yet the person responsible for compounding the words ''space'' & ''craft'' is not credited with being a co-conceptualizer of space-travel. I recommend you look at the Oxford English Dictionary online under ''space'' and count the number of times you find similar examples. Also, note that the very book Hill cites as ''"the best general treatment of the subject"'' does not mention ''spacemusic'' - nor is there mention of this in the books precursor, David Toop's ''Ocean of Sound'' (nor does it feature in Timothy Dean Taylor's book ''Strange Sound'' which includes a chapter entitled ''Space''). There are, from what I can see, only two published secondary sources that mention ''spacemusic''/''space music'' directly (in keeping with how article wishes to define itself) that's Lanza and Birosik: and note that Hill's partner and co-founder of ''Music from the Hearts of Space'', Anna Turner, ''in Birosik'', uses the term ''space music'', and not ''spacemusic''. It's clear that ''spacemusic'' and ''space music'' are one and the same thing so you need to stop with all this nonsense about Hill being the creator of a genre, or even genre of genres for that matter. ] (]) 13:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Given the fact that this has evolved into a content discussion with significant ramifications for the article, I've copied it to ]. Please continue the discussion there. --] (]) 05:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Is IMDb an unreliable source? == | |||
| ::<small>] (]) 06:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)]</small> | |||
| As follow-up from a recent consensus to remove external links from {{t1|Infobox Film}}, a ] was created to capture the rationale behind the consensus. This was done at least in part so that editors have something to point other editors to in order to reduce the odds of ] links inclusion/exclusion becoming another in a long line of ]. This seems particularly possible because IMDb has been in {{t1|Infobox Film}} for four years, i.e. . A well-written draft of the rationale was created, but ] this statement: | |||
| :Irrespective of the fact that IMDb is not deemed to be a ] for ] content in Misplaced Pages articles,... | |||
| When I asked about it, ] made by the editor who wrote it. I also found ], a failed proposal from July 2007 and found some discussions about IMDb in some FA nominations. So I'm wondering if there a growing sense that IMDb isn't a ]? Thanks. ] (]) 10:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the answer is - it's both reliable and not reliable as a source. To determine where the line is would take some research on how the site collects its information. Some of the content of the site is provided by users, but some is factual and under control of the site's editors. Considering the widespread use of the site as a source in general, for them to profit from their information, the factual elements need to be accurate. For example, the detail lists of casts and crew, etc, are likely dependable; the main synopsis might be reliable (though that's where more research would be needed into how they come up with those); and the secondary synopsis pages where they accept user edits would be non-reliable, as with any wiki-source. | |||
| :Regarding the use of IMDb in the infobox, that's a different question than if it's a reliable-source reference. That's more like an external link at the bottom of an article; my view is that I would apply the principles of ] to that kind of use, and in that sense IMDb seems OK to me. --] (]) 03:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I concur with Jack-A-Roe. The credits, especially for recent productions (last five years) usually come directly from the producers and correspond precisely to screen credits. The cross-referencing makes it very difficult to insert bogus material, which is anyway perused by their sysops before publication. Their core business is a subscription database for professional film/tv industry use. The associated talk sections though should be treated as a blog. --] <sup>]</sup> 06:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hi, if either of you want to get involved in the discussion I started over at ] on this point, please feel free. I've given up on it as it's degenerated into an "it's all reliable" or "none of it's reliable" shouting match. You may have better luck than me in prompting those editors with IMDb experience to be more forthcoming on where the boundary between reliably-sourced and user-generated content actually lies. ] (]) 19:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I do have IMDb experience, as a longtime user and data contributor. Here are some comments about the less and more reliable sections: | |||
| #The message boards are just message boards which are inherently not reliable. | |||
| #The user comments for each title are also pure user-generated content, and they are not reliable either. | |||
| #Some other sections have been added in the relatively recent past which are wiki-style with minimal editorial control. Those would be the FAQs for particular titles (not the database FAQ at ), the parents guides, and the plot synopses (not to be confused with the plot outlines or plot summaries, which are subject to editorial control). | |||
| #Newsgroup reviews are archived Usenet postings. I would not consider them reliable unless they were written by an established critic. | |||
| In the following sections, there is some editorial control exercised by IMDb. That is, a user cannot just submit something and see it go live on the site. They have to wait for the staff to review the submission. | |||
| #The recommendations are based largely on an algorithm; they are not generated from user contributions but there is no reason we would want to refer to them in Misplaced Pages. | |||
| #The trivia and goofs sections are based on user submissions; while they are subject to editorial control (and are reviewed by IMDb staff before appearing on the site), there is enough skepticism about them that Misplaced Pages should avoid using them. | |||
| #Most other sections are based on submissions either by users or by official sources and are reviewed by staff before appearing on site, and can be considered generally reliable. This would include such sections as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications. | |||
| #The external reviews are links to other sources, some of which are clearly reliable sources such as mainstream newspapers and magazines or industry publications such as ''Variety''. Other external reviews may or may not be reliable. For all of these, though, IMDb just furnishes a link and the actual source to be used is the original review at the site where it is hosted. | |||
| #The writing credits, if marked with "WGA", are very reliable, as they are supplied directly by the Writers Guild of America (where applicable). Similarly, the MPAA ratings reasons, where they appear, are supplied directly by the Motion Picture Association of America, and are also very reliable (as to the MPAA's own evaluation of the film; I am not saying the MPAA is the final word on how "adult" a film's content is). | |||
| I hope this helps. --] ] 07:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Here's something else that may or may not help: ]'s opinion about IMDb, taken from : | |||
| :I often consult IMDb, and considering that it indexes virtually every film, it is correct as '''' astonishing amount of the time. IMDb cannot maintain a staff large enough to compile the cast, credits, technical specs, etc., of those countless films. It is usually a film's publicist, distributor or even director or producer who supplies them. When an error appears, there is a mechanism for IMDb users to correct it. These corrections are vetted by IMDb. It is usually safe to trust. | |||
| Thanks. ] (]) (same as 72.244.207.57) 07:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC) (i.e. the one who ]) | |||
| *OK, the only thing that would be important here, is IMDb a ] for Misplaced Pages purposes? Nothing else matters really. The way I see it there are no restrictions pr WP:RS using IMDb as a tertiary source for reference in Misplaced Pages. That would include anything that's relevant, pointed out by ]: ''the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards etc.'' Anything that has to do with user comments or any kind of goofs would not be relevant for WP purposes anyway since this is an encyclopedia, not a place to publish any kind of ]. Now, since this question about IMDb gets raised all the time, and valid references to solid facts get added and then again removed because someone claims IMDb not to be a "reliable source". Therefore I'd encourage everybody to comment at ] so that a some kind consensus for ] could be reached. Thanks!--] (]) 08:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Photobucket as a reference when photobucket is not really the reference == | |||
| Editor ] has been removing "photobucket references" from articles. This is what I stated on Hbent's talk page: | |||
| "''Would you mind explaining why you made ? What policy on Misplaced Pages says that we cannot use ] as references? If Misplaced Pages does say that, then I am sure that the policy is in regards to photographs at photobucket due to the fact that photographs can be doctored.'' | |||
| ''My point is that photobucket is not the reference for those references you removed from the Todd Manning article. Those references are from valid soap opera magazines; the "photobucket references" are showing scanned articles from those magazines in which validate the article's text being stated. If you were going to remove all those references, the least you could have done is format the references so that they do not need urls.'' | |||
| ''I see that you have removed "photobucket references" from other articles as well. You should first discuss stuff like this over with other editors of the articles you are removing these from. There is no telling how many valid references you have removed from articles because of this.'' | |||
| ''I have reverted your edit to the Todd Manning article.''" | |||
| Of course...I would like clarification on this matter from editors here at the Noticeboard. ] (]) 05:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hbent stated this answer on my talk page: "The photobucket links in question were links to copyvio content. If you want to cite an article in Soap Opera Digest, cite the magazine article itself, not an image in violation of copyright. I have fixed the citations, removing only the photobucket URLs." | |||
| :I understand Hbent's point about copyvio. ] (]) 05:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::In my experience so far, at least 75% of the links to photobucket I have seen (whether inside references or not) were copyright violations. I have been removing photobucket links in general; they are almost always used inappropriately. There were some pages, like the one Flyer22 mentions, where I removed references that could have been reformatted or refactored instead. If the refs are salvageable then I have no problem fixing them in the future instead of just deleting them, and I apologize for not having done so previously. Unfortunately, I came across many refs where there was no real source info other than the photobucket picture. In that case, I am loathe to spend my time fixing refs that shouldn't have been added in the first place. ] (]) 05:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, if this is really viewed as a copyright problem by Misplaced Pages, then I will start removing other "photobucket references" I have included in other articles. Heck, I will likely do that anyway, so that I do not come across this problem with other editors. ] (]) 05:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not sure that it's really a legal problem if we link to copyvio content hosted on other sites. However, it doesn't seem needed in this case anyway. Citing the magazine as a source without a url is perfectly valid and copyvios on other sites are liable to be taken down at some point. <small>] (]</small> | |||
| :::::I added them in url format because I was like, "I have visual proof of these articles, so why not? Isn't visual proof better than simply words?" ] (]) 21:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I understood and it makes perfect sense to increase verifiability but it is, of course, unnecessary and if a copyvio then, it appears, actually not "a good thing". Cheers! <small>] (]</small> 22:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::DoubleBlue, I respectfully point you to ], which states that, "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States." And while it would be nice if photobucket patrolled their site for copyright violations, I've seen no evidence of that in practice. ] (]) 18:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks. <small>] (]</small> 20:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I do wonder, though, how this is any different than linking to a copyrighted interview at an actor or actress' website where the interview features that actor or actress, such as . I mean, Misplaced Pages allows us to link like that all time as a reference because it is the actor or actress' official site. I mean, is it because, unlike liking to a scanned magazine article through photobucket, the articles at these actor and actress' sites are usually not the scanned images of the articles? Even if that is the case, I must point out that they sometimes are. | |||
| :::::::How is linking to photobucket any different than uploading copyrighted images? Is it because those copyrighted images must provide a fair-use rationale saying that they are copyrighted and a license also saying that they are copyrighted? ] (]) 20:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No, the issue is that if you link to a news article, say, at a corporation's "in the news" page, its reasonable to assume that they got permission to reprint the interview. On the other hand, if it's a popular song on some anonymous enthusiast's web server, its reasonable to assume that's a pirated copy. I'm not sure I understand the second question though. ] (]) 02:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (outdent) There is some confusion here about the difference between ''copyrighted'' content and content that is a ''copyright violation''. Linking to copyrighted content is fine, and so is using copyrighted content as a source. We wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia at all if you couldn't do those things. The problem here is linking to content that is in violation of copyright, specifically images that are being used by someone other than the copyright holder without the consent of that copyright holder. Magazine scans on photobucket are a perfect example of such a violation. Magazine scans elsewhere are trickier, but I would think that it can be presumed that scans (or interviews, or what have you) on an official site have probably been cleared. <p> | |||
| Copyrighted content hosted on Misplaced Pages is only okay within limited circumstances, and those circumstances are policed here. I very much doubt that you could get away with uploading a scan of a copyrighted magazine article here because it would not qualify as fair use. I can't imagine that having the scan on photobucket would be any more legal than it would be here.<p> | |||
| I asked on ] for someone with copyright expertise to weigh in here, and hopefully that will happen. ] (]) 02:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :And just to clarify: if you use a copyvio magazine article somewhere as source and then cite it as just the article, without the image link, I don't see how we could prevent that. ] (]) 02:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::the usual solution is to give the reference to the source used without it being an actual link. The court decision cited there refers to links, not references. ''']''' (]) 04:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I saw your question on the copyright desk while I was there asking a question myself. No expert on the legalities, but Misplaced Pages policy is perfectly clear ''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'' (]) ] 17:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Not truly confusion on my part, guys. I just wanted clarification. Thanks for that. I mean, Squidfryerchef, of course I know that if you link to a news article at a corporation's "in the news" page, its reasonable to assume that they got permission to reprint the interview. And that if it's a popular song on some anonymous enthusiast's web server, its reasonable to assume that's a pirated copy. I was just wondering about reprinted interviews at an actor or actress' official site. hbent, I know that linking to copyrighted content is fine, and so is using copyrighted content as a source, and that we would not have much of an encyclopedia at all if we could not do those things. But your statement "The problem here is linking to content that is in violation of copyright, specifically images that are being used by someone other than the copyright holder without the consent of that copyright holder" is what I was going for when asking how is that different from uploading a copyrighted image...such as a screenshot where we do not have permission from the copyright holder or holders. I was wondering if the difference for that is because by linking to the images instead of uplodaing them here at Misplaced Pages, we are not providing fair-use rationales and licensing stating that the images are copyrighted. | |||
| ::::But, again, thank you guys for your time. ] (]) 18:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Again, ] gives the reasons for the policy: it shows Misplaced Pages in a bad light. There are also legal problems in the US with doing this (very possibly other countries as well) but the main reason is we do not want to be seen to be flouting the IPR of others. ] 19:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I understand. ] (]) 20:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You'll have to use your own judgement on whether an actor's site is more like a corporation's "in the news" page or more like an enthusiast's page. I'd assume an actor's official site would have an agent take care of copyright clearance, but I'm not too familiar with the show business. The second question you ask is a question about "fair use", and that is a very complex topic in copyright law. Basicially it allows you to make copies, usually small parts of a work, under very limited circumstances, and there has to be a justification, such as for academic criticism. Every time you quote a passage from a copyrighted book, that's using fair use. For instance WP allows a screenshot of a movie in an article discussing the movie. But you cannot upload the whole book or the whole movie, nor would you link to such. ] (]) 15:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Andrew Andersen Maps == | |||
| I would like to ask for clarification of the third party opinion regarding this past . It seems that a third-party opinion clearly concluded that, I quote: . Yet now, on the same page, ] is pushing the same map from a controversial blogger-claiming-to-be-scholar Andrew Andersen and essentially ignoring the third party opinion . There are dozen other pages, to which these maps made it, and I think they need to be removed from all of them. None of these maps are based on any credible research and only result in edit warring over contested border issues. Thank you in advance. ] (]) 17:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Either keep them all or remove them all. You can't cherry pick since you and grandmaster have only attacked the author of the maps but never the actual content.--<big>''' ] '''</font></big><sup><small>]</sup></small></font> 18:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a case where ] is apt. Most maps from reliable sources (such as from a respected historical atlas) will not be in the public domain. Thus, if we are to include a map at all, we must either accept a map that may come from a less than reliable source and seems to reflect only one POV (ie Andersen's map), or our editors must self-create a map that is more neutral (perhaps using some sort of cross-hatching to show areas that are in dispute). I think the latter may be the best way to go, since it avoids the entire issue of whether Andersen is reliable or not. Another option is to include two (or more?) maps, side by side, so that the reader can see the differences between all of the various POVs. ] (]) 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::There are no "differences" - the map is not POV and does not deal with contested borders. In Azerbaijan, possession of the map would probably get you a prison sentence - but Misplaced Pages is not Azerbaijan. However, producing a self-created map would be better because the current map deals with regions that are not relevant to the article (and some of those off-topic regions are not accurately depicted on the map anyway). Here is what I wrote about the accuracy of the map in the article's talk page: ''Out of interest I compared the Andersen map with the nearest equivalent maps in "Armenia, an Historical Atlas", especially the one on p143 titled "Armenia under Turcoman Domination, 1378-1502". The various "Georgian" kingdoms are roughly in the same position, which is good given that indicating their positions is the main purpose of the Andersen map. A specific border for Kachen/Karabakh is not shown on that map, but is shown on the map on p135 titled "Armenia under the Ilkhanid Domination 1256-1335". Its position is similar to that on the Andersen map - and given that we have a source saying that the Khachen principalities/melikdoms still existed during the Karakoyunlu time there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Andersen map on that point. There are mistakes in the Andersen map though - Bayburt is shown as part of the empire of Trebizond, when by this time it would not have been (if it ever was). Worse still, it shows territory marked "Ottoman Empire" directly to the south of Bayburt, which is a nonsense. The Ottomans captured Trebizond in 1461, then the inland castles of the former empire a decade or so later, and only after that did they begin to extend their rule deeper inland. When the Trebizond Empire was extant the region of Erzincan was not part of the Ottoman empire, it was ruled by independent emirs, and then by the Ak Koyunlu. In other words, the Andersen map seems to be accurate for its titled purpose (showing the Kingdom of Georgia in the 15th century), and for its use here (indicating the position of Khachen), but it is not accurate for the territory at the western end of the map.'' ] 03:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::BTW, thanks ] for recognising the ] issue. I had tried to point that out in the earlier discussion, forgive me for quoteing myself again: ''It should be remembered that what you are wanting removed are images, not sources. The standards for images on Misplaced Pages are different than for sources. For example, you cannot remove an image of the Parthenon simply because the photograph wasn't taken by a known archaeologist or doesn't show the Parthenon under the best lighting. You have to point out some flaw in the actual image, (like proving it does not actually show the Parthenon but is some other monument), or indicate a flaw in its usage (like finding it being used within a page about Gothic architecture), or get it removed by uploading an even better image of the Parthenon to replace it. You have done none of these things for the Andersen maps.'' ] 03:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Please note that, ] points out that the image (in this case a map) should simply illustrate what is stated in the main ''text'' of the article (which should be based on reliable sources), and not contain OR in itself... The issue of maps on[REDACTED] is currently being discussed at WT:NOR... I have raised the issue of editor-created maps there... it seems to be a complicated issue. ] (]) 16:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks Blueboar, the image reinserted by Meowy, edit warring in violation of his parole at ], is not neutral, because it asserts POV about the existence of some independent fiefdom inside a larger empire, which is false. This POV is not claimed by anyone but Armenian sources, hence is not neutral as it's simply not agreed by the opposite side and no 3rd party sources are offered. Moreover, the images were not made by Meowy but were taken from a , who was fired from his job at University of Victoria for racism. These maps are used in several Misplaced Pages pages only by contributors whose POV they fit. Hence, I think it would be better to remove them and come up with consensus neutral version of maps discussed by several parties and relied upon neutral sources in text. There is a multitude of respected scholars on the subjects of medieval history of the region, and Andrew Andersen is not one of them. Thanks. ] (]) 17:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK... I think this comes down to a simple question... is the theory that this independant fiefdom was independant discussed in the article? If this theory ''is'' discussed, then a map that depicts where this fiefdom was is appropriate (perhaps with a caveat in the caption along the lines of: "Map depicting X as an independent fiefdom, as theorized by Y"). If the theory is not discussed, then the map is not appropriate. ] (]) 17:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The issue is discussed, but the thing is that those principalities were never independent. They were subordinate to the rulers of neighboring city of Ganja, and later to the khans of Karabakh. The map depicts them as independent states. That's why it would be good if the map came from a real historian, and not someone's personal website. At least we could have ascribed the opinion to some notable scholar, which Andersen is not. ] (]) 18:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I assume that since the issue is discussed, then at least one reliable source disagrees with you, and says that the principalities ''were'' independent. If so, then including a map (reguardless of who drew it) to illustrate what that source says is not OR. There may be other issues still to be addressed (] comes to mind)... but it isn't OR. I would also add that any such map would need to be captioned correctly... to make it clear that it is simply illustrating one view point amoung many. ] (]) 20:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There are no credible sources which agree with Grandmaster's and Atabek's assertions. Actual sources agree with what the Andersen map shows. I had already quoted one source in the talk page discussion. It is from p143-144 of "Armenia: A Historical Atlas", by Robert H. Hewsen, University Of Chicago Press, 2000. ''"It was Jahan-Shah who, apprised of the existence of the Armenian princelings of the Siunid house in Karabagh dispossesed by Timur, restored them to their possessions and granted them the title malik, Arabic for king".'' The same source goes on to say that Jahan-Shah did this to protect his northeastern frontier by bordering it with a territory whose rulers he expected would be loyal to him as well as offer resistance to any invaders. In other words, the reality was exactly as depicted in the Andersen map - the territory was separate from and was independent from ] territory. ] 20:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::BTW, I've never actually edited the article's content, so I did not add the information from that quote into the article. Nor has anyone else, it seems. Once the article is unprotected I will add it in, making the inclusion of the Andersen map even more appropriate. ] 21:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: But that source does not say that the principalities were independent. There are plenty of sources that confirm the principalities were subordinate to the Ganja khanate, and later Karabakh khanate. Here's for example The History of Karabakh by Mirza Jamal Javanshir Karabagi. The online text is in Russian, but there's also English edition by the Armenian scholar George Bournutian. ] (]) 06:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The quote says "restored them to their possessions", indicating a difference between the possessions belonging to the Karakoyunlu and the territory possessed by the Karabagh princes. The fact that in theory they were subordinate to the Karayokunlu is unimportant in relation to the issue here: the map says "principalities of Karabakh" and the map is in the article to indicate the location of those principalities. ] 18:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :These melikdoms were in some periods autonomous, otherwise sovereign, though loyal to the Turkomans (15th century, this period is shown in the map) or the Persians, a fact which latter was recognized by the Russians: | |||
| {{Quotation| the Russian Empire recognized the sovereign status of the meliks in their domains by a charter of the Emperor Paul dated 2 June 1799. | |||
| <br /><br /> | |||
| Robert H. Hewsen, Russian-Armenian relations, 1700-1828. Society of Armenian Studies, N4, Cambridege, Massachusetts, 1984, p 37. }} | |||
| :Even when the Persian Empire conquered them and subordinated to the Karabakh Khanate (although this period has no connection with the map in question), these melikdoms could keep their self-government: | |||
| {{Quotation| The new khanate consisted of the eastern plains between the juncture of the Arak's and Kur (lowland Qarabagh) and the mountainous western half (Highland Qarabagh, ...) inhabited predominantly by Armenians living in five autonomous principalities governed by their own hereditary princes, known as ''meliks'' | |||
| <br /><br /> | |||
| Robert H. Hewsen, ''Armenia: A Historical Atlas''. The University of Chicago Press, 2001, pp. 155.}} | |||
| :At the same way we should not use a similar map for other historical states, which were dominated by an other state. Btw. ], which was formally ruled by Persian ''Marzbans''. So far, the removal of the map in question is required only by Azeri users, without any serious argument. IMHO they simply do that to suppress the historical fact, the Nagorno-Karabakh has been inhabited and ruled by Armenians for ages. --] (]) 13:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Your second quote also says that meliks were subordinate to the khans of Karabakh. So why accusing Azerbaijani users? It is a fact that those principalities were not independent states. And again, the rules require using reliable sources, and Andersen is not such. This was also noted by a wiki admin sometime ago: Why can't we get a map by some reliable published third party source to use in the article? ] (]) 18:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The Karabakh Khanate was established only in 1752. The map of Andersen shows the region in 1450-1515. May be you should look at the map before refusing it? | |||
| :::But you did not reacted on my note: The Albanian state was formally subordinated to a Persian governor, nevertheless there are many maps showing it a distinct state. | |||
| :::It is your POV that they were not independent. You don't even have a source to support this POV. While I have many to support that they were. | |||
| ==RfC: NewsNation== | |||
| {{Quotation| | |||
| <!-- ] 13:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740574870}} | |||
| The melikdoms of Karabagh have become a legend among the Armenian people as the first rallying centre of modern Armenian nationalism, but their existence was threatened by the jealousies of neighboring Mohammedan rulers and by the suspicions of later Shahs. The melikdoms enjoyed '''their greatest independence''' in the 1720's under the Siwnid General David Beg (1674-1728), but after his death they were overrun by the Turks. | |||
| {{rfc|prop|sci|rfcid=5F45265}} | |||
| <br /><br /> | |||
| <!-- ] 02:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739068436}} | |||
| Robert H. Hewsen, ''Russian-Armenian relations, 1700-1828''. Society of Armenian Studies, N4, Cambridege, Massachusetts, 1984, p 37.}} | |||
| What is the reliability of ]? | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| :::Also, you refer to a post {{user|mikkalai}} (admin?? no I think) who ''proposed'' the removal of all maps of Andersen. That means: no one should remove the map of Andersen from the article Nagorno-Karabakh untill there is made such a dicision and all his map are removed from wiki-articles (fr example: ). Since I don't think we are going to use double standards in Misplaced Pages. After all, so far you don't have any serious objection against the map of Andersen in question. --] (]) 08:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, all maps shall be removed and replaced with NPOV based on scholarly sources. There are actually plenty of maps inside publications, not sure why can't we use those or recreate maps based on them, instead of using maps made by blogger accused of racism. ] (]) 08:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Survey (NewsNation)=== | |||
| I agree, all those maps should go, if there are doubts of their accuracy. After all, I'm not the only one questioning the accuracy of this source, so do even wiki admins. As for Albania, it was an independent state, with its own kings, which is irrelevant to this discussion. And I presented my sources, not agreeing with this map. See Mirza Jamal: | |||
| *'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light). | |||
| **NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism. | |||
| ***In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the ], Coulthart said {{xt|"... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"!}} . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including ] and ], all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects. | |||
| ***Writing in ''The Skeptic'', Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: {{xt|"Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."}} | |||
| ***He wrote a UFO book titled ''Plain Sight'' which ] described as a {{xT|"conspiracy narrative"}} and a {{xt|"slipshod summary"}}. | |||
| ***The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for {{Xt|“espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”}} | |||
| ***The ] did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking {{xt|"Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary?}} while strongly implying the former. | |||
| ***The '']'' has described him as a {{Xt|"UFO truther"}} with {{xt|"little appetite for scrutiny"}}. | |||
| ***Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked ] investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians. | |||
| **Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs: | |||
| ***In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the ''Washington Post'': ), the channel {{xt|"was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health"}}. | |||
| ***In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said {{xt|"... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing"}}. The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to ]'s analysis, a Boeing 737 . | |||
| :] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage ] (]) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. ] (]) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' per Chetsford. – ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative.] (]) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. Compare ]. ] (]) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' why are we putting ''any'' stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “]” syndrome. ] (]) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. - ] (]) 00:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' I would go with Option 2 but their UFO coverage makes me consider Option 3. I think for anything outside of UFO-related topics they are generally reliable. Other sources should be cited. ] (]) 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for non-UFO coverage, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. ]@] 00:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (NewsNation)=== | |||
| {{Quotation|Во времена пребывающих /ныне/ в раю сефевидских государей, находившихся в Иране, Карабагский вилайет, илаты, армянские магалы Хамсе, состоящие из магала /магалов/ Ризак, Варанда, Хачин, Чилябурд и Талыш, подчинялись гянджинскому беглярбеку. | |||
| *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) | |||
| <br /><br /> | |||
| During the reign of the late Safavid rulers, based in Iran, Karabakh province, ilats (Muslim citizens), Armenian mahals (quarters) of Khamse, consisting of mahals of Dizak, Varanda, Khachin, Chilabyurd and Talysh, were subordinate to the ] of Ganja. }} | |||
| ] (]) 08:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] == | |||
| ::Atabəy, in order to reach such a decision you must come with some real arguments, not accusations. I only ask you to remove the map of Andersen used in the Nagorno-Karabakh article as the ''last'', as long as you don't have any abjection against ''itself''. | |||
| This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] on the multiple issues regarding that article. | |||
