Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 13:28, 29 January 2010 editRd232 (talk \| contribs)54,863 edits →Break 2: observation← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 16:03, 22 January 2025 edit undoSimonm223 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users15,154 edits →Should we trust Social Blade for statistics: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{short description\|Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}}
	{{Reflist}}{{redirect\|WP:RSN\|"Misplaced Pages will be ready real soon now"\|meta:Eventualism}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}}
	{{editabuselinks}}
	{\| style="background:transparent; width:100%; margin: 2px 0; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF;"
	\|-
	! align="center" style="background-color:#CAE1FF" \| <inputbox>
	bgcolor=transparent
	type=fulltext
	prefix=Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
	break=yes
	width=60
	searchbuttonlabel=Search Reliable sources noticeboard archives
	</inputbox>
	\|}
	{{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. The reliability of sourcing is heavily dependent upon context, so please include not only the source in question, but the article in which it is being cited, as well as links to any relevant talk page discussions or article ]. Please post new topics in .

	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 ].

	'''This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.'''

	If your question is about whether material constitutes ], please use the ].

	If your question is about ], or other ] please use the ].

	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 ].

	<div class=plainlinks style="text-align: center; width: auto; margin: .5em 15%; padding: .5em 1em; border: solid #aaaaaa 1px; font-size:125%">''''''</div>

	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{~~aan\|type=content~~}}		\|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = 54		\|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__

	]
	]

	<!--		<!--
	------------------------------------------------------------------------------		------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line 46:		Line 14:
	------------------------------------------------------------------------------		------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	-->		-->
	]

			------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	== ] ==

			==RfC: NewsNation==
	Can be used to source this statement: However, Stanford has stated "Neither the Stanford Graduate School of Business nor the office of Stanford Executive Education has ties of any kind with IIPM." --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 04:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 13:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1740574870}}
			{{rfc\|prop\|sci\|rfcid=5F45265}}
			<!-- ] 02:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1739068436}}
			What is the reliability of ]?

			* '''Option 1: ]'''
	:Has that document been uploaded to by the site's publishers/editors (in which case it is a reliable source), or by some user (in which case it is not) ? Do you know of a page on the website that links to the document ? ] (]) 04:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
			* '''Option 2: ]'''
	::Thanks for prodding me to investigate further. It's linked from here --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 04:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3: ]'''
			* '''Option 4: ]'''
			] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

	:: Since that article is written by , an employee of the publication, and is not some user-submitted content, I think it is reliable for the claim. ] (]) 04:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::The article is written by who is the part owner of the site. Her web site in question is a commercial career portal whose main aim is to be an MBA Directory (see the web page description on the main page at the top). Even if it is a self-published career portal (as Barbel is the part owner), "self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.". But ] would advise us to wait in this case as the attribution of Stanford backing out is an exceptional claim, and if it is reported, then it should have been printed by other sources. Having said that, I'll also on the other hand suggest that a secondary source that might have reported the same could be used.] ] 07:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::You say the Stanford claim is exceptional, I say it isn't. Plus, the website hosts a Stanford's document refuting IIPM's claim which can now be used since it's referred to by a third party reliable source. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 14:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::::The claim here is not that Stanford backed out, BTW. The claim is that they never had a partnership in the first place, contradicting what IIPM said in their ads. <s>As I recall, the only place where a partnership with IIPM and Stanford has been reported is in IIPM's advertisements and websites. Isn't that a primary source of the school talking about a third party?</s>(retracted, see below) Schwertfeger is a respected journalist with many publications about MBAs and business training; she is an expert in the field where IIPM provides education. Her reporting is what led me to Stanford's statement. I see no reason to believe that she fabricated the Stanford document.
	:::::Just so everyone here is clear on my involvement--I'm the editor who originally used MBA Channel as a source, and who replaced it with Stanford's direct statement after Wifione challenged MBA Channel and removed it. I want to be transparent so you can all take my potential bias into account. ] (]) 14:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::::NeilN, you say the career portal MBA-Channel source is a third party reliable source. I have shown how it is a self published source as Barbara is the co-owner. Under ], we should consider the fact that "editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking. In general it is preferable to wait until other sources have had time to review or comment on self-published sources. " Given that, as mentioned I would suggest a search for secondary sources that quote Stanford's association with IIPM, like this. Or on Stanford's site, like these.. Given that you consider Barbara as a respected journalist, ] would suggest we maximum include the link as an op-ed column in the IIPM article than as a straightforward reliable source. I'm alright with that. What do you say to that? ] ] 17:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::::You're right that the Tribune India report, which is cited in the article already, is a secondary source; I had forgotten about that and retract my earlier statement about it only appearing in primary sources. However, the CV and faculty bio of professors at Stanford do not support the already-cited Tribune India report that Stanford is partnering with IIPM as an institution. They support that individual professors who teach at Stanford have taught seminars, but that doesn't constitute an institutional partnership.
	::::::I'll let others weigh in on whether respected journalists constitute self-published sources. Wifione and I have already on this topic regarding another source, and I'm interested in what others think. ] (]) 18:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::::You're quoting an '''essay''' not a '''guideline'''. The guideline states: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". The material in this case is directly supported by a primary source. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 19:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::NeilN, an essay is a guiding thought which has some weight and defines guidelines in examples. I'm ok with the self published article's Stanford point being included if even one external secondary source has confirmed the same. In case you are saying that we can use a self published article's statements without even one external reliable secondary source confirming the same, then it'll be a critical move away from suggested styles of editing Misplaced Pages articles.] ] 03:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
	Please do not put words in my mouth. I'm saying the source fulfills the '''guideline'''. Again (since you haven't seemed to address it): "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 03:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
	:NeilN, I agree with your interpretation of the guideline (which, of course, has much more weight than an essay). But I think perhaps ] has with a secondary source stating the same thing in ''Der Spiegel''. It is by Schwertferger, but I think anyone would have a hard time arguing that ''Der Spiegel'' isn't a reliable source. That article states: "Bereits 2007 distanzierte sich die Stanford Graduate School of Business deutlich von falschen IIPM-Angaben." In English (my translation), this says "Already in 2007, the Stanford Graduate School of Business distanced itself from clearly false IIPM statements." Wifione, does this meet your request for "one external reliable secondary source confirming the same"? Can we agree that this source is reliable now? ] (]) 12:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

			===Survey (NewsNation)===
	::A google search on Schwertfeger's name is enough to establish her credentials as an expert. She regularly writes articles in major newspapers on business education. And as WeisheitSuchen pointed out,. I have given a link for the same fact from Der Spiegel, which is undeniably WP:RS. ] (]) 13:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light).
	:::The Der Spiegel article is an opinion piece by Barbara who doesn't work at that magazine. Can we therefore reach a consensus then that both her self published MBA-Channel news and the Der Spiegel source are RS opinion pieces? In other words, if they're used, we'll have to use them as opinion pieces clearly mentioning her name. Acceptable? ] ] 08:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
			**NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
	::::Neither of these are opinion pieces; it would not be appropriate to label them as such. In major news magazines like Der Spiegel, opinion pieces and editorials are clearly labeled. This is a regular article, not an editorial. Her name isn't necessary in either case. ] (]) 13:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
			***In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the ], Coulthart said {{xt\|"... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"!}} . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including ] and ], all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects.
	:::::It is not an opinion piece. If it were, it'd be labelled as such on the Spiegel website. And if you read it, it is more of an investigative column, where she has contacted different schools and gotten their reactions on tie-ups with IIPM. It is very clearly not an opinion piece. ] (]) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
			***Writing in ''The Skeptic'', Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: {{xt\|"Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."}}
	::::::*As we've accepted the MBA-Channel article is a self published "RS" source, it automatically becomes equivalent to an opinion piece as the common sense assumption would be that it would not have undergone an "independent fact check", irrespective of how investigative the article might seem. A quick look at the RS discussion that Makrandjoshi raised on Maheshwer Peri's column in his own publication would clarify this thought. Therefore, the MBA-Channel article should surely be considered an opinion piece.
			***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)===
	::::::*The Der Spiegel article by her would also become an opinion piece as she's an 'autoren' (author) in Spiegel and not an editorial reporter. . ] ] 19:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
			*For purposes of clarification, the reliability of NewsNation has previously come up in two different RSN discussions and two different article Talk page discussions. Beyond that, however, it's repeatedly invoked to source UFO articles to the point that constant re-litigation of its reliability via edit summaries is becoming a massive time sink. ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::*WS, You could also compare the current opinion writers in Speigel and check whether their names come in the Autoren section. That could support/reject this context. ] ] 19:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::The is an opinion piece because it is specifically labeled as "opinion." Look at the heading right above the article title for that source. That's what we don't have in either case with Schwertferger's sources. We should not conflate opinion pieces and editorials with self-published sources, contradicting Misplaced Pages policy. In addition, the fact that she is a freelance journalist does not imply that her article did not go through editorial review with Der Spiegel. There's nothing in Misplaced Pages policy that demands treating freelancers in reliable sources any differently than staff writers. Do you have any arguments from Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines that say these sources should be considered opinion pieces? ] (]) 22:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::WS, maybe this link helps ]. One line could be helpful from this, "By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean a matter which is subject to dispute". Also, can you please show the place where Speigel puts its opinion articles? As it's a German site, I'm not able to traverse properly. If I get the link, I can check the authors who are mentioned there and compare the points. Thanks ] ] 09:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::Wifione. It is not an opinion piece. It is a news article. Go to the google-translated version of the page Look at the top left under the banner and tabs how the article is classified: '''News''' -> UniSpiegel -> Study -> India. Spiegel classifies it as "News". Hope this is enough to put your mind to rest. ] (]) 15:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::Wifione, if we labeled this as an opinion piece when the source labels it as news, wouldn't we be engaging in ] or ]? When ''Der Spiegel'' publishes an opinion piece, they label it clearly at the top to differentiate it from their normal news reporting, as they do . In German, the word is "Meinung." I don't see a section just for ''Meinung'' at ''Der Speigel'' the way I do at , which may mean that ''Der Speigel'' just doesn't regularly publish opinion pieces, only news and investigative reporting like this example. I am strongly opposed to labeling a source an opinion piece in direct contradiction to the source itself. ] (]) 16:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
	{{unindent}}

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

			== RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu ==
	*That MBA Channel is self published has been already accepted. Therefore it directly becomes an Opinion piece. A self-published piece (if RS) will have to be considered for the author's statements as opinion rather than as fact.
			<!-- ] 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) ===
	*I repeat a line that's there in ], which says "By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean a matter which is subject to dispute". If you visit the section link I've given, you'll see why the dispute heavy statements of Schwertferger's in Spiegel should be considered an opinion to avoid a non-npov bias. ] ] 06:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
			* A: See "Geni.com" at ].
	:You say that self-published sources must automatically be considered opinion pieces. Please do not confuse the meaning of "opinion" as a general word, like you quoted from ASF, with an ] or ], which are specific genres within journalism. The Peri article is an editorial; these are not. If we label them as op-eds, that would be in direct contradiction with what the sources themselves say.
			* 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.
	:If you have a source that disputes what is said in ''Der Spiegel'', you are welcome to add it to the article for NPOV balance. I understand that you dispute it as an individual editor; do you have a reliable source that disputes it? We can't include content in articles based on the opinions of a single individual, only what's in sources. Wouldn't you agree? ] (]) 12:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
			* C: See ] (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Your view on Der Spiegel is logical. Wrt MBA Channel self-published sources, would you be ok with us raising an RS query on whether a self-published source, after being considered reliable, should be considered as an opinion piece or as a news source? I'm perfectly alright with you wording the query as a separate RS question (if it's ok with you). Thanks ] ] 06:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::OK, I'm glad we have reached a consensus that ''Der Spiegel'' is a reliable source.
	:::I think part of the problem is your use of the phrase "opinion piece," which seems to be an informal synonym for editorial or op-ed. That's how the phrase is currently used in the article when referring to the Peri article. It is factually untrue here. It's not an opinion that the MBA Channel article isn't an editorial; it's a fact. Whether the information contained is opinion or fact is a separate question, but we need to avoid being careless in our wording when asking these questions. We can ask whether the content of this article should be treated as opinions. Basically, we can go back to NeilN's original question, slightly reworded: Is MBA Channel (with the primary source from Stanford) a reliable source for supporting this statement: "Neither the Stanford Graduate School of Business nor the office of Stanford Executive Education has ties of any kind with IIPM." In other words, should we treat the statement that Stanford isn't IIPM's partner as a fact or as an opinion attributed to Bärbel Schwertfeger?
	:::Since this discussion was originally about the MBA Channel source and the supporting Stanford document, let's just keep it here. After all, you've already made the arguments here. No sense in duplicating that work elsewhere. What does everyone else think? Should reliable self-published sources be automatically assumed to be opinions in all cases, including for supporting the statement about Stanford above? ] (]) 12:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	The argument whether or not the MBA piece is an editorial, while interesting, is moot. Schwertfeger's credentials establish her as a reliable source. Her piece refers to the Stanford document meaning we can now refer to it. Additionally, we are making no interpretive claims using the primary source. Please read ] carefully. It does '''not''' say primary sources can never be used on their own. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 02:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::NeilN, Barbel is not a primary source. (She's not involved in any IIPM incident, so to say). Secondly, it's been accepted that Barbel's piece in MBA Channel is self-published. The Stanford document you refer to is not on Stanford's website, but in her web-site referred through her article. I'll actually look forward to your/others comments (to WS's correctly worded ques) as I'm not sure myself about how we should take it. ] ] 08:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::The Stanford document is a primary source, even though it's published on MBA Channel as part of her supporting documentation. Abecedare noted back on 29 December that since that document was uploaded by Schwertferger that it is an acceptable source.
	:::::Wifione, it seems like you are pushing here that even though everyone has agreed that MBA Channel is a reliable source that you want to put conditions on that. The rule isn't that self-published sources are "reliable with conditions"; the rule is that some self-published sources are just reliable sources. Most self-published sources aren't, but this one is. Even you yourself have used the word "reliable" to describe it.
	:::::The Peri article was an "opinion piece" not because it was published in a magazine he owns, but because it was written and clearly labeled as an editorial. Had that same editorial been published in the NY Times, it would still be appropriate for us to call it an "opinion piece" in the article. "Editorial" and "self-published" are two independent criteria; they aren't actually linked in any intrinsic way. ] (]) 13:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, I was referring to the Stanford document as the primary source. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 16:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::WS, with due respect to your statements, I'm not sure what you mean when you're saying the Stanford source, loaded on MBA Channel by Schwertferger, is a ]. I'm also not sure which guideline you're referring to when you mention that reliable ] should be considered simply ]. I ask you again, would you be open to listing this question as a separate query on this RS noticeboard? I suggest this move as out here, other commentators (including Abecedare, who commented before he perhaps knew all facts - which is clear by his not knowing Schwertferger owned the very website where she'd written the article) might get confused seeing so many statements? ] ] 05:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::The Stanford document is a primary source because it was written by someone in a position of authority at Stanford. The fact that it's published on the MBA Channel site isn't the determining factor. Whether it's a primary or secondary source depends on 1) who wrote it and 2) whether it contains analysis, evaluation, etc.
	:::::::Let me quote ] for you, as NeilN has done before: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Note that it doesn't say "self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable, but only if you treat it as an opinion piece." It says SPS in a case like this is an "acceptable" source--just like any other reliable source.
	:::::::If you were to start a new discussion, would you have any new arguments that you haven't presented here? If not, then there's no need to extend this discussion further. If you're worried about people being confused by reading through a long discussion, then you can add a brief summary of your arguments here. Whittle your arguments down to two or three bullet points so people can understand your position even without all the previous context and "window dressing." ] (]) 12:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	{{unindent}}