| :::Grandmaster, once more: this map is not showing Safavid Iran. And you still did not react on my question in reference to Caucasian Albania. --] (]) 09:31, 24 November 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> | |||
| 1. The academic backgrounds of the writers of those sources are unknown (keeping in mind that they were written by Yemenis who have limited internet access), and<br> | |||
| 2. {{tq|1=Yemeni state-controlled media outlets}} wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets") | |||
| Now, Javext has removed all the sources and text that they support from the article and used other sources (some of which I find no problems with using, although they provide little context compared to the other sources) and kept the sources that I've brought when I translated the Portuguese article. | |||
| ]: This is the version of the article that has the Arabic sources and is the version that I want to keep and then expand with other sources that both I and Jav has used. <br> | |||
| ]: This is the version that Jav wants to keep | |||
| Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand): | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved: | |||
| * | |||
| ''']]''' 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in ''The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast'' (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. also seems to be a relevant document. ] (]) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|1=There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle}}<br>]?<br>{{tq|1=citing Portuguese records}}<br>That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above ''']]''' 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. ] (]) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::One example of another secondary source comparing the accounts (after C. F. Buckingham) is Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1997). ''The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama''. pp. 290-291. () ] (]) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--] (]) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?''']]''' 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. ''The Independent'' is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. ] (]) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the ] was a thing according to a Facebook post made by a high school that he attended).{{efn|Machine translation: Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamusa, a native of Al-Shahr and a graduate of the third class of Al-Mukalla High School for Boys (now Bin Shihab High School for Boys)<br>High School Flags<br>Tuesday, September 17, 2024<br>After years of parting, Abu Bakr Bin Shihab High School for Boys in Mukalla embraced Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamoussa, who graduated on the educational ladder for years and is now at the age of retirement. He visited the high school and in his gaze with passion and love for the past years, he climbed the stairs of the high school to the second floor to the office of the principal Mr. Saeed Ahmed Al-Amari, who welcomed him warmly and said that this visit gave us a boost and moral support, and the visit for Mr. Bamoussa was to ask about the old administrators, services and guards who were who were in the period of the sixties and seventies, but unfortunately the administration could not answer this and invites everyone who has information about them to raise it quickly, as Mr. Bamoussa has been working for years on writing a book about the beginning of education in Hadramawt since the time of the Qaitian Sultanate in the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, and he made a very important statement that the first principal of the high school is Mr. Karama Bammin from Tarim and then came after him Mr. Al-Sudani Al-Taloudi and this was a surprise for us and he confirmed this in his book that will see the light after completion of it.<br>May God prolong his life and give him health and wellness to provide us with important information about the history of education in Hadramawt.<br>The high school administration thanks Mr. Mohammed Bamoussi for this visit and this effort exerted by him for this wonderful work, and wishes the officials in the Ministry of Education, the governorate office and the local authority to adopt such people who raise the slogan of education and the slogan of Hadramawt, the land of science, knowledge and culture.}} He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others . He also published a book about the city of Shihr . He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023 {{pb}}{{talkreflist|group=lower-alpha}} ''']]''' 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.] (]) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the ] ] and ] sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) ''']]''' 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. ] (]) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. ] (]) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in , which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! ] (]) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hi, @]. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this: | |||
| ::::::"Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India , his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." ] (]) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{tq|1=capturing Al-Shihr}}<br>hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? ''']]''' 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder. | |||
| ::::::::I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. ] (]) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city ''']]''' 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. ] (]) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{outdent|8}} {{tq|1="Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, '''capturing Al-Shihr''',}} (Never happened btw) {{tq|1= and how important it would be to conquer Diu."}}<br> ''']]''' 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? ''']]''' 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned ''']]''' 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::capturing a city != sacking it <br>your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here ''']]''' 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. ] (]) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Now show me where in your sources does it say that ''']]''' 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You were just denying that this happened after I showed you the sources, why are you asking this now? Didn't I just give them above? ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{outdent|7}} What sources about capturing a city did you show me? Those letters clearly show that the portuguese wanted to capture the city and they failed as we have no proof of them being there after the battle was over. But did they lie to whoever they sent this letter to? ''']]''' 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Look bro, the letter doesn't state they failed, it states the Portuguese captured the city and then sacked it. For the fourth time, this DOES NOT mean they retained control of the city. ] (]) 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@] so we can finish with and archive this, can we use those sources in anything other than the battle section? like the other sections that I've mentioned being deleted here ] <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">] ] (])</span> 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::In general I think we've established that there is currently no way of including any claim which cannot be directly traced to the 16th-century Portuguese histories or the Hadrami chronicles (which agree). This is because no source cites any other form of evidence, and because it represents the approach of English-language academic books. I have not reviewed the details and I do not know which claims qualify, but you're free to add anything you can find in an appropriate source. ] (]) 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::not even a legacy section like the one you proposed? <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">] ] (])</span> 06:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu == | |||
| Grandmaster is making claims which he knows aren't true, see above at Vacio's reply. I wonder how long Grandmaster can still refuse to read what others write when others repeat all over again and he closes his ears. | |||
| <!-- ] 18:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740333680}} | |||
| {{rfc|hist|bio|rfcid=5DC5768}} | |||
| The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (B and C): | |||
| * '''A: Geni.com''' | |||
| * '''B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley''' | |||
| * '''C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav''' | |||
| :Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles. | |||
| :They should be: | |||
| * '''Option 1: listed as ]''' (change nothing to A; add B and C at ] as such) | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' (list them as such at ]) | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2) | |||
| ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu) === | |||
| '''The map represents 1450-1515, the quote he presents speaks of late Safavid, the reign of was from 1501/1502 to 1722. The second half of their reign was in the 17th century.''' See how Grandmaster made Beylerbey clickable to it's main page on Misplaced Pages and has not done so for Safavid. Given that he was corrected previously of the difference of date I hope Grandmaster has just forgotten to do likewise for Safavid which article clearly indicates the date. | |||
| * A: See "Geni.com" at ]. | |||
| * B: See ], in particular ], where this RfC for the 3 sources in question was prepared together with @]. The other sources discussed there fall outside the scope of this RfC. | |||
| * C: See ] (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Preliminaries === | |||
| '''It is not the first time Grandmaster has provided sources representing different periods to remove history which is recognized and not denied outside Azerbaijan.''' | |||
| :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) | |||
| As for Atabek, his continuous attacks on the author of the map rather than addressing what is inaccurate on the map must stop. More particularly is the subject at hand; Atabek was and is currently banned from its main article. Dozens of sources including the authors Grandmaster uses refers to the principalities of Artsakh (Khachen) indicated as Karabakh on the map. Those sources were provided in the two articles from which Atabek was banned from. This is another attempt to game his topic ban and Wokipedia-wide attempt to remove any mention of Armenian past history in NK and the lands of present-day Azerbaijan. - ] (]) 16:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a ]. But it could be a good follow-up. ] (]) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. ] (]) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. ] (]) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. ] (]) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC?  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This is all just a pointless repeat of the original discussion (and that in turn was a pointless repeat of the article's talk page discussion.) Again Grandmaster / Atabəy don't come up with credible reasons to reject the map, don't address the points made by other editors, and go widely off-topic in an attempt to disguise their weak positions. And again we have disinterest from third-parties. ] 21:47, 24 November 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) | |||
| :Read Background: B. ] (]) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::<strike>I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc.</strike> --] (]) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey A: Geni.com === | |||
| Why don't you guys read the source before saying something bad about other editors and failing to assume good faith time after time? The source says that the Armenian principalities in Karabakh never were independent, they were always subordinate to Muslim rulers, initially to the Khans of Ganja, and later, after Ganja khans remained royal to Safavids and did not support Nadir shah, he subordinated their lands to other rulers. For instance, meliks were subordinated to the governor of Iranian Azerbaijan, and that arrangement lasted until Karabakh khanate was created: | |||
| :'''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 === | |||
| {{quotation|Во времена пребывающих /ныне/ в раю сефевидских государей, находившихся в Иране, Карабагский вилайет, илаты, армянские магалы Хамсе, состоящие из магала /магалов/ Ризак, Варанда, Хачин, Чилябурд и Талыш, подчинялись гянджинскому беглярбеку. Хотя и до правления покойного Надир шаха среди илатов Джеваншира, Отузики, Баргушата и пр. имелись мелкие ханы, но и все они были подвластны елизаветпольскому беглярбеку. Даже и после того как Надир шах завоевал Тифлисский, Ганджинский, Эриванский, Нахичеванский и Карабагский вилайеты, у жителей и войск Рума, Карабагский вилайет в течение короткого времени оставался под властью елизаветтпосльского беглярбека, а иногда подчинялся азербайджанскому сардару. Среди илатов и в магалах также были ханы и мелики, которые исполняли государственную службу по поручению азербайджанского сардара. Такое положение существовало до 1160 мусульманского года, соотвествующего 1743 христианскому году, когда был убит Надир шах. | |||
| :'''Deprecate''', per background discussion. ] (]) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <br /> <br /> | |||
| :'''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) | |||
| During the reign of the late Safavid rulers, based in Iran, Karabakh province, ilats (Muslim citizens), Armenian mahals (quarters) of Khamse, consisting of mahals of Dizak, Varanda, Khachin, Chilabyurd and Talysh, were subordinate to the Beylerbey of Ganja. Even though there were minor khans among the ilats of Javanshir, Otuziki, Bargushat and the others before the reign of the late Nadir shah, they were all subordinate to the Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey. Even after Nadir shah conquered Tiflis, Ganja, Erivan and Karabakh provinces from the people and army of Rome (Turkey), Karabagh province for a short time remained under the authority of Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey, and sometimes was subordinate to the sardar (governor) of Azerbaijan. There were also khans and meliks among the ilats and in mahals, who performed state duties by the orders of the sardar of Azerbaijan. Such situation existed until 1743, when Nadir shah was killed. | |||
| :'''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) | |||
| <br /> <br /> | |||
| ::{{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "'''the source is generally prohibited'''". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) ] (]) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| :::Editors who know the fine print will be the ones using the source correctly, and will know how to handle the situation. The issue is that editors who don't know keep adding this as a reference to support content, and the many discussions on the source show they isn't support for that. Adding a warning when editors post will at least get editors to ask why they are getting the warning, and help them understand the situation. | |||
| :::Deprecation of this source will ''reduce'' the pointless pseudo-legal debates, by reducing the problem of the source being repeatedly readded. Editors should use their own good judgement, but as repeated discussion about this source have shown that isn't happening. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--] (]) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--] (]) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes the cost of not having to continuously patrol for this source and have the same discussion about it's reliability again and again. | |||
| :::::::Separately before the two of us fill the survey section with our disagreement (mea culpa), should we move this discussion to the Discussion section? -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Generally unreliable'''. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) ''Generally unreliable'' is the one which says this: {{tq|"questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published"}} I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would ''only'' allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be ''prohibited''. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--] (]) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at ] shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he ''knows'' {{xt!|may be of little factual significance}} at face value just because he finds them "]" ({{xt!|but is reproduced by way of interest}}), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't ]. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. ] (]) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the '''Generally unreliable''' category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then ''only as far as we have to''. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --] (]) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Generally reliable''', in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate''' per ActivelyDisinterested.—] 00:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav === | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. ] (]) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--] (]) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as {{xt|genealogy.eu}} and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). ] (]) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :'''Comment'''. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the ], Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". ] (]) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate'''. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; . --] 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site . And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. ] (]) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. ]. Deprecation will have a positive effect. And while it's always possible that someone in the know, who's really into genealogy, has the ability of figuring out out how the operator of this website makes it have the content that it has, that's not useful for determining reliability.—] 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)=== | |||
| I have more sources on this, but this discussion is pointless. The main issue is that the map should be made on the basis of a reliable scholarly source, and not be taken from some amateur website. This is what I propose to do, let's find a map from a professional source, who's qualification cannot be questioned. ] (]) 07:13, 25 November 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) | |||
| :Why are you repeating a quote that has already been dismissed as off-topic? It deals with a different period than that shown in the map. The main issue is how accurate the map is. The map is accurate for its purpose - illustrating the location of the Karabakh principalities. True, Shusha did not exist at the period the map ilustrates, but I assume it is there as a sort of place-marker in order to visually link that map with other later maps illustrating the same region (and I don't think there would be any copyright implications if Shusha were to be removed). ] 20:51, 25 November 2008 (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 scorn mudslinging, but Andersen apparently holds only a Ph.D. in Political Science, that is he isn't a historian or something. The fact he graduated from Moscow State University becoming a political scientist may support the fact he conducts a partisan researches. Consequently, no article in Wiki on him. Among all, if there is any reliable scholar who affirms Andersen's position, I may think of it at least. --] ] 10:26, 26 November 2008 (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) | |||
| :::Maybe you should also scorn talking about things it seems you haven't properly read up on. Did you read the discussion so far? The map is an image, not a source. It is in the article to illustrate textual content within the article. I will repeat in it shout-out-loud capital letters '''IT IS AN IMAGE!''' What exactly do you, and Grandmaster, and Atabəy claim is wrong with this specific image? In what way is it inaccurate? ] 16:08, 26 November 2008 (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) | |||
| ::::Inaccurate because related reference (16) to "The Principalities of Karabakh (orange), were the last relics of Armenian statehood in the region" belongs to Andersen himself. It's a ]. --] ] 09:02, 27 November 2008 (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) | |||
| :::::That is just a badly written caption. It belongs to the editor who originally wrote it. And it can (and should) be rewritten once the page is unprotected. Again I ask, what is wrong with the actual map? In what way is it inaccurate? ] 16:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The quote says nothing such, it speaks of Nadir's reign and afterwards. And the only thing prior is the following: ''Even though there were minor khans among the ilats of Javanshir, Otuziki, Bargushat and the others before the reign of the late Nadir shah, they were all subordinate to the Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey.'' It relates to the Khans, not the meliks. Clearly it’s two different periods and as Meowy said, the map isn’t making any claims besides showing where the principalities were. Subordinate or not, Karabakh principalities existed making this entire discussion totally worthless. - ] (]) 16:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::May I suggest that this discussion be continued on the article talk page? It seems clear that if the map in question is simply being used to ''illustrate'' information stated (and sourced) in the article text, and is not being used as a source for that information, then there is no ] violation involved. ] (]) 16:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Before we do that, it would be good to have some other neutral editors say that it is not a RS issue, just to finally settle it. ] 00:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==RfC: Jacobin== | |||
| I was alerted to this discussion on the ], and I want to say that already previously I found that the maps that describe the political situation of the region some 2000 years ago (like , used on Misplaced Pages e.g. ]) seemed improbably accurate, given the paucity of contemporary sources. Of course, I could be wrong. ] | ] 19:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 17:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740070870}} | |||
| :Maps are diagrams, they are not reality. All good-faith maps are full of accidental errors. Either you exclude every map, or accept the fact that no map is accurate. Maybe in some future date there will be atlases available where you can interogate each marking on a map, click on a line and get an explanation and a full set of sources detailing why the cartographer decided to draw that line at that location rather than 50 miles to the east or west of that location. Anyone who looks at a map showing a distant historical period and reads borderlines like modern borders is fundamentally mistaking what the map shows. Every line is actually a blurry zone full of uncertainty, conjecture, and simplification - a zone that gets wider and more blurry the older the historical period depicted on the map. ] 22:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{RfC|prop|pol|media|rfcid=857ECCA}} | |||
| :: The maps should be made by professionals to be considered reliable, and not by random people who happened to have a website. ] (]) 10:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Which of the following best describes the reliability of '']''? | |||
| ::I'm not talking about the precise trajectory of a boundary. I am saying that I had and still have serious doubts regarding whether it is at all possible to determine that these particular states were there, and that they included these areas. And if parts of the map are uncertain, this should be indicated on the map (say with a different colour), and a failure to do so disqualifies the cartographer. ] | ] 15:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 1: ] | |||
| :::Once again... the determining factor is whether you are drawing information from the map or not... in other words are you using the map as a ''source'' for information or not. If you are using the map as a source, then I agree that the map should be made by a professional. If, on the other hand, you are mearly using the map mearly to ''illustrate'' what is said in reliable sources, then that illustration can be created by anyone (including a Misplaced Pages editor). | |||
| * Option 2: ] | |||
| :::To relate this back to the Andersen Maps... The question is: Is the article using the map as a source, or is it using the map as an illustration? If the first, then no it is not a reliable source. If the second, then it ''might'' be an acceptable illustration. Whether it ''is'' an acceptable illustration or not needs to be determined by consensus back at the article talk page, and not here (as it is not an RS issue). I hope this clarifies things. ] (]) 15:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 3: ] | |||
| ::::It is being used as an illustration. The fact of the territory's existence is backed by sources. However, there is a side-effect of your reasoning - if the map were to be redrawn by a Misplaced Pages editor a source would have to be given for that redrawn map, which would mean using the Andersen map as a source. ] 16:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 4: ] | |||
| ::::I understand now, thanks for the clarification. In this case I would argue that they suggest more than is sourced and therefore go beyond illustration, but this is a matter for the respective articles, not this discussion. ] | ] 18:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, as per ] a seperate source does ''not'' need to be given for an editor drawn image. The key is that any original image (including a map) must accurately illustrate the information discussed in the article, and that information should ''already'' be backed by sources. Now, the Andersen maps are not "Editor created"... but the concept is the same. If an image (no matter who created it) is mearly illustrating the text of the article, then the determination of whether to use it or not is purely one of editorial judgement and consensus. It is not an RS issue. ] (]) 17:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Southparkstudios.com video tags == | |||
| ===Survey: ''Jacobin''=== | |||
| Southparkstudios.com FAQs seem to be a pretty good source for Southpark plot synopses, the FAQs being answered by the writers or directly on their behalf. Some episodes have been cited with tags from the video clips, from which I've found ; "The FAQs and the tags don't have much to do with each other". So are they a guide for searches or an actual citeable source? ] (]) 23:32, 23 November 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">— 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) | |||
| :Normally a fan forum would not be considered reliable. How are we sure that the answers are indeed from somone official such as the writers themselves? ] (]) 01:15, 24 November 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.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 19:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' <s>or 4</s> They publish outright falsehoods and when they issue corrections these are weak and weaselly. The recent completely absurd claim in one of their articles that Blackstone owns 33% of US single family housing stock is an example (it’s actually 1/10 of 1%). Whether you’re sympathetic to their editorial position is irrelevant. Garbage is garbage and facts are facts and as an encyclopedia we can’t rely on click bait nonsense for sources.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''', with attribution for analysis and opinion pieces. The Blackstone mistake was bad, and the author's petulant attitude upon being corrected leaves much to be desired. But the error was corrected relatively promptly, and they have an editorial team on staff. I'm not in favor of downgrading a source based on a single mistake. However, Jacobin has an explicit editorial stance that informs nearly all of its articles, and if it's used for more than straightforward facts, it should probably be attributed as e.g. "the socialist magazine Jacobin". I'm open to changing my view if others can demonstrate a more sustained pattern of errors or falsehoods. ] (]) 20:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' (with caveats) due to the lack of developments since the last RfC which could actually change the conclusion of ''general'' reliability, as opposed to demonstrating fallibility or bias. I do have some sympathy with the {{tq|no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2}} position articulated above, but I think that comes down to how we interpret "generally reliable" in practice. In other words, "additional considerations" ''always'' apply, in principle. The difference between option 1 and option 2 comes down to ''how likely'' we expect those "additional considerations" to be of practical relevance, and how exactly we should address them. ] (]) 20:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''', it doesn't seem anything has changed since the last RfC. Corrections and retractions is what a reliable source is expected to do and is a sign of reliability. Mistakes which are far greater than this are commonplace across the array of reliable sources (what matters is whether there are corrections or not) nor does partisanship equate to unreliability. Here the error appears to be about what's more or less a single sentence, an ancillary point or side-note in an opinion piece which has been corrected since. It should be treated no different a manner than any other openly partisan neworgs such as '']'' {{rspe|Reason}}. There is no requirement for reliable sources to be "neutral" or for the matter any standard that suggests newsorgs with an explicitly stated ideological position are any better or worse in matters of reliability than newsorgs that don't have an explicitly stated ideological position. ] and ] are quite clear. | |||
| :Though the standard disclaimers apply which are to check for whether what they publish has ] for inclusion (not an issue of reliability), use in-text attribution with their political position made apparent when quoting opinion and that the context always matters. That there is a subreddit post critical of a error that was corrected is no basis for determining reliability of sources on Misplaced Pages or starting an RfC, so this is also a '''Bad RfC'''. This discussion has been had at a much greater depth in the ] where it was shown that the magazine in question has quite significant ] and affirmatory coverage from reliable secondary source demonstrating that they generally have a "]" which doesn't needs to be rehashed. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Option 1: Bad RfC + L + Ratio''' Creating this RfC immediately after some sort of ostensible social media outrage (ex. I nominated ] for deletion not long after the ], and people got so upset that they brigaded it via external social media) seems like a bad idea. It's been made clear in the past that ''Jacobin'' has a perspective (like literally any media outlet) but don't sacrifice factual accuracy to get there. My previous vote remains true: "While it wears its political perspective on its sleeve, it has proven itself time and again in its robust fact-checking. The issue with conservative and reactionary ] and ]] sources on the WP:RSP isn't that they have a bias – it's that they constantly express said bias through the use of provable mis- and disinformation. Jacobin does not sacrifice factual accuracy for the sake of a bias." | |||
| :I would say the same of any other outlet whose perspective coexists peacefully with actual facts. The sort of neoliberalism adopted by American news outlets which we categorize as generally reliable (correctly so) isn't some sort of default worldview that needs to be treated as sacred and less biased than any other. If we're allowed to point to a single incident, then I could just as easily (but wouldn't, because I'm acting in good faith) point to the NYT's 2002–2003 reporting about Iraq and WMDs which was so unbelievably mistaken and grounded in literally nothing that ] to falsely luring Americans into supporting ] based on lies, yet Misplaced Pages (even in the days when that story was reasonably fresh) would balk at the idea of calling them 'marginally reliable', let alone 'generally unreliable'. Meanwhile, this one is literally just a typo in a single article – a bad typo, but one anyone with a brain could understand didn't reflect reality and which was quickly corrected. Reading some of the stories on the front page right now, they report on events similar to what would be covered in a magazine like the generally reliable '']'' and contain no obvious factual errors. <b>]</b> ] 21:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2''', mainly per u:BobFromBrockley. The Blackrock error was quickly corrected, so I don't hold it against them. Consider this quote from ] {{tquote|Anglo-conservatives sometimes fantasize about reuniting the dominions ... where workers could be exploited freely.}} A not-insignificant percentage of the content supported by Jacobin is of similar nature. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' A screenshot from Reddit detailing an error which was corrected is not reason to lower our consideration of the reliablity of the publication. ] is generally reliable, not always reliable. Admittedly the publication does contain a lot of opinion peices, however that is already covered by ] and ]. Notably, ] is similarly heavy on opinion pecies and community consensus is that it is ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 22:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' Jacobin is basically the left-wing equivalent to the right-wing British Magazines Spiked and The Spectator. Like these publications, most of its content is opinion orientated, and citing less opinion-focused sources should be preferred. It's clear that the current "generally reliable" rating is suggesting to readers of RSP that Jacobin's opinionated content is usable carte blanche without caveat, which I do not think is accurate. ] (]) 22:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Some Jacobin pieces have openly pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories , as well as conspiracy theories about the Euromaidan which have not been retracted. The Green RSP rating has mistakenly led people to believe these pieces were reliable , ] ] (]) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You should probably read farther than the headline. ] (]) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The pieces (which are both by staff writer Branko Marcetic) are strongly slanted, but you're perhaps right that saying they are "pushing conspiracy theories" is going a bit far. ] (]) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"The CIA bungled intel pre-9/11" is somewhat the opposite of a conspiracy theory since it ''literally attributes to incompetence what conspiracists attribute to malice''. ] (]) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * (Summoned by ping in this thread) '''Bad RFC / No listing''' just as in 2021. Or '''Option 2''', it is a liberal analysis magazine, to be considered frequently as ]. See you at the next 1-day social media hysteria. ] (]) 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *: <small>This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but ''Jacobin'' is not remotely liberal. It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --] (]) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC) </small> | |||
| *::For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. ] (]) 22:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I find it really funny when Americans see somebody holding mainstream social democratic politics and start calling them extreme. ] (]) 22:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. Correcting a mistake is a sign of reliability. The normal caveats about bias/opinion and attribution apply, but not seeing enough to move it down to 2. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' The current summary at ] acknowledges that Jacobin is biased and that editors should take care when using it, which is exactly how it should be. Bias and adherence to factual accuracy are two different things; neutrality is not objectivity and vice versa. We do not need to demote it purely for being biased. Agree with others that an RfC being started based on a Reddit thread of a screenshot of a tweet of an editor who made a mistake which was ultimately corrected is a bit silly. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' as per the analysis by Selfstudier, XOR, and Tayi. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 23:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' ] already has certain considerations and it doesn't mean that 100% of what is published can make it to WP. Editors are expected to use their judgement. The article in question is a ]. I don't see any reason for downgrading them based on a reddit thread. ] (]) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' This entire RfC appears to be politically motivated and is predicated on a correction of a sentence that mixed up "third largest" with "a third of". Many other mainline newspapers have made similar, if not worse, errors before. The question is whether corrections were made when such errors were pointed out. And the correction was made here, meeting requirements of reliability. This is likely also about an opinion article, which makes this even more pointless. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Weapons of mass destruction from the New York Times? Was that ever retracted? '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''3'''. If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than ''Jacobin'' to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it. | |||