			=== Preliminaries ===
	WS, I would suggest listing the issue separately because it could go a long way in redefining how Misplaced Pages looks at self published reliable sources. That's an issue where others could be motivated to answer. If you think it's logical, I can raise the issue on the reliable sources guideline as a general issue (of whether reliable sps can be considered equivalent to reliable sources). Your call (and yes, I'm sorry for replying late). Best. ] ] 12:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
	:*I've included a proposal for changing the current policy on ] ]. Pl feel free to engage in the discussions there too. ] ] 13:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

			:Probably need to add the website to the list of unreliable sources. It also uses Misplaced Pages articles which would be ]. --] 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	== How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"? ==
			::AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a ]. But it could be a good follow-up. ] (]) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. ] (]) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. ] (]) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. ] (]) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC? <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	Yes, there are medical organizations that say it's a great site (most of which are companies/organizations that rely on drugs or drug sales), but the only thing that Quackwatch does is bash alternative medicines. It has no positive information about alternative medicines and is completely biased against them.
			::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)
	I'm thoroughly confused as to how this can possibly be considered a reliable and unbiased source whereas almost every other biased website that I've seen cited here has been shot down as "not RS". Can anyone explain this to me? ] (]) 18:49, 22 January 2010 (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 ===
	: See ] and the numerous refs cited there. ] <small>]</small> 22:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. ] (]) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''.<strike>'''Question'''. Isn't it already deprecated?</strike>--] (]) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate''' A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			: '''Unsure'''. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) ] (]) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. Really bad. Needs to go away.—] 00:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

			=== Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley ===
	::I see all the citations as I mentioned in my original question and that's already been covered. Most of those may be praising certain aspects of the website (eg. uncovering fraudulent companies), but the site in general bashes virtually all alternative medicines regardless of effectiveness, verifiability, or usage of the various categories. I have read articles on their site before that were practically ranting about certain supplements that they claimed didn't work and were ripping off people who used them, but they didn't mention a thing about the dozens (or in some cases, hundreds) of studies that have been done and published by various organizations (many of which have been published in PubMed, the Lancet, JAMA, and other reputable organizations). That spells the very definition of "biased" to me... am I missing something? ] (]) 22:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate''', per background discussion. ] (]) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Comment'''. I think this source has been often discussed in a superficial way, together with other sources, which does not always lead to a clear perspective. This is not like the other two. It collects a lot of useful extracts from primary sources than can be helpful for getting a grip on a topic. Although it is basically the work of one editor, this editor was assigned to do this for an organization which does make some efforts to maintain a reputation for quality. (The FMG publishes a journal, and it posts some online corrections to Keats-Rohan's reference works for the 11th and 12th century, and she has noted those helpful efforts in print.) On the other hand, Medlands does not use secondary material very much, so it is normally not going to the type of source we would use on WP on its own for anything non-obvious. I note these complications because I see that sources like Ancestry.com and Findmypast also have special notes about how they can sometimes have useful primary materials. To give a practical example of what might go wrong, what I saw in the past whenever this source was discussed, is that it was even deleted from external links sections and so on. I think this is a source that can be used for external links at the very least. I feel hesitant to say that it should NEVER EVER be used even in the main body to be honest, although I don't use it on WP.--] (]) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate''' Crawley has no academic background in history and MedLands is self-published. It is not published by FMG only hosted by them. That it contains a lot of useful information is not the same as it having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, something it doesn't have. Deprecation isn't blacklisting, editors are warned against adding it not blocked. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{re\|ActivelyDisinterested}} I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "'''the source is generally prohibited'''". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) ] (]) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Editors who know the fine print will be the ones using the source correctly, and will know how to handle the situation. The issue is that editors who don't know keep adding this as a reference to support content, and the many discussions on the source show they isn't support for that. Adding a warning when editors post will at least get editors to ask why they are getting the warning, and help them understand the situation.
			:::Deprecation of this source will ''reduce'' the pointless pseudo-legal debates, by reducing the problem of the source being repeatedly readded. Editors should use their own good judgement, but as repeated discussion about this source have shown that isn't happening. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--] (]) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--] (]) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Yes the cost of not having to continuously patrol for this source and have the same discussion about it's reliability again and again.
			:::::::Separately before the two of us fill the survey section with our disagreement (mea culpa), should we move this discussion to the Discussion section? -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Generally unreliable'''. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) ''Generally unreliable'' is the one which says this: {{tq\|"questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published"}} I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would ''only'' allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be ''prohibited''. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--] (]) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at ] shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he ''knows'' {{xt!\|may be of little factual significance}} at face value just because he finds them "]" ({{xt!\|but is reproduced by way of interest}}), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't ]. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. ] (]) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the '''Generally unreliable''' category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then ''only as far as we have to''. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --] (]) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Generally reliable''', in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''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)===
	::::Hi, can you give a concrete example with Lancet/JAMA disagreeing with QW? ] (]) 04:14, 22 January 2010 (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)
	:::::I don't have a subscription to either of those so I can't read the full articles, but I have come across some citations over the past few years that were pointed out as conflicting with QW in the articles that were written by Barrett... that was one of the first times I started looking at what QW was writing. I unfortunately didn't keep those citations or I would list them. ] (]) 18:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
			:Although I disagree I can understand you position. It's to easy to get stuck in disagreement spirals are part of RFCs. Let's see if anyone else brings any new ideas. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I previously commented that a seperate warning for generally unreliable sources would be helpful, for ones that are problematicly readded on a regular basis would be useful. That way a warning would appear but wouldn't come with the baggage of deprecation. At the moment deprecation is the only resource available, but it is a somewhat blunt hammer. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] Thanks for restoring the discussion from the archive; it evidently was not yet closed. It would seem that we've got a clear result though. Should I request a third party to formally close it with a conclusion, or how does this go with RfCs? ] (]) 18:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The {{tl\|RFC}} tag was missing, which would have added "DoNotArchiveUntil.." to the header to stop it from being archived. I've add the RFC tag which will list in for every to see (not just those to happen across it on RSN). I suggest waiting and seeing if any more comments come in, as they editors have taken part yet. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			==RfC: Jacobin==
	::::::Okay, that is a pretty serious accusation to make without any evidence. I am sure I can get access to both, so if you have examples, I can look through them. Until you do find an example, you might want to attenuate your rhetoric. ] (]) 21:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 17:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1740070870}}
			{{RfC\|prop\|pol\|media\|rfcid=857ECCA}}
			Which of the following best describes the reliability of '']''?
			* Option 1: ]
			* Option 2: ]
			* Option 3: ]
			* Option 4: ]
			— ] <sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

	:::::::The evidence is right on their respective websites. I'm sorry I don't have instant recall to all the articles and research I've ever read, but I can look through some sources that I have seen some examples of in recently and see what I can find. It's been rather busy at work so it may be a while, but anyone in a solid position in an alternative medicine field (eg. supplements, chiropractic, Naturopath, etc) would be able to verify from their experience and research about QW's bias against their professions in general. I work in the supplement field and some of the articles he's written made me laugh because of how overly biased he was with twisting the facts to the way he wanted them.] (]) 22:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

			===Survey: ''Jacobin''===
	::::::::I'm not asking you to do this now or on any timeline. What I am saying is this: before you next make time to attack them, please first make time to put together a cogent argument with some references. ] (]) 05:24, 27 January 2010 (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)
	: I'm not familiar with Quackwatch. However, in principle, the fact that a site dedicates itself to finding medical quacks and fraud does not automatically make it unreliable, just as an attorney general who dedicates himself to finding criminals and does not bother to praise good people is not automatically unreliable. The real question is whether or not Quackwatch does a good job of identifying quacks and frauds or not. --] (]) 22:32, 31 December 2009 (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.
	:: True, it does some good things like exposing frauds, but then it also bashes all the rest including some of the most well respected doctors not only in their field, but even in their local areas in some cases. ] (]) 22:55, 31 December 2009 (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.
	::: I think we try to be fairly careful and circumspect about Quackwatch as a source, but consensus has repeatedly held that it is acceptable under certain circumstances. Is there a specific usage that concerns you? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:10, 31 December 2009 (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)
	:::::I pointed the editor to this noticeboard on their talk page after undoing their edit on ]. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 07:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
			::{{Reply\|Herostratus}} not to backseat comment but if "They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine." isn't that a 2? I'm in much the same boat and offered a split 1/2, my understanding is that a 3 shouldn't be used for opinion. ] (]) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Backseat comments are totally fine. I live for them. I'm not sure about the details of our rule, but aren't ''all'' publications are completely reliable ''for their contents''? If the ''News of the World'' says "the moon is made of green cheese" we can certainly say "According to the ''News of the World'', the moon is made of green cheese" if for some reason that was useful. The ref is just so the reader can check that they did indeed print that. Similarly for any opinion or other statement. Since all entities are reliable for their own contents, I assume we are not talking at all about that. Why would we.

			:::What we are talking about is: if entity X says "FBI stats say that African-American violent crime was up 50% in Los Angeles in 2024", can we say that ''in our own words'' because we can be confident that it is true because we know that entity X has a good fact-checking operation? Can we be very very sure that entity X would also point out if violent crime for ''all'' races was also up 50%? Can we be very very sure that this increase is not because the FBI started using a new definition of "violent crime", because entity X would surely point that out? Can we be very very sure that violent crime in the city of Los Angeles is steady and the increase is purely from Los Angeles County (or whatever), because entity X would surely point that out? In other words -- can we be very very sure that entity X would not cherry-pick some facts and leave out others because they are here to make points? We want to be careful about being led by the nose by these people. ] (]) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::: Virtually every source has some kind of bias. If we insisted that reliable sources have no bias, we'd have no sources left. What we require instead is that sources be ], and that they have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. If an established publisher in the modern world starts publishing junk (about people, products or organizations), they will quickly be sued or fined out of existence. In the case of ], when using them as a source, we should be sure to wiki-link the first instance, and use in-text attribution ("According to ], ... "). If there are other reliable sources which contradict Quackwatch, they should be mentioned too, ]. ] (]) 23:15, 31 December 2009 (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)
	::::::That's true that every source will have some sort of bias... even saying the sky is blue would be biased based on the time of day. The reason I even ask this is that Quackwatch is very overly biased against any alternative options. After too many searches to want to count, the only "alternatives" I have seen in a remotely positive light are multivitamins and I think only prenatal ones were shown exclusively in a positive light (while some of the articles said multivitamins in general were useless). I would hardly call such an overly-biased website "reliable", even if they do some good work to expose frauds, which is what most of the lauding of the site comes from... does that really mean everything on there is reliable? ] (]) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (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)
	::::: All good points. NPOV requires we cover all significant sides of an issue using reliable sources, and reliable sources will usually be biased from some particular POV. That doesn't exclude them from eligibility as sources.
			*'''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)
	::::: This issue has been discussed to death in many venues here at Misplaced Pages. The conclusion is that the use of Quackwatch be judged on a case by case basis, '''just like every other reliable source we use'''. There is no RS that's allowable in every situation, so context is important. It would be rather odd to allow positive sources in an article on alternative medicine and exclude the largest, best known and most highly recommended (and hated!) database on the internet for skeptical information on the subject. That would violate NPOV. Nearly any article without negative or controversial content likely violates NPOV. Lack of such content is a ] for possible policy violations.
			*: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)
	::::: Here are a couple places to read up on the subject:

			'''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)
	:::::* ]
			*'''Option 1:''' Nothing of substance has been presented to suggest that this source is not GREL. Most of the reasons being presented for MREL appear to be about bias, but that is not of direct relevance to reliability unless it can be shown that any bias directly impinges somehow on its reliability. That it provides a perspective from a rarefied position on the political spectrum is a moot point in terms of reliability. Arguably it is good to have sources from all different positions on the political spectrum for the purposes of balance, but that is, again, irrelevant to its reliability. ] (]) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1/2''': generally reliable, they have a correction policy. Bias for opinion pieces and essays should be taken into account, attribute accordingly. ] (]) 00:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Bad RfC''' As on . ] (]) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' I previously commented in the 2021 RfC based on ]. In particular I found persuasive. Most recently cites a ''Jacobin'' article from November 2024 positively. A major trade publication in the field of journalism still seems to find ''Jacobin'' worth citing as "demonstrat convincingly" how Harris lost the pro-labor vote in the 2024 election. Why should we not follow ''CJR''s lead? The arguments seem to be (1) ''Jacobin'' recently issued a major retraction and (2) ''Jacobin'' has a left-wing bias. I could buy into (1) if they constantly issued retractions, but no one has shown that that is the case. (2) is contrary to ]. Altogether, I don't see why we should treat ''Jacobin'' differently from reliable but right-of-center-biased publications like '']'' or '']''. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]</span> 07:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2 or Option 3''': Not only is Jacobin an extremely biased, ideologically charged source, but their reporting has been called into question multiple times. At the very least, additional considerations do apply. ] (]) 13:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2'''. This is not a ]. Its stated purpose is . Compare to the missions of the NYT: ; or the BBC: . The NYT and the BBC are both biased (every source is biased), but they do at least aim to deliver ''reporting''. Jacobin, on the other hand, is an advocacy organisation. That doesn't make it automatically unreliable, nor does that make it solely a source of opinions, but that does makes it qualitatively different from the newspapers that others have compared it to - and that is an important additional consideration worth noting. For the record, I disagree that one incident of inaccuracy is enough to downgrade a source, particularly one that was corrected. ] (]) 13:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Just because I note that my earlier !vote wasn't posted in to this section, for the avoidance of doubt, whilst I think this is a '''Bad RFC''' because there's no reason for initiating it, I support '''Option 2''' or '''Option 3''' because it is strictly an opinion site and not one that should be relied on for statements of fact about anything but itself. ] (]) 14:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1'''{{spaced en dash}}''Jacobin'' may be biased, but that has no bearing on reliability. They have many well-respected articles that have been cited by other reliable sources, have transparent editorial controls, and a demonstrated process for retraction and correction. I see a couple complaints above that ''Jacobin'' isn't a news organization; however, this isn't relevant to reliability. Just like ''The Economist'', ''Jacobin'' publishes more retrospective, interpretive articles which for certain subjects can often be ''better'' than using contemporaneous news articles. Overall this is a very '''bad RfC''' given the creator's undisclosed connection to the previous overturned RfC (see comment by {{noping\|Tayi Arajakate}}) and a complete lack of any examples of ''actual uses on Misplaced Pages where the reliability is questioned''. This is as far as I can tell a knee-jerk reaction to a single example of an error on an unrelated topic in an offhand remark inside a book review, and which wasn't even used on Misplaced Pages. An absurd reason to open an RfC. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard"><span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 4px lightskyblue, -1px -1px 4px forestgreen;font-weight:bold;">]</span> (] • ])</span> 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			===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.
	::::: As to the reasons why QW criticizes alternative medicine, they just happen to be right. They don't work, otherwise they'd be called "medicine". Read this section carefully, especially the part about where the NCCAM hasn't found evidence for efficacy after ten years of large studies:

			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.
	::::: Happy reading, and Happy New Year! -- ] (]) 02:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

			] (]) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::I agree with most of this. I totally agree that Quackwatch should be judged on a case by case basis. After all, if there was a great humanitarian that robbed a bank just once, would he get off because of all the other good stuff he did or would he be tried based on that robbery? I think the point of being judged on a case by case basis should be mentioned on the RS entry for it, but I'm not sure if that is implied for all RSs or not. There have been a number of articles I've seen on Quackwatch that were bashing certain treatments, saying they shouldn't be used and/or didn't work, but they are some commonly recommended treatments by more Naturopathic doctors because they work... just one example of why not all of it would be a RS. ] (]) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (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)
	::::::: Use on a case by case basis applies to all RS, not especially to QW. As to your mention of certain unnamed treatments that you believe NDs recommend because they "work", well, if they really work, then they're EBM and Quackwatch and Barrett wouldn't be criticizing them. Note two points: (1) Not everything that is recommended by an ND is quackery. They actually do some good things. (2) Being recommended by an ND is a red flag, since they also recommend many things that are unproven or even disproven. Some of their most used methods are horrendously pseudoscientific, such as homeopathy. Whatever the case, your objections on this basis really have nothing to do with the use of QW as a RS, but only are a difference of opinion as to whether QW is wrong and NDs are right. The mainstream EBM position, IOW the evidence, sides with QW, which again shows that QW is a notable source that backs up whatever is current mainstream science and opinion. If the evidence changes, so does QW, and that's the way it should be. Barrett and the other authors who write there are educated in thinking using the scientific method, and they judge things through that prism, which is a good thing. -- ] (]) 03:11, 7 January 2010 (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)
			*::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)
	::::::::That's what I figured (and was hoping), but I've come across a few instances within Wiki where the argument was made that QW as a RS for statements that could be seen as completely unnecessary for the context. One example is in Alternative Medicine where the statement is listed "Many CAM methods are criticized by the activist non-profit organization Quackwatch" (and cited the general website, not an article on it)... in other articles, that could be seen as spam/advertising for that website, but when I removed it saying it wasn't appropriate, another editor put it back saying Quackwatch was RS so it belonged (which was the main reason I asked the question here).
			*: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)
	::::::::Obviously, that example could be argued on both sides of keeping/removing it depending on your bias, but listing the website in general and no specific article is definitely not RS material from what has been said thus far (case-by-case basis and all). It's the potential edit-wars like this that bring to mind the old quote "can't we all just get along?"... but if it was removed again, I'm sure the same member would undo the removal without something more than "that's the intent" stated. Is there somewhere that says RS is on a case-by-case basis that I can point to for inappropriate citations like this? ] (]) 20:18, 7 January 2010 (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 ==
	As is mentioned in the links provided by BullRangifer, Quackwatch is supposed to be evaluated on a case by case basis. The problem is that the majority of articles are written by Barrett, and they are not peer reviewed. So, it should not have the same weight as an article published in a peer reviewed journal. ]\|] 09:21, 1 January 2010 (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 ==
	::Exactly. Many of the articles written by Barrett himself are opinion articles based on his opinion, but a number of them are exposing frauds which some feel gives more weight to his opinion about everything else. Regardless of how good my mechanic might be with my car, I wouldn't ask him what medical treatment I should take just because he's so good with my car. ] (]) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (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.
	::: Barrett's opinions are notable opinions from that POV and are used as opinions, not scientific facts. Some articles are much more scientific in their nature and can be used to source facts. Others are commentaries on various issues related to consumer protection and fighting health fraud. Most use extensive sourcing and sometimes we choose to use those sources, rather than the article itself. All its articles and documents are different in their nature and should be used in the appropriate situations. No rule at Misplaced Pages would consider the use of a source to be reliable in every situation. No one has ever argued that QW is somehow immaculate or unlike other reliable sources we use. It's just the most notable website of its type, the largest database of skeptical sources related to its subject matter, and thus not to be excluded as an often usable source. Just use common sense. -- ] (]) 03:11, 7 January 2010 (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)
	: Of course. That should go without saying to anyone who understands our sourcing policies, as you should by now. When dealing with the nitty gritty details of scientific facts, the ] guidelines take priority. They prefer scientific research, so Quackwatch isn't normally used for such details (except for the scientific articles it hosts), although it always agrees with them. Since it usually agrees, it thus demonstrates that it truly is "reliable" in the traditional sense of the word. So, per MEDRS, we still prefer scientific studies for such details, while QW is usually used for other aspects of the subjects.
			::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 ==
	: As far as it not being "peer-reviewed", that's a red herring. Websites aren't expected to be peer-reviewed, and QW never pretends to be a scientific journal, so that argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. Only one website is peer-reviewed, and that happens to be a medical journal that is only published on-line. We still allow the use of myriad websites as RS for information, even though they aren't peer-reviewed. It all depends on which details are being tied to which sources. Just connect the dots properly.
			{{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: ]
	: While numerous articles are primarily written by Barrett, he does have a very large group of experts who aide him and review as necessary the articles. While this isn't exactly the same as the peer-review process used for journals, it's still far better than for most websites. Vetting, fact checking and review by multiple experts is a good thing. Many articles are also written by other authors. There are definitely articles at QW that wouldn't be suitable as sources here. That's why the use of QW is already done on a case by case basis. Just use our normal sourcing rules and common sense. -- ] (]) 09:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
			* Option 2: ]
			* Option 3: ]
			* Option 4: ]

			]</s>
	::Very true... but unfortunately, not many people in the world understand the sourcing policies here. Yes, those who edit a lot here would likely understand and know most/all of them, but the common man typically doesn't. I also note in the "Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery" part that was referred to above, it points out that Quackwatch has been sourced in reliable 3rd party publications... but does that automatically mean that everything he posts on his site is reliable? I mean, by that standard, you could use a magazine or newspaper source and make a quote from the opinion section as being reliable because the paper/magazine is so well respected... that's basically what people are citing because Quackwatch is listed as RS (not necessarily just on Wiki, but on other sites as well). Am I the only one that sees that as more than disturbing? ] (]) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

			<span style="font-family:Kurale; color:#ff0000;">]]</span> 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	The principle on which organizations such as Quackwatch operate is the Scientific Method, and all of its umbrella principles (], ], the ], predictability, etc.) which is the method utilized to evaluate the empirical validity of scientific claims. Organizations like Quackwatch do not "bash" or have a "bias" against alternative medicine; They simply evaluate them based on whether they follow proper empirical methodologies. Personal belief systems aside, so-called alternative and complementary medicines do not have any scientific validity. Those that do aren't called "alternative" or "complementary" medicine; they just called ''medicine''. This is a point that is not only unknown by the general public, it is also unknown by many who work in these fields, which is why they are advocated even by people with PhD's after their name. But whether someone of repute advocates an idea does not mean it has empirical validity. To argue it does is a ] called ].
			* '''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==
	As for unbiased, Misplaced Pages's policies on ] do not, and cannot, gauge such a thing, because ''all'' sources, even reliable ones, from the ''New York Times'' to the ''Village Voice'' to FOX News, have biases. Reliability is predicated on criteria such as whether the organization in question has proper editorial controls for its content, whether its staff has the pertinent expertise, etc. Complete lack of bias cannot be a criterion, because '''''no source''''' exists (nor any writer working for one) that lacks some type of bias. ] (]) 04:29, 1 January 2010 (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.
	: An excellent summary of the situtation. Thanks. -- ] (]) 14:41, 1 January 2010 (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
	::No, it is not. It is a generalisation arrived at without consideration of the arguments on this page or the article about Quackwatch or Quackwatch itself. To assert that Quackwatch is an organisation operationally adhering to the scientific method and all of it's umbrella principles is not only unfounded but demonstrably wrong. The discussion in this section already shows that Quackwatch is to be evaluated on a case by case basis, and shows the reasons why. Attempts to elevate Quackwatch to the standard of a scientific institution adhering to all the principles of the scientific method are unfounded and a clear attempt to imbalance the situation by introducing the "Argument of Authority" the author wishes not to see in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:05, 1 January 2010 (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/
	:::I agree with Weakopedia here. QuackWatch is basically the blog of ], and it is wild to suggest the the blog adheres to the scientific method. It has already been determined that QuackWatch should be used on a case by case basis, and should usually be balanced with an opposite viewpoint. ] (]) 16:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

			Yes, GBNews is genuinely quite a sloppy publication, I'm not here to make an argument that it is not even remotely, but I think the summary ought to be changed from the first to the second.
	::::::I agree with these two as well. Is there an option of listing a caveat on the Quackwatch listing on the RS page that it should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, not as gospel truth? Or is that implied on everything on the RS page (so others take it as gospel truth if they don't know about that implication)? ] (]) 20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

			<blockquote><p>There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable.</p></blockquote>
	::::::: The default implication in the RS policy is that all sources be judged on a case by case basis. QW is no exception, nor under any special scrutiny. Most sources are written from some POV or other and we just have to use common sense. -- ] (]) 03:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

			<blockquote><p>There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable. It is reliable for specifically group based child sex exploitation.</p></blockquote>
	:::: I think you're picking and choosing to find something you can object to, rather than noticing I repeatedly state things we both believe. Note that it was myself who clearly stated that it should be (1) used on a case by case basis, and (2) that scientific research is preferred to Quackwatch when dealing with the nitty gritty details of scientific and medical facts. Other editors agreed. That's in agreement with the MEDRS guideline. Do you disagree with that? I don't think we really disagree on that. -- ] (]) 06:40, 2 January 2010 (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.
	I have indeed considered the arguments on this page, and you have not provided any evidence or line of reasoning that I have not. The original comments that I was specifically responding to were the notions that it "bashes" alternative medicine, has a "bias" against it, and that it does this even despite the advocacy of some of these ideas by "well-respected doctors", and my response was sound: Pointing out that alternative and complementary medicine is without empirical validity is a fact, and is not a "bias", nor "bashing", and the degree to which a doctor advocating an idea is respected is not the basis upon which ideas in science are properly vetted. If you can invalidate this, then do so.