| :It's not a matter of some particular instance about mistakes regarding mixing up "third largest" with "a third of" or whatever. Heck everybody does stuff like that. The ''NYTimes'' has has published more (unintentionally) misleading or plain-wrong charts than I've had hot meals. I mean, ''Nature'' finding that "among the 348 documents that we found to include the ] 'fact' that 80% of the world's biodiversity is found in the territories of indigenous peoples] are 186 peer-reviewed journal articles, including some in ], ], and ], and 19 news articles targeted at a specialist audience." Imagine that. I would guess that that's largely because "puts indigenous peoples in a good light" trumps "is true" in the ''emotional hind-brain'' of the leather-elbow-patch set. It's not a lefty thing in particular, right-wingers are just as bad I'm sure. | |||
| ::Well, the site itself is the property of the show's creators and not an affiliate. The writers themselves do seem to have some input into parts of it (if we can believe the typed word), but the tags for video clips do not seem to be one of those parts, if I understand what was said in that link. ] (]) 09:35, 24 November 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. | |||
| :::Let's be fair, shall we? The '''complete''' quote is ''The FAQs and the tags don't have much to do with each other. A search for Butters in the video clips will give you all the clips they have here with Butters in it.'' Further more, the quote preceding it is ''Only the admins and the people who work in the Studios can tag videos here.'' How's that unreliable? ] (]) 10:04, 26 November 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) | |||
| :The full quote just confirms that the tags seem to be there to aid searches, not as a form of FAQ. 12:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC) {{unsigned|Alastairward}} | |||
| ::{{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) | |||
| ::That's your personal understanding. They are generated by the SPStudios' admins and therefore, indisputably reliable. ] (]) 13:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think the thing is our due weight policy says that due weight (noteworthiness) is apportioned based on the amount of attention given in reliable sources. I take that to mean opinion in generally reliable sources is worth reporting; opinion in generally unreliable sources isn’t. ] (]) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The Daily Mail is not reliable for its own contents, having doctored its archives. ] (]) 00:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' The author's attitude certainly leaves much to be desired... but I don't think a single mistake that was quickly fixed – in a blog piece, which generally wouldn't even be cited except in very limited circumstances and with attribution per ] – is a good enough reason to downgrade their reliability. ] (]) 07:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' My opinion is unchanged from the previous RfC. It is absurd that we've opened up another RfC over a minor issue that was quickly corrected, all because a few neoliberal redditors got mad about it. I think citations to ''Jacobin'' should require attribution, but trying to tar them as unreliable over this one case is ridiculous. Log off Reddit, there is nothing worthwhile to be found there. --] (]) 09:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::But there ''is'' a dispute, a note on the site itself says they're added to aid searches, not to act as a FAQ. Remember ], it is up to the editor to prove something, not to simply dismiss queries. ] (]) 14:31, 1 December 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}}. ] (] | ] | ]) 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. ] (] | ] | ]) 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) | |||
| :As I said before, ], it is up to the editor to prove something that has been added to Misplaced Pages is verifiable, not to simply dismiss queries. | |||
| :You said yourself, "whatever the purpose may be (aid searches or anything else)", so you at least acknowledge that this is not a form of FAQ. The link I provided confirms this, it seems that the tags are added to aid searches, so the Admins know what people want to look for in association with certain clips. This is not the same as a FAQ, this is simply the reflecting the opinion of those using the site. | |||
| :Also, please remember ]. ] (]) 11:30, 2 December 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) | |||
| ::So basically, you're claiming to '''know first hand''' what the Admins think and do ''("this is simply the reflecting the opinion of those using the site")''. Care to provide a verifiable source for that? Unless you can cite their Admins, it's your own speculation and as such, has no place on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| ::By the way, ] applies to you as much as it does to me, as you are an editor too. ] (]) 13:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1/2''': generally reliable, they have a correction policy. Bias for opinion pieces and essays should be taken into account, attribute accordingly. ] (]) 00:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Bad RfC''' As on . ] (]) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' I previously commented in the 2021 RfC based on ]. In particular I found persuasive. Most recently cites a ''Jacobin'' article from November 2024 positively. A major trade publication in the field of journalism still seems to find ''Jacobin'' worth citing as "demonstrat convincingly" how Harris lost the pro-labor vote in the 2024 election. Why should we not follow ''CJR''s lead? The arguments seem to be (1) ''Jacobin'' recently issued a major retraction and (2) ''Jacobin'' has a left-wing bias. I could buy into (1) if they constantly issued retractions, but no one has shown that that is the case. (2) is contrary to ]. Altogether, I don't see why we should treat ''Jacobin'' differently from reliable but right-of-center-biased publications like '']'' or '']''. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]</span> 07:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2 or Option 3''': Not only is Jacobin an extremely biased, ideologically charged source, but their reporting has been called into question multiple times. At the very least, additional considerations do apply. ] (]) 13:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. This is not a ]. Its stated purpose is . Compare to the missions of the NYT: ; or the BBC: . The NYT and the BBC are both biased (every source is biased), but they do at least aim to deliver ''reporting''. Jacobin, on the other hand, is an advocacy organisation. That doesn't make it automatically unreliable, nor does that make it solely a source of opinions, but that does makes it qualitatively different from the newspapers that others have compared it to - and that is an important additional consideration worth noting. For the record, I disagree that one incident of inaccuracy is enough to downgrade a source, particularly one that was corrected. ] (]) 13:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Just because I note that my earlier !vote wasn't posted in to this section, for the avoidance of doubt, whilst I think this is a '''Bad RFC''' because there's no reason for initiating it, I support '''Option 2''' or '''Option 3''' because it is strictly an opinion site and not one that should be relied on for statements of fact about anything but itself. ] (]) 14:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''{{spaced en dash}}''Jacobin'' may be biased, but that has no bearing on reliability. They have many well-respected articles that have been cited by other reliable sources, have transparent editorial controls, and a demonstrated process for retraction and correction. I see a couple complaints above that ''Jacobin'' isn't a news organization; however, this isn't relevant to reliability. Just like ''The Economist'', ''Jacobin'' publishes more retrospective, interpretive articles which for certain subjects can often be ''better'' than using contemporaneous news articles. Overall this is a very '''bad RfC''' given the creator's undisclosed connection to the previous overturned RfC (see comment by {{noping|Tayi Arajakate}}) and a complete lack of any examples of ''actual uses on Misplaced Pages where the reliability is questioned''. This is as far as I can tell a knee-jerk reaction to a single example of an error on an unrelated topic in an offhand remark inside a book review, and which wasn't even used on Misplaced Pages. An absurd reason to open an RfC. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard"><span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 4px lightskyblue, -1px -1px 4px forestgreen;font-weight:bold;">]</span> (] • ])</span> 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per Silver seren and Wugapodes (and thank you for providing actual reported information on their editorial process rather than speculation, heavy irony in this whole discussion). This whole saga is based on one correction? Really? ] (]) 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' bias has nothing to do with reliability. Meanwhile, corrections are a strong signal of reliability. --] (]) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion: ''Jacobin''=== | |||
| *Seeing as there's substantial disagreement in the pre-RfC section above, I've gone ahead and launched this RfC. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Pings to {{yo|Feminist|The wub|Thebiguglyalien|Super Goku V|Simonm223|FortunateSons|Oort1|Burrobert|ActivelyDisinterested|Hydrangeans|Vanilla Wizard|Iljhgtn|Selfstudier|Horse Eye's Back|NoonIcarus|Harizotoh9|Springee}} who commented above. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Additional pings to {{yo|WMrapids|David Gerard|Bobfrombrockley|Shibbolethink|Crossroads|Herostratus|Dumuzid|Aquillion|Gamaliel|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d|BSMRD|Wugapodes|Ip says|King of Hearts|Chetsford|Tayi Arajakate|MPants at work|Jlevi|The Four Deuces|Grnrchst|Szmenderowiecki|Dlthewave|Jr8825|Thenightaway|Nvtuil|Peter Gulutzan|FormalDude|Volunteer Marek|FOARP|Sea Ane|3Kingdoms|Bilorv|blindlynx|Jurisdicta|TheTechnician27|MarioGom|Novemberjazz|Volteer1}} who commented in the ]. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I think you should also disclose that the previous RfC was initially closed by you (back then under the usernames ] and ]) and the discussions that followed at {{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 6#Jacobin (magazine)}} and {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340#Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability}} led to an overturn on grounds of it being heavily flawed and ostensibly a ], followed by a re-close afterwards. Especially considering your statement in the above section questioning that (re)closure now, which also partially forms the basis for this RfC. Those discussions might also answer your question on why it was (re)closed in the manner it was. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 20:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I've tried to ping everyone from the prior RfC and from the discussion above. This was done manually: I excluded 1 vanished account and I tried to ping people by their current usernames if they have changed names since then. If I missed someone, please feel free to notify them. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Per my prior comments about space constraints I've split this to its own section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I've just moved the RFC out of the discussion again. The RFC shouldn't be made a subsection of the prior discussion, due to ongoing issues with overloading on the noticeboard. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Editors should bear in mind that reliability does not mean infallibility. It merely means we can use sources where applicable. In this case, the impeached article is a book review, which combines a description of a book and the reviewer's opinions. The only acceptable use of a book review - whoever wrote it and wherever it is published - is in an article about the book reviewed. | |||
| :::I'm making a suggestion and I've provided a cite as to the lack of link between the FAQs and tags. In return you've done nothing to convince me of your own case. | |||
| :::BTW, I'm challenging your addition to Misplaced Pages, the ] does apply most heavily to you in this case. There's nothing to be gained by simply turning around and demanding that other users address the policy instead of you. ] (]) 13:24, 2 December 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. | |||
| ::::''Only the admins and the people who work in the Studios can tag videos here.'' Basically, you're challenging SPStudios... amusing. As for ] - are you claiming that it doesn't apply to you? You claim that I'm ''demanding that other users address the policy instead of <nowiki></nowiki>'' - no dude, not ''instead'' - ''in addition''. You don't have a single privilege over me and don't you forget it. ] (]) 13:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can we please calm down and address the issue, not each other. What ''exactly'' is the issue with the tags vs the FAQ? Could someone please link to what is being stated and sourced so we can see what the dispute is about? ] (]) 14:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Our time would be better spent ensuring that RS policy is adhered to. | |||
| == ccinsider blog == | |||
| ] (]) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| , a blog affiliated with the Comedy Central website. Looking at of contributors and the suggestion that people send them tips (a link just below the link tot the list of contributors, I was wondering how reliable a source this should be considered for in depth discussion of plot synopses of Comedy Central shows. ] (]) 00:04, 24 November 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) | |||
| :I don't think it is reliable. 01:12, 24 November 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) | |||
| ::You didn't sign your post. ] (]) 15:43, 25 November 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. | |||
| *::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) | |||
| *: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) | |||
| *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) | |||
| :It sounds fine as a primary source to me. It's published by Comedy Central and they have a regular staff, just like some newspapers have columnist blogs that are still part of the newspaper. Also the suggestion that readers send in tips doesn't impact RS; many of the best newspapers accept tips from the public. ] (]) 15:43, 25 November 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 == | |||
| ::Thanks, but what about for speculating on cultural references and the like? ] (]) 18:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 16:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739462471}} | |||
| {{Moved discussion to|WP:Requests for comment/The Heritage Foundation|2=Due to how large the discussion has become, and size constraints on the noticeboard, this discussion has been moved to it's own page. <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| == Sources for Chapel Hart == | |||
| :::"Speculating" is done only on your part here. What you think is OR and therefore, unsuitable for WP discussions, let alone editing. ] (]) 10:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, I am currently reviewing a GA nomination for ]. I've never heard of the following sources currently being used nor can I find past discussions on them. As such, I would others' opinions on them. | |||
| :What I think is OR? What else would a person's thoughts be?! But philosophy to one side, what makes your edits not speculation? And what makes this team suitable to define the writers' intents? ] (]) 12:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *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) | |||
| :::It should be fine for speculating on cultural references as long as what's being cited is not unduly controversial or self-serving. What it can't be used for is to assert notability because it's published by the subject of the article. ] (]) 16:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you, I'll take this into consideration for my review. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] that lightly repackages any information they receive that they think would interest their readers (i.e., their advertising targets). Other sites label it a press release, and I'm sure these other sites are correct. That said, even if we treat it like a press release, press releases can be reliable for the sort of simple fact this one is being used to support. | |||
| ::* The DRG News source is labeled as being from '']'', which appears to be a media outlet/country music magazine. They ''might'' be part of https://www.cumulusmedia.com | |||
| ::* ] is a reliable source. | |||
| ::] (]) 20:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: TheGamer == | |||
| :Looking back, it was used to support a "cultural reference" in the article on the episode ], but it seemed to go against the actual episode commentary. ] (]) 22:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|OP has withdrawn the discussion. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 21:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| <s>TheGamer seems to be either user-generated content, or slop listicles. Additionally, it seems to source it's content largely from dubious YouTube content, Reddit posts, or Twitter/X threads. However it is listed as a source in articles such as ] purely in relation to one listicle that ranks Flowey in relation to other characters. What is the reliability of this site? | |||
| * Option 1: ] | |||
| ::Then cite them both. ] (]) 05:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 2: ] | |||
| * Option 3: ] | |||
| * Option 4: ] | |||
| ]</s> | |||
| :::Both '''are''' cited, there is no contradiction between the two, yet AlastairWard seems to assert his personal understanding (or the lack thereof) as the end of all things. ] (]) 13:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="font-family:Kurale; color:#ff0000;">]]</span> 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Bay Area Music (BAM) == | |||
| * '''Bad RfC'''. While begun in good faith, this RfC is malformed. The opening statement is not {{tq|neutrally worded and brief}} as our ]. I would also ask why the ] about ''TheGamer'' available at the list maintained by ] isn't considered sufficient. If this is at root a page-specific concern about ], as the opening statement causes it to appear to be, the matter can surely be handled better at ]. ] (] | ] | ]) 02:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| 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 have an editor reverting edits/removing citations for ''BAM'' because they have never heard of it and because it is/was "a local niche magazine, not a reliable source". For those who may not know ''BAM'' was a California based music magazine for over two decades that was published in both a Northern and Southern California edition and also sponsored the yearly BAMMIES. It was as "local" as the ''NY Times'' is to New York City or to the ''LA Times'' is to Los Angeles. It was mainly about music but not specific to one style of form or even subject. was only one cover story in it's history. At one point ''BAM'' merged with Seattle's ''Rocket'' () and the BAMMIES were always a notable event in the Bay Area (, , , , , and ). The overall issue here is when editors have never heard of something they sometimes remove a citation or information associated with it. A person outside of the industry may not have never heard of ''R&R'', ''Pollstar'', ''Entertainment Design'' or even ''Billboard'' because they are all, very clearly, "niche" publications yet they are all very good sources. ''Guitar For the Practicing Musician'', ''Modern Drummer'', ''Bass Player'' and ''Guitar Player Magazine'' may not be read by non musicians, however if someone started removing facts or information where any of these were cited as sources because they were "niche" publications it would be somewhat ludicrous. I don't live in Chicago but that does not mean I would discount an article on a Chicago musician who was featured in the ''Chicago Times'', thusly included citations for that publications, because it was a "local" publication. For information about musicians that were playing in, lived in, and considered part of, the California scene a source such as ''BAM'' would a goldmine of information on certain "local" artists. Van Halen, Journey, Guns and Roses, RATT, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Quiet Riot, Carlos Santana, Frank Zappa, The Eagles and so many others were all covered at various times. So the question is, really, should a magazine that mainly covered the California music scene be considered a "a local niche magazine, not a reliable source"? ] (]) 13:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :"Niche" does not equate to "unreliable". From what you have said here this source should be reliable for facts about rock musicians and bands but probably not beyond that. ] (]) 13:44, 24 November 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. | |||
| ::If info can't be verified it can't stay on Misplaced Pages - ] is one of the 3 most important policies on Misplaced Pages. With one wiki editor saying one thing, and an emailer saying another - we need sources editors and readers can verify and agree are reliable. This is the basics for tertiary sources like encyclopedias, especially ones written with wiki software. | |||
| ::The ] is a newspaper of record, and it and the ] are major international newspapers, with world wide archives that allows Misplaced Pages readers to verify info sourced to it. BAM's none of these things. | |||
| ::I've removed the ] sourced to BAM because the Wikimedia Foundation received a complaint about the incorrect info sourced from it: {{OTRS ticket|2201734|2008111210030712}}. If the info sourced to it is encyclopedically ], better sources that are known for fact checking will exist to reference it. -- ], 2008-11-24]14:06z | |||
| :::Stricter rules apply in the case of ], but from the history talk page of the article I think is under discussion, it seems to be only the date and title of an album release that is at issue. Could this be found in material issued by the band or their recording company? ] (]) 14:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OTRS tickets are for copyrighted information, such as a photographer allowing use of an image. Wikiepedia articles are not "owned" in the same sense although if there were a copyvio it could be certainly be removed. However I have no clue why this OTRS ticket relates to ''BAM'' as a source. And ] has mentioned an album and release date - which is not anything to do with the information the editor keeps removing. I think there is some confusion going on. My reason for asking about ''BAM'' is that ] keeps removing the name of a musician who played with a band, as well an another comment about the same musician, and another former member, going on to play in another band. It is a fact and not anything slandering or controversial. It was asked a citation be provided and one was. However as the source is ''BAM'' ] feels it can not be verified as he has no knowledge of what it was it is niot a fact. ] keeps mentioning this OTRS (Could someone post the entire OTRS here so everyone could read it and if it relates?) and that ] needs to be enforced. A musician who was part of, or played with, a band is nothing compared to some of the other information that is ''not'' being removed from this same article. For example there was a comment that one member was fired because of drug addictions. I actually sourced it to a specific article where another member of this band said alcohol was the reason so I cited the source and made sure it was attributed to that specific person. ''BAM'' was ''not'' that source so, seemingly, the statement was left. This discussion is ''not'' about ] however, and it is highly doubtful ''BAM'' would have lasted for as long as it did, or been part of the music industry, had it been nothing but slander and misinformation. | |||
| ::::There are thousands of sources not "online", but that does not mean they do not exist of can not be verified. I am sure if ] is in California s/he can locate a source. Perhaps UCLA archives would have them or some place else. There may be some sort of online archive that is searchable. I did find however it is under construction. The issue is not if a source is found "online" or not, nor is it, as ] first argued, because a publication is "a local niche magazine, not a reliable source". To answer ]'s question about albums. An albums existence could be verified by any number of sources such as an official website, an official press release, publications such as ''Pro Sound'', ''R&R'', ''Billboard'' or the album itself. But, again, I have no idea, really I don't, what that all has to do with ''BAM'' or the OTRS. ] (]) 15:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ok, I misunderstood, it is not about an album release but about band membership. I can't see why this would be controversial, and I would think it is still within the areas of expertise in which BAM would be reliable. Of course if another source contradicted it then that would be a different question. Perhaps one of the other respondents to this board will have a different view, or you can take it to the BLP noticeboard for further advice. ] (]) 15:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *As a local music magazine, ''BAM'' would not necessarily be considered as reliable as a mainstream newspaper or a national music magazine, but it was published for 23 years which suggests stability, and it is collected at a few libraries. Apparently the claim under dispute is that a certain person was formerly a member of a certain band, which is something I would expect a music magazine to be reliable about. If I understand the situation, there is nothing obviously controversial about this claim. So I don't know what the OTRS ticket would be about -- did the person contact the Wikimedia Foundation to deny that she was ever a member of the band? And, if so, is it necessary to keep the OTRS ticket a secret? Couldn't whoever handled the OTRS ticket put a notice on the talk page saying that the person has contacted the Foundation to deny ever having been a member of the band? I don't see potential harm in the situation. --] ] 08:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| For example, Charlie Peters has written about this extensively, it is his main topic of writing for years. https://www.gbnews.com/authors/charlie-peters | |||
| ::] "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to ''any'' Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and to all of our content policies, especially ] We must get the article ''right''.</nowiki>]] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. Material about living persons available solely in ] or sources of dubious value should not be used" | |||
| ::] "Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature" | |||
| ::I can't republish the OTRS emails because of Wikimedia's privacy policies, I can however say that the emails are about Cara Crash (living person) being a member of a band (living persons)/or not. The only source is a local music magazine which isn't archived like newspapers of record are, and is therefor not ] by Misplaced Pages's readers. This source was challenged in an email to the foundation. I don't think local music magazines are good sources, so what I'm asking for is a reliable verifiable source for the info I removed (). If BAM is the only source for this fact, is it even of encyclopedic notability? -- ], 2008-11-25]11:56z | |||
| :::Lets see, several issues at played here. First - so you are saying anyone can email the foundation and say somehting like "they were in a band" or "they were not in a band" and than that information becomes "secret" as well as a valid source? That is a new one. To this comment: "''I don't think local music magazines are good sources''" I say "People with limited knowledge of a subject should not be involved in editing an article" Well, in either case I provided several other links that connect the musicians and at lest one of them is direct from another former members website.(The same member who's personal statement was deleted for being original research by ]. And it is still doubtful someone would seriously complain about band membership but '''not''' complain about a statement that a member was fired for drug use. Also stop taking ] out of context. it was intended to prevent un-sourced, un-cited, comments such as "They were fired because of drug abuse" from appearing, not "After they left the band they were in another band" with several cited sources backing it up. Your edits were removed as vandalism because you keep removing cited sources and you are being asked not to. This is the first mention of the OTRS being directly related to the article, however, as I pointed out, if all someone has to do is send in an email making a statement they did, of didn't do something, and then you accept that as "fact" and refuse to actually provide "proof" it opens up a whole new way to have article edited. ] (]) 12:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I'd genuinely argue he is even as or if not more reliable on this topic than most trusted sources. If you want an insight into why I believe that, without going into just arguing over facts and analysis which I can do in the comments below this thread, read this anecdote from him being the only reporter who bothered to show up to one of the most prolific child sex abuse cases in British history for most of the hearing https://thecritic.co.uk/why-was-i-the-only-reporter/ | |||
| ::This is sort of an aside, but as this "secret" OTRS email about band members that also seems to imply that BAM is considered a poor source, I would ask that ] revel if this secret person explained this: , BAM, #409, June 4, 1993. 4 Non Blondes Cover Story. Seems funny that, as the magazine in not reliable and simply a "local niche", why a band would "want to be on the cover" of such a magazine. (Of course one would have to wonder why well known artists such as , , or would even agree to be interviewed for a cover story either. I know if I were a musician of that stature I would never ever want to be associated with such a "local music magazine" that is a "questionable source") ] (]) 14:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, if we assumed that BAM was an unreliable source, we might explain the cover by suggesting that BAM bought a picture of 4 Non Blondes from another source and made up a fake quote about them wanting to be on the cover of the magazine. In actuality, I don't assume that BAM is unreliable or that they made up a fake quote from the band. However, BAM's coverage of 4 Non Blondes is the issue being disputed here, so we can't use BAM's quotations from the band to prove that the coverage is accurate. --] ] 07:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ok - back up. Now what are ''you'' talking about? Is there now another article being discussed? There are are '''no quotes''' from BAM in the 4NB article. This has zero to do with any sort of debatable issue and, unless the OTRS is made available here, than it is up to all of you to proove that that the images are faked, the album/single I have in front of me is fake, the reviews of it are fake, that former 4NB guitarist Shaunna Hall is lying and that any other possible future source about Cara Crash and Wanda Day being in Malibu Barbi are not true. Until than this is asinine and a bogus discussion based on some unseen email from some unknown source. | |||
| :::Can we try to keep this on topic. BAM - reliable source or not? ] (]) 07:23, 26 November 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. | |||
| It is kept by , so verifiability does not seem to be an issue. --] 07:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think you're going to get any more from this noticeboard than what I and others have said: a magazine like ''BAM'' should ''normally'' be reliable for simple facts like who was or was not in a band. The usual caveats apply: not all verifiable facts are notable; usually reliable sources can make errors; sources may disagree. Usually who was in a band at any one time is not particularly controversial. Members of bands generally like to be credited for their contributions. Here there appears to be some sensitivity that we have not been made party to. This is not the place to unravel it. The BLP noticeboard ''might'' be appropriate. ] (]) 10:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote><p>There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable.</p></blockquote> | |||
| *"are saying anyone can email the foundation and than that information becomes a valid source?" | |||
| **No, the info in the email's not verifiable. It is however a challenge and ] says "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged" - which leads to the questioning of ] as a reliable source, and as Metropolitan90 points out, you can't use BAM as a reliable source for showing that BAM is a reliable source. | |||
| *"I provided several other links that connect the musicians and at lest one of them is direct from another former members website." | |||
| **: see ]. : this doesn't look like a reliable source at all, and doesn't even mention Crash which it's sourcing. looks like personal site that "dig up and review old, obscure Metal vinyls of all styles from the 80's and early 90's." also looks like a personal site, not an ]. | |||
| *"It is kept by , so verifiability does not seem to be an issue." | |||
| **NE2's link leads to which shows that 12 libraries have some copies of the magazine. While I don't think that qualifies it as a reliable source for an encyclopedia, the argument can be made (by e.g. Soundvisions1 and Itsmejudith) that it's not just some zine of " promotional in nature]]", and, as a music magazine, is a good source for saying a living person was a member of a band. What I'm asking for is another source showing that Crash was a member of 4NB: a source reasonable people can agree is reliable and which is known for checking its facts, and therefore shows encyclopedic notability. -- ], 2008-11-26]12:37z | |||
| <blockquote><p>There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable. It is reliable for specifically group based child sex exploitation.</p></blockquote> | |||
| ← To ] Invoking Monty Python skits may be cute at first but this is getting ridiculous. With the Shaunna Hall link(s) (And even her own edits to the article) now you are saying that band members are not reliable sources for fact verification, so it makes me question this secret OTRS even more as it couldn't be from a band member. (Note that Self published sources can be, and are - all the time, used to verify certain facts, they should not be used to establish notability. However in this case that link is not "self" published by the subjects of the fact being verified as is not Wanda Day or Kara/Cara Crash saying "I was in Malibu Barbi", nor is it the source being used to establish notability of either musician so they can have their own stand alone article) Next you say, of an image gallery: "...this doesn't look like a reliable source at all, and doesn't even mention Crash which it's sourcing". Please note the following text that sets up the images: "When Rude Girl broke up, Sandy joined up with Heidi, Joann, and Kara from Missconception. They formed Malibu Barbi. While Leather was on the 12" recording, Melanie sang live and most other recordings. Later Lupe joined up with Kara and Joann, Industrial Rainforest. Pretty much, everyone local knew everyone" Kara = Cara. Clearly, because you feel BAM was a "a local niche magazine, not a reliable source", you also feel that because this photographer was a local San Francisco photographer these photos are not reliable sources. But I say it is now up to you to prove that these images are fake, along with any other sources you toss out as not being reliable. You appear to rely on "I have never heard it" put under the guise of a policy/guideline that you feel implies that if an editor has never heard of something than it could not be used as a source. This is an open challenge for ] to now prove that this band did not exist and that the members who were in it over a several year period were never really in the band. I have done more than enough to verify the band existed and that both Kara/Cara Crash and Wanda Day were in the band. If you feel it is some hoax that prove it. Or just be 100% honest here and say "I have no clue about BAM, the music industry, the California music scene or the musicians that were part of it, are part of it or may be part it in the future" and we can move on. ] (]) 14:18, 26 November 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. | |||
| *"With the Shaunna Hall link(s) (And even her own edits to the article) now you are saying that band members are not reliable sources for fact verification" | |||
| **The page at Shaunna's site does not say that Cara was a member of 4NB, it says she was a member of Alcohol of Fame and Malibu Barbi. The article at doesn't mention Cara. If there was an article written by Shaunna published in the LA Times saying Cara was a member of the band; or if something like the ]'s said it, those would be reliable sources. | |||
| *"Kara = Cara" | |||
| **If the image gallery on the cosplay site can't get the name correct, and doesn't even mention her surname, its not a reliable source. It also doesn't say that "Kara" was a member of 4NB. | |||
| *"But I say it is now up to you to prove that these images are fake, along with any other sources you toss out as not being reliable" | |||
| **] says that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Several editors have now said that BAM should be good enough, so what I'm asking for now is another source stating Cara was a member of 4NB - a source reasonable people can agree is reliable and which is known for checking its facts, and therefore shows that this information is of encyclopedic notability and is good enough when discussing living persons. -- ], 2008-11-27]12:37z | |||
| I hope I have formatted this correctly, thank you. ] ] 19:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Stop with the Monty Python skit ], I get it and it is not funny anymore. So really only four main things to say: | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::# The article does not say Cara was a member of 4 Non Blondes, correct. ''It was not used to cite that fact, it was used to cite she was in Malibu Barbi'' - another of the facts you keep removing from the article because it was in BAM. | |||
| ::Just to be clear here, I am not saying Peters is the only good reporter. GBNews has some good reporters and they're specifically concentrated on this. I think GBNews is generally slop but I just wanted to cite a specific reporter as an example. I think GBNews' work and information on this very narrow subject is worth considering. ] ] 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::# The citation you bring up does not mention Cara, correct. But it was ''not used to cite Cara '''or''' her involvement with 4 Non Blondes'' in this specific case, it was used to cite Wanda being in Malibu Barbi. The direct sentence says "After leaving the Blondes in 1991 Wanda continued drumming with Malibu Barbi, and then Bad Dog Play Dead." As above, this fact was removed by you more than once because it was in BAM. | |||
| :This seems backwards, ] claims require exceptional sources, not exceptions for terrible ones. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::# Kirk Douglass, as an example. His real name is Issur Danielovitch but if someone from Amsterdam, NY posted personal images of him before he took a stage name you would say that "If the image gallery can't get the name correct, and doesn't even mention his surname, its not a reliable source." Perhaps it is not known, by you anyway, that performers often create stage names. Johnny, Marky, Dee Dee and Joey did not (do not) really all have "Ramone" as their last name. "Danny Dangerous" and "Sammy Serious" are not really the names of the bass player and singer of The Zeros. The fact that a guitarist named Kara Cross became known as "Cara Crash" is not all that shocking. And, as with the other "I have come for an argument" arguments, you conveniently overlooked looked where the citation was used, and for what reason, just so you could come here and argue some more. ''It was used to cite that Cara was in Malibu Barbi.'' | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::# Citations were provided for the comments you removed about Cara and Wanda being in Malibu Barbi as well as Caras involvement (However briefly) in 4 Non Blondes. May I remind you, and point out everyone reading this, that you also removed Shaunna Halls edit that confirmed Cara had involvement in 4NB. Now it is '''not up to me, it is up to you''' to do as I have asked because it is only your opinion that BAM is unreliable and so is it to your opinion that Shaunna Hall, because she was in 4NB, is also not reliable. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::I maintain that the perfect source for much information about a turbulent time that most outsiders would never be privy to would be from the people who were there. And, again, this is not about some extremely controversial issue. Would I be arguing if you removed the statement that Wanda Day had been fired because of drug addition and there was an OTRS on it? No. You admitted you could care less about the article itself, or what it says overall, only that BAM was not a reliable source and there was an OTRS ticket on the magazine. The rest has been made far more clear in this discussion and it really does not appear to be solely about BAM as a source at all. Your opinion on this matter is clear, no need to add anything further to this discussion unless it supports your views that BAM in not reliable. ] (]) 19:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Again, I'm being clear here I'm only talking about one narrow subject. ] ] 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was also being very specific to that one page as well. ] (]) 20:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So you're saying that, specifically on child rape, they're sensationalists. I agree with you that their titles would do better without the incessant capitalisations but their reporting on this isn't errant in any way. ] ] 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::So you're basically just saying Peters is a racist and if I can prove he isn't racist you'll be convinced? Here he is covering a white rapist. https://www.gbnews.com/news/two-rotherham-child-abuse-victims-accidentally-left-out-court-rapist-sentencing-office-error ] ] 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I absolutely did ''not'' say that Peters was racist, so don't do that again please. I was pointing out that GB News inevitably covers Asian grooming gangs, but almost never white ones. If Peters broke that mould I ''would'' be convinced. ] 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Oh, I've just seen your userpage. That explains it. ] 19:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::> '''Sources (some are invalid and blatantly biased for[REDACTED] standards but summarise info well. i'll find a proper source for them.''' | |||
| :::::Not all the sources in my user page are valid at all, I've just added them to look deeper in later on to verify myself. | |||
| :::::If you're accusing me of being a right wing grifter so be it, I literally just added an article by Bindle to my user page smearing the right as racist grifters before I read this, I edited McMurdock's article and wrote how he kicked a woman four times, I try my best to be fair. I am not interested in just saying "Pakistani men rape and whites don't", that's absurd. The state has routinely failed children of rape. I'm arguing that GBNews on this topic is good. ] ] 20:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I suppose even Bindel can be right occasionally. That's not the point though, I followed a few of your links and saw the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page - that's not good on a BLP, whether you are a right-wing grifter or not (I have no idea if that's the case). But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop. It would be ''incredibly'' problematic if we had to define sources as reliable or not depending on which journos were producing the material, especially as their material is routinely filtered through an editorial process which we have defined as unreliable in the first place. ] 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I understand. I regret making my initial point on Peters specifically because you're right that specific journalists do not save a publication. I've been trying to change the position to accomadate this, and say something more so on the lines of "Generally speaking, their covering of child sex abuse is good, can we make an exception for this topic". Is your argument here from the context of me originally saying Peters was good or is your argument here that no matter how good the journalism is on child sex abuse, the rest of the publication is too sloppy to make an exception? " But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop" | |||
| :::::::> the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page | |||
| :::::::Is this on the word 'despite'? This was talked about on the talk page, I agreed it was a mistake. ] ] 21:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Again, GBNews is generally slop, we can agree on that. I believe they have good journalists focusing on child rape. ] ] 20:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: We can't separate the two, that's the issue. The ''Daily Mail'' has good journalists as well, the problem in using them is the venue they publish their work in. ] 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I agree the Daily Mail is total slop as well, but if they had excellent journalism on one specific topic that would warrant an exception. That's what I'm arguing here. ] ] 20:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not going to repeat that as you have made clear that was not your intent, but I'm not trying to strawman you. I've misinterpreted what you're saying here as you calling Peters / GBNews / their audience racist (though that is not what you are saying), I am confused on what you exactly are you trying to say with the below. May you please elaborate? | |||
| ::::"If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that weren't run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear." ] ] 20:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: GB News is a right-wing channel (and, to be fair, it is transparently so); it tells its viewers what they want to hear. Much of the right-wing audience believes that child abuse is mostly committed by Asian gangs, because that's what right-wing narratives have told them, even if it's false. GB News doesn't actually ''say'' that is true, but it reinforces those ideas by focusing on such cases. ] 20:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm not accusing you of calling them 'racist', but what exactly would you call the behaviour your describing, if not racist. | |||
| ::::::Yes, GBNews is obviously a right wing channel. I believe you can criticise nearly all political journalistic publications that aren't state funded of pandering to their audience. CNN, the Telegraph, the Guardian, Fox, etc. I find it all a bit obnoxious. | |||
| ::::::I do however have qualms with the idea that GBNews is, how do I put this, 'filtering out or downplaying' rape gangs when they are not Pakistani / Bangladeshi? You say the majority of these perpetrators are white, I believe that is true of CSAM online but I amn't sure that's true at least on a per capita basis for rape gangs though I have collated a lot of sources which I intend to read when I have the time, as you've noted on my talk page, so I'll be better informed to answer this in the future. | |||
| ::::::In essence, your hesitance or better put refusal to add an exception to GBNews on rape gangs isn't derived from a sense that they're journalistically or factually incorrect outright but rather they have underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. If I'm understanding what you are saying correctly which I'll need confirmation on as I do not wish to strawman you. ] ] 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Yes, that's exactly what GB News does (though I would not go as far as saying it is "factually correct" ''all'' the time). It is, however, understandably more careful with its narratives with this subject than it is with others (although it does publish nonsense like , notably not by Peters). ] 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::That's an opinion piece that more falls under geopolitics. That wouldn't fall into what I, or the other user, is arguing to include. | |||
| ::::::::If we can agree that at least ''nearly all'' the time they are factually correct on this very specific subject, and the wealth of information is enormous, we can just put a warning that GBNews has something along the lines of "accusations of underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias" in a general sense (but is better on this subject (and thus the exception being made) as you noted and I agree), but that if possible, should be substantiated with another source, but is still acceptable on this very specific subject, even independently, especially if there are no other sources available. That's reasonable, I believe. Thoughts? ] ] 22:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: I'm not convinced, I have to admit, and I wouldn't vote in favour of it. Though I ask, could it be any worse that allowing the ''Telegraph'', a paper which posts rabidly transphobic opinion pieces, to be used on trans-related topics (as was allowed in a recent RfC)? It's unlikely. ] 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::As long as what is written is factually true, the agenda behind it just has to be made known to the editor beforehand to caution them. We shouldn't restrain facts and deprive people of them because we deem the authors morally repugnant. ] ] 23:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' Whilst I agree that GB News should be approached with caution (and I wouldn't touch their climate change reporting with a barge pole), I think Charlie Peters is an exceptional reporter. I would generally trust what he has to say before, for example, ''The Guardian'' or ''The Times''. I think that by barring his reporting on GB News we are probably barring the country's most pre-eminent authority on gang-related CSE. IT's worth bearing in mind that coverage of this topic has now become highly-politicised, but Charie probbaly brings the most balanced and fact-based perspective to the coverage of the issue. We could treat his reporting on GB News on this particular issue as an instance of expert ]. If other sources are reporting the same thing then fine, bit I honestly believe we would be devaluing Misplaced Pages's coverage by excluding him. The fact remains he is not interchangeable with other journalists at other news outlets, because he brings a wealth of research and statistics to the table, and has probably interacted with grooming gang victims more then any other journalist. ] (]) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I know this sounds silly but it is refreshing hearing more knowlegable Wikipedians explain what I'm trying to articulate so eloquently. I do want to be clear however that I think GBNews' coverage on gang CSE is excellent, not just Peters. The main contention seems not to be on if it is factual, no one here seems to be disputing this, but rather if it has underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. You can read my last comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269267836 as I try to ] what another user is saying to the best of ability. ] ] 21:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Are there any third-party sources that validate the claim that GB News and Peters are the best sources on this topic? ] (] • ]) 05:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Without getting into the topic-specific details of this long discussion, I can offer my outside view that ] is a generally reliable source for music-related information that it published during its 23-year existence. As was mentioned above in this section, the magazine had national ] and was widely respected. Unless there is conflicting information in other sources, I'd have no hesitation to use it as a source. If it published information that is disputed by other reliable sources, then both sources can be used, but with attribution for clarity. --] (]) 21:35, 27 November 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. ] ] 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, according to ],{{tq|If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims.}} That seems to be one way it works. Normal editorial processes are that we use secondary sources to evaluate the significant views among published reliable sources, and UBO is in most cases relatively weak validation for other claims. ] (] • ]) 07:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: If you're going to start an RfC on this topic (which would be required to carve out an exception for GB News), it would be far better to present such evidence as opposed to a simple opinion of "I think it's reliable". ] 08:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not sure there are any sources out there that flat out stipulate that Charlie Peters is the best source for this topic, but he is increasingly becoming the "go to" source in this area. report how he "broke" the latest story about the Government declining the national inquiry into CSE in Oldham, and other news outlets have approached him to co-author their articles, presumably for his insight, such as and . ''Deadline'' profile him —it is worth bearing in mind he was a specialist in this area before working for GB News, having made a documentary about the Rotherham cover-up. Maggie Oliver—a former police detective who blew the whistle on the cover-up in Greater Manchester and now works with survivors—holds his journalism in . In reality, as NotQualified has noted, other news outlets have re-used facts first reported by Peters in their own stories, so there is no way to really avoid his core reporting. Part of the reason for this is because , so they are dependent on those that have. For the record, I do think there is a difference between the core facts as reported by Peters and the framing of these stories by GB News in its broadcasts. ] (]) 10:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::If other sources have reported on the details, then they should be used. That way editors waste less time arguing about the source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You get less depth and less nuance from news outlets which repackage his work, usually for sensationalist reasons. Peters has interviewed the survivors and their families extensively. He attended the trials and the sentencing. If other news outlets are happy to re-use his material I don't see why it should be any issue here. ] (]) 12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Any other source is going to be less sensationalist and so less controversial. The issue is doing the simple option so as to avoid wasting time arguing over which source to use rather than something more useful. GBNews is by it's nature always going to be controversial, so using a different source for the same information is the best option. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That is an ad hoc approach which only works for one news story at a time. Simply put, what if other sources don't. This is why it is important the exception is carved out. ] ] 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If a single news source is the only source that picks up a detail, that probably goes to show that detail shouldn't be included (] / ]). That other news sources decide not to include certain details may well be because they do not believe the details are important, or that they are presented properly. I would say it goes to shows why there shouldn't be a exception given. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] this statement can be applied to any source in any discussion... ]<sub>]</sub> 21:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, choosing the least contentious source to support a detail is always a good idea (regardless of the article). Arguing other a contentious source when others are available isn't a good use of editors time. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The New York Times says {{tq|No British media outlet has revived the grooming scandal with the zeal of GB News, a hard-right cable news channel that went on the air in 2021, a decade after The Times’s investigation into grooming gangs.}} which does not exactly sound like a ringing endorsement. It instead sounds rather more like exactly the sort of {{tq|unduly represent contentious or minority claims}} we're supposed to take care to avoid. If a primary source has been published in multiple places, I see no compelling reason why the reliability of GB News even needs to be discussed, and it seems like nobody wants to use the secondary parts. ] (] • ]) 11:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Surely that's a ] issue to be determined in the context of what is being written, rather than a ] issue. ] (]) 12:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Even if it isn't a "ringing endorsement", it does sound like NYT agrees it has the largest wealth of knowledge on this issue, which is one of the reasons I'd argue it's critical to allow. If that knowledge was erroneous, I'd obviously agree it shouldn't be included, but that knowledge as discussed on this talk discussion seems to be virtually always correct. | |||
| ::::> If a primary source has been published in multiple places, | |||
| ::::And what if it isn't. Misplaced Pages as a whole suffers. ] ] 17:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tqbm|And what if it isn't.}} | |||
| :::::] and ], even were it to be considered reliable. ] (] • ]) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Other sources are reporting on Peters “breaking” the story in that he revived a myth that was taken up by Elon Musk who then intervened in uk politics and got far right grifters competing with each other for his attention, making Peters’ “reporting” noteworthy, but not reliable. ] (]) 15:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::post sources ] ] 15:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::A few examples: | |||
| :::::*FT: “How a handful of X accounts took Elon Musk ‘down the rabbit hole’ on UK politics… In the past week, Musk has also amplified posts on the grooming scandal by former prime minister Liz Truss, former Labour MP Kate Hoey, former Reform politician Ben Habib and people linked to broadcaster GB News.” | |||
| :::::*Yahoo News: “News of Philips's rejection letter was then reported by GB News on 1 January, sparking an intense debate about whether such an inquiry was needed. This was picked up by Elon Musk who began posting prolifically about the issue, levelling harsh criticism at the government and at one point calling for Philips to be jailed for rejecting the request.” | |||
| :::::*BBC: ”Debate around grooming gangs was reignited this week after it was reported that Phillips rejected Oldham Council's request for a government-led inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation in the town, in favour of a locally-led investigation. The decision was taken in October, but first reported by GB News on 1 January.” | |||
| :::::*BBC Verify: “In one post, Mr Musk alleged that "Gordon Brown committed an unforgivable crime against the British people" and shared a video clip from campaigner Maggie Oliver appearing on GB News. In the clip, Ms Oliver alleged: "Gordon Brown sent out a circular to all the police forces in the UK saying 'do not prosecute these rape gangs, these children are making a lifestyle choice'."… But BBC Verify has carried out extensive searches of Home Office circulars issued across that period and found no evidence that any document containing this advice exists.” | |||
| :::::*New Yorker: “The onslaught began on January 1st, when Musk responded to a report by GB News, a right-wing cable-news channel, which said that the country’s Labour government had rejected a national inquiry into non-recent sexual abuse in Oldham, a town just outside Manchester, in northern England. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the actual story is more complicated than that.” | |||
| :::::*NYT: “No British media outlet has revived the grooming scandal with the zeal of GB News, a hard-right cable news channel that went on the air in 2021, a decade after The Times’s investigation into grooming gangs… Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform U.K., an anti-immigrant party, has praised Mr. Peters, saying he had “really reignited this story” and demonstrated that “these barbarities have taken place in at least 50 towns.”… The cumulative effect of Mr. Musk’s inflammatory posts has been to energize Britain’s populist right.” | |||
| :::::] (]) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I’m just here to say that a source being ''generally'' unreliable doesn’t mean they can’t be reliable in specific circumstances. That is, if you want to make a case that a specific subset of GB News output is reliable enough to support statements in a specific article, you can make that argument on the Talk page of the article and it doesn’t need to be carved out as a formalised exception on ]. ] (]) 17:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Absolutely agree with this, both "''generally'' reliable" and "''generally'' unreliable" are not absolutes. Either way you may be required to convince other editors (on the articles talk page) that a specific source should, or shouldn't, be used. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Considering that there is quite a lot of academic material on this subject that isn't currently being used in these articles I'm somewhat reticent to start making exceptions for generally unreliable news media organizations out of some sort of belief we are missing sources. ] (]) 17:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The specifics would be a discussion for the articles talk page, but in general I'd agree. Less news and opinion sources, and more academic sources would be an improvement for many articles. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| If other sources do not follow though with a story, there may well be reason why, and one of those is they can't confirm them. This is what they are RS, they do try to fact-check before publication. So if a reputable publication does not report it I have to ask the question why is the only source reporting this an iffy one? ] (]) 17:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for this comment, this was also my interpretation when reading the thread, and surprised no-one else referenced the obvious here: If Charlie Peters is such a respectable journalist (let's assume he is for the sake of argument), then why is his work not published in respectable and reliable sources such as The Telegraph that he previously worked for? While trying to avoid a discussion on this journalist career path and choices in life, it does seem remarkably odd that there aren't reliable sources reporting his coverage indepth. This makes me suspect that it's because it's much easier to publish for GB News than it is other news orgs that do fact-checking and thorough reviews. Baring in mind, its not just WP that considers GB News as generally unreliable, there is rough consensus among UK journalism that it is a trashy tabloid-like source. So why is such a respectable journalist writing such great contributions for a trash can? Without intending to speculate much further than I already have, it could be because what he writes for GB News isn't as reliable as what he has written elsewhere. Generally if there were topics that I would say GB News was specifically unreliable for, it'd be along the lines of Reform Party coverage (it's a quasi-primary source at this point), and contentious topics such as the far-right riots, Tommy Robinson, and grooming gangs. Feel free to accuse me of a broad stroke, but I'd otherwise consider GB to be generally reliable for entertainment and culture topics (similar to NYP). ] (]) 00:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Lesbian magazines and ezines == | |||
| ::Just to be clear here, it isn't just Peters, I'm arguing that generally their coverage on group based child sex exploitation is good. Peters has written under multiple papers. I do not know why he works for GBNews particularly right now but he brings spectacular journalism to it. ] ] 00:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''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 == | |||
| Please could you give me your opinions on whether (and which of) the following magazines and ezines could be considered reliable (and non-trivial), especially in regards to their analysis and criticism of lesbian culture: | |||
| Is this sigcov , reliable for ]? ] (]) 09:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *(UK) | |||
| :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) | |||
| * (UK) | |||
| ::Ok, thank you very much. ] (]) 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * (UK) | |||
| * (UK) | |||
| * (UK) | |||
| * (UK) | |||
| * (Germany) | |||
| * (Europe) | |||
| * (UK) | |||
| * (US) | |||
| * (US) | |||
| == Did Howard Dean get paid to give speeches promoting the MEK? == | |||
| ] (]) 14:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{u|Hogo-2020}} and I have bit of a dispute : can we list that Howard Dean as among the American officials who received either cash payments or some other form of compensation for making speeches promoting the ]? | |||
| :It very much depends on what it is you're using the information for. There is not a large body of criticism on lesbian literature, culture, and history. Much of it comes from a small publishing base that produces these magazines. Some publications in the 1960s and 1970s (], ], ]) look very do-it-yourself and put together with tape and staples, but since mainstream news and literary criticism did not address lesbian issues, this is pretty much all that is available to gauge what lesbians were doing. I have used ''Curve'' and ''Velvet''. The others I have never seen before. --] (]) 14:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Sources: | |||
| *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) | |||
| :I've just added URLs to the list to help assess ] (]) 00:47, 25 November 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) | |||
| == toxicsinpackaging.org == | |||
| ::@], 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 ] == | |||
| Used in ] as discussed in ]. --] (]) 17:51, 24 November 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) | |||
| The ] article discusses environmental aspects of packaging. One of these is the need to keep toxic materials out of the package so, when it is recycled, burned, or landfilled, there will not be contamination. This subject has a citation which links it to the toxicsinpackaging.org website. Toxics in Packaging is a coalition of several US state governments for coordination of the issue and for its communication. It includes links to many state regulations. This is a reliable and unbiased source on toxics in packaging as it is the state governments providing the information. This is neither a controversial subject (it was 20 years ago) nor a controversial website. One WK editor, however, is challenging the suitability of this site for a refernece. See the packaging talk page for the discussion. Please review this and offer assistance. Thank you. ] (]) 17:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It's clearly an official source, a coalition as you say of several states of the USA. No problem whatsoever with its reliability on the environmental aspects of packaging. Obviously you should make sure you reflect its content correctly. ] (]) 16:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Found a Spanish Misplaced Pages article on the explorer. ] ] 16:21, 14 January 2025 (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) | |||
| == IRS Documents/Phone Calls == | |||
| ::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''?== | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| '']'' as an "American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." It doesn't shout "reliable source" to me (feels more like a group blog), but could somebody else take a look at this and help me determine if (a) its articles, or (b) its claims about itself should be cited in articles or BLPs, ? — '''] | ] |''' 20:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I am attempting to show that an organization is not tax-exempt according to the United States Internal Revenue Service. The organization doesn't appear in Publication 78( a list of "all" tax-exampt organizaton), but may meet the guidelines for not having to be published in Publication 78. They do appear in the IRS Business Master File, which also has a list of tax-exempt organization. However, if you call the IRS Charities dept on the phone, give them the name or EIN of the organization, they will tell you that the organization has been tax-exempt since 2003. That is, however, the only information the I.R.S. can give over the phone because of "the status of the organization". I'd like to say something about the organization's tax-exempt status since I feel the organizations Wiki page misrepresents its tax-exempt status. | |||
| :Wouldn’t this be an aboutself citation anyway? I would be more concerned about primary/OR here in that case. | |||
| :Regarding the source: they are likely to be pretty biased, but according to the page linked, they seems sufficiently reliable for this, unless someone can dig up large-scale issues I missed. Employees, proper funding etc. all seem to be fine. ] (]) 21:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of {{talk quote inline|as of January 2025, his profile at the online publisher '']'' lists him as a senior editor|q=yes}}? I just wanted to make sure ''PW'' was something worth mentioning at all, or if it was more akin to 'he's the senior editor this super-serious blog' and name-dropping a site that bore no mention. — '''] | ] |''' 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I’m not sure, but think being descriptive is fine for “articles about Misplaced Pages” and stuff, “critical“ is probably better coming from a specific source, even if it’s obvious. With everything else, it’s probably a question of DUE, not RS. ] (]) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I'd eschew calling out any of his particular articles over others, since there's... no reason to, right? Without reliable third-party sourcing, they're no more notable or inclusion-worthy than his others. — '''] | ] |''' 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think this is a case for ], but it seems like a reasonable option ] (]) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Pirate Wires has a strong right wing "libertarian tech bro" bent to its coverage, unsurprising given its links to Peter Thiel. The way it frames events is often strongly slanted, sometimes to the point of being misleading. Take for instance the recent story claiming that the WMF had been taken over by "Soros-backed operatives" . I would argue that this framing is conspiratorial and hyperbolic. I think it might sometimes be usable with caution for uncontroversial facts, but more objective sources should be preferred. ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Here's a Business Insider story on Pirate Wires that gives a good sense of its ethos . ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Invoking ] to attack an organization is not a good start for Pirate Wires, a new publication that does not have much of a reputation at this point. Definitely not ], and I would avoid using this publication for ]. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I wouldn't call it a "group blog", it just has a niche audience in the tech industry. It is certainly more factually based than Fox News. The article you linked is using it problematically though. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 14:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Solana is the founder and operator of Pirate Wires, so maybe it's wise to consider his pieces in particular self-published. No idea the level of editorial rigour other contributors are under though. ] (]) 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| In other words, is saying "You can make a phone call to the IRS" a reliable source? Any suggestions? | |||