			I hope I have formatted this correctly, thank you. ] ] 19:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	Burleigh mentioned studies published in ''Lancet'', but he never provided any examples, nor did he mention whether these studies ''survived'' Peer Review or have achieved wide acceptance in the scientific community. (Remember that the vaccine-autism hysteria, for example, began with a 1998 study by Andrew Wakefield published in ''Lancet'' that was later found to be bogus.) And again, if these studies ''have'' been validated by Peer Review and widely accepted, then they're ''no longer complementary or alternative medicine''. They just ''medicine''. Complementary and alternative are essentially just euphemisms for "non-scientific" or "ineffective to any degree greater than placebo." Have any of the ideas criticized by Quackwatch been so accepted? If so, where are the examples? If Quackwatch's adherence to the Scientific Method is "demonstrably wrong", where's the demonstration? The determination that it should be used on a case-by-case basis? I assume that's not the demonstration you're referring to, since that's a Misplaced Pages editorial decision, and in no way makes a statement about whether Quackwatch understands and accepts the SM. I haven't considered the arguments here? How so? Which ones? And how do you know this? ] (]) 08:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
			:Sorry but it is the source we judge, not the writer, his work say in the Telegraph can be cited, not his work for GB news. ] (]) 19:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Just to be clear here, I am not saying Peters is the only good reporter. GBNews has some good reporters and they're specifically concentrated on this. I think GBNews is generally slop but I just wanted to cite a specific reporter as an example. I think GBNews' work and information on this very narrow subject is worth considering. ] ] 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:This seems backwards, ] claims require exceptional sources, not exceptions for terrible ones. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:GB News is persistently and relentlessly unreliable. We cannot make exceptions for a single reporter (and I say that as someone who believes Peters to be one of the better GB News reporters, though admittedly that's a very low bar). If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that ''weren't'' run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear. ] 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I don't think more sensationalist reporting is going to make that page better. Let's leave GB News off it. ] (]) 19:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Again, I'm being clear here I'm only talking about one narrow subject. ] ] 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I was also being very specific to that one page as well. ] (]) 20:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::So you're saying that, specifically on child rape, they're sensationalists. I agree with you that their titles would do better without the incessant capitalisations but their reporting on this isn't errant in any way. ] ] 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::So you're basically just saying Peters is a racist and if I can prove he isn't racist you'll be convinced? Here he is covering a white rapist. https://www.gbnews.com/news/two-rotherham-child-abuse-victims-accidentally-left-out-court-rapist-sentencing-office-error ] ] 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: I absolutely did ''not'' say that Peters was racist, so don't do that again please. I was pointing out that GB News inevitably covers Asian grooming gangs, but almost never white ones. If Peters broke that mould I ''would'' be convinced. ] 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::: Oh, I've just seen your userpage. That explains it. ] 19:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::> '''Sources (some are invalid and blatantly biased for[REDACTED] standards but summarise info well. i'll find a proper source for them.'''
			:::::Not all the sources in my user page are valid at all, I've just added them to look deeper in later on to verify myself.
			:::::If you're accusing me of being a right wing grifter so be it, I literally just added an article by Bindle to my user page smearing the right as racist grifters before I read this, I edited McMurdock's article and wrote how he kicked a woman four times, I try my best to be fair. I am not interested in just saying "Pakistani men rape and whites don't", that's absurd. The state has routinely failed children of rape. I'm arguing that GBNews on this topic is good. ] ] 20:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::: I suppose even Bindel can be right occasionally. That's not the point though, I followed a few of your links and saw the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page - that's not good on a BLP, whether you are a right-wing grifter or not (I have no idea if that's the case). But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop. It would be ''incredibly'' problematic if we had to define sources as reliable or not depending on which journos were producing the material, especially as their material is routinely filtered through an editorial process which we have defined as unreliable in the first place. ] 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I understand. I regret making my initial point on Peters specifically because you're right that specific journalists do not save a publication. I've been trying to change the position to accomadate this, and say something more so on the lines of "Generally speaking, their covering of child sex abuse is good, can we make an exception for this topic". Is your argument here from the context of me originally saying Peters was good or is your argument here that no matter how good the journalism is on child sex abuse, the rest of the publication is too sloppy to make an exception? " But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop"
			:::::::> the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page
			:::::::Is this on the word 'despite'? This was talked about on the talk page, I agreed it was a mistake. ] ] 21:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Again, GBNews is generally slop, we can agree on that. I believe they have good journalists focusing on child rape. ] ] 20:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::: We can't separate the two, that's the issue. The ''Daily Mail'' has good journalists as well, the problem in using them is the venue they publish their work in. ] 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I agree the Daily Mail is total slop as well, but if they had excellent journalism on one specific topic that would warrant an exception. That's what I'm arguing here. ] ] 20:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I'm not going to repeat that as you have made clear that was not your intent, but I'm not trying to strawman you. I've misinterpreted what you're saying here as you calling Peters / GBNews / their audience racist (though that is not what you are saying), I am confused on what you exactly are you trying to say with the below. May you please elaborate?
			::::"If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that weren't run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear." ] ] 20:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::: GB News is a right-wing channel (and, to be fair, it is transparently so); it tells its viewers what they want to hear. Much of the right-wing audience believes that child abuse is mostly committed by Asian gangs, because that's what right-wing narratives have told them, even if it's false. GB News doesn't actually ''say'' that is true, but it reinforces those ideas by focusing on such cases. ] 20:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I'm not accusing you of calling them 'racist', but what exactly would you call the behaviour your describing, if not racist.
			::::::Yes, GBNews is obviously a right wing channel. I believe you can criticise nearly all political journalistic publications that aren't state funded of pandering to their audience. CNN, the Telegraph, the Guardian, Fox, etc. I find it all a bit obnoxious.
			::::::I do however have qualms with the idea that GBNews is, how do I put this, 'filtering out or downplaying' rape gangs when they are not Pakistani / Bangladeshi? You say the majority of these perpetrators are white, I believe that is true of CSAM online but I amn't sure that's true at least on a per capita basis for rape gangs though I have collated a lot of sources which I intend to read when I have the time, as you've noted on my talk page, so I'll be better informed to answer this in the future.
			::::::In essence, your hesitance or better put refusal to add an exception to GBNews on rape gangs isn't derived from a sense that they're journalistically or factually incorrect outright but rather they have underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. If I'm understanding what you are saying correctly which I'll need confirmation on as I do not wish to strawman you. ] ] 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::: Yes, that's exactly what GB News does (though I would not go as far as saying it is "factually correct" ''all'' the time). It is, however, understandably more careful with its narratives with this subject than it is with others (although it does publish nonsense like , notably not by Peters). ] 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::That's an opinion piece that more falls under geopolitics. That wouldn't fall into what I, or the other user, is arguing to include.
			::::::::If we can agree that at least ''nearly all'' the time they are factually correct on this very specific subject, and the wealth of information is enormous, we can just put a warning that GBNews has something along the lines of "accusations of underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias" in a general sense (but is better on this subject (and thus the exception being made) as you noted and I agree), but that if possible, should be substantiated with another source, but is still acceptable on this very specific subject, even independently, especially if there are no other sources available. That's reasonable, I believe. Thoughts? ] ] 22:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::: I'm not convinced, I have to admit, and I wouldn't vote in favour of it. Though I ask, could it be any worse that allowing the ''Telegraph'', a paper which posts rabidly transphobic opinion pieces, to be used on trans-related topics (as was allowed in a recent RfC)? It's unlikely. ] 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::As long as what is written is factually true, the agenda behind it just has to be made known to the editor beforehand to caution them. We shouldn't restrain facts and deprive people of them because we deem the authors morally repugnant. ] ] 23:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Comment''' Whilst I agree that GB News should be approached with caution (and I wouldn't touch their climate change reporting with a barge pole), I think Charlie Peters is an exceptional reporter. I would generally trust what he has to say before, for example, ''The Guardian'' or ''The Times''. I think that by barring his reporting on GB News we are probably barring the country's most pre-eminent authority on gang-related CSE. IT's worth bearing in mind that coverage of this topic has now become highly-politicised, but Charie probbaly brings the most balanced and fact-based perspective to the coverage of the issue. We could treat his reporting on GB News on this particular issue as an instance of expert ]. If other sources are reporting the same thing then fine, bit I honestly believe we would be devaluing Misplaced Pages's coverage by excluding him. The fact remains he is not interchangeable with other journalists at other news outlets, because he brings a wealth of research and statistics to the table, and has probably interacted with grooming gang victims more then any other journalist. ] (]) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I know this sounds silly but it is refreshing hearing more knowlegable Wikipedians explain what I'm trying to articulate so eloquently. I do want to be clear however that I think GBNews' coverage on gang CSE is excellent, not just Peters. The main contention seems not to be on if it is factual, no one here seems to be disputing this, but rather if it has underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. You can read my last comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269267836 as I try to ] what another user is saying to the best of ability. ] ] 21:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Are there any third-party sources that validate the claim that GB News and Peters are the best sources on this topic? ] (] • ]) 05:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::If you'd like an example, the link for one has already been given. One of the last times this was brought up (at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_32#Usage_of_Quackwatch_as_RS_in_medical_quackery ) that cited http://www.villagevoice.com/1999-06-22/news/doctor-who/ "Barrett depends heavily on negative research and case studies in which alternative therapies do not work, but he says that most case studies that show positive results of alternative therapies are unreliable.</i> Former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine Peter Barry Chowka states that: <i>He seems to be putting down trying to be objective... Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative... But I personally think he's running against the tide of history. But that's his problem, not ours.</i> In a critical website review of Quackwatch, Joel M. Kauffman evaluated eight Quackwatch articles and concluded that the articles were "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo..." and "...it is very probable that many of the 2,300,000 visitors to the website have been misled by the trappings of scientific objectivity. -- Levine2112" ] (]) 20:35, 6 January 2010 (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)
	:Brangifer has stated a workable compromise that is in line with the consensus reached in previous discussions. If someone wants to suggest a different general guideline for the use of Quackwatch, then do, but otherwise we need to move on to improving the various articles. Following a question on ] I had a look at the ] article. It has multiple problems quite independent of any perceived bias. So there is work to be done and people need to be able to work together. ] (]) 15:29, 4 January 2010 (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. ] ] 00:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Nah.''' If there's news that doesn't suck it'll show up elsewhere. Per {{u\|CommunityNotesContributor}}, that it ''isn't'' showing up elsewhere raises an eyebrow - ] (]) 10:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Strong disagree with OP. In fact, i’d say that the fact that the Telegraph has taken up Peters’/GBNews’ reporting might lead us to the rule that the Telegraph, is not reliable on this highly contentious topic. Example: here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/04/grooming-gangs-scandal-cover-up-oldham-telford-rotherham/ Peters and a co-author claim to catalogue the “cover up” of the grooming scandal “to preserve the image of a successful multicultural society” — yet every single factual claim in their article is taken from a pre-existing primary source (a 2010 W Midlands police report, a 2013 sentencing report, the 2014 Rotherham Jay inquiry, the 2015 Rotherham Casey report, the 2019 Manchester police report, the 2022 Telford Inquiry and the 2022 national independent review) that to my mind prove that far from a cover up this has been extensively investigated and publicly addressed for well over a decade. There is no actual investigation here; they rely on the investigation done by others and use it to spin an inflammatory conspiracy theory. I think it might be time to downgrade the Telegraph not upgrade GBNews. ] (]) 15:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Regarding this article, is it usual for reliable sources to correct the content of articles without referencing a change? This was first published on , and modified by with attribution to GB News added (can verify with ):
			: {{tq\|"In Jess Phillips’s letter to the council, '''revealed by GB News''', she said she understood the strength of feeling in the town, but thought it best for another local review to take place.}}
			: {{tq\|"The state must leave no stone unturned in its efforts to root out this evil. As one victim, '''told GB News''', "..."}}
			*:It's good they corrected the article with necessary attribution for unverified claims, however it took 4 days to do so, and they failed to reference such changes in the article, including the original date. Not a good look imo. ] (]) 15:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer ==
	The link you mention, Burleigh, shows the vast majority of editors agreeing that it is reliable, and should be vetted on a case-by-case basis, which I agree with. As for Peter Chowka, the fact that he is an advisor to an "Office of '''Alternative Medicine'''" makes it clear he too, may not understand the scientific skepticism with which scientific ideas are properly distinguished from non-scientific ones. It seems odd to argue that Barrett has a "bias", but that someone who works in capacity promoting A&CM does not. I would find a scientifically-informed "critical website review" that reported on numerous errors fundamental to Quackwatch's abilities to be more reliable, but you did not link to that one, interestingly enough. I agree that unless such information can be provided, each bit of material from Quackwatch should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and that we should move on. ] (]) 08:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
	:I never said that the link wasn't biased, I said it points out how overly biased Barrett is. I also said it was just one example (of many I've read over the years). The fact that you are ignoring the article based on the man's title would be exactly the same as me ignoring all of Quackwatch (or at least any article that Barrett writes) because he's a psychologist and knows nothing about drugs or supplements... most of your statement is completely biased to ignore any facts or information presented to you, which does seem quite similar to Barrett's position. I have seen numerous reports about Quackwatch that it conveniently ignored studies that showed the effectiveness of a supplement/herb and only uses those that show it in a negative light. I have seen some of the studies first-hand that have reported certain supplements/herbs in a negative light and many of them were flawed (whether funded by a drug company or whether it was testing something completely different; I can give more information on that via E-mail as this would take too much space on an already crowded page), but those seem to be the only ones that Barrett uses to push his ideals against natural options and "alternative medicines". Oh, and please don't twist my words for your own purposes... that does seem to be one of the main attacks of the skeptics and it really doesn't show you in a positive light.] (]) 19:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
	::Burleigh, you can exclude a source by showing its publisher has a poor track record for fact checking and accuracy, and for that you'd have to provide reliable mainstream sources which have so concluded. Unless you can do that, your own personal knowledge and personal opinions of a source are not relevant for WP. ] (]) 19:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::That's completely understandable, but there are two different sides to this... there's Quackwatch's valid and helpful information that points out fraudulent companies and false items (which is what's being praised on all those sites), but then there's Dr. Barrett's personal articles that are entirely his opinion and bias and many have nothing to do with what the rest of the research did. If Dictionary.com had an opinion section, would the opinions posted all be automatically reliable?
	::::Yeah, it's really hard to separate them since they are on the same website and his name is on both of them, but that's what is so difficult about saying the site is completely RS. After going through this, I know it should be on a case-by-case basis and I totally agree that is the best compromise... but not everyone on Wiki (and most people who don't edit here) have no idea that it should only be used on a case-by-case basis and that not all of them are appropriately RS. I can't recall if I mentioned it yet in this, but in the ] article, Quackwatch is mentioned saying "Many CAM methods are criticized by the activist non-profit organization Quackwatch" and then gives a citation to their general website... in any other article/example, that would likely be seen as spam for the website (since it doesn't cite any specific article), but when I deleted it and said the citation had nothing to do with that statement, my edit was undone because "QuackWatch is a RS". If I went to the GOP (Republican party) article and referred to Fox News or another RS that is very Democratic and said this site disagreed with many Republican ideals, it would be removed within minutes as spam or defamation... how is this any different based on what we've already covered and agreed on?] (]) 21:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

			Is this sigcov , reliable for ]? ] (]) 09:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Note that the old discussion had RS saying that QuackWatch was a reliable website: JAMA, Lancet and NEJM. And if you are going to use a review from the Village Voice, then you shouldn't forget using also the review from the Time magazine, which is very favorable. And also all the other stuff that I bothered to compile in the compressed text ]. Otherwise you are picking only the negative reviews while leaving out the positive ones.
			:The first link goes to a summary of a detailed software review by Friedrich Blase, the “Innovator-in-Residence” of the Ontario Bar Association. It looks like Dr. Blase, whose references writings on legal technology, might qualify as a subject matter expert, so I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. The second link goes to a blog, which would not be a reliable source. ] (]) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Ok, thank you very much. ] (]) 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Did Howard Dean get paid to give speeches promoting the MEK? ==
	:::I also agree with Brangifer's compromise. --] (]) 19:52, 12 January 2010 (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 ]?
	::::Again, this was only one example that was listed on the last time this was brought up... there are many more examples I've come across that point out how biased against alternative medicines he is regardless of the available research he seems to ignore. This is not just my opinion, but has been verified in many places that I've read over the years. If you'd like a few more examples, a quick search on Yahoo brings up 163,000 hits for "Quackwatch biased" (most of which are not praising Quackwatch, but pointing out their bias and "attack articles" for lack of a better term).] (]) 21:04, 13 January 2010 (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)
	<b>"The fact that you are ignoring the article based on the man's title..."</b> I am not ignoring the article based on the Peter Chowka's title. I ''responded'' to your presentation of it (kinda hard to do if I'm "ignoring" it) by pointing out that the person who criticized Quackwatch ''promotes a/c medicine himself, thus illustrating that he, like any other promoter of it, does not follow scientific skepticism. This has nothing to do with "ignoring" or his "title". It is a response based on the same criteria I've maintained in this discussion: Proper adherence to scientific skepticism, the same criteria that properly informs all scientific knowledge, and critical examination of it.

			:@] 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)
	If you had instead presented, as an example of criticism of Quackwatch, a person (], ], ]) or organization (], ], ]) that found "incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors" in Quackwatch's work, as you alleged, that would've been different. But aside from merely cutting and pasting material from an old version of Misplaced Pages's Quackwatch article (or a site mirroring it) about Joel M. Kaufman, you did not do this. I tried looking through the Skeptic's Dictionary, randi.org and Google to see if Kaufman is regarded as an adherent of proper scientific methodologies, but could not find anything at a glance to this point. Kaufman, it should be pointed out, is a critic of mainstream medicine, and a promoter of low-carb diets, which doesn't say much about him regarding this point.
			::@], 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 ] ==
	'''"would be exactly the same as me ignoring all of Quackwatch (or at least any article that Barrett writes) because he's a psychologist and knows nothing about drugs or supplements..."''' Wrong. As aforementioned, my response to your mentioning Chowka was based on whether he promotes ideas that are considered pseudoscience, which is a valid scientific criterion. By contrast, ignoring Barrett because he's a psychologist and not a nutritionist is an ''']''', and therefore, a ]. Not the same thing.

			See. The link doesn't go to the source cited and I can't find that aource. ] ] 16:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''"most of your statement is completely biased to ignore any facts or information presented to you"''' I have responded to each line of reasoning and evidence that you have presented, and have done so directly, in order to explain why they do not support the conclusion that you believe they do, which flies in the face of this assertion. But if I'm wrong, please name one of these facts or bits of information presented to me, and please explain, by pointing to my replies to them, how I "ignored" them. If you'd like, I'll provide an example of how ''you'' have done precisely this:

			:Found a Spanish Misplaced Pages article on the explorer. ] ] 16:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	I pointed out, at least twice, that there is no form of alternative or complementary medicine that has been scientifically shown to work any better than a placebo, that such medicines that ''are'' found to work thus are no longer called "alternative" or "complementary", but simply "medicine", and that this is why skeptic organizations like Quackwatch conclude thus. As far as I can remember from reading this entire thread, you did not respond to this point. If this "herbal supplement" you mention has passed the Peer Review Process, clinical trials, etc., then how is it "alternative" or "complementary"? (If you did and I missed it, I apologize; can you please point it out to me?) If I'm right, then isn't this an example of you ignoring information presented to you?
			::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)
	'''"I have seen numerous reports about Quackwatch that it conveniently ignored studies that showed the effectiveness of a supplement/herb and only uses those that show it in a negative light."''' Yet you have consistently refused to link to any of them, making it impossible to discern whether any of these studies are scientifically reliable, or just criticizing Quackwatch because they themselves promote a/c medicine. If you did, and it showed this, then I'd be in greater agreement with you. But feel free to link to one that's been ]ed, and prove me wrong.
			::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''?==
	'''"If you'd like a few more examples, a quick search on Yahoo brings up 163,000 hits for "Quackwatch biased" (most of which are not praising Quackwatch, but pointing out their bias and "attack articles" for lack of a better term)."''' Which is a poor method to verify that Quackwatch is biased, since Google hits can be generated by those promoting the exact same pseudoscience that we're talking about. This is like pointing to a survey showing that half of Americans reject evolution or accept creationism in order to argue that evolution is scientifically questionable, or that creationism is scientifically valid. I'm sorry, but anyone arguing that Google hits indicate anything other than the popularity of an idea (as opposed to its being "verified" scientifically) obviously does not understand the proper standards by which scientific knowledge is properly examined. ] (]) 23:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
			'']'' as an "American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." It doesn't shout "reliable source" to me (feels more like a group blog), but could somebody else take a look at this and help me determine if (a) its articles, or (b) its claims about itself should be cited in articles or BLPs, ? — '''] \| ] \|''' 20:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Wouldn’t this be an aboutself citation anyway? I would be more concerned about primary/OR here in that case.
			:Regarding the source: they are likely to be pretty biased, but according to the page linked, they seems sufficiently reliable for this, unless someone can dig up large-scale issues I missed. Employees, proper funding etc. all seem to be fine. ] (]) 21:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of {{talk quote inline\|as of January 2025, his profile at the online publisher '']'' lists him as a senior editor\|q=yes}}? I just wanted to make sure ''PW'' was something worth mentioning at all, or if it was more akin to 'he's the senior editor this super-serious blog' and name-dropping a site that bore no mention. — '''] \| ] \|''' 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I’m not sure, but think being descriptive is fine for “articles about Misplaced Pages” and stuff, “critical“ is probably better coming from a specific source, even if it’s obvious. With everything else, it’s probably a question of DUE, not RS. ] (]) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::: I'd eschew calling out any of his particular articles over others, since there's... no reason to, right? Without reliable third-party sourcing, they're no more notable or inclusion-worthy than his others. — '''] \| ] \|''' 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I think this is a case for ], but it seems like a reasonable option ] (]) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			: Pirate Wires has a strong right wing "libertarian tech bro" bent to its coverage, unsurprising given its links to Peter Thiel. The way it frames events is often strongly slanted, sometimes to the point of being misleading. Take for instance the recent story claiming that the WMF had been taken over by "Soros-backed operatives" . I would argue that this framing is conspiratorial and hyperbolic. I think it might sometimes be usable with caution for uncontroversial facts, but more objective sources should be preferred. ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: Here's a Business Insider story on Pirate Wires that gives a good sense of its ethos . ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Invoking ] to attack an organization is not a good start for Pirate Wires, a new publication that does not have much of a reputation at this point. Definitely not ], and I would avoid using this publication for ]. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I wouldn't call it a "group blog", it just has a niche audience in the tech industry. It is certainly more factually based than Fox News. The article you linked is using it problematically though. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 14:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			] (]) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Solana is the founder and operator of Pirate Wires, so maybe it's wise to consider his pieces in particular self-published. No idea the level of editorial rigour other contributors are under though. ] (]) 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Sorry for not responding sooner, it's been a busy week. I was saying that you were ignoring what he was saying and writing off because of his title... more appropriately because of his position and his views. You contradict yourself when you say you aren't rejecting it on that basis because you say he "does not follow scientific skepticism" as a blind statement based on his title/position/whatever you'd like to call it. You're dismissing every point he's making in the article regardless of how you want to say you're not. There are a number of MD doctors including some at highly reputable hospitals (John Hopkins and Mayo included) that use and recommend alternative medicines (not all, but a good number) because of their proven effectiveness... dismissing someone's statements because they use or recommend alternative medicine is just being biased and stereotyping. I'm also not talking about ALL of Quackwatch's information... I'm referring to the articles that are written by Barrett that are only of his opinion and not on any factual or cited basis. Again, you are twisting my words and choosing to use only the words you want... how are your arguments any more valid than mine or anyone else's if you contort the truth or what you perceive into what you want to perceive? That's just as bad if not worse than ignoring facts no matter how you want to read that. ] (]) 16:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
			* ''Pirate Wires'' should be considered Generally reliable. The information that they publish, though perhaps from a libertarian or right wing political slant, is generally truthful/accurate and therefore should be considered ] unless someone is able to provide substantial evidence and examples that disprove this. ] (]) 16:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*: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)
			=== 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. ] (]) 16:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Per <s>{{U\|Slatersteven}}</s> its founder describes it as a ] - it should be treated accordingly. ] (]) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Not me. ] (]) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Oh dear did I misread? OOPS should be per {{U\|Selfstudier}} apologies. I will strike above. ] (]) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It is not ] and its founder merely said things along the lines of "I am not bought and paid for nor a mouthpiece for any billionaire" etc. Now I do not know the veracity of that statement for sure, but I do not see that Mike Solana declared Pirate Wires to be SPS or a blog. It has numerous other independent journalists and appears to run as a full-fledged journalistic organization like any other, with their own right leaning or right-libertarian bias of course. But bias is not a reason for a source to otherwise be deprecated or considered SPS or anything else, it is just the nature of nearly every source that some bias to one direction or another is to be expected. ] (]) 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::But they don't have any indication of editorial controls, or a fact-checking process, or any of the things that an ] would have; neither is there any reason to think they have a particular {{tq\|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}. A statement like "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever" makes it pretty clear that it's not structured the way we'd expect a RS to be structured. I'm with the editors above who describe it as a blog - there's just nothing here that even has the ''shape'' of an RS. The fact that the person who runs it sometimes also includes guest posts by other people doesn't change the fact that there's no editorial board, no source of fact-checking, and most of all no reputation. Like... what makes you think that it's a ], according to the criteria we use? Where do you feel its reliability comes from? --] (]) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			=== Usage in ] ===
	:::There is science and pseudoscience, the medicine and complementary medicine distinction is a false dichotomy. All treatments need the same degree of evidence. Physicians will use what makes sense and has been shown to work. Quackwatch exposes treatments that have a poor reference base. Often ones that are so poorly researched that nothing exists in the peer reviewed press. The evidence needs to show something works before claims of effectiveness can be made.
			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)
	:::If quackwatch was to say no evidence exists for some treatment and you came up with a review of 10 RCTs published in the Lancet that showed effectiveness we would go with the review. However if nothing exists and quackwatch says so. And no one can show otherwise. Quackwatch is a good enough reference.] (] · ] · ]) 18:57, 22 January 2010 (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)
	'''"You contradict yourself when you say you aren't rejecting it on that basis because you say he "does not follow scientific skepticism" as a blind statement based on his title/position/whatever you'd like to call it."''' No. Based on the fact that he promotes an idea that is pseudoscientific. Arguing that alternative or complementary medicine is not pseudoscience because some guy running an office promoting it says so is specious reasoning, and saying so if perfectly valid.
			: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)

			== CEIC data ==
	'''"There are a number of MD doctors including some at highly reputable hospitals (John Hopkins and Mayo included) that use and recommend alternative medicines (not all, but a good number) because of their proven effectiveness..."''' One more time: The empirical validity of an idea is '''not based reputation or authority'''. That's religion, not science. The empirical validity of an idea is based on whether it has survived the scrutiny of the Scientific Method. The fact that you continue to repeat this fallacy over and over---without responding to my repeated refutation of it---proves that you know I'm right, and are simply not able to admit it. In science, there are no sacred cows, no popes, no saints, no dogmas. Only evidence and repeat testing. None of these therapies have not exhibited proven effectiveness under these criteria, and the "folk wisdom" that you're insisting on is not a sufficient substitute. Saying "this doctor or this reputable hospital says it's been shown to work" is '''anecdotal''', and anecdotes are not scientific, because they're too subjective, and impossible to measure objectively. If I'm wrong, then why not respond to this point by pointing out how?

			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)
	'''"dismissing someone's statements because they use or recommend alternative medicine is just being biased and stereotyping."''' If they're talking about basketball or their favorite movie, then yeah, it is. But if they're promoting new medicines that do not follow the Scientific Method, are not submitted to Peer Review, are not testable, are not falsifiable, and/or have been shown in clinical trials with proper controls, such as randomization, double-blind procedures, etc to have nonexistent effects, then no, it's '''not'''. It's an adherence to the only methodology by which empirical knowledge can properly be examined. Is a planetary scientist "biased" for rejecting the views of a Flat Earth Theorist? A chemist for rejecting someone promoting alchemy? An astronomer for rejecting astrology? Is a virologist "biased" for concluding the ideas of AIDS denialists are wrong, and saying that they are not afforded more weight because a noted doctor promotes them? Is a historian prejudiced for rejecting Holocaust Denial, or conspiracies relating to the JFK assassination and the moon landing? The answer is no. These ideas are rejected because the proper methodologies by which the facts of the universe we live in can be discovered, tested, confirmed and revised show that they all lack merit, and includesaAlternative and complimentary medicine. That's not a "bias", unless you change the definition of the word "bias". Bias is when you form an opinion on irrelevant internal criteria instead of relevant external criteria. My statements clearly conform to the latter, not the former, and are therefore statements of '''fact'''. Not bias. If you really think that recognizing a proper standard for determining matters of fact, or pointing out when some people do not, constitutes a "bias", then you need to reexamine your dictionary.