| * ''Pirate Wires'' should be considered Generally reliable. The information that they publish, though perhaps from a libertarian or right wing political slant, is generally truthful/accurate and therefore should be considered ] unless someone is able to provide substantial evidence and examples that disprove this. ] (]) 16:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It's Mike Solana's blog. ] (]) 17:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do you have an evidentiary basis for your claim? I ask because I was recently described in a Pirate Wires article as a member of a powerful pro-Hamas group, and while this was entertaining in its foolishness, the important point for RSN is that it was a factual error. The article contained many inaccuracies about various things, and it was clear that no attempt had been made to avoid errors and erroneous conclusions. So, using it for BLPs might be unwise, and the notion that it is "generally truthful/accurate" seem highly questionable. Of course, I only have one data point, so it could be an outlier, but I doubt it. ] (]) 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah. I was not happy about Pirate Wires being used for that whole fiasco. But as for the evidence look above at the link {{U|Selfstudier}} provided in which Mike Solana says, "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever." ] (]) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously ''his personal thing.'' ] (]) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. ] (]) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. ] (]) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::What "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" are you referring to? Can you cite specific examples please and quote from the source directly? Also, are there other reliable sources which then criticize PW for "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" or is that ] and/or your own conclusion being reached? ] (]) 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Considering that comment and the fact that founder ] is the chief marketing officer of ], Pirate Wires has a major ] with all of the individuals and organizations associated with Founders Fund, and is a non-] source with respect to all related topics. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 03:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Pirate Wires is trashy far-right culture wars content. It is at best a group blog - ] (]) 10:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Marginally reliable, there seems to be a pretty wide spread quality wise because they seem to allow their writer a loose leash. This means that some articles are very good and some are very bad. Personally I've found them solidly reliable for the more wonkish techy stuff but have a lot of issues when they start to cover politics or culture/society in general. Crypto seems to be the only blindspot within their otherwise area of expertise, their crypto coverage is just awful and should be avoided like the plague. When used I would attribute and I would strongly advise against any use for BLP not covered by ABOUTSELF. I agree that pieces by Solana should be treated as self published and that coverage by Pirate Wire is not to be considered independent of the Founders Fund. ] (]) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Need context before coming to RSN === | |||
| ] (]) 21:10, 24 November 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) | |||
| :Sounds like ]. Can you provide more information, such as a link to the article or current discussions about this? --] (]) 21:42, 24 November 2008 (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 ] === | |||
| :No. You need a source that's published somewhere. Conducting your own telephone interviews is definitely original research. ] (]) 15:39, 25 November 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 . — ''''']''' <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) | |||
| == acsa.net? == | |||
| ::I don't even think its usable for that... Can't find anything that suggests that Rindsberg is a subject matter expert. ] (]) 18:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Sources in that article should have some leeway, as Misplaced Pages is obviously going to be criticised by such sources. But I totally agree with Hemiauchenia that framing is key. This is the opinion of a hyper partisan source, framing it as fact is wrong. Whether it should be included or not is a discussion for the articles talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It is more or less a group | |||
| :blog that mostly publishes opinion, including eg antisemitic Soros conspiracy theories. Any Misplaced Pages editor reading their coverage of this project will immediately spot multiple falsehoods and errors, and also personal attacks on names editors based on these inaccuracies. At best on a par with Quillette. In short, not reliable for this topic, and if this topic is a guide to how robust its general reporting is it’s probably not reliable for anything. ] (]) 16:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Both unreliable and ]. Rindsberg's views on any topic are quite irrelevant to anything.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 06:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agree fully. Unreliable and undue. ] (]) 14:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :almost certainly no. the article attacking[REDACTED] has falsehoods and even ignoring that and arguing its an opinion piece we could use with attribution , it goes at it from a very marginal POV … there are more useful opinion pieces from more reliable outlets out there.] (]) 07:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :How is it used by others or is it even used by others? If sources have cited their work then I think we can as well. However, I would be very cautious about using it as an independent reference. Very cautious to the point where I would generally say no. Perhaps in a case where it's spot on topic (ideological bias of Misplaced Pages) but then only with attribution. Speaking generally, these sort of sources are always difficult as they may provide very good information but other than editors reading the text and using their own common sense, OR, etc, we don't have a good way to judge the quality of the output. BTW, this is also why I think "use with caution" may not be specific enough. Some sources are more like "use with caution but probably OK" while others are more like "use with extreme caution but there is probably a case where it provides more than about self content". ] (]) 14:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Pirate Wires itself is notable as it's had coverage in other notable outlets but its viewpoint about Misplaced Pages per se might not have been documented in RS yet. But I'm confused -- Why are some of these other media outlets' self-published viewpoints ] without them necessarily being considered RS themselves? ] (]) 13:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The term '']'' refers to sources without adequate editorial oversight, which includes most ]. ] are not self-published sources. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 14:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Imo Having Misplaced Pages articles that discuss whether Misplaced Pages is reliable, biased, antisemitic, etc is silly. We're all too inherently conflicted as Misplaced Pages editors to give a sober assessment of these topics and what is/isn't due to include. These topics are best left to scholars. That said, Pirate Wires is a lot less established than these other publications you mention. ] (]) 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Outright rejecting ] because it's "right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages" and has "a very marginal POV" is the issue with ] that the piece is trying to critique. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 13:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::But it does affect ] weight (which requires balance between sources, and which is the real concern for something that, as a ] or a website with no reputation, would obviously be opinion at best.) The article already contains a large number of right-wing sources with a similar perspective; does this piece add anything to them? My feeling is that articles like this are subject to problems where editors try to do this nose-counting thing where they add dozens of opinionated or biased sources saying the same thing because they feel it's a ''really important'' perspective - but that's not how opinion is really meant to be used. If we have twelve sources that are fundimentially similar saying the same thing, they ought to be condensed down to a single sentence or so saying "a bunch of sources said X" (unless some of them are individually noteworthy on their own merits somehow, eg. if they're an opinion from a significant expert, but that obviously isn't the case here.) --] (]) 14:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] makes a perfectly valid point. ] (]) 14:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's being rejected because it's a random tech guy's blog - not because it's right wing. ] (]) 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::One thing @] said I half-agree with. The question of Misplaced Pages bias is one best answered by academics - which we should document appropriately and neutrally - the opinion of Ashley Rindberg on a blog with no editorial board is not a notable opinion, again, not because of its left-right bent but because <s>s</s>he's just some person with a megaphone. ] (]) 14:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It is your opinion that it is a blog. That itself would need evidence and probably an RfC. ] (]) 14:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Also, ] is a man. ] (]) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Evidence has already been provided. In this thread. The founder brags about having no editorial board on twitter dot com. ] (]) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Getting neither the gender {{tq|"she's"}} nor the spelling {{tq|"Ashley Rindberg"}} correct shows me you may not have looked into this very much. ] (]) 14:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Oh do stop. That's an awful lot to take from a bloody typo. ] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Here's a freebee for all the people looking to say Misplaced Pages has a left-wing bias. This is what a reliable source accusing Misplaced Pages of a left-wing bias looks like: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.2020.1793846 ] (]) 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Two can play that game. https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased ] (]) 14:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The Manhattan Institute is a think-tank with no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it is obviously not a ]. --] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::This too, in addition to my comment below. Frankly I'm finding this interaction very strange. ] (]) 14:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I should add that the Manhattan Institute was discussed previously ]; the discussion was never closed or added to ] but by a quick nose-count the total unreliable + deprecate opinions outnumbered the "unclear" opinions almost two-to-one (and there were almost no people saying it was GREL.) --] (]) 14:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::What game? I literally provided a source accusing Misplaced Pages both of left-wing bias and of bias against women at the same time. ] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*We don't actually require an RFC for every individual dispute; and sources certainly do not ''automatically default'' to reliable. Just doing a quick nose-count in this discussion suggests that it's extremely unlikely that an RFC on Pirate Wires' reliability would support your contention that it is reliable - numerous issues have been raised, especially regarding its lack of editorial controls and its lack of the {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}} that RS requires. We can pull it through an entire RFC if you really think it's necessary but I think your time would be better-spent looking for more clearly reliable secondary sources covering this, if you want it in the article. This would also turn things back to the more fundamental ] problem I mentioned above - this looks identical to dozens of similar pieces posted by people with similar opinions; given that it's published in what's ''at least'' a low-quality source compared to the ones already in the article, what makes this one significant enough to highlight? --] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :For disclosure, I originally wrote the ] article. I think the answer is ''no'' to this question specifically, and similar questions generally.<Br/>Pirate Wires is an advocacy media outlet. Its writing is in a punchy tone -- a tech-ish form of ] -- that blends opinion with explanatory reporting. They don't do spot news. So there's just no utility in using it for encyclopedia-writing.<br/>That's not to say it's either good or bad, merely that it doesn't serve the limited purposes for which we use sources here. (It ran a widely cited interview with ] and I don't think anyone believes they made-up the interview. But if we need to cite that interview in an article it can be referenced to any of the numerous RS that, themselves, cited it through précis', versus Pirate Wires directly.) In any case, anything it publishes that ''is'' encyclopedic will be covered in a second, more conventional RS and we should reference the second source. Anything not referenced in a pass-through outlet is probably undue. ] (]) 18:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == CEIC data == | |||
| This one web page is acting as source for a large percentage of Inter-Services Intelligence, an article about the ISI. I think the whole thing looks sketchy, but that may just be me. I'm open to comments. | |||
| ] (]) 22:22, 24 November 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) | |||
| :: Looks fairly dodgy to me - a former indian minster talking about a nation they have much strife with ? hardly a NPOV source and the hosting site looks fairly dodge. --] (]) 22:29, 24 November 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) | |||
| ::: The can also be found on the website of ], which is a legitimate Indian think-tank on security and international affairs issues, and hence a reliable (though not neutral!) source for wikipedia. Hence the article can be used to provide a ''perspective'' on ISI, as long as the views are properly attributed to the author/SAAG and not simply stated as facts. ] (]) 11:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::If in question use secondary sources.] (]) 02:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Fantasy Literature == | |||
| == Nightingale Research Foundation == | |||
| 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) | |||
| <s>{{resolved}}</s>'''''reopened''''' | |||
| :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) | |||
| In view of by ], I'd like to hear opinions on the reliablity of as a source for listing Florence Nightingale as someone to be believed to have suffered from ME/CFS, since this ME/CFS research institute was in fact named after her. Of course, there are plenty of other sources that say the same thing (e.g. ), but this one seems the most appropriate. ] (], ]) 11:31, 25 November 2008 (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. ] (]) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::So just for notability purposes it is unusable or is it something that should not be included on pages that are notable? ] (]) 22:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd say unusable for notability purposes. I'd likely leave it off other pages unless it had something significant to say that better sources didn't. ] (]) 14:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Not an RS. ] (]) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == NASASpaceFlight.com == | |||
| :When dealing with historical figures we have to be very careful about retrospective diagnoses. Advocacy groups have a vested interest in declaring that famous people of the past had the condition they are promoting awareness of, because it gives them publicity and a kind of heroic pedigree of high achievers to be proud of. ME/CFS is particularly prone to heavily ideological and intransigent advocacy. It is clear that this insititute promotes a specific contested pov (that ME is a clearly medically defined condition) and so has a vested interest in using historical figures to assert the factual reality of the condition. As a specialist in Victorian culture I'd be very very wary of such diagnoses given the significant cultural differences and expectations regarding middle class femininity at the time and a host of other factors (conditions undiagnosable and unknown at the time; paucity of reliable information; medical expectations of the time regarding behaviour). I certainly would not expect Nightingale to be placed in an article which baldly asserts that she is a "notable person with chronic fatigue syndrome". ] (]) 13:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| ::The article correctly only claims that people are 'believed to be', which seems accurate in this case. The institute, as well as other researchers and historians, and most patient organizations, truly believe that she suffered from ME (and hence also CFS as it was longer than 6 months). Whether she really did, we cannot know. Maybe it was lupus. ] (], ]) 22:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Geocities and a website that advocates for a more or less unsubstantiated definition of chronic fatigue syndrome are not reliable sources. If published in a real reliable source, OK. The others are ] and too ] to be acceptable (the former quite clearly, the latter in my opinion but one I think quite understandable). ] <small>] ]</small> <sup>] - ]</sup> 02:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::A reliable source in this case would be a specialist on Nightingale. The "Einstein was dyslexic" meme is a comparable case. Repeatedly debunked by Einstein's biographers it nevertheless still appears unrelentingly in dyslexia-awareness literature, posters, and so on - because the idea that the most famous scientific genius of the modern era had the condition is clearly good for the self-esteem of dyslexics. The phrase "are believed to be" still implies a consensus of experts, and there appears to be no such consensus. ] (]) 10:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The situation is not comparable, since there is nobody debunking this. Also, like I said twice and to which you have not responded, the article does not claim that she is, but that she is believed to be, which is very obviously true. We could specify this as "believed to be by...", perhaps, but should that not go for the whole list, then? Why would this be a special case? For goodness sake, her birthday is ME awareness day, declared so by a govermental body. ] (], ]) 10:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Perhaps you have not actually read what I wrote. I did respond to that point. I will repeat it 'The phrase "are believed to be" still implies a consensus of experts, and there appears to be no such consensus'. If some people who are not experts on Nightingale, but have a clear ''motive'' for diagnosing her, say that she had the condition then their view is not sufficient. If the phrase "are believed to be" is taken to mean that someone somewhere believes it, it is very problematic. If it does not imply consensus then it is weasel wording, because it allows anyone who is believed by someone to have the condition to be included. I've no idea what should go for the whole list, since we are being asked about Florence Nightingale, not about the whole list. | |||
| :::::There may or may not be anyone "debuking" the theory with regard to Nightingale, but her 2008 biographer Mark Bostridge identifies her condition as ], a disease that was first identified during the Crimean war in which Nightingale worked as a nurse. ] (]) 11:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Sorry, I seem to have missed something. I don't see why a governmental body would have a suspicious motive though in this matter. Brucella infections are found in a subset of ME patients, so there is no contradiction. ] (], ]) 11:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't know what "governmental body" you are referring to. One soluton would be simply to add the disclaimer to the list that Nightingale has been claimed by some to have had the condition. Brucella may well be identified in a subset of patients, but since I am no medical expert I can't comment on the relevance of that fact. That's one reason why we have the OR and SYN rules, so that we do not "spin" the statements of sources to suit our preferred arguments. ] (]) 11:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The Provincial Government of British Columbia, in 1995, by resolution #941109. Adding a disclaimer sounds like a good idea though. I imagine for the whole list, since the CFS article says that there is still no generally accepted way to diagnose the condition. (Btw spinning goes both ways, eg implying that brucella looks like debunking would also be OR, so a disclaimer should be carefully worded.) Regards, ] (], ]) 11:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Unless the provincial Government of Canada has passed a resolution stating as a fact that Florence Nightingale had ME/CFS, I'm not sure what the relevance of "resolution #941109" is to this debate. Even in the unlikely instance that it did, governments to not decide facts of history. ] (]) 12:21, 26 November 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. | |||
| ::::::::::As far as I can see (I could not find a confirmation in a reliable source so far), the PGBC has recognized May 12 as ME day. This date had been proposed (probably not by the Government but by people petitioning for it) because it was the birth day of Nightingale. It is doubtful whether the government did any investigation at all to find if Nightingale actually suffered from ME, and more probably that they accepted the proposal as is without much scrutiny. But I'll gladly accept any evidence to the contrary... ] (]) 12:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] mentions the site as a reliable source but the only criteria they give for its inclusion are that the source <br> | |||
| ::::::::::Oh I see. Thank you. It seems that we still need a reliable source (Nightingale expert or non-involved medical professional) who has even suggested this as a possibility. ] (]) 16:22, 26 November 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) | |||
| :::::::::::Supposedly they checked the biographic material and found that her symptoms matched. That is by itself not conclusive (ME/CFS has no symptoms that no other disease has, and many diseases mimic it), and no expert really can do anything beyond that so long after her death. One can, and does, believe, however. I would suggest that she is mentionable on the page because of the awareness day, but that it should be made crystal clear that there is no positive diagnosis. How does that sound? ] (], ]) 23:27, 26 November 2008 (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) | |||
| "Post-Mortem: Solving History's Great Medical Mysteries by Philip A. Mackowiak, M.D." has a chapter on the cause of death of Nightingale. The conclusion (from my reading of the limited preview, I have not read the full book) seems to be that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, a bipolar personality, brucellosis, and finally Alzheimer. ] (]) 08:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{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) | |||
| :No less than four disorders, without a thread of evidence, while the same symptoms can also be explained by one. The lengths people go to... ] (], ]) 12:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is probably a reliable source, but ] isn't just matter of reliability. Notability is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Based on these sources there's not enough of sufficient reliability to support putting in the contention that Nightingale had CFS. Being sarcastic will not change this. ] <small>] ]</small> <sup>] - ]</sup> 12:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{tq|1=WP:SIGCOV isn't just matter of reliability.}} no, but coverage in an unreliable source does not count for ]. That's why I'm seeking opinions on whether this source in particular is reliable. ] (]) 15:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not suggesting to put in such a contention, thanks. ] (], ]) 12:28, 27 November 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) | |||
| ::Ah, you have apparently read the book, to make such definitive statements? At least the brucellosis is also given by her bioghrapher (mentioned above). The brucellosis and the bipolar disorder are discussed here. | |||
| ::{{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) | |||
| ::Anyway, another biography, which also suggest brucellosis as the probable cause of her illness, gives you the perfect source to include the ''speculation'' that it was ME/CFS.. The same book also indicates that she suffered some form of dementia, so at leastfor three of the four disorders in the previous source, there are independent sources as well. ] (]) 12:31, 27 November 2008 (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) | |||
| * ''Nightingale complained of spinal pain, insomnia, anorexia, nervousness and depression. Her symptoms often have been attributed to chronic brucellosis. "She may very well have contracted the infection in the Crimean War," Wisner said. "But that illness alone does not account for her severe mood swings, or the fact that she could be so incredibly productive and so sick at the same time.'' | |||
| Mood swings are part of ME, which is a postviral disorder (in the 1930s it was even suggested that brucella caused the condition, but now it is seen as a secondary infection), and so is symptom variability, as are insomnia, significant change in body weight, anxiety and secondary depression. Spinal pain is a symptom of fibromyalgia (which is why they also 'claim' her), a common comorbidity to ME. But speculation is all it is, so I'll use that term. Thanks for your input! ] (], ]) 12:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :If you are not suggesting such a contention be added, and your concern is addressed, I suggest you place the {{tl|resolved}} tag at the top of the section so it can be closed off. If this discussion is an effort to attribute reliability to the Nightingale Research Foundation, we've been through this ] and the answer was a negative. Irrespetive, the NRF has been judged insufficient, as is the geocities page. | |||
| :<s>Based on the links provided by Fram to Nightingale/McDonald, it is now possible to have a discussion on the "notable sufferers" page about Nightingale, but it ultimately depends on a book cited by McDonald, since McDonald herself doesn't discuss at length. That book would be ''Florence Nightingale''. The discussion is now, is this book sufficient to include FN on the notable sufferers page; as it was published in 1982, is only 38 pages long, and doesn't seem to be cited by much else, that would argue against it in my opinion. Take this new source to the notable sufferers page and make your case there; if there is a discussion about the reliability of Keen's book, start a new section below. </s> ] <small>] ]</small> <sup>] - ]</sup> 14:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, these are all good points. ] (], ]) 15:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I mis-read which footnote to check in McDonald/Nightingale. McDonald doesn't cite Keen, she cites the NRF, which isn't reliable. <small>For clarity, this comment was moved to after GDB's response and addition of the resolved tag</small> ] <small>] ]</small> <sup>] - ]</sup> 17:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There go the good points. I suggest that instead this seems to be evidence to support the notability of the NRF. But that is not relevant here, relevant re the NRF here is only that it exists. ] (], ]) 18:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Since the "good points" were all completely wrong (albeit a good faith mistake) it seems odd that you should phrase it this way. At best we have speculation from a body with a vested interest, one that has been noted by McDonald. ] (]) 18:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::We're not discussing notability of NRF, it was deleted in an AFD. We've discussed if it's website is sufficiently reliable to add FN to the list of notable people w/CFS. I would say the answer is no. McDonald's statement isn't an endorsement, it's barely speculation, and I don't think it establishes anything as the NRF is ]. ] <small>] ]</small> <sup>] - ]</sup> 18:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::@Paul: I was reaching out, but as usual it went unappreciated. ] (], ]) 09:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == How restrictive is the TRT World „Turkish Government conflict of interest“ unreliability? == | |||
| :I don't think an institute can be published, let alone self-published. An insitute's publications are, of course, usually self-published; what of it, and how does this in any way diminish the verifiability of its existence and of what it believes? ] (], ]) 19:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The institute publishes the webpage, which is what you believe can be used to cite the idea that FN had CFS. ] means it can't be used to cite controversial information, and ] means it can't be used to cite the claim since it's neither reliable, nor does it represent a substantial minority within the academic community. Essentially, the opinion of the NRF is of such little notability and impact, that we shouldn't be citing it at all (which is why it can't be used to justify the idea that Florence Nightingale had chronic fatigue syndrome). ] is only one of wikipedia's content policies, NPOV, of which UNDUE is a part, is another. ] <small>] ]</small> <sup>] - ]</sup> 19:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, what I was suggesting instead is to cite it for the '''existence''' of a '''belief''', not for its accurateness or reliability, mainstreamness, academicity, neutrality, etc. etc. Meanwhile, we have more and possibly better sources. ] (], ]) 19:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please see ] and my reply . ] <small>] ]</small> <sup>] - ]</sup> 19:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'd rather listen to someone without a personal agenda against me. ] (], ]) 09:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Such as PaulB who said NRF wasn't an appropriate source for the claim that FN has CFS? The discussion, including in put from an independent party, has come down against the use of the source. It's been judged that NRF isn't sufficiently reliable to cite the claim. The second source, the geocities page, is clearly ]. So aren't we pretty much done? to keep asking until you get an opinion you like is pretty much ]. ] <small>] ]</small> <sup>] - ]</sup> 12:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Again: I am not making such a claim. Please stop attacking views that nobody expresses. | |||
| :::::::Here is one more secondary source, one that is already used in another CFS article: | |||
| :::::::* Jason LA, Taylor RR, Plioplys S, Stepanek Z, Shlaes J (2002), "Evaluating attributions for an illness based upon the name: chronic fatigue syndrome, myalgic encephalopathy and Florence Nightingale disease", ''Am J Community Psychol'' 30(1):133–48, pmid=11928774 ] (], ]) 11:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The American Journal of Community Psychology asserts on its webpage that its job is to evaluate "community psychological interventions at the social neighborhood organizational group and individual levels". I'm guessing that this article is about the impact of choice of name for a condition on the community of people who have been diagnosed. In other words its not likely to be about the reiability of a diagnosis of Nightingale. But since all you have given here is the title, I'm just guessing. We need to know what it says. ] (]) 12:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (unindent) I don't have access to the full article, but I found this (not sure if it's accurately worded): "The team found that when groups of medical trainees reviewed case studies of CFS patients that featured three different names for the disease, their perceptions did change depending on the name the illness was given. The names used in the study were: CFS, Florence Nightingale Disease (FN), named for the public health nurse who served during the Crimean War and was believed to have suffered from chronic fatigue; and Myalgic Encephalopathy (ME), the medically based term used to describe the condition." | |||
| It's not about the reliability of her diagnosis, but it supports the reliability that there exists a belief (something that is common knowledge, but Misplaced Pages wants sources). ] (], ]) 13:12, 29 November 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) | |||
| == rulers.org == | |||
| :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) | |||
| Is this site a reliable source? have cited it. ~<strong>'''''the'' ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup>'''</span></strong>~ 19:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :I would be tempted to simply avoid it by citing other sources. I would expect something as simple as the start of a rulers' term would be easy to source. The page does not cite sources and accepts corrections via e-mail. I wouldn't use it if I could avoid it. ] <small>] ]</small> <sup>] - ]</sup> 19:15, 27 November 2008 (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) | |||
| ::Sure, but in ]'s case it had information that I could not find anywhere else. I am trying to bring this to FA. Is rulers.org so unreliable that it should never be used. ~<strong>'''''the'' ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup>'''</span></strong>~ 21:57, 30 November 2008 (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 ] == | |||
| == List of eponymous laws == | |||
| I can’t find evidence it’s been published. ] ] 19:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| For the last couple of weeks there's been a tedious disagreement at ] over the inclusion of something called "Poe's law", which has been ] ] as an article for being non-notable and ]. One particular editor has repeatedly reinserted it into this list article, and has been arguing endlessly for its inclusion, despite not being able to produce a single non-self-published source that meets ]. Also, now another editor, with no previous editing history, has appeared out of nowhere to also strenuously argue for inclusion, on the basis that search engine hits justify inclusion. The discussion is becoming increasingly repetitive, and I'm starting to suspect ] may be going on. Although an article RFC ], little attention has thus far resulted. I would very much appreciate some competent source-policy-aware editors joining the discussion. Thanks. -- ] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 03:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I was expecting a page of actual laws, like ] ] --] 03:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hah! -- ] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 17:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've looked at the page and added citations with google books for one. I would say that's not an inarguable inclusion - in each case cited it is actually a poet discussing the apparent law (the more reliable reference turned out to be a quotation of ] rather than a discussion). I would say that it could be an example of ] - if it's not discussed extensively in contemporary criticisms and scholarly discussions, it's not a good inclusion. If it is discussed, even by a substantial minority, it should be easy to find prominent contemporary adherents. Google books searches suggests that it's Eliot's opinion , and there's a couple throwaway references in other books - , but some of those discuss for instance "Poe's law days" and each seems to have a different interpretation of what Poe's law was. I would suggest that there are more reliable sources available than website. I think I'll port this to the RFC as it goes beyond RS questions. ] <small>] ]</small> <sup>] - ]</sup> 12:42, 28 November 2008 (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 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) | |||
| == Website == | |||
| ::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? ] (] | ] | ]) 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. ] (] | ] | ]) 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) | |||
| Is website the official MOD site for this unit of the TA. An IP has stated that it is a self published website by Gareth Baillie and not the official MOD site would the IP be correct or is it official thanks. If not official would its claims need to be taken with a pinch of salt. <strong>]</strong>] 09:10, 26 November 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) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :: It's not an official MOD site - that would end in "mod.uk", It also says that it's copyright "Gareth Baillie". Looks self-published to me. --] (]) 10:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 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 == | |||
| ::: Looking further it's the self-published''association'' website not for the actual unit.<sub>normally I'd head over and remove it but since it's on a NI article, I have more sense than to get involved...</sub> --] (]) 10:13, 26 November 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}} | |||