			:It looks like just a big database. I would trust the first party sources for raw data more. ] (]) 10:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	You seem to think you can slide out of this problem by reframing or rewording my statements, which shows either your cognitive dissonance, or your deliberate dishonesty. I did not "dimiss his ideas because he uses alt medicine." I pointed out that if Quackwatch writes about how some ideas are non-scientific or pseudoscientific, and you want to refute his work, then you have to do so '''scientifically''', using the '''scientific literature''', and not by merely by pointing to someone who advises an office whose existence is predicated on promoting ''the very branch'' of non-scientific knowledge that was criticized in the first place. That is not a "bias", it's simply a question of having a proper standard for reliability. A peer review journal criticizing Quackwatch is reliable. Rebuttals by those who favor the ideas Quackwatch exmaines are not, and more than a judge in a criminal trial declaring a witness to be unreliable is "biased". ] (]) 02:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
			::If in question use secondary sources.] (]) 02:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Fantasy Literature ==
	:Wow, you really like to argue and twist words, don't you? This is tough enough to argue on this page because there's more than one topic that fights like this would be better suited to E-mail, but I'm not sure I'd want to spend the time arguing with you if you're going to keep twisting words (reminds me of a few bullies I've come across, but that's another story). I've already said my piece in regards to your first paragraph and you've already said your piece on it... we're never going to agree no matter how much either of us refutes the other and I think we both know that.
	:With your second paragraph, I could say the same thing about Barrett in his articles he writes without citation or reference... that's all based on his opinion and to follow it because of his opinion could be classified as religion. There have been double-blind studies done on various vitamins, herbs, supplements, etc, but the hard part is that supplement companies don't have the money to afford to pay for such expensive tests and to be able to reap all the benefits of it since any other company could sell the same product and cite the results. Also, some of them have been done by pharmaceutical companies and some were investigating other purposes (that gives misleading results that some glean from them) so there is a lot of conflicting information. For example, one study I read about Vitamin E was testing the results on terminal patients so the media showed the outcome was that Vitamin E could increase mortality (since some terminal patients died during the study... go figure). What it comes down to on that is the FDA requires documented proof of the claims that supplement companies make (or the companies risk having the product removed or the company shut down). Supplements and herbs are still considered CAM, but the FDA can verify that they are tested and verify the claims that they are listed for. I've seen some of the studies and I've discussed this fact with our compliance officers... it's verifiable and proven, but it's still CAM; that doesn't make it pseudoscience or unreliable, nor based on anyone's opinion. ] (]) 23:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

			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)
	== ] ==

			: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)
	The following sentence keeps on being deleted (5 times in 1 day last week , once just now), based on the claim that ] - a fomer Harvard Associate Professor with an international bestseller in the area and a PBS series forthcoming - is not a reliable source. I've asked the deleters to come here and explainwhy they don't think he is reliable, but they won't do it.
			::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 ==
	:] states that, as a result of their communist ideology and their knowledge of Soviet experience, Chinese Communist leaders, as early as 1948, planned for the destruction of 80 million people, including peasants and landlords. This destruction included mass executions, mass incarceration, mass population movements, and other eliminationist policies.<ref>Goldhagen, Worse than War, p. 344</ref>
	*{{cite book
	\| last =Goldhagen \| first =Daniel \| authorlink =Daniel Goldhagen \| coauthors =
	\| title =Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism, and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity
	\| publisher =PublicAffairs
	\| date =2009 \| location = \| pages =608
	\| url =http://books.google.com/books?id=dRys8UlV02AC&dq=Worse+than+War+Goldhagen&source=gbs_navlinks_s
	\| doi = \| id =ISBN 1586487698, 9781586487690}} p.344.

			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 ].
	<references/>

			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.
	P. 344 is not that long. Would somebody look at Goldhagen's credentials, and verify that my summary is accurate? ] (]) 01:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC

			] mentions the site as a reliable source but the only criteria they give for its inclusion are that the source <br>
	::I don't know the definitive answer to the question, but would note that the word "controversial" appears in the second sentence of Goldhagen's WP entry. --] (]) 02:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
			{{tq\|1="should already have a Misplaced Pages page (notable enough to be created) and have reliable sources covering them (notable enough to be mentioned)."}} which I think we can all agree is not valid signal of reliability. ] (]) 03:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			:] calls for {{tq\|"a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"}}. A Google books search appears to show ], and even use by NASA. They appear to have some editorial staff, but there's no editorial guideline I could find. Obviously the forum section wouldn't be reliable per ].<br>Given how often they are used by other sources I would think they should probably considered generally reliable. Is there any specific instances that are of concern? After all generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:The publisher's reliability is moderate. indicates that aggressive commercial marketing is their primary business, their back catalogue indicates that they are not an academic publisher. Similarly, they're an independent affiliate of a publisher's network that works on a marketing basis only. Not the best, nor the worst, within ] schema. Certainly a work from another publisher would be preferable. Regarding Goldhagen's reliability, Goldhagen is a historian known for his speciality in assignment of guilt in relation to the European holocaust. His assignment was controversial, but the level of criticism was within the standards of acceptable academic conduct. The book is too new to have yet been reviewed academically. One commercial review discovered at '''' is not generous, "His ambitious new book, "Worse Than War," springs from an immersion in their sufferings and the heartfelt desire to end it. But even victims -- or, perhaps, especially victims -- deserve books that are clearly argued and clearly written. "Worse Than War" is not that book." (First unnumbered web page.) And goes Goldhagen for academic failures, "But by conflating so many incidents, movements and events -- all of which are (or were) very bad, yet all of which are very different -- he makes the eliminationist concept virtually meaningless. He's like a doctor who thinks it doesn't much matter whether you have cancer or AIDS." (Second unnumbered web page.). However, I'd counsel waiting on academic reviews, strongly counsel this. Goldhagen's specialty is not Chinese history, so he's probably using other sources for those claims of intention and number. 1) Use with caution, if at all. 2) Return to WP:RS/N in six months when the academic reviews have been published for a proper opinion on the reliability of this text. 3) Immediately: seek Goldhagen's footnotes for the claims of intentionality and volume; if non primary, use these instead as they're probably more reliable than Goldhagen. ] (]) 02:23, 11 January 2010 (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)
			:::This is probably a reliable source, but ] isn't just matter of reliability. Notability is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{tq\|1=WP:SIGCOV isn't just matter of reliability.}} no, but coverage in an unreliable source does not count for ]. That's why I'm seeking opinions on whether this source in particular is reliable. ] (]) 15:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I've found their written news reporting to be generally reliable however their coverage of SpaceX in particular often comes off as promotional (you very rarely see the controversies or criticisms found in other sources reflected in their work) but that may be more self-censorship to maintain their inside access to SpaceX than objective promotion. I would not touch their forum or youtube channel with a 10 foot stick but thats surely besides the point of this discussion. ] (]) 21:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{tq\|1=I would not touch their forum or youtube channel with a 10 foot stick but thats surely besides the point of this discussion.}} well, maybe not exactly besides the point. There are several citations to their YouTube channel in the articles I've mentioned (and similar articles). What in particular about their YouTube channel do you believe is less reliable than their website? ] (]) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::In general I find the stuff on their Youtube channel to be much more speculative and clickbaity as well as of a generally low quality. Often its just one of their people flipping between a bunch of pictures from the day before and speculating live about what they might mean. It also doesn't appear to be subject to the same standard of editorial review, its not the same standard of writing and analysis (much of it appears unscripted and I haven't seen them make corrections after the fact). ] (]) 21:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			== How restrictive is the TRT World „Turkish Government conflict of interest“ unreliability? ==
	:I consider reinstating the unsourced figure of 80 million as a blatant disruption by Smallbones. I raised this issue and Smallbones has simply ignored it while continuing to edit-war instead. (] (]) 02:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

	~~::PS~~ I ~~can't~~ ~~see~~ ~~the~~ ~~material~~ on ~~Google~~ ~~books.~~ ~~Would~~ it be ~~possible~~ to ~~type~~ ~~out~~ the ~~relevant~~ ~~extract~~?--] (]) 02:42, 11 January ~~2010~~ (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)

			: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)
	<blockquote>
			::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)
	In 1948, Mao in "agrarian reform" study materials conveyed to the party membership that his schemes for restructuring overpopulated China required that "one-tenth of the peasants would have to be destroyed" One tenth of half a billion is fifty million. In 1948 Jen Pi-Shih of the Communist party's Central Committee declared in a speech to the party cadres that "30,000,000 landlords and rich peasants would have to be destroyed" The communist leadership's ''intention'' already well formulated (and communicated to their ideologically like-minded followers), they began, upon taking power, to implement their elimionist policies in programs of population movement, mass executions, and mass incarcerations of landlords, rich pesants, and other class enemies in the vast camp system they created. The communists exterminated Chinese on the order of magnitude that Mao and Jen had foretold well before they had begun.
			:::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)
	</blockquote>
			:::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 ] ==
	:Thanks. That doesn't seem to support "...as a result of their communist ideology and their knowledge of Soviet experience..." in any way, and Smallbones also seems to have resolved a conflict between two figures by adding them together, which is creative but not a good use of the source, I think. --] (]) 03:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

			I can’t find evidence it’s been published. ] ] 19:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	::The 3 sentence immediately before "In 1948" "For Mao and the Chinese communist leaders, the ideal of a transformed and purified communist society derived from Marxism. The knowledge that they must use violence to achieve it derived from the experience of their mentors, the Soviets. Therefore, the ''intention'' to practice thoroughgoing eliminationist politics took shape much earlier than it had with the Soviets, crystallizing in mass-murderous thinking as the communists’ victory over the nationalists and the assumption of power neared." As far as adding Goldhagen's fifty million and 30 million together, yes I can add, and ] specifically allows such simple addition.
	::Fifelfoo's "] schema" is irrelevant here. A sub topic of the manual of style on Military History simply doesn't over-ride ] on a genocide article. Fifelfoo has earlier stated that Goldhagen was a very good scholar. Whether somebody calls him controversial or Fiflefoo counsels waiting until all the reviews are in is also irrelevant. Is a Harvard scholar with an international best seller in the area and a forthcoming PBS series based on the book cited, a reliable source or not? By the standards stated in WP:RS, I'd say there is no question that he is. ] (]) 04:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
	::Also see . ] (]) 04:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::If you're putting it in those stark terms, then no, this book isn't an RS. His publisher is crap and the reviews available to date indicate that this work fails to meet expected academic standards. Reliability primarily inheres in the publisher, not the author. ] (]) 04:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Which is why I'm counselling to wait on academic reviews, which will take about six months from now. ] (]) 04:30, 11 January 2010 (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)
	{{od\|:::}}I think that it is most likely a misreading to add the 50 million and the 30 million together. The dates for the <s>two speechs</s> study materials and the speech are not given. So, either the number shrank from 50 million to 30 million with the target becoming more focussed from peasants in general to landlords and rich peasants in particular, or vice versa.<p>As for using Goldhagen or not, we have to remember that we are not writing PhD dissertations here. Thus, it is not up to us to determine the source material used by the authors and then vet the authenticity of same. Rather, we are supposed to be writing undergraduate level papers wherein we present articles that survey the literature on a given topic. Thus, whether to use Goldhagen or not depends on ''how'' one intends to present his material. Does his analysis fly in the face of accepted scholarship? Then it should be presented as such, presented as an alternative, not-widely-subscribed-to view, and fully cited accordingly. While I truly respect Fifelfoo’s caution, I am not altogether certain that one need wait for reviewers to vet the book prior to our being able to use it. It’s out there. And it presents an (alternative?) viewpoint that ought to be presented to wikireaders to maintain the article’s neutral point of view by surveying the spectrum of scholarship in the subject area. Finally, Goldhagen is notable enough that he qualifies for a wikiarticle, so why would a book by him, a book that is not self-published, not be notable enough to be cited so long as it is cited with due caution? — ''']]''' 05:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
			::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)
	::Yes, it is obvious that Goldhagen is a reliable source. He is also fairly mainstream - even if controversial in his own way. Mainstream: Chinese Communists killed 30-50 million. Goldhagen: because of their Communist beliefs, Chinese Communists planned to "destroy" 80 million. Note that the 30 million and 50 million are not alternative numbers, they are separate numbers that can be added together. Mao - "destroy" 50 million peasants - one class of people according to Communist theory. Jen Pi-Shih - "destroy" 30 million "landlords" and "rich peasants" (i.e. Kulaks) (two other classes in Communist theory). "Destroy" includes mass executions, mass internments, and mass population movements ] (]) 14:25, 11 January 2010 (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)
	:To be honest, had he been published by an academic publisher, or a commercial publisher with a statement of purpose that was less marketing oriented, I wouldn't be worried. But the combination of an extremely hostile review going to the credibility of the research methodology (claiming it isn't credible research) combined with the publisher issues has me worried. The article in question has a number of issues with academics who publish credible work in academic spaces and FRINGE work in unreliable publishers, or SELF spaces. Checking reviews in academic journals for arbitration would be my normal next step, but the work is sufficiently new to be within the publication cycle of humanities / social science journals in the field. ] (]) 07:34, 11 January 2010 (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)
	::If you are looking at reviews, you might as well look at the New York Times review "In this magisterial and profoundly disturbing “natural history” of mass murder, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen calls for an end to such willful blindness. As he did in his celebrated and controversial “Hitler’s Willing Executioners,” Goldhagen insists that even the worst atrocities originate with, and are then propelled by, a series of quite conscious calculations by followers as much as by leaders. " ] (]) 14:11, 11 January 2010 (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)
	:::Thanks Smallbones, I attempted to access that review but got channelled into blog territory. I'd still prefer waiting for full academic reviews before stabilising my opinion, but getting a magisterial out of NYT is sufficient to swing the presumption back in favour of Reliability. ] (]) 00:15, 12 January 2010 (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)
	Source is RS by WP standards, and as long as the numbers are cited to the author, it is properly in the article. repeatedly cited by the NYT as an American scholar, so the author is notable as well. It is moreover, not up to us to decide which figures we like or do not like - as long as the numbers are sourced, we have to deal with it. ] (]) 14:47, 11 January 2010 (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)
	*The "80 million" are nowhere present in Goldhagen and fall foul of ]. Goldhagen himself cites Rummel, p. 223, which is . Rummel quotes Mao's instruction mentioning the 10% (or 50m), and then adds that "Jen Pi-shih, a party Central Committee member, had ''also'' said in a 1948 speech to cadres that '30,000,000 landlords and rich peasants would have to be destroyed'" (emphasis mine). The placement of the word "also" reinforces my impression that neither Goldhagen nor his source, Rummel, meant for these two figures of 50m and 30m to be added to each other.
			::::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)
	*Rummel is much the better source to use here. Goldhagen moves from Hitler to Mao to Serbia in the space of two paragraphs. It is a high-level survey, whereas Rummel's book is actually dedicated to the topic of China. Rummel puts the figure of those killed as a result of these policies at an estimated 4.5 (not 80) million. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 19:58, 11 January 2010 (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)