| :::: Thanks Cameron. Should it be removed as a reference? And if yes what rational? <strong>]</strong>] 11:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's a self-published website and therefore should not be used for anything that might be controversial. I don't know what article you are referring to but yes, it probably needs to be removed for that reason. ] (]) 15:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I want your comments about the reliability of LionhearTV, I can't determine whether it is reliable or not, on ], the Lionheartv is in the unreliable section, but, despite of that some editors still using this source in all Philippine Articles. So let's make a vote: | |||
| == The Amiga Games Database == | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| Hi guys, my removal of a reference on ] was contested, so I would like a second opinion. The link, , is a review of a game by someone with the handle "War Chicken", submitted to , which hosts . As far as I can tell, the database and its submissions are entirely handled by Angus Manwaring, and I'm unsure about his qualifications as "an established expert" (going by ]) | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| Any opinions on this are appreciated. ] (]) 13:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| ] ] 10:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Just to add my comment as the editor who reverted - my viewpoint is that the source is not being used as a reference (i.e., to back up a fact that is claimed in the article), but is instead in the External Links section. I imagine it is listed to help establish notability for the article. From ], it is acceptable to consider linking to ''"Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."'' ] (]) 15:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see, it's still in there as footnote #5, though :> Perhaps it will be okay as ''just'' an external link. Although it occurred to me earlier today that for all we know "War Chicken" is on the game's (apparently extensive) development team; the tone of the review seems rather promotional in the last few paragraphs (complete with snappy slogan), with no real critical analysis. ] (]) 16:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. The Philippines has plenty of ] to choose from. If you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find refs for something or someone and have to use this, I'd say consider against and don't add it to the article. ] (]) 13:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Medical Books == | |||
| * '''Comment''': For better understanding and context, especially for editors unfamiliar of this topic's origin: | |||
| ::LionhearTV is a blog site, as described on its "About Me" page, established in 2008 and functioning primarily as a celebrity and entertainment blog. The site is operated by eMVP Digital, which also manages similar blog sites, such as and . | |||
| ::In addition to these blogs, LionhearTV organizes the , which recognize achievements in the entertainment industry. This accolade has been acknowledged by major industry players, including ] and ]. Like other awards, the RAWR Awards present physical trophies to honorees. | |||
| ::A discussion about LionhearTV’s reliability as a source took place on the ] talk page in September 2024 (see ]). The issue was subsequently raised on the Tambayan Philippines talk page (]) and the ] (]). However, these discussions did not yield a constructive consensus on whether LionhearTV can be considered a reliable source. The discussion at Tambayan deviated into a debate about ], which was unrelated to the original subject. Meanwhile, the sole respondent at the RSN inquiry commented, {{tq|It may come down to how it's used, it maybe unreliable for contentious statement or comments about living people, but reliable for basic details.|quotes=yes}} | |||
| ::At this moment, LionhearTV is listed as '''unreliable''' on ] as result of the no consensus discussion at RSN. | |||
| :<span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 13:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Lionheartv is one person operation. How can there be editorial discretion on that case? ] (]) 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm more surprised on how a single person actively manages three blog sites and one accolade, with the accolade even giving out physical trophies to its winners. Like, how is he/she funding and doing all of these? <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 14:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's immaterial on how we determine ]. What could be very important that other ] missed out on that only this blog carries? If it's only this blog that carries articles about something, it's not very important. This blog is the very definition of ]. I'm surprised we're having this conversation. A blacklist is needed. ] (]) 02:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Option 3'''. There's something about its reporting and organizational structure that is off compared to the regular newspapers. ] (]) 14:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Though, I find it strange and concerning that reputable sources copypasted some of LionhearTV's articles: | |||
| ::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts/ (December 8, 2024)<br/>Sunstar: https://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts (December 10, 2024) | |||
| ::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2025/01/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 11, 2025)<br/>Manila Republic: https://www.manilarepublic.com/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 14, 2025) | |||
| ::These are two instances I found so far where other sources copypasted from LionhearTV. But I saw other instances where LionhearTV is the one who copypasted from other sources, such examples include: | |||
| ::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-im-okay-to-cinemas/ (December 30, 2024)<br/>Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/showbiz/music/2024/12/29/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-i-m-okay-to-cinemas-0948 (December 29, 2024) | |||
| ::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/06/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game/ (June 27, 2024) <br/>Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/starmagic/articles-news/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game-22637 (June 24, 2024) | |||
| ::I honestly don't know about these editors, they just copying each other's works. Probably cases of ]. <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Option 3''' - As much as possible, LionhearTV and its sibling sites under the eMVP Digital should not be used as sources when more reliable outlets have coverage for a certain event, show, actor and so on. Even if a certain news item is exclusive to or first published in a eMVP Digital site, other journalists will eventually publish similar reports in their respective platforms (refer to some examples posted by AstrooKai). -] @ 15:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::What I fear in these kinds of low quality sources is that people will find something very specific about someone, e.g. "This person was seen in a separate engagement vs. the others in their group," and this low quality source is the only source that carried this fact, and since this it is not blacklisted, this does get in as a source, and most of the time, that's all that's needed. We don't need articles on showbiz personalities tracking their every movement as if it's important. Blacklist this. ] (]) 01:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|Discussion about moving RFC to RSN}} | |||
| :::@], @], @], if you don't mind we can move this discussion to ] to get more opinions and votes on other experienced editors. ] ] 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''Support'''. ] (]) 16:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''Support'''. Though, I suggest finishing or closing this discussion so that we don't have two running discussions that tackles the same thing. If we want to construct a consensus, we better do it in one place. Alternatively, we first seek consensus from the local level first (by finishing this discussion) before moving one level up (the RSN). <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 16:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| *'''Option 3'''It's a blog. That means ] applies. This means it might be contextually reliable for ] or under ] (with the usual condition that SPSEXPERT prohibits any use of SPS for BLPs) and so I don't see any pressing need for deprecation, but this is very clearly a source that is not generally one we should use. ] (]) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:FWIW, the person behind this blog is not a subject matter expert. Like, we don't even know who this is. (One subject matter expert in Philippine showbusiness that I know of that runs a similar blog is , and I event won't even use the blind items as sources there lol) As explained above, once this gets to be used as a source, it won't be challenged and people just accept it as is. This is a low quality source that has to be blacklisted. ] (]) 01:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yeah that's fine. I was just saying that, in general, those are the only two avenues to use someone's blog. ] (]) 20:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4''' Their reportings are obviously flawed and a per example above copypasting is a not a good look nor a good indication for "reliability" and it is often used in BLP, yikes. '''''Warm Regards''''', ] (]) (]) 12:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Hatebase.org == | |||
| I'd like an unbiased opinion on the reliability of these two books: | |||
| <br /> | |||
| Is a reliable source? ] (]) 19:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Edelman, E, Natural Healing for Schizophrenia, Borage Books, 3rd edition, 2001 | |||
| <br /> | |||
| Pfeiffer CC. Nutrition and Mental Illness: An Orthomolecular Approach to Balancing Body Chemistry. Healing Arts Press., 1988. | |||
| <br /> | |||
| :Is there an ] for this? And/Or some context for the use case? ] (]) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| They form the basis for a couple of contentious articles. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| Thanks! ] (]) 16:22, 26 November 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) | |||
| == LaserDisc Database? == | |||
| "Healing Arts" is an imprint of Bear & Company, which is not a medical publisher as such. See . | |||
| 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) | |||
| "Borage Books" is a single book publisher with an obvious interest in pushing the one book. I doubt it qualifies as RS at all as a result. It links to "clinics" and the like which have a financial interest in the book as well. ] (]) 16:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It sounds as if they are on the boarderline as to reliability... perhaps reliable for an attributed statement as to the author's opinion (assuming the authors are considered "experts" in their field). ] (]) 15:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Borage is decidedly iffy. "Healing Arts" does work mainly with "holistic medicine" etc. so that might be a factor in how much weight is given it as a cite. ] (]) 15:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Both are used as sources in topics related to ], a ] point of view in medicine, and I very much doubt they would be appropriate as ] since they advocate for a non-mainstream position. is an alt-med publisher (i.e. not mainstream) and as noted, Borage publishes but one book. ''Nutrition and Mental Illness'' is also 20 years old, and in medical terms it that is quite ancient. I would consider them useful only in very limited circumstances - reliable to portray the opinions of orthomolecular practitioners, and for historical information. I wouldn't use them to assert anything about the efficacy of the approach. At best in that regard, I'd use wording akin to "X practitioner believes that Y", but better is to review what sources they cite for their claims and cite them directly (if it acutally supports the point without being ], ], ] and is published in a ]). I would be quite careful to attend to any ] issues. ] <small>] ]</small> <sup>] - ]</sup> 15:47, 27 November 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) | |||
| == Book Reviews == | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| A simple question, should a book review be used as evidence of what is in the book? | |||
| Is reliable for use in articles about music (such as songs, albums, artists, etc.) ] (]) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| My reason for asking is that the ] article contains details about a controversial book on the subject based on a Guardian newspaper review, not the book itself. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| :Per ], in general the book review would be clearly attributed as the actual source. The book itself is better for what is said in the book. Reading , which starts with "''A controversial new history of the Indian Mutiny...''", I would cite Mishra's book tentatively after his conclusion, but cite both criticisms to the guardian article. I agree that the page is better off citing the book directly but the summary of the overall conclusion of the book is sufficiently vague in the article that ]. I normally use book reviews to inform decisions about the appropriate ] and ] of uses of the book itself, and to temper its conclusions if controversial. ] <small>] ]</small> <sup>] - ]</sup> 17:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Per their about page they are not a normal news source, but a promotional platform. Their articles, etc are likely based on press releases and information from the subject of the article. So they might be reliable as a ] source within the limits of ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It's worth noting that this is not a "book review", it's a news report on the book, which quotes its author and comments from other academics. A review would be quotable as an assessment of the contents by an expert on the topic. This is probably reliable as a summary of the argument, but not of its academic notability. ] (]) 18:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, that's a distinction that I didn't see. I'd still say the preference is to cite the book directly, but based on this I think the broad statement in the article is sufficiently backed by the review you could simply cite the book. I'd mine the news report for the academics' names and see if they've published reviews in the appropriate journals. ] <small>] ]</small> <sup>] - ]</sup> 18:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Global Defense Corp == | |||
| == Iraq War / Status of Forces Agreement == | |||
| 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 | |||
| {{resolved|Both parties are apparently new editors; article semi-protected and versions merged. ] (]) 00:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| Would someone please have a look at ]? ] (], ]) and I are both up against 3RR on it: ; ; | |||
| 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 them 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. | |||
| * | |||
| * ] discussion. (Please see both.) | |||
| 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. | |||
| 99.137.127.111 is intent on: (A) placing reports of Bush being burned in effigy in the introduction of the article, which I believe is unwarranted by the current length of the article (206 KB!, but there is no noticeboard for long articles) and (B) using newspaper reports attributed to anonymous sources claiming that they request anonymity for no other reason than that they are not trusted to speak with the media in order to stir up dissent about the recently-ratified ] based on supposed rationales which are completely ungrounded in facts. | |||
| 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. | |||
| At what point does a source's reliability depend on the reliability of its underlying sources? I would argue that any source ''always'' depends directly on the reliability of its underlying sources, barring some underlying accidental situation, and that we should always consider the underlying reliability when making judgements about what to include in any articles, let alone space-limited articles. | |||
| 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 . | |||
| Does anyone disagree? If you agree, please revert to my preferred version or some reasonable merge thereof. Thank you. ] (]) 18:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The newspapers seem reliable to me, and one of the newspaper articles says that its sources are anonymous because the text of the SOFA was classified by the ] as ]. Other sources are also provided which aren't anonymous in the articles. Rather than immediate reversion I might encourage discussion on the article's talk page.--] (]) 18:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::99.137.127.111's misrepresentations of his news stories' subjects' reasons for requesting anonymity are outright lies. is public, and "because he was not authorized to speak to the media," and, "because he wasn't authorized to speak to reporters." Their reasons for refusing to speak on the record may have been because they didn't have a translation, but that was ''not'' their reason for requesting anonymity. Translations have been available since shortly after the debate in Parliament began. ] (]) 19:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Attacking my integrity and as me on my user page isn't going to advance a discussion or intimidate me. Newspapers often use anonymous sources, and a variety of them did in covering this story. The one McClatchy article explains:<blockquote>All three declined to speak on the record because the administration, which had planned to release the official English language text last week, has instead designated it "sensitive but unclassified."</blockquote> The article also cited specialists who weren't barred by the government from speaking to media. Anyone who actually reads the articles will be able to tell this. Finally, the sources are attributed as anonymous in the article.--] (]) 19:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Let's see just how much you know what you are talking about here. What is the difference between off the record and anonymous? ] (]) 19:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's not my job or your job to be knowledgable, and maybe that's for good reason. Misplaced Pages lets the sources speak for themselves. I'm going to try to let some others have input.--] (]) 19:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well put. Thank you. However, my job in fact does require I be knowledgeable, and I'm sure there is something to that effect in one of these policies and guidelines which I would rather go eat turkey than read. ] (]) 20:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| == CESNUR / Its proponents == | |||
| 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. | |||
| ] has been the topic of some debate lately on ]. One issue which initially brought up the question as to its reliability recently is some criticism of ], a well-known professor of Sociology at the ]. Some of criticisms in question are , , and . The last three were published by ], the director and founder of CESNUR. He has also used the domain, cesnur.org, to publish a authored by himself. Questions of the veracity of CESNUR as a publisher of scholarly content has been raised by some - (of whose reliability status themselves I cannot ascertain for sure; that's why I'm here). Questions of conflicting interests have been brought up by several sources for ], the author of the first CESNUR link (see ] on his Misplaced Pages page). | |||
| 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/ | |||
| The other issue regarding this source is regarding some content about Scientology Sunday services (whether they exist), which I had some trouble corroborating elsewhere with any other reliable sources. That link in question is here: . I couldn't find much outside mention of Dericquebourg, except for ] (the list of goes on) itself. | |||
| 3. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/12/28/russian-su-57-will-carry-four-missiles-in-the-internal-weapons-bay/ | |||
| So is CESNUR to be considered a reliable source of information? Also, while I'm here, I might as well ask whether ] is seen as reliable as well. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 04:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 4. Radar Horizon. (n.d.). www.ssreng.com. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www.ssreng.com/pdf/Radar_Horizon.pdf | |||
| :Both Kent, as in individual scholar, and CESNUR are recognized scholarly sources. Kent represents a significant minority position within NRM studies, CESNUR is more reflective of the academic mainstream. | |||
| :Background info on CESNUR: | |||
| :*The CESNUR site is listed as a recommended research source, along with peer-reviewed journals, in this . | |||
| :*More background on CESNUR is available . | |||
| :* cesnur.org. | |||
| :*Coverage in relevant literature: . | |||
| :*Massimo Introvigne is | |||
| :Re the Scientology ceremonies, other sources mentioning these ceremonies include | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :*, a reference work for teachers and school libraries published by <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 09:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 5. Butowski 2021, pp. 78–82 | |||
| *Dericquebourg is a . He is widely published, with dozens or journal articles, encyclopedia contributions, etc. Bio data and a list of publications is {{fr icon}}. . <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 11:07, 28 November 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/ | |||
| * Melton also happens to be the second-most prolific contributor to ]. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 11:13, 28 November 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/ | |||
| *As for the other sites you quoted: | |||
| :*] is an unpublished, but notable Internet activist, and software specialist. A scholarly assessment (Højsgaard, Warburg (2005)): . Hausherr's academic credibility in the field of NRM studies is nil. | |||
| :*Apologetics Index is a run by Anton Hein, whom Rick Ross, a notable anti-cult activist, . another, more detailed assessment, which also mentions Hausherr and Gonnet (below) in passing. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 11:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :*http://www.antisectes.net/ is an anti-Scientology site run by a chap called . I found only a couple of mentions of antisectes.net in scholarly literature, characterising it and . There is no evidence that the author has any academic standing. | |||
| :However, while academic assessments of these last three sites generally seem to be fairly dim, and their original writing is certainly not part of academic discourse, Kent, whose own stance you'll remember is relatively close to the anti-cult position, in paper acknowledges that the archives of government and court documents hosted on them have some value as information collections, giving these sites perhaps sufficient credibility to use them as convenience links for documents referred to in our texts. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 12:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't want to get sucked into this because it's not something I know much about but, as Jayen knows, the CENSUR thing came up over on Osho. This features some kind of supposed ''expose'' on Introvigne, not sure about the background to it, or the credibility of the content, but there does appear to be exchanges between Introvigne and the sites owner about a number of issues including the matter of Introvigne's ''title's''. He is not, by all accounts, a professor or a trained sociologist (the title was bestowed upon him). Remember also that this is Italy, rife with corruption and nepotism, look at its academic reputation in the humanities, and of course this guy is a big fan of the Catholic Church, and has defended it on the point of sexual abuse allegations. He is also allegedly a member of Alleanza Cattolica. CENSUR is an independent organization, and if an academic is invited to publish work it may be a nice little earner, but it doesn't really matter what Introvigne and CENSUR might or might not be up to, you can't prove it, you need to take each publication on its own merits, any bias will be self-evident. ] (]) 12:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Great. I post links to dozens of documenting the site's academic standing, and then someone comes with half-baked allegations from a self-published website. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 12:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Jayen, when you say "CESNUR is more reflective of the academic mainstream," what do you base this assertion on? ]<font color="green">]</font>] 13:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::On my familiarity with this field of studies, and who the most notable scholars in it are. , for example, already linked above, describing the CESNUR conference as the largest such gathering of scholars in the world. Check the descriptions of CESNUR available in reliable sources yourself. I gave lots of links above. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 13:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 8. When Israel bombs Syria, Russia turns a blind eye. (2022, January 3). thearabweekly.com. Retrieved January 22, 2025, from | |||
| ::::For the record, the validity of the Army Manual as a source of information in this context was called into question on ] by ], quoted here: | |||
| https://thearabweekly.com/when-israel-bombs-syria-russia-turns-blind-eye ] (]) 15:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{quotation|I'm not sure that military organization guides should be seen as authoritative. They have no particular interest in recognizing or dismissing the beliefs of men and women in their commands. (If it helped morale, they'd don colanders and do noodley touch-assists for the FSM.) Until recently, the US Navy was publishing a Scientology section on their site that was sometimes used as a reference here–except that it was copied from the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance site, and, at least the most recent version, directly written by Scientology. (There was also a frequently overlooked disclaimer on the US Navy site.)|AndroidCat}} | |||
| :Do we use them? ] (]) 15:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::]<font color="green">]</font>] 13:20, 28 November 2008 (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) | |||
| :::::Please Spidern, it is a US government publication. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 13:27, 28 November 2008 (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) | |||
| ::::::Does the US army specialize in studying ]s? Quoted directly from ]: "Reliable ] are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative '''''in relation to the subject at hand.'''''" (emphasis added). Not to mention that they copied Scientology's description verbatim. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 13:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I will agree with you that they are incompetent But I think you can be incompetent and bias, some mistakes they've made such as having a image of the SU57 that is CGI on the web page and claiming it was a picture taken by Sukhoi I could see that being a result of incompetence but stuff like claiming Turkey accused Russia of Fraud over the S 400 because its range decreased against objects at lower altitude I have a harder time believing is just incompetence specially since the mistakes that they made seemed to always understate Russian equipment’s capabilities I have never been able to see and correct me if I'm wrong any incidents where they have overstated a piece of Russian equipment’s capabilities and yet I have seen dozens of mistakes in the opposite direction which suggests to me it is not random error. but quite frankly if their biassed or not I think is irrelevant even if we somehow conclude that they do have a neutral point of view there is still no way they could be considered a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards as they do not meet the other criteria mainly the one which is in quote ‘Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy’ there is no universe where they pass that one and as a result they cannot be considered a reliable source something which you agree with this alone should be enough to get the website Deprecated irrespective of if their bias or not. ] (]) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The manual was prepared by the Chaplain's Office, and, as is described in the manual, was the result of an extensive research effort. The United States Army is one of the biggest armed forces in the world. Questions of religion can play a significant part in the operation of an army; I believe the U.S. Army would have spent time, money and expertise to get this right. At any rate, it represents an incomparably greater measure of research and editorial oversight than an individual's self-published webpage. I believe that on any other topic where there were less strong feelings, use of such a source in a similar circumstance would not raise an eyebrow. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 13:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think the one thing that seems to be universally agreed on is that this is not a reliable source. ] (]) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::<s>Show me the money. I still consider your statement regarding CESNUR generally taking the mainstream academic view to be ] ]<font color="green">]</font>] 13:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)</s> Missed reply above. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 13:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would agree, that regardless of whether it's bias or incompetence, it all adds up to unreliability. Cheers. ] (]) 23:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I see now you missed my earlier reply; I had gone to find you another reference. Here for example: <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 13:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::In situations like this, the solution is usually to directly attribute who says what in the text of the article. Remember that the threshold for inclusion is Verifiability, not Truth. That CESNUR comments on scientology is notable in and of itself. It is appropriate that Misplaced Pages reports on what it says. ] (]) 14:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am afraid that does not address the entire issue. We are talking here about a scholarly paper, published by a renowned academic (Dericquebourg), hosted on cesnur.org. Per ] these are the ''most reliable sources for us to use''. I ''hope'' you are not suggesting that we should say, "Professor A says this, but B's self-published website says it's a lot of nonsense". That would be a travesty of both ] and ]. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 14:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<s>That is precisely what must be done, in some capacity.</s> Misplaced Pages, as per NPOV, can not afford to take positions itself, but can only accurately portray the most significant ones. Also taking in to account, of course, the due weight in proportion to a viewpoints prominence in academia. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 14:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::]. Self-published websites ]. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 14:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You are correct. I shomehow missed the "self-published" part and read it as "Professor A" and "Professor B". ]<font color="green">]</font>] 14:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::In this particular situation the person being quoted on the ] page was the creator of CESNUR himself, ], who appeared to be attempting to discredit ] multiple times. That is why I brought into question the verifiability of CESNUR itself, as a publisher of academic thought. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 14:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Half baked? yes, but it's well acknowledged within academia that religious studies is a deeply problematic area precisely because it is populated by individuals who not only hold deeply rooted belief based biases, in many instances they are also using the domain of ''scholarly research'' to generate an ''academic body of work'' which can then be cited in a defense of one particular religion or another. ] (]) 14:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I would say that, in this specific case, ''both'' Introvigne and Kent are notable enough that their views should be discussed. Hence my suggestion that you directly attribute who says what. ] (]) 14:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The trouble comes when trying to quantify which one deserves more weight. Taking into account, for example, Jayen's belief that CESNUR is more representative of the academic community at large; how and to what extent is one to accurately depict the opposing end of the academic spectrum? ]<font color="green">]</font>] 14:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Kent is a significant scholar, there is absolutely no doubt about that, and his opinions deserve to be reflected, but not to the point of exclusion of other scholars' views. In other words, he is one of the notable scholars whose opinions and publications we have to reflect. His squabbles with Introvigne, Lewis, Shupe etc. in ] (which is not a peer-reviewed journal, btw.) and the personal comments these scholars have made about each other are irrelevant to the Scientology article. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 14:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Neither is cesnur.org a peer-reviewed journal. ] (]) 06:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, I think you and I are in agreement on that. I never meant to imply that those self-published sources were to be used on the page in any case, they were just pasted here as fodder for discussion. Mainly, I just wanted to confirm that Kent is in fact an RS, as user ] ] that he isn't. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 14:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Understood. The only thing is to make sure we don't give Kent ] weight. Right now for example, we have five mentions of Kent – by name – in our article, along with an explication of his opinions, compared to zero for Eugene V. Gallagher, one for Bryan R. Wilson, zero for Roy Wallis, one for JG Melton (cited for a cherry-picked ''negative'' statement about Scientology, when Melton has actually written a fairly sympathetic and conciliatory book about the CoS), zero for Jorgensen, zero for Chryssides, zero for Lewis, one for Bromley, zero for Douglas E. Cowan – each of which is at least as reputable a scholar as Kent. I hope you see what I mean: we are still far from an NPOV representation of scholarly literature. Kent is popular on Internet sites, because of all academics writing on Scientology, he is closest to the anti-Scientology position found in the various anti-Scientology websites, but his preponderance on the Internet is not matched by any similar preponderance in published reliable sources. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 17:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Should we trust ] for statistics == | |||
| Just two more things: | |||
| #Introvigne's self-published comments about Kent would be inadmissible even if they were relevant to the article topic, per ]: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." | |||
| #I noticed that Dericquebourg's paper on cesnur.org is an unpublished conference paper, marked "Preliminary version – do not reproduce or quote without the consent of the author." This means that as is, the paper may not be suitable for citing here (at least not without seeking and registering permission). I don't think we should use this paper right now. Perhaps later, if it gets published. But in the meantime, it may at least be useful background reading for editors. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 18:16, 28 November 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; | |||
| *From the About page of cesnur.org "The texts of this site, selected because of their scholarly interest, '''represent the point of view of their authors. CESNUR does not necessarily agree with them.'''" (emp added.) | |||
| "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 contents of the CESNUR site are a grab-bag, ranging from academic articles with solid sources, to personal flames by the owner of the site. There is no indication that articles have to pass an editorial review processes, peer-review, fact-checkers, etc. In the middle there are weak papers with poor references or ones that strangely omit key information about co-authors of a presentation (with sources to be given later) at a CESNUR event | |||