			== ] ==
	::As for Goldhagen discussing all of this in summary while Rummel deals with the material in detail, I do not think that that is relevant. We are not doing investigative journalism here. Nor are we writing graduate theses and dissertations. We are charged with writing undergraduate level articles that survey the literature. We are only to vet the sources for ] and ].<p>I think that both Rummel and Goldhagen can be used so long as they are presented as differing views. My understanding of ] is that the article must, on balance, be neutral. To leave out one author’s differing calculations is to choose one view over another, which is not our job as neutral wikieditors. However, it is one thing for the Party to have made estimates of between 30 and 50 million, it is quite another if the subsequent reality is an entirely different figure. I would suggest that Goldhagen’s quote be used to illustrate the Party’s pre-genocide estimates, while Rummel’s numbers be used as a measure of the ensuing genocide. ''However'', I think that one can find many sources that would disagree with Rummel, that his number is too low. I seem to recall reading back in the dark ages when I was at university that the number in reality was much nearer Mao and the Party’s estimate than Rummel’s calculation.<p>Finally, I still maintain, and agree with Jayen, that the 30 million and 50 million figures are not intended to be added together, regardless of whether ] would permit it or not. To do so is to misread, to misunderstand, the source. — ''']]''' 20:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 19:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1751745462}}
	:::I believe there is no point of fact on which Goldhagen and Rummel differ. Goldhagen simply repeats material from Rummel, citing him. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 20:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
			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)
	:::Note that Goldhagen's book has the searchable preview in amazon enabled: --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 20:54, 11 January 2010 (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)
	:::Note that Rummel's estimate of 4.5m is for land-reform-related killings only. Rummel himself says that estimates vary widely and gives examples. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 21:59, 11 January 2010 (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)
	::::Fine, both can be cited, Goldhagen for 50 million planned "destructions" and Rummel for 4.5 million actual killings during the land reform program. The "basic addition" exception to ] only applies when it is obvious to everybody that the numbers can be added together. While I think that it should be obvious that Communists would never conflate "peasants" and "landlords" in the same category, I'll bow out on this one (as I made clear on the talk page), so 50 million is the number Mao PLANNED to destroy according to Goldhagen. Does anybody have problems with this? ] (]) 22:12, 11 January 2010 (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)
	:::::It is unfortunate that this section was titled using the name of a writer rather than a reference to the source cited. Goldhagen's academic writings are reliable sources. His popular books are not. The same with all other writers. Smallbones, do you understand what this difference is and why it is important? ] (]) 00:54, 12 January 2010 (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)
	:::::::An interesting claim - but not one founded in WP policy nor guidelines, nor in any articles on WP. Books which one does not like are automatically not RS just "because"? Nope. '''Books by academic presses by recognized scholars are RS for WP.''' ] (]) 01:07, 12 January 2010 (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)
	:::::::Partially seconding Collect here (The press isn't academic). Yes he's gone through a high intensity marketing popular press. No, this doesn't mean he's avoiding appropriate review (though in this case its commercial rather than academic review). Popular press reviews located so far are split (NYT: magisterial, Washington Post: not clearly written and argued). This would be different had he gone to a less reputable press, or a small press, or a press where this would be their money spinner for the year on the basis of it having his name on it: all methods of avoiding review. However, its rather obvious Goldhagen's book will be peer reviewed in journals, Real Soon Now. Given that the press isn't shocking, the reviews are split, and he's deliberately bringing his views into a public domain commercially, presumption favours reliability. Avoidance behaviour which would mean he's avoiding academic publication review would be a website, vanity press, micro press who doesn't normally publish in that area, a popular magazine or newspaper etc. ] (]) 01:37, 12 January 2010 (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)
	*Goldhagen is generally considered to be a reliable source. If the publisher were a university press, that would weigh in favor of increased reliability, but that doesn't mean the book is unreliable. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:38, 13 January 2010 (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)
	:Goldhagen is a notable expert in the field, but some of his original statements are not undisputed in academia. They can be used, but should be used with inline attribution. For the non-disputed facts presented by Goldhagen, in most cases other, less controversial sources, are available, and should be used instead. <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">]</span> 12:53, 19 January 2010 (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)
	::Goldhagen is a noted expert in his field. There's no reason to prefer other sources to him for "non-disputed facts", and he can be cited freely and without inline attribution for them. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:30, 22 January 2010 (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)
	:::Maybe a better way to put it would be "For non-disputed facts, citations to Goldhagen should be used in due proportion to citations to other appropriate sources." I was probably too concerned about people who may want to source everything to Goldhagen, so that the author would become unduly relevant as the authoritative source for such facts, and, by extension, on possibly other facts as well, in the mind of our readers. I also was concerned about a particular interpretation that Goldhagen may attach to a fact that itself would be undisputed, and that may become unduly prominent by, e.g. repeatedly referring to a specific book published by Goldhagen that includes the undisputed facts that are being sourced, as well as a number of interpretations that may well be controversial. The statement in my previous comment above was too absolute, and I am retracting it. <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085"> ] ] </span> 03:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::"Goldhagen argued that ordinary Germans not only knew about, but actually supported the Holocaust, because of a virulent "eliminationist antisemitism" in German society, which had developed in the preceding centuries. Thus in the twentieth century, with Hitler in power, conditions were primed for the pursuit of large-scale killing of Jews." If that is not fringe, then what is? ] (]) 02:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::It's just one end of the academic spectrum of views on the ] debate. His work generated a lot of support and criticism, but it's within the bounds of academic debate. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

	== ~~News~~ ~~sources~~ ==		== RfC: LionhearTV ==
			{{Moved discussion from\|Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Sources#RfC: LionhearTV\|2= Royiswariii, 19 January 2025 00:55 (UTC)}}<!-- ] 11:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1740135721}}

			I want your comments about the reliability of LionhearTV, I can't determine whether it is reliable or not, on ], the Lionheartv is in the unreliable section, but, despite of that some editors still using this source in all Philippine Articles. So let's make a vote:
	Question: What should the policy/guideline be about the use of questionable, but not totally unreliable sources like Xinhua, Pravda, Granma, etc. ? ] (]) 22:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

			* '''Option 1: ]'''
	:You mean, secondary but official sources. They'd be reliable secondary sources for many topics. They may require attribution "The state-owned nespaper XYZ says ....", and for information about the government itself or related controversies they would become primary sources. ] (]) 00:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
			* '''Option 2: ]'''
	::I think that's a particularly culturally specific answer. The issue isn't that they're state owned (The BBC is state owned), the issue is that they're government ''controlled''. ] (]) 01:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3: ]'''
			* '''Option 4: ]'''

	~~:::The BBC isn't state owned. --~~] (]) 02:09, 14 January ~~2010~~ (UTC)		] ] 10:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::I'm sorry. Its a public corporation acting in trust on the basis of a renewable state charter establishing its nature as a result of the actions of the government, and in receipt of recurrent funding enforced by acts of parliament and criminal law; but, it isn't "owned" by the state despite being dependent upon the state for its establishment, terms of operation and right to operate, and for a significant revenue stream. ] (]) 02:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::That's a lot of words, but you are correct, I think. --] (]) 03:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::The BBC is state owned, just not state controlled. It's probably the least biased mainstream news source in the UK. It was recently censured for anti-Israeli reporting, but because it is subject to independent review at least we know when its coverage has not been neutral. If you ask me BBC News is the most reliable news source there is in Britain, if not the world. ] (]) 17:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

	::~~:As~~ ~~well-written~~ as ~~the~~ ~~BBC's~~ ~~reports~~ are, it ~~would~~ ~~still~~ ~~become~~ a ~~primary~~ ~~source~~ for, ~~example~~, ~~disputes~~ ~~over~~ ~~Northern~~ ~~Ireland~~. ] (]) 03:37, 14 January ~~2010~~ (UTC)		:'''Deprecate'''. The Philippines has plenty of ] to choose from. If you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find refs for something or someone and have to use this, I'd say consider against and don't add it to the article. ] (]) 13:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Comment''': For better understanding and context, especially for editors unfamiliar of this topic's origin:
			::LionhearTV is a blog site, as described on its "About Me" page, established in 2008 and functioning primarily as a celebrity and entertainment blog. The site is operated by eMVP Digital, which also manages similar blog sites, such as and .
			::In addition to these blogs, LionhearTV organizes the , which recognize achievements in the entertainment industry. This accolade has been acknowledged by major industry players, including ] and ]. Like other awards, the RAWR Awards present physical trophies to honorees.
			::A discussion about LionhearTV’s reliability as a source took place on the ] talk page in September 2024 (see ]). The issue was subsequently raised on the Tambayan Philippines talk page (]) and the ] (]). However, these discussions did not yield a constructive consensus on whether LionhearTV can be considered a reliable source. The discussion at Tambayan deviated into a debate about ], which was unrelated to the original subject. Meanwhile, the sole respondent at the RSN inquiry commented, {{tq\|It may come down to how it's used, it maybe unreliable for contentious statement or comments about living people, but reliable for basic details.\|quotes=yes}}
			::At this moment, LionhearTV is listed as '''unreliable''' on ] as result of the no consensus discussion at RSN.
			:<span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 13:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Lionheartv is one person operation. How can there be editorial discretion on that case? ] (]) 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I'm more surprised on how a single person actively manages three blog sites and one accolade, with the accolade even giving out physical trophies to its winners. Like, how is he/she funding and doing all of these? <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 14:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::It's immaterial on how we determine ]. What could be very important that other ] missed out on that only this blog carries? If it's only this blog that carries articles about something, it's not very important. This blog is the very definition of ]. I'm surprised we're having this conversation. A blacklist is needed. ] (]) 02:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Option 3'''. There's something about its reporting and organizational structure that is off compared to the regular newspapers. ] (]) 14:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Though, I find it strange and concerning that reputable sources copypasted some of LionhearTV's articles:
			::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts/ (December 8, 2024)<br/>Sunstar: https://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts (December 10, 2024)
			::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2025/01/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 11, 2025)<br/>Manila Republic: https://www.manilarepublic.com/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 14, 2025)
			::These are two instances I found so far where other sources copypasted from LionhearTV. But I saw other instances where LionhearTV is the one who copypasted from other sources, such examples include:
			::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-im-okay-to-cinemas/ (December 30, 2024)<br/>Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/showbiz/music/2024/12/29/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-i-m-okay-to-cinemas-0948 (December 29, 2024)
			::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/06/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game/ (June 27, 2024) <br/>Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/starmagic/articles-news/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game-22637 (June 24, 2024)
			::I honestly don't know about these editors, they just copying each other's works. Probably cases of ]. <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Option 3''' - As much as possible, LionhearTV and its sibling sites under the eMVP Digital should not be used as sources when more reliable outlets have coverage for a certain event, show, actor and so on. Even if a certain news item is exclusive to or first published in a eMVP Digital site, other journalists will eventually publish similar reports in their respective platforms (refer to some examples posted by AstrooKai). -] @ 15:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::What I fear in these kinds of low quality sources is that people will find something very specific about someone, e.g. "This person was seen in a separate engagement vs. the others in their group," and this low quality source is the only source that carried this fact, and since this it is not blacklisted, this does get in as a source, and most of the time, that's all that's needed. We don't need articles on showbiz personalities tracking their every movement as if it's important. Blacklist this. ] (]) 01:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{hat\|Discussion about moving RFC to RSN}}
			:::@], @], @], if you don't mind we can move this discussion to ] to get more opinions and votes on other experienced editors. ] ] 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::'''Support'''. ] (]) 16:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::'''Support'''. Though, I suggest finishing or closing this discussion so that we don't have two running discussions that tackles the same thing. If we want to construct a consensus, we better do it in one place. Alternatively, we first seek consensus from the local level first (by finishing this discussion) before moving one level up (the RSN). <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 16:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{hab}}
			*'''Option 3'''It's a blog. That means ] applies. This means it might be contextually reliable for ] or under ] (with the usual condition that SPSEXPERT prohibits any use of SPS for BLPs) and so I don't see any pressing need for deprecation, but this is very clearly a source that is not generally one we should use. ] (]) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:FWIW, the person behind this blog is not a subject matter expert. Like, we don't even know who this is. (One subject matter expert in Philippine showbusiness that I know of that runs a similar blog is , and I event won't even use the blind items as sources there lol) As explained above, once this gets to be used as a source, it won't be challenged and people just accept it as is. This is a low quality source that has to be blacklisted. ] (]) 01:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Hatebase.org ==
	::::That's nonsense.
	::::To answer the original question, I what SFC originally said was not nonsense. State-controlled media will often be perfectly acceptable, but in may cases may not, or they may need to be attributed. It would need to be worked out on a case-by-case basis. I think there is no easy rule-of-thumb that can be applied. --] (]) 01:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

	:~~:Squid..~~. ~~you are off base here~~. ~~The BBC is considered one of the most reliable news sources in the world. It is~~ a reliable ~~secondary~~ source~~, ''even'' for reporting on the UK and Northern Ireland.~~ ] (]) 18:13, 15 January ~~2010~~ (UTC)		Is a reliable source? ] (]) 19:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