| The question is should we trust it? | |||
| :I realize that Misplaced Pages editors aren't supposed to be judges of academic sources, but neither are we supposed to blindly accept whatever floats in wearing a badge proclaiming "Hi! I'm with the academic mainstream", when there are respectable contrary views. ] (]) 06:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Using Carma for power station emission info in Australia == | |||
| :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) | |||
| At the ] talk page there is a minor issue with the reliability of a source regarding the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are emitted by this and other power stations in the country. Does a database, such as the one ] has online, become unreliable if they use a statistical model to deduce emission from power stations that do not report figures directly to them? - ] (]) 22:30, 28 November 2008 (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) | |||
| :The reliability of the source does not depend on whether they use statistical modelling or not. If you report an estimated figure, simply say that it is estimated. The reliability depends on the website's authoring organisation and how it is produced. In this case the website belongs to an organisation we describe as "a think tank". It is a dubious case. It would be useful to know whether this website has had independent reviews, particularly from academic writers. ] (]) 22:45, 28 November 2008 (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) | |||
| ::There are Australian Government agencies that have reports about the emissions of the power station, like the department of Climate change, and National Polutant inventory. The question is why would we use US lobby group that makes estimates base on a model designed from information obtained from US EPA reports on US power stations. When there are actual monitoring reports from Australian sources. The same issue can also be applied to US power stations why use Carma information when there are EPA reports avaiable? ]] 03:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree you should use official sources in preference. ] (]) 17:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: EurAsian Times == | |||
| == sabetay.50.g.com - about the Donmeh origin of public figures == | |||
| <!-- ] 23:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740610876}} | |||
| This has just been added to ]: "A website revealing the results of studies conducted by anonymous researchers, on donmeh origin of many public figures]" - it doesn't look anything like a RS to me from the description but I can't read the website. Comments? Thanks. ] (]) 14:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{rfc|prop|pol|rfcid=11A50DD}} | |||
| The (used to have its own article but it was apparently PRODed) is cited in several hundreds of articles, mostly pertaining to Russian military hardware and South Asian issues, but not exclusively. It was mentioned ] ] ] on this noticeboard but only on a surface level. | |||
| :For your information; I modified the link with a (Turkish) mark at the end, meaning that's a website in Turkish. Regarding reliability, none of the external links in that article fits into the reliable source definition.] (]) 19:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fair enough, I've removed them all except the article in the ''Jewish Political Studies Review'' which looks RS. ] (]) 20:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| In light of all this, how would you rate the EurAsian Times? | |||
| == Can a youtube video be used as a source, when there is no version from any reliable source == | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| ]: if the core of the information can only be backed up by a video on youtube and if there is no other copy elsewhere, can it be used safely on[REDACTED] as a source?] (]) 20:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| :Well it really depends on who uploaded the video. If it's NBC it's likely ] however if it's some fan you shouldn't be including it. Also please see ] as there can also be copyright issues when it is from a fan. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 21:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| ::It's supposed to be NASA footage. ] (]) 21:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| :::As said, it's supposed to be a Nasa footage. Not sure but the uploader probably is a "fan" of UFOs, or might be a neutral NASA employee as well. On the other hand, the video speaks for itself, even if it were through, say NBC, nobody in NBC could have verified the originality. ] (]) 22:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would say no to youtube as a source, but it is used everywhere to support everything so it must be me :) --] 22:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you. '''''<span style="color:#503680">] ] ]</span>''''' 22:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) <small>PS: it is the first time I create an RFC, I hope it is not malformed</small> | |||
| ::No, youtube is not a reliable source. There is no way to tell if the video has been manipulated from the original. The user who posted it may say it is NASA footage, but we can not verify this. ] (]) 22:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :However, let's not think the video is not available elsewhere. I have found STS-48 video clips on several sites that have editorial control and do not have the copyright problems often associated with Youtube... for instance . Just what does your video purport to show? ''']''' '']'' 23:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Little green men, oh course :) --] 23:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::ps williamson-labs.com??? And they are who/what? --] 23:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I guess due to the nature of the subject, a "supposed to be Nasa footage" is beyond any editorial control, which can judge authenticity. I don't see any copyright issue with such a video, as any claim from Nasa would mean the confirmation of authenticity. The version in williamson-labs is obviously the shorter and poor quality one. Who cares their editorial control :)? I've not encountered with any longer and better quality version than the one in youtube. The video purports to show that Nasa has the technology to monitor UFO or ice particle activities. --] (]) 01:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well frankly, editorial control is what makes something a reliable source. Uploader Joe is not NASA, and so cannot have the credibility of a NASA video. Find the original. ] '']'' 02:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Holy Crap! Someone said something on Misplaced Pages that makes sense! ] <sup>(]—])</sup> 02:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The original is available for free at most good libraries and can be ordered from NASA. ] (]) 06:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Excellent. Then per ], since the film is available from NASA and "most good libraries", the film itself can be used as a source, even if not available to every editor. So don't cite back to youtube, simply cite to the NASA or library site where it is available. ''']''' '']'' 07:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Right -- and also note the claim made for what the video shows better be substantiated by any normal viewer of the NASA footage. Too often I have found a cite does not say what is claimed for it. ] (]) 14:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yeah, the video was published by NASA and can be referred to as such a publication. Collect's point is extremely important. The conclusion that the video purportedly supports may not be obvious from the video itself; one should be careful to only state what it actually shows. ] '']'' 18:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Survey (EurAsian Times)=== | |||
| == newsmeat.com as source == | |||
| * | |||
| Is ok as a source to claim the (deceased) person's political affiliation? The identity of "KRICK, IRVING P DR" and ] is without doubt. ] (]) 21:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :No. I am shocked by the number of articles that link to this site. Also, the political affiliations of this meteorologist are not directly relevant to his career and to pull them off this website is a clear case of ]. ] (]) 21:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, I removed it. I'd argue that political affiliations ''are'' quite relevant even for meteorologists, but in this particular case they should be quite obvious anyway. ] (]) 03:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (EurAsian Times)=== | |||
| == Opinion needed please == | |||
| * Previous discussions at ] (2024) ] (2023), and ] (2022). It looks like there's already consensus that it's unreliable and an RfC is not necessary. ] (]) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yes, there is already strong consensus for its general unreliability (with just one dissenting editor in all of those discussions). I guess the only question is whether it should be deprecated, given its quite frequent use ] (]) 10:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I agree that most opinions expressed about it were negative, but it felt a bit like shaky ground to be able to know if it could still be used for some specific things, be treated as generally unreliable, or to actually deprecate. That is why I wanted clarification before potentially going on a hunt. Sorry if an RfC was overkill for this one, but I figured that since it is used quite a lot it could be good to clarify. '''''<span style="color:#503680">] ] ]</span>''''' 10:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == flightconnections.com == | |||
| is a reliable source for info on windmill articles. Question is, when it reports on a , can one take the information quoted therein as coming from a reliable source? | |||
| I wonder if flightconnections.com is a reliable source. Examples of it use are on and . In both cases ] asks for {{tq|airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet ]}}. I have doubt if flightconnections qualifies as reliable. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 02:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Disclosure - I know the provider of the info provided is an expert molinologist, and have great faith that his info is correct. Question is, can I quote Windmill World as the source of this info for the purposes of Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 21:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I can't find any information about who runs the site or where it gets it's information from. There are quite a few articles promoting it or about how to use it, but that is unsurprising as it operates an affiliate programme. From a Google book search it has some extremely limited USEBYOTHERS (note several of the results are not reliable sources), but not enough to be meaningful. I couldn't get any useful results from Google Scholar. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It really doesnt matter that the provider is an expert in the field blogs/forumns dont meet the requirements of ], and you should avoid quoting any person from such discussions. Try contacting the person and asking for an alternative source that covers the information in more detail. ]] 09:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Pegging == | |||
| ::Thanks for clearing that up. The person in question edits Misplaced Pages so I will have to drop him a line. ] (]) 10:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| At this point, after educating people about pegging for the last 14 years, I do indeed qualify as an expert. I am the go-to person for information about pegging in the sex education world. | |||
| == == | |||
| perhaps be reviewed? I am the only sex educator I know of who ''specializes'' in pegging. I have taught countless classes since 2012 (in person and over Zoom) for beginners, equipment, and advanced pegging, and written many, many articles about pegging as well. Were they published in magazines or on websites that made me edit the crap out of what I'd written until it lost its meaning? No. Wouldn't play that game because the message was too important to me, and because they wanted free material. | |||
| I see this is used a lot, over 500 links (a lot to userspace). Is this considered a reliable source and if so in what contexts, eg if someone is listed as an adherent of a faith, can we use it for that? Thanks. ] (]) 06:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't see any copyright info of any kind. That would make me reject it out of hand. ] <sup>(]—])</sup> 23:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would consider Adherents.com a reliable source, primarily because it is very focused on citing the sources it uses. For example, on the site lists ]'s religious affiliation as "Jewish father; Catholic mother; raised Episcopalian; Tibetan Buddhism (convert)". And if you click on that description, you will see containing a long series of quotations from 11 different sources showing where this information came from. That's besides the table of religious adherent statistics, where every single entry has a citation. See for an excerpt from the table; the 8th column has bibliographic citations for every statistic, and the 9th column shows the quote supporting the statistic. As to who is responsible for the site, see ; the fact that the site doesn't have a copyright notice does not necessarily say anything about its reliability. --] ] 02:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I am not a person of notoriety like Tristan Taormino or Dan Savage, but that does not mean I don't know what I'm talking about or what I put out into the world about pegging is just my 'opinion'. There have been no 'studies' on pegging and there aren't likely to be anytime soon, for obvious reasons. | |||
| :::I don't think it is a reliable source. According to the FAQ: "The Adherents.com website is primarily the work of Preston Hunter" (the webmaster of the website). As such it has to be considered a personal webpage. The only way it could be considered reliable would be if Mr. Hunter was an acknowleged expert in the subject of religion. I don't think he is. As he states in the FAQ... he is computer programmer who works primarily in biomedical and genetic research, with an emphasis on database-based bioinformatics. His accademic credentials consist of a B.S. degree in Conservation Biology, with a minor in linguistics and he is currently working towards a B.S. degree in Computer Science. In short, he is mearly an amature when it comes to religion. | |||
| :::Adherants.com is probably a good site to use for ''background'' research (ie our editors could use the adherants page to find reliable sources upon which to base information stated in our articles), but I don't think we should use it as a reliable source on its own. ] (]) 03:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please note that Adherents.com is used as a source by books published by university presses, which themselves would be considered ]. Examples: Oxford University Press: , . Cambridge University Press: . University of California Press: , . Harvard University Press: . University of Chicago Press: . If it is good enough for these academic publishers, it ought to be good enough for Misplaced Pages. --] ] 05:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That actually depends on the context of the citations in those books. If adherents.com was cited as an authority, then I agree that these citations probably establish Mr. Hunter as a recognized "expert". If cited in the context of a dismissal of or rebuttal to Mr. Hunter says, then no. ] (]) 15:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Since when was the only measure of an expert their notoriety? I have gone down the rabbit hole of pegging and remained there. I have held space for all the different expressions of pegging during that time, which are numerous. I have advised hopeful and how to approach their partners, while also educating them about the (intensely) common misconceptions and assumptions about the sexual act, and so many more things that are a part of pegging. Masculinity, role reversal, communication, etc, etc. | |||
| == history-nz == | |||
| I have helped countless couples find the best equipment for them, which is much more complicated and individual than a cheap strap-on and dildo. Educating interested people about pegging has been my mission for the last 14 years. Other sex educators have more surface knowledge about this sexual act - knowledge that can be gleaned from a simple Marie Claire article. | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| Hi! I was planning to improve an article on a relatively obscure French Explorer, ], but I was having trouble finding references. I have managed to dig up a website, one book which I don't have access to, and Laplace's own report, written in French. The website, seems to contain a nice amount of valuable info, but I'm not sure how reliable it is - could you help me out? ] (]) 09:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I say use it with caution, use the articles there to get an over view and to help find further sources. The sites author says ''In view of the fact that this is a personal homepage, I would advise anybody doing serious research to cross check subjects by paying a visit to...'' and provides links to various sites at noting that the particluar subject you linked to is sourced from ''French explorers in the Pacific '' by ], I'd suggest trying to get that book. ]] 09:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks - I missed that note at the bottom somehow. It seems a trip to the library is in order - thanks for the help! ] (]) 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| My apologies if I sound a little irritated. My intentions are good. Famous people are not the best sources, necessarily. In sex education circles I am widely known as the go-to expert. | |||
| == Knol - a reliable source? == | |||
| https://peggingparadise.com/ (my original website) | |||
| I think this has been discussed before but I can't find the discussion. Take this as an example: {{cite web |url=http://knol.google.com/k/suresh-emre/rapid-climate-change-115-thousand-years/35vsnxisjn2mw/10# |author=Suresh Emre |title=Rapid Climate Change 11.5 Thousand Years Ago }}. Hardly any references, no indication as to who he is, etc. IMHO Knol should not be used as a reference - how about as an external link?. ] (]) 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Knols are listed in ] as being unreliable. ] (]) 03:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| https://www.theartofpegging.com/ (my educational and patron platform) | |||
| == Hustler magazine a reliable source for World Affairs? == | |||
| https://pegging101.com/ (pegging with no kink for the vanilla people) | |||
| An editor has quoted Hustler magazine (Warning: NSFW) as a reliable source. A word of warning that some of the comments on the page are quite offensive and contain crass sexual innuendo. Is pornography a reliable source for world affairs, this particular article presents a fringe theory on the ]. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 23:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it is the hustler blog or somesuch. The person who wrote it does seem notable though that he could only get these views published in a blog on Hustler does make you question why he couldn't get them into a peer reviews journal or a reliable paper. NOTE: Not supporting the use of hustler as a source, I think it is inappropiate, just adding details. <span style="font-famiy: verdana;"> --] ~ ] • </span> 23:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is a well-known writer. Though Roberts was once respectable, his reputation has declined. FWIW, the article is reprinted both on Roberts' ] archive, and on ]'s website. I think it'd be correct to view this as a questionable source. At most, it might be worthwhile to mention his view of the matter with attribution. ]] ] 23:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The fact that something is published in Hustler really has no impact on its reliability... in such cases we judge by the reputation of the author, not the venue of publication. Ask yourself whether you would consider the article reliable if it appeared in a different magazine. That said... it does not sound like the author is well respected, or considered an expert on world affairs. As such his opinion is questionable. ] (]) 13:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hustler has editorial oversight, its independent of the subject and the piece is by a recognised author what ever his reputation there is no reason not to consider it as a potential source it meets ], and ]. The problem is there are already 20 sources listed in the EL section(not even used as references) that dispute the official story, this is only another one repeating what those have already said. Under those conditions how does it compare to the similar sources, the Hustler article refers to sources already used in the article. The Hustler article doesnt provide anything that the other sources already do, this article already has too many EL another one isnt going to enchance the article. I'd think that ], ] are the real issue. ]] 15:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think if something is relevant, it is likely to have been reported elsewhere, meaning we don't have to cite the porn magazine. If something about a serious topic that is subject to scholarly study ''only'' appears in a porn mag, or a celebrity weekly, or a tabloid, then in my view it's not of encyclopedic relevance. Use the most reliable sources available and ]. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 15:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| With Respect For All That You Amazing People Do, | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Ruby Ryder ] (]) 05:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Ms. Ryder, | |||
| A discussion is currently going on at ], regarding its reliability. While I agree that it's not a perfect source, especially on controversial issues, I'm not sure if it's completely unreliable. It is used relatively often in Misplaced Pages. Has it been discussed here already? If so, I'd appreciate a link to the discussion. If not, what's the procedure? Thanks in advance, ] (]) 12:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :What would help here is if you could point us to either reliable, independent sources citing your work, or of you writing for publications that you don't publish yourself.... something that helps us see that, as you say, "in sex educations widely known as a go-to expert." I fully believe that you are. | |||
| :This has come up in the past (the discussion would be somewhere in the archives at ]) and, if I remember correctly, the determination was that it was indeed reliable. | |||
| :The problem with someone using your sources as a reference has to do with Misplaced Pages's rules on using self-published sources, which your websites, videos, etc, count as. We can use such sources as reference (if within some limits), but only if we can see that the creator is a ''recognized'' expert in the field... and by recognized, that means either cited by or hired to write on the topic by reliable sources. I know that it seems like your voluminous experience and the visible quality of your materials should count for something here, but alas it does not. I don't think we'd be expecting, say, the New York Times or the Journal of the American Medical Association in this case, just some recognizable source that takes such sexual matters seriously. It doesn't even have to be material that is online (although that would help.) Articles that quote you or recommend your sites or training services would really help. Can you point us to such citations? -- ] (]) 06:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :To examine it freshly, I would say it is an excellent ''tertiary'' source. It is a collection of articles written by (and clearly attributed to) noted scholars. As such, I would call it reliable. It probably does have a distinct (pro-Israeli) bias, but bias does not make something unreliable. Any bias can be offset by reference other reliable sources that present contrary viewpoints. If there is doubt as to whether a given statement taken from an article in the JVL is "true", remember that the threshold for inclusion is Verifiability and not Truth. We can re-write anything controvercial so as to present the statement as the opinion of its author, as opposed to a statement of an undisputed fact. ] (]) 13:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I appreciate the work that you do. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages editors cannot use their own judgement to assess the expertise of someone. There are people who research topics and work in a field their entire lives who become experts in those fields and publish their work on their own websites. But there are also pseudo-experts who do the same thing. Editors on Misplaced Pages are not allowed to use their own judgement to discern the difference between the two, but must rely on a third party to establish their expertise. If you have ever given an interview on pegging for a newspaper or a magazine, or had your website cited by a sexologist or another recognizable sex expert as a good resource on pegging, for instance, then that would allow us to recognize the reliability of your site for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for your reply. I've found ] discussion and ] one, but they don't explicitly arrive at any conclusion on this particular site. Are they the ones you were referring to? -- ] (]) 13:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::No... my vague memory goes back to before we created this noticeboard. Look through the archives of ] (the talk page for the actual guideline). Note... it ''was'' a long time ago. I may be mis-remembering. You may also want to check the archives at NPOV.] (]) 15:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:17, 23 January 2025
Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
List of archives , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 910, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465
Additional notes:
Shortcuts- RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
- While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
- This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.
RfC: NewsNation
 |
|
What is the reliability of NewsNation?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Survey (NewsNation)
- Option 2: Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light).
- NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
- In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the 2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings, Coulthart said "... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"! . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including Jamey Jacob and Mick West, all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects.
- Writing in The Skeptic, Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: "Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."
- He wrote a UFO book titled Plain Sight which Jason Colavito described as a "conspiracy narrative" and a "slipshod summary".
- The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for “espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”
- The Australian Broadcasting Corporation did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking "Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary? while strongly implying the former.
- The Sydney Morning Herald has described him as a "UFO truther" with "little appetite for scrutiny".
- Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked 60 Minutes (Australian TV program) investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians.
- Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs:
- In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the Washington Post: ), the channel "was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health".
- In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said "... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing". The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to Mick West's analysis, a Boeing 737 .
- NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
- Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage Personisinsterest (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2: Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. BarntToust 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 per Chetsford. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage. Compare WP:ROLLINGSTONE. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 why are we putting any stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “broken clock” syndrome. Dronebogus (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?Abo Yemen✉ 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. The Independent is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the Quaiti Sultanate was a thing according to a Facebook post made by a high school that he attended). He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others . He also published a book about the city of Shihr . He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023
- This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. The Independent is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?Abo Yemen✉ 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. This also seems to be a relevant document. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
References
- Machine translation: Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamusa, a native of Al-Shahr and a graduate of the third class of Al-Mukalla High School for Boys (now Bin Shihab High School for Boys)
High School Flags
Tuesday, September 17, 2024
After years of parting, Abu Bakr Bin Shihab High School for Boys in Mukalla embraced Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamoussa, who graduated on the educational ladder for years and is now at the age of retirement. He visited the high school and in his gaze with passion and love for the past years, he climbed the stairs of the high school to the second floor to the office of the principal Mr. Saeed Ahmed Al-Amari, who welcomed him warmly and said that this visit gave us a boost and moral support, and the visit for Mr. Bamoussa was to ask about the old administrators, services and guards who were who were in the period of the sixties and seventies, but unfortunately the administration could not answer this and invites everyone who has information about them to raise it quickly, as Mr. Bamoussa has been working for years on writing a book about the beginning of education in Hadramawt since the time of the Qaitian Sultanate in the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, and he made a very important statement that the first principal of the high school is Mr. Karama Bammin from Tarim and then came after him Mr. Al-Sudani Al-Taloudi and this was a surprise for us and he confirmed this in his book that will see the light after completion of it.
May God prolong his life and give him health and wellness to provide us with important information about the history of education in Hadramawt.
The high school administration thanks Mr. Mohammed Bamoussi for this visit and this effort exerted by him for this wonderful work, and wishes the officials in the Ministry of Education, the governorate office and the local authority to adopt such people who raise the slogan of education and the slogan of Hadramawt, the land of science, knowledge and culture.
Abo Yemen✉ 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.GordonGlottal (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the Special:diff/1266430566#Background Special:diff/1266430566#Losses and Special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city Internet Archive a txt version of the book that can get machine translated can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) Abo Yemen✉ 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.GordonGlottal (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. Javext (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Javext If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in this letter, which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from the catalog description but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! GordonGlottal (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, @GordonGlottal. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this:
- "Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India , his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." Javext (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
capturing Al-Shihr
hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? Abo Yemen✉ 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder.
- I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. Javext (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city Abo Yemen✉ 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. Javext (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city Abo Yemen✉ 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Javext If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in this letter, which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from the catalog description but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! GordonGlottal (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. Javext (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
-
"Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr,
(Never happened btw)and how important it would be to conquer Diu."
Abo Yemen✉ 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- "Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? Abo Yemen✉ 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned Abo Yemen✉ 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- capturing a city != sacking it
your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here Abo Yemen✉ 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. Javext (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now show me where in your sources does it say that Abo Yemen✉ 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You were just denying that this happened after I showed you the sources, why are you asking this now? Didn't I just give them above? Javext (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now show me where in your sources does it say that Abo Yemen✉ 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. Javext (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- capturing a city != sacking it
- You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? Abo Yemen✉ 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What sources about capturing a city did you show me? Those letters clearly show that the portuguese wanted to capture the city and they failed as we have no proof of them being there after the battle was over. But did they lie to whoever they sent this letter to? Abo Yemen✉ 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu
|
|
The following genealogy sources are currently considered Generally unreliable at WP:RSP (A), or in repeated inquiries at WP:RSN (B and C):
- A: Geni.com
- B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
- C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav
- Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.
- They should be:
- Option 1: listed as Generally unreliable (change nothing to A; add B and C at WP:RSP as such)
- Option 2: Deprecated (list them as such at WP:RSP)
- Option 3: Blacklisted (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2)
NLeeuw (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)
- A: See "Geni.com" at WP:RSPSOURCES.
- B: See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#Have we got lists of reliable and unreliable websites for genealogical research?, in particular subsection #genealogy.eu, where this RfC for the 3 sources in question was prepared together with @ActivelyDisinterested. The other sources discussed there fall outside the scope of this RfC.
- C: See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy) (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). NLeeuw (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Preliminaries
- Probably need to add the website Genealogics.org to the list of unreliable sources. It also uses Misplaced Pages articles which would be WP:CIRC. --Kansas Bear 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK. But it could be a good follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. NLeeuw (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. NLeeuw (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. NLeeuw (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK. But it could be a good follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see WP: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#RfC: Universe Guide. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Read Background: B. NLeeuw (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey A: Geni.com
- Deprecate. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. JoelleJay (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate.
Question. Isn't it already deprecated?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC) - Deprecate A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unsure. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "the source is generally prohibited". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Generally unreliable. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) Generally unreliable is the one which says this:
"questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published"
I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would only allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be prohibited. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)- Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at the May 2023 MedLands RSN shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he knows may be of little factual significance at face value just because he finds them "interesting" (but is reproduced by way of interest), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't verify. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. NLeeuw (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the Generally unreliable category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then only as far as we have to. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at the May 2023 MedLands RSN shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he knows may be of little factual significance at face value just because he finds them "interesting" (but is reproduced by way of interest), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't verify. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. NLeeuw (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Generally reliable, in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. Ghirla 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Lancaster (talk • contribs) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the Europäische Stammtafeln, Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. Ghirla 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". NLeeuw (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; Foix. --Kansas Bear 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site here. And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the Europäische Stammtafeln. Ghirla 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. NLeeuw (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site here. And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the Europäische Stammtafeln. Ghirla 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
RfC: Jacobin
|
|
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Right back at you. Volunteer Marek 01:59, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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,
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 4They 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)
- 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)
- You should probably read farther than the headline. Simonm223 (talk) 23:05, 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)
- (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Option 1 The author's attitude certainly leaves much to be desired... but I don't think a single mistake that was quickly fixed – in a blog piece, which generally wouldn't even be cited except in very limited circumstances and with attribution per WP:NEWSBLOG – is a good enough reason to downgrade their reliability. Smallangryplanet (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 My opinion is unchanged from the previous RfC. It is absurd that we've opened up another RfC over a minor issue that was quickly corrected, all because a few neoliberal redditors got mad about it. I think citations to Jacobin should require attribution, but trying to tar them as unreliable over this one case is ridiculous. Log off Reddit, there is nothing worthwhile to be found there. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2. I concur with other editors that this RFC should never have been opened. Please be more considerate of your fellow editors' time. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 possibly Option 3. I don't see that the source is any better than it was in 2021. Per Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d's previous comments and references from the 2021 RfC copied below as well as this recent incident. Yes, making a mistake and correcting it is good but when the mistake is so egreious and the author attacks people who note the error how much faith should we put in the source? Last time I also noted that per Adfont's media review (not a RS but still worth a look) this source is more biased than Breitbart!
Normally, we put these extremely ideological sources in the Option 2 category (e.g., Salon (RSP entry), Townhall (RSP entry)). Jacobin obviously doesn't report straight news, so it (i) always needs to be attributed and (ii) check to see if it complies with WP:WEIGHT. However, Jacobin has additional issues. Its stated political mission is to:
centralize and inject energy into the contemporary socialist movement
. So it is more in line with an advocacy group than a news source. Also, it has pretty fringe views. James Wolcott identifies Jacobin as part of the alt-left . It's pretty fringe-y on topics concerning Venezuela , the USSR/Communism , and anti-semitism , . I would avoid using Jacobin for those topics. But if you need a socialist/Marxist opinion on something, then Jacobin is definitely a good source to use. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Based upon Noonlcarus's comment, Jacobin does seem to frequently use deprecated/unreliable sources for facts. Some examples include Alternet (RSP entry) , Daily Kos (RSP entry) , Raw Story (RSP entry) , The Canary (RSP entry) , and the Electronic Intifada (RSP entry) .Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, when a source is this biased we have to ask if that level of bias is going to have too great an impact on both the weight they give various facts thus leading to questionable conclusion and their ability to verify otherwise factual claims as we saw here. I think that puts the source deep into the use with caution territory Springee (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- And yet you rated the Heritage Foundation at 2/3 below and didn't find any problem with their extreme ideological bent, saying in their defense that deprecating the foundation
would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge
. This is a group that is regularly equated in academic best sources with fascism such as in:- Neo-fascist trends in education: neo-liberal hybridisation and a new authoritarian order Díez-Gutiérrez, Enrique-Javier, Mauro-Rafael Jarquín-Ramírez, and Eva Palomo-Cermeño, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS). Sep2024, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p125-169
- Pandemic abandonment, panoramic displays and fascist propaganda: The month the earth stood still. By: McLaren, Peter, Educational Philosophy & Theory, 00131857, Feb 2022, Vol. 54, Issue 2
- THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY THINK TANK. By: Stewart, Katherine, New Republic, 00286583, Sep2023, Vol. 254, Issue 9 (note that the think tank that they call "The West Point of American Fascism" in this article is the Claremont Institute but that they refer to Heritage as participating in Claremont events.)
- The Road Ahead Fighting for Progress, Freedom, and Democracy, Weingarten, Randi, American Educator. Fall2024, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p2-9. 8p.
- So I guess my question is one of consistency: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the fascist-adjacent Heritage foundation? If not why do you believe that the Heritage Foundation is more valuable to the "goal of collecting knowledge" than Jacobin? Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are missing a major difference. HF isn't a media source, they are a think tank. Jacobin is a media source, not a think tank. I've argued that all think tanks should be used with great care and in particular we should generally not cite them unless an independent RS points to their work. So the question is can we cite HF when a RS mentions the views/claims/etc of HF with respect to the article topic. In that regard I'm suggesting we treat them more like a primary source vs a RS. Jacobin is different and the relevant question is can we treat them like a regular RS as we do with many other news media sources. If Jacobin publishes a claim about an article subject should we cite them? I argue they should be evaluated by the same standards we use for news media sources. By that standard it's strong bias etc means we should use it's claims and reports with caution and should question if they have weight to justify inclusion. In your post above you provided a list of texts but absent links I can't see what they say nor if their arguments are sound or crap but they don't impact the distinction I've made. Springee (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The list of texts are available via Misplaced Pages library which is why I provided bibliographical information rather than links as links to material on WP library don't work. With the exception of New Republic all are academic journals. And now please answer my original question: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the Heritage Foundation? Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you want to cite those sources to support an argument you should tell us what they say or at least why you think they support your position. As for your question, I already answered. It doesn't matter if the HF is more or less compromised because the purpose of each is different. When it comes to topics of automobiles Honda is more compromised than the AP but they also might be a better source if we are asking about stratified charge combustion in automobile engines. Springee (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- On this charge I will defend Springee. I don't necessarily agree with them but I'm not seeing the dissonance in their arguments, especially as they seem to be going 2/3 on both (there is not formal vote here but that seems to be the upshot of what they're saying). Their slighlty idiosyncratic argument about the purspose of the source being primary is also one which they've been making consistently for years. With all due respect I think you're being too hard on Springee. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I take the idea that a publication being openly social democratic is too biased to be reliable personally offensive. Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. But I will concede that Springee is being consistent. And I actually agreed that think tanks should be treated as primary sources. Frankly, were Springee to be more reasonable on the "political bias" overreach, we might otherwise be agreeing. Simonm223 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- We may not be disagreeing at all given we both are giving them a "2". I'm arguing that their bias is too much to make them a 1. The possible 3, the same score I gave them last time, is a concern regarding things like the issue that started the recent discussion. I was about to post something about really disliking the RSP's simplistic bucketing. It's really not a good system as we really should put more effort into asking if a source is appropriate for the claims being supported and when an encyclopedia should be citing strongly biased sources in general. If we need to use such a strongly biased source is the information DUE? Springee (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- We do agree on disliking the RSP bucketing system. My personal opinion is no news media source should be treated as a blanket "generally reliable" because reliability is contextual. However I do think that Jacobin is, from a global perspective, not in any way ideologically extreme. Social democracy is a normal left-of-center political position. The extreme-right shift of US politics over the last few decades makes them seem like outliers but that's the real bias problem right there. Simonm223 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their About Us page states they offer
socialist perspectives
and approvingly includes quotes describing them as supportingradical politics
andvery 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)
- 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
- Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their About Us page states they offer
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 wasInformation provided in passing
, and we already know that such info occasionallymay 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)
- That is arguing semantics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Option 1/Keep the current RSPS summary I think a few people arguing for additional considerations are misremembering the current RSPS legend. Additional considerations doesn’t refer to things like weight, or bias, or that you need to attribute opinion pieces because those are all standard considerations that apply to all sources. The current RSPS summary already says (in part)
Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'.
I can't find anything that indicates that's not still a perfectly good summary. CambrianCrab (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1* Jacobin is a biased source, something that should obviously be considered by anyone thinking of sourcing them for anything contentious, but their reporting has never been an issue in terms of establishing basic factual information about a situation. One writer for a book review making a dumb statement that was corrected by the source doesn't change that. BSMRD (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1: Nothing of substance has been presented to suggest that this source is not GREL. Most of the reasons being presented for MREL appear to be about bias, but that is not of direct relevance to reliability unless it can be shown that any bias directly impinges somehow on its reliability. That it provides a perspective from a rarefied position on the political spectrum is a moot point in terms of reliability. Arguably it is good to have sources from all different positions on the political spectrum for the purposes of balance, but that is, again, irrelevant to its reliability. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1/2: generally reliable, they have a correction policy. Bias for opinion pieces and essays should be taken into account, attribute accordingly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bad RfC As on 25 July 2021. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 I previously commented in the 2021 RfC based on our guideline for use of biased sources. In particular I found this 2019 assessment by the Columbia Journalism Review persuasive. Most recently this January 4, 2025 article from the Columbia Journalism Review cites a Jacobin article from November 2024 positively. A major trade publication in the field of journalism still seems to find Jacobin worth citing as "demonstrat convincingly" how Harris lost the pro-labor vote in the 2024 election. Why should we not follow CJRs lead? The arguments seem to be (1) Jacobin recently issued a major retraction and (2) Jacobin has a left-wing bias. I could buy into (1) if they constantly issued retractions, but no one has shown that that is the case. (2) is contrary to WP:BIASED. Altogether, I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently from reliable but right-of-center-biased publications like The New Criterion or The Atlantic Monthly. — Wug·a·po·des 07:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 or Option 3: Not only is Jacobin an extremely biased, ideologically charged source, but their reporting has been called into question multiple times. At the very least, additional considerations do apply. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2. This is not a WP:NEWSORG. Its stated purpose is "to foster class consciousness and build the institutions that can tame and eventually overcome capital". Compare to the missions of the NYT: "We seek the truth and help people understand the world."; or the BBC: "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain". The NYT and the BBC are both biased (every source is biased), but they do at least aim to deliver reporting. Jacobin, on the other hand, is an advocacy organisation. That doesn't make it automatically unreliable, nor does that make it solely a source of opinions, but that does makes it qualitatively different from the newspapers that others have compared it to - and that is an important additional consideration worth noting. For the record, I disagree that one incident of inaccuracy is enough to downgrade a source, particularly one that was corrected. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just because I note that my earlier !vote wasn't posted in to this section, for the avoidance of doubt, whilst I think this is a Bad RFC because there's no reason for initiating it, I support Option 2 or Option 3 because it is strictly an opinion site and not one that should be relied on for statements of fact about anything but itself. FOARP (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 – Jacobin may be biased, but that has no bearing on reliability. They have many well-respected articles that have been cited by other reliable sources, have transparent editorial controls, and a demonstrated process for retraction and correction. I see a couple complaints above that Jacobin isn't a news organization; however, this isn't relevant to reliability. Just like The Economist, Jacobin publishes more retrospective, interpretive articles which for certain subjects can often be better than using contemporaneous news articles. Overall this is a very bad RfC given the creator's undisclosed connection to the previous overturned RfC (see comment by Tayi Arajakate) and a complete lack of any examples of actual uses on Misplaced Pages where the reliability is questioned. This is as far as I can tell a knee-jerk reaction to a single example of an error on an unrelated topic in an offhand remark inside a book review, and which wasn't even used on Misplaced Pages. An absurd reason to open an RfC. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 per Silver seren and Wugapodes (and thank you for providing actual reported information on their editorial process rather than speculation, heavy irony in this whole discussion). This whole saga is based on one correction? Really? Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 bias has nothing to do with reliability. Meanwhile, corrections are a strong signal of reliability. --Pinchme123 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion: Jacobin
- Seeing as there's substantial disagreement in the pre-RfC section above, I've gone ahead and launched this RfC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pings to @Feminist, The wub, Thebiguglyalien, Super Goku V, Simonm223, FortunateSons, Oort1, Burrobert, ActivelyDisinterested, Hydrangeans, Vanilla Wizard, Iljhgtn, Selfstudier, Horse Eye's Back, NoonIcarus, Harizotoh9, and Springee: who commented above. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Additional pings to @WMrapids, David Gerard, Bobfrombrockley, Shibbolethink, Crossroads, Herostratus, Dumuzid, Aquillion, Gamaliel, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, BSMRD, Wugapodes, Ip says, King of Hearts, Chetsford, Tayi Arajakate, MPants at work, Jlevi, The Four Deuces, Grnrchst, Szmenderowiecki, Dlthewave, Jr8825, Thenightaway, Nvtuil, Peter Gulutzan, FormalDude, Volunteer Marek, FOARP, Sea Ane, 3Kingdoms, Bilorv, Blindlynx, Jurisdicta, TheTechnician27, MarioGom, Novemberjazz, and Volteer1: who commented in the 2021 RfC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you should also disclose that the previous RfC was initially closed by you (back then under the usernames User:Mikehawk10 and User:Mhawk10) and the discussions that followed at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 6 § Jacobin (magazine) and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340 § Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability led to an overturn on grounds of it being heavily flawed and ostensibly a supervote, followed by a re-close afterwards. Especially considering your statement in the above section questioning that (re)closure now, which also partially forms the basis for this RfC. Those discussions might also answer your question on why it was (re)closed in the manner it was. Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've tried to ping everyone from the prior RfC and from the discussion above. This was done manually: I excluded 1 vanished account and I tried to ping people by their current usernames if they have changed names since then. If I missed someone, please feel free to notify them. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per my prior comments about space constraints I've split this to its own section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've just moved the RFC out of the discussion again. The RFC shouldn't be made a subsection of the prior discussion, due to ongoing issues with overloading on the noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Editors should bear in mind that reliability does not mean infallibility. It merely means we can use sources where applicable. In this case, the impeached article is a book review, which combines a description of a book and the reviewer's opinions. The only acceptable use of a book review - whoever wrote it and wherever it is published - is in an article about the book reviewed.
Ironically, there can be no article about the book because it lacks notability. It was only reviewed in Jacobin. We are basically working to prevent things that will never happen. Under current policy therefore this source could never be used.
Our time would be better spent ensuring that RS policy is adhered to.
TFD (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bad RFC because we should not be rating things just for the sake of rating things, but since we're doing this: Jacobin is clearly an opinion outlet, not a news outlet. We shouldn't be relying on them for statements of fact for that reason alone. FOARP (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding my !vote above I do agree this is a bad RFC because there's not ever been an example presented of Jacobin being used to source anything even remotely questionable during the RFCBefore discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, there was one example that generated the 2023 discussion which was Jacobin being used to source a description of the 2014 Maidan Revolution as "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests", so that's one occasion of it being used to source something questionable. It was also used by the same editor on the 9/11 attack page to source the claim that the CIA facilitated the attacks and intentionally withheld information that could have stopped the attacks.
- That editor is now blocked (because of their conduct on this noticeboard I think?) but they used the green flag at RSP to justify their edits. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Absolutely a bad RfC, I rolled my eyes when I was pinged about this. Nothing fundamental has changed about Jacobin's editorial line or policy since the last RfC was opened four years ago. I can't believe we're hashing this out again because of a single reddit post. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- My assessment:
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?
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)
- I was also being very specific to that one page as well. Simonm223 (talk) 20:17, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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'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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oh, I've just seen your userpage. That explains it. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Well, according to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources,
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 ofunduly 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)
- A few examples:
- post sources NotQualified (talk) 15:24, 18 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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):
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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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’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)
- So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
Slaterstevenits 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)
- Not me. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 15 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)
- 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
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- This too, in addition to my comment below. Frankly I'm finding this interaction very strange. Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 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)
- 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)
- Two can play that game. https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased Iljhgtn (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Getting neither the gender
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Lionheartv is one person operation. How can there be editorial discretion on that case? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3. There's something about its reporting and organizational structure that is off compared to the regular newspapers. Borgenland (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Though, I find it strange and concerning that reputable sources copypasted some of LionhearTV's articles:
- LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts/ (December 8, 2024)
Sunstar: https://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts (December 10, 2024) - LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2025/01/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 11, 2025)
Manila Republic: https://www.manilarepublic.com/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 14, 2025)
- LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts/ (December 8, 2024)
- These are two instances I found so far where other sources copypasted from LionhearTV. But I saw other instances where LionhearTV is the one who copypasted from other sources, such examples include:
- LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-im-okay-to-cinemas/ (December 30, 2024)
Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/showbiz/music/2024/12/29/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-i-m-okay-to-cinemas-0948 (December 29, 2024) - LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/06/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game/ (June 27, 2024)
Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/starmagic/articles-news/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game-22637 (June 24, 2024)
- LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-im-okay-to-cinemas/ (December 30, 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)
- Though, I find it strange and concerning that reputable sources copypasted some of LionhearTV's articles:
- 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. |
|
- Option 3It's a blog. That means WP:SPS applies. This means it might be contextually reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF or under WP:EXPERTSPS (with the usual condition that SPSEXPERT prohibits any use of SPS for BLPs) and so I don't see any pressing need for deprecation, but this is very clearly a source that is not generally one we should use. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, the person behind this blog is not a subject matter expert. Like, we don't even know who this is. (One subject matter expert in Philippine showbusiness that I know of that runs a similar blog is Fashion Pulis, and I event won't even use the blind items as sources there lol) As explained above, once this gets to be used as a source, it won't be challenged and people just accept it as is. This is a low quality source that has to be blacklisted. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah that's fine. I was just saying that, in general, those are the only two avenues to use someone's blog. Simonm223 (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Option 4 Their reportings are obviously flawed and a per example above copypasting is a not a good look nor a good indication for "reliability" and it is often used in BLP, yikes. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:01, 23 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 them 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.
2. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/07/11/rostec-nebo-m-radar-is-it-a-scam-or-propaganda/
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
8. When Israel bombs Syria, Russia turns a blind eye. (2022, January 3). thearabweekly.com. Retrieved January 22, 2025, from https://thearabweekly.com/when-israel-bombs-syria-russia-turns-blind-eye Madnow2 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do we use them? Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- The S 400 Misplaced Pages page has 20 citations from them and the su 57 Misplaced Pages page has four. Madnow2 (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that they're generally unreliable but I'm not so sure I'd chalk it up to bias rather than incompetence. They seem to be suggesting that the news they publish is a sideline to their core business of international security consulting... But they're spamming the cheapest ads on the internet alongside that content suggests that this is their primary income. To me it looks like a vanity site, I also suspect they are ripping stories off or using generative AI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will agree with you that they are incompetent But I think you can be incompetent and bias, some mistakes they've made such as having a image of the SU57 that is CGI on the web page and claiming it was a picture taken by Sukhoi I could see that being a result of incompetence but stuff like claiming Turkey accused Russia of Fraud over the S 400 because its range decreased against objects at lower altitude I have a harder time believing is just incompetence specially since the mistakes that they made seemed to always understate Russian equipment’s capabilities I have never been able to see and correct me if I'm wrong any incidents where they have overstated a piece of Russian equipment’s capabilities and yet I have seen dozens of mistakes in the opposite direction which suggests to me it is not random error. but quite frankly if their biassed or not I think is irrelevant even if we somehow conclude that they do have a neutral point of view there is still no way they could be considered a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards as they do not meet the other criteria mainly the one which is in quote ‘Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy’ there is no universe where they pass that one and as a result they cannot be considered a reliable source something which you agree with this alone should be enough to get the website Deprecated irrespective of if their bias or not. Madnow2 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think the one thing that seems to be universally agreed on is that this is not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would agree, that regardless of whether it's bias or incompetence, it all adds up to unreliability. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will agree with you that they are incompetent But I think you can be incompetent and bias, some mistakes they've made such as having a image of the SU57 that is CGI on the web page and claiming it was a picture taken by Sukhoi I could see that being a result of incompetence but stuff like claiming Turkey accused Russia of Fraud over the S 400 because its range decreased against objects at lower altitude I have a harder time believing is just incompetence specially since the mistakes that they made seemed to always understate Russian equipment’s capabilities I have never been able to see and correct me if I'm wrong any incidents where they have overstated a piece of Russian equipment’s capabilities and yet I have seen dozens of mistakes in the opposite direction which suggests to me it is not random error. but quite frankly if their biassed or not I think is irrelevant even if we somehow conclude that they do have a neutral point of view there is still no way they could be considered a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards as they do not meet the other criteria mainly the one which is in quote ‘Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy’ there is no universe where they pass that one and as a result they cannot be considered a reliable source something which you agree with this alone should be enough to get the website Deprecated irrespective of if their bias or not. Madnow2 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
RfC: EurAsian Times
|
|
The EurAsian Times (used to have its own article but it was apparently PRODed) is cited in several hundreds of articles, mostly pertaining to Russian military hardware and South Asian issues, but not exclusively. It was mentioned a few times on this noticeboard but only on a surface level.
In light of all this, how would you rate the EurAsian Times?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
Thank you. Choucas Bleu 🐦⬛ 22:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) PS: it is the first time I create an RFC, I hope it is not malformed
Survey (EurAsian Times)
Discussion (EurAsian Times)
- Previous discussions at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 458#Eurasian Times (2024) Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 399#The Eurasian Times (2023), and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 389#EurAsian Times (2022). It looks like there's already consensus that it's unreliable and an RfC is not necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, there is already strong consensus for its general unreliability (with just one dissenting editor in all of those discussions). I guess the only question is whether it should be deprecated, given its quite frequent use BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that most opinions expressed about it were negative, but it felt a bit like shaky ground to be able to know if it could still be used for some specific things, be treated as generally unreliable, or to actually deprecate. That is why I wanted clarification before potentially going on a hunt. Sorry if an RfC was overkill for this one, but I figured that since it is used quite a lot it could be good to clarify. Choucas Bleu 🐦⬛ 10:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, there is already strong consensus for its general unreliability (with just one dissenting editor in all of those discussions). I guess the only question is whether it should be deprecated, given its quite frequent use BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
flightconnections.com
I wonder if flightconnections.com is a reliable source. Examples of it use are on Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport and Los Angeles International Airport. In both cases WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT asks for airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE
. I have doubt if flightconnections qualifies as reliable. The Banner talk 02:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't find any information about who runs the site or where it gets it's information from. There are quite a few articles promoting it or about how to use it, but that is unsurprising as it operates an affiliate programme. From a Google book search it has some extremely limited USEBYOTHERS (note several of the results are not reliable sources), but not enough to be meaningful. I couldn't get any useful results from Google Scholar. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Pegging
At this point, after educating people about pegging for the last 14 years, I do indeed qualify as an expert. I am the go-to person for information about pegging in the sex education world.
Could this conversation about the veracity of my 'opinions' in 2017 perhaps be reviewed? I am the only sex educator I know of who specializes in pegging. I have taught countless classes since 2012 (in person and over Zoom) for beginners, equipment, and advanced pegging, and written many, many articles about pegging as well. Were they published in magazines or on websites that made me edit the crap out of what I'd written until it lost its meaning? No. Wouldn't play that game because the message was too important to me, and because they wanted free material.
I am not a person of notoriety like Tristan Taormino or Dan Savage, but that does not mean I don't know what I'm talking about or what I put out into the world about pegging is just my 'opinion'. There have been no 'studies' on pegging and there aren't likely to be anytime soon, for obvious reasons.
Since when was the only measure of an expert their notoriety? I have gone down the rabbit hole of pegging and remained there. I have held space for all the different expressions of pegging during that time, which are numerous. I have advised hopeful givers and receivers how to approach their partners, while also educating them about the (intensely) common misconceptions and assumptions about the sexual act, and so many more things that are a part of pegging. Masculinity, role reversal, communication, etc, etc.
I have helped countless couples find the best equipment for them, which is much more complicated and individual than a cheap strap-on and dildo. Educating interested people about pegging has been my mission for the last 14 years. Other sex educators have more surface knowledge about this sexual act - knowledge that can be gleaned from a simple Marie Claire article.
My apologies if I sound a little irritated. My intentions are good. Famous people are not the best sources, necessarily. In sex education circles I am widely known as the go-to expert.
https://peggingparadise.com/ (my original website)
https://www.theartofpegging.com/ (my educational and patron platform)
https://pegging101.com/ (pegging with no kink for the vanilla people)
With Respect For All That You Amazing People Do, Ruby Ryder RubyRyder (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ms. Ryder,
- What would help here is if you could point us to either reliable, independent sources citing your work, or of you writing for publications that you don't publish yourself.... something that helps us see that, as you say, "in sex educations widely known as a go-to expert." I fully believe that you are.
- The problem with someone using your sources as a reference has to do with Misplaced Pages's rules on using self-published sources, which your websites, videos, etc, count as. We can use such sources as reference (if within some limits), but only if we can see that the creator is a recognized expert in the field... and by recognized, that means either cited by or hired to write on the topic by reliable sources. I know that it seems like your voluminous experience and the visible quality of your materials should count for something here, but alas it does not. I don't think we'd be expecting, say, the New York Times or the Journal of the American Medical Association in this case, just some recognizable source that takes such sexual matters seriously. It doesn't even have to be material that is online (although that would help.) Articles that quote you or recommend your sites or training services would really help. Can you point us to such citations? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate the work that you do. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages editors cannot use their own judgement to assess the expertise of someone. There are people who research topics and work in a field their entire lives who become experts in those fields and publish their work on their own websites. But there are also pseudo-experts who do the same thing. Editors on Misplaced Pages are not allowed to use their own judgement to discern the difference between the two, but must rely on a third party to establish their expertise. If you have ever given an interview on pegging for a newspaper or a magazine, or had your website cited by a sexologist or another recognizable sex expert as a good resource on pegging, for instance, then that would allow us to recognize the reliability of your site for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. Photos of Japan (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)