	:~~::I~~ ~~brought~~ up ~~the~~ ~~BBC~~ as an ~~exception~~ ~~that~~ ~~proves~~ the ~~rule. It's a very fine source, though because it's not completely independent, I would~~ use ~~other sources to weigh in on who's right and who's wrong in Northern Ireland.~~ ] (]) 01:27, 23 January ~~2010~~ (UTC)		:Is there an ] for this? And/Or some context for the use case? ] (]) 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 ] about the site. I intend to use it to expand list of slurs articles. ] (]) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::<small>I’m not making a statement on the source, as I’m not familiar with it .</small>Then this doesn’t require an RfC, just a normal source discussion, if you’re concerned about reliability. Do you mind removing the descriptor from the title? And best of luck! :) ] (]) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Okay, I just added it because I saw some of the other discussions had it. I am removing it from the title. ] (]) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::That happens, don’t worry about it! Thank you! ] (]) 20:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:used in 4[REDACTED] articles, seems highly premature. use best judgement until it can't be resolved in an article's talk page between editors, and needs wider[REDACTED] community feedback. ] (]) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I wish this were otherwise because it looks like a really interesting website but it uses user-generated content. Which is a problem from an RS perspective. ] (]) 20:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::None of the uses are for anything other than Hatebase itself, and as the site was been retired since 2022 it's unlikely it will see much more use ('retired' as it's been closed to editing, all user data deleted, and may go offline at any point, so not quite closed but very close). As most of the supporting data is gone, and what there was was user generated, I don't think it could be used as an RS. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			== LaserDisc Database? ==
	Can I restate my question? I don't claim the BBC is untrustworthy, or that it should be avoided because of its relationship to the government, the same for RTE, AFP, DW, PBS, and others of similar quality/reputability. My question was just on the ones that are run by countries whose news outlets' editors have direct line from the presidential palace on their desk, so to speak. ] (]) 22:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
	:They're as reliable as an official statement from the government in question itself. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

			I'm working on adding citations to ]. I'm looking for a source that supports the sentence "Image Entertainment released another LaserDisc" . I've found the laserdisc in question on LaserDisc Database . Can I use it as a source? The "register now" box states that users can "submit" new Laserdiscs, which implies some editorial oversight compared to other websites with user-generated material (although it looks like there ). My other options are or interlibrary loaning the original Laserdisc. ] (]) 19:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::And should be treated as such? IE. For current events something like BBC, Reuters, etc. would be preferred? ] (]) 22:38, 22 January 2010 (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)
	:::For current events probably the best way to handle things is to use a mix of international wire services and local, even if government-run, sources. Also check out the Washington Post and The Economist for analysis, and also there are specialty sources for analysis of geopolitical, military, and diplomatic aspects. ] (]) 01:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
			::oops, I missed that. Thank you for the advice. I'll use WorldCat if I can't find a news article. ] (]) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Yes, independent news sources are preferred; one should avoid government press in favor of BBC, Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times, The Times, etc. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

			== Usage of AirPlay Direct for music articles ==
	== YouTube video on ] ==

			Is reliable for use in articles about music (such as songs, albums, artists, etc.) ] (]) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	An editor has used a in the article ]. Is this a reliable, secondary, and independent source? <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">]</span> 11:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

			== Global Defense Corp ==
	:Depends what point it is being used to support.] (] · ] · ]) 12:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

			Global Defense Corp should be deprecated as it is a incredibly unreliable source which frequently fabricates information they are incredibly biassed against Russian technology to such an extent as to lose all objectivity here I will share just a small snippet of the blatantly false information they have spread over the years
	::It is being used to introduce Noam Chomsky's viewpoint on the ] and on ] into the article. It's not clear when or where Chomsky spoke, and Chomsky does not comment on the ], but on ]. The findings of the ] and of ] are already described in the article to provide context, so adding Chomsky's views on 9/11 there is ]. The uploader of the video apparently runs a ] , and it's not clear whether that blog can be considered independent. It's certainly not a reliable source. No indication of any secondary source referring to Chomsky's comments has been given. <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">]</span> 12:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

			1. they've claimed that Azerbaijan using either an Israeli or Turkish drone was able to destroy a Armenian nebo-m radar which is impressive considering Armenia doesn't even have that radar or has at any point Displayed any interest in buying that radar there evidence for this is a footage of Azerbaijan destroying a p-18 radar and then claiming it's the nebo-m and they didn't just claim this once they've claimed it at least twice in two different articles.
	:::I would say you would need something more reliable to comment on a figure as prominent as Chomsky. But can you provide that exact quote it is used to support? Youtube is like Misplaced Pages. It is based on user added content. It is not peer reviewed. I am behind a firewall and cannot view the video. ] (] · ] · ]) 12:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

			2. in this article you can see a picture of the SU57’s internal weapons bays but what they don't tell you is that this picture is CGI at no point do they communicate this in fact they claim it's from the Sukhoi design Bureau even though it's not.
	::::The editor has added the following paragraph to the article, based on the YouTube video. <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">]</span> 12:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
	{{quotebox\|] "the academy’s loudest and most consistent critic of U.S. policies at home and abroad"<ref>{{Cite web
	\| title = Prospect/FP Top 100 Public Intellectuals Results
	\| publisher = Slate Group, a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC
	\| date = October 2005
	\| url = http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3260
	\| accessdate = 19 January 2010}} </ref> stated, regarding US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks, "the evidence that has been produced is essentially worthless" and while the American government stood to benefit from the incident, "every authoritarian system in the world gained from September 11th." He argues that the enormous risk of an information ], "it is a very porous system and secrets are very hard to keep", and consequences of exposure for the Republican party would have made such a conspiracy foolish to attempt. He dismisses observations cited by conspiracy proponents saying, "if you look at the evidence, anybody who knows anything about the sciences would instantly discount that evidence," arguing that even when a scientific experiment is carried out repeatedly in a controlled environment, phenomena and coincidences remain that are unexplained.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc</ref><br>
	<references/>}}

			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.
	::The quote sounds correct / true but it would be nice to have a better source. The quote is here in Salon ] (] · ] · ]) 12:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

			4. In this article they claimed SU57 lacks sensor fusion which it doesn't and then just ignore that low probability of intercept radar is a thing .
	:::It's an opinion column, but it would be a secondary source that references what Chomsky said. Thank you for finding the text! <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">]</span> 13:02, 19 January 2010 (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.
	:I can't view YouTube at work. The question is 1) where is the video from and 2) is it ''clear'' that the uploader had permission to upload it (ie. they are the copyright holder)? Because we don't link to copyvios. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 14:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
	:: Copyright is a red herring in that we can use a source even if it is a copyvio (just then not link to it). However, it seems clear that youtube videos of questionable provenance are not reliable sources. If this were from a channel of a known news organization or something like that it might be different. But as it stands this isn't reliable. ] (]) 15:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::As Joshua says, youtube videos are not reliable sources. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::Um, that was my point entirely. If, say, this were a link to an interview of Person X on CBS, we'd only link to the YouTube if it was uploaded by CBS. If it was uploaded by Joe6PackLOL, we wouldn't link it, but could cite the original airing on CBS. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::You probably shouldn't cite it even then, if you've only seen it on Youtube. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	What, specifically, is the "Resolved" decision?
	On what finding of fact is the "Resolved" based? E.g. the video in question appears on Youtube in violation of the rights of the copyright holds, Chomsky is not a reliable source, etc.

			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. Over 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.
	Please forgive my pedantry on this topic but when the dust clears I am going to write up some proposed clarifications to YOUTUBE#Linking_to_user-submitted_video_sites, so I would like to understand this decision clearly. Note that the video in question is cited to verify the statements attributed to Chomsky in the article. ] (]) 20:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

	::The resolved was that we found an alternated source from Salon and that as youtube videos are self published they are rarely if ever appropriate sources. We discuss self published sources here. Youtube would be an example. ] ] (] · ] · ]) 03:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

	:::What has me confused here is that the video in question shows Chomsky, making the statements, that are attributed to him, in the Misplaced Pages article. In this instance, the video is no more and no less reliable than Chomsky himself. Contrast that to an identical video with some person off the street, e.g. me, making the same statements. In that case the video and the content therein would not be a reliable source on the topic because I am not a reliable source on the topic. Am I making sense? ] (]) 05:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::You assert that the video shows Chomsky. There is no ] and ] that gives the information that the Youtube video does in fact depict Chomsky. You may say that it is clearly showing Chomsky, beacsue you knwo what Chomsky looks like. However that would be ] on your part. Now if there were a relliable source that cited this particular Youtube clip in more than a paasing reference then that might help assert the reliability of the source. Please read ] again. ] (]) 08:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::If any good secondary source, or Chomsky's own website cites or links to the video then the video would be authenticated. If so, Chomsky's own views are probably notable enough to include in the article. But please check and see if there's a transcript or a position paper; rich media such as video shouldn't be our first choice for a reference link. ] (]) 01:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Potentially false information in a reliable source ==

	What should one do if the information provided in the reliable source is potentially false. Should it be tagged with some template? Is there any relevant template? I cannot find any appropriate one in ]. I am specifically referring to article ]. This guy surely made many movies, but whether he was included in Guinness Records is not confirmed yet. I found source from but i believe it may potentially be false as imdb shows many actors with more ''prolific'' work. But they have not defined the word ''prolific''. I mean in terms of movies, or soaps etc. Dunya News is a full fledged proper ] news channel. I have no doubt about it being a reliable source. But i think their team ''may'' have made a mistake here. I cannot see the Gui. Records book either because they don't mention all the records in each edition. It may be very pain staking to go through all editions. Same is the case with their website. Let me know if there is some easier method to do so. Do these particulars justify creating a new template for such situation. I mean, a template that should say ''further verificaton needed''. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 04:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
	:Hi Hamza, I think the language used by Dunya News is wrong with a nationalistic overtone. But Sultan Rahi definitely has entry in the Guinness Book as I can see from a neutral reliable source (''Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh'' by Om Gupta, pp. 2336-2337). The correct language is, "He is in the Guinness Book of Records for acting in more movies than anyone in the world. He appeared in a little more than 500 movies." Hope this helps! --] (]) 06:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

	::Agreed. What would you have recommended if there were no sources available? How would've you tagged the sentence reference? ] <sup>] ]</sup> 09:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

	:::Yeah, interesting question which I will also like to know! Does anyone know how to deal with such situation? --] (]) 11:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

	::::You can tag the sentence with {{tl\|dubious}}, and then you open a discussion in the talk page, and you call the discussion "Dubious". The tag displays the words <sup></sup>. If the discussion already exists then use <nowiki>{{dubious\|name of discussion in the talk page}}</nowiki>. --] (]) 12:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

	* Rahi does not appear in ''Guinness World Records 2009''. I haven't checked 2010 yet. The best source for Guinness records is Guinness. --] (]) 07:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

	:Not ''all'' records are mentioned in each edition. Did 2009 edition had entry for actor with most films? <small><span style="background-color:#645D56;">]</span></small> <sup> <font color="#91877C">]]</font></sup> 10:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

	== everyhit.com ==

	The issue of finding reliable chart sources for British positions has come up again. In a nutshell, British charts are produced by the Official Charts Company, with the BBC being the first publisher of the chart. They are then republished in numerous physical media. Online, they are archived by the Official Charts Company for 100 weeks. This leaves us in the unfortunate situation that the primary and best online source converts into a deadlink in slightly under two years.

	Various online archives keep information for longer. At ], the recommendation is to use chartstats.com, a recommendation that has been a source of controversy due to the anonymous nature of the archiver. These objections were primarily brought up by Goodraise.

	Recently, Goodraise has objected to the use of everyhit.co.uk, specifically in the featured list reviews for ] and ]. This archive, while once again being an anonymously archived copy of the data, can be demonstrated to have been treated as reliable by multiple news sources. It was
	*
	*
	*
	*.

	This level of use in my mind establishes the "''reputation for fact-checking and accuracy''" required by ]. At the very least, I think it qualifies as a legitimate convenience link because the original source of the data has an impeccable reputation.—](]) 16:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
	:Sources expected to go dead can be archived case-by-case by editors using ]; obviously this doesn't help with links already dead. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
	::That's a somewhat related topic to whether we can treat everyhit.com as reliable, but it is generally untrue with chart sites. All the archive facilities I am familiar with have difficulty recovering data retrieved from databases and searches, as opposed to be directly encoded in the source HTML.—](]) 17:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
	:the use of everyhit.com in those undoubtedly reliable sources as a source of information proves reliability. They would not use the source if they didn't think it was reliable, they have their own reputations to protect. and there are many more examples of its use. ] (]) 17:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
	Sorry to jump on this a bit, but can this discussion group clear up for me if and are considered reliable? --'''<sup>]</sup>''' '''''<small>]</small>''''' 00:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	:In terms of fully meeting every requirement of ], no. In terms of literal ''accuracy'', in that they seem to correctly archive the things they archive, yes. Zobbel has problems with conflating charts: it can be difficult to determine which chart an album charted on unless you know the qualification rules for each chart beforehand. Acharts accurately archives charts that are unofficial charts to begin with, ] is silent on Zobbel, and recommends against using acharts for good and featured articles. There are some times it is hard to avoid using Zobbel, as they are the only archive that preserves position 101-200 on the UK charts. Allowing its use is a case-by-case matter with me. Acharts is wholly unnecessary: every piece of data it archives is available on an official licensed archive as well.—](]) 15:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	::Okay I see that aCharts can be replaced, but with what? Going by everyHit, this seems to only archive no's 1-40, is there another website i should be looking at? --'''<sup>]</sup>''' '''''<small>]</small>''''' 01:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::British charts excepted. ] recommends chartstats.com, but everyhit.com is arguably better when dealing with the first 40 positions, because of the usage noted in this discussion. It would be nice to get back on the original topic: the reliability of everyhit.com, and whether the references from news sources establish a reputation for reliability.—](]) 16:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::Sorry, I will start a separate discussion elsewhere. --'''<sup>]</sup>''' '''''<small>]</small>''''' 23:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

	Aren't there books that provide these lists? Couldn't you just provide a reference to a relevant ISBN, then it would be valid for all time? ] (]) 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
	:AFAIK the books over cover up until 2006/7, so anything after that still needs a web-based archive. ] (]) 01:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	:Concur with Mister sparky. The days of large paper tomes detailing the complete histories of a chart are gone.—](]) 01:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	::Convenient lists may not exist in book form, but the UK charts are still published on paper, aren't they? On a side note, it would be nice if this thread received some feedback from editors not involved in discography articles or ]. <tt>'''<font size="3" style="color:#2E2E2E">]</font><font size="3" style="color:#2E2E2E">]</font>'''</tt> 02:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::Weekly trade magazines, yes. Technically possible to reference? Certainly. Reasonable? Not very, especially when there's an archive available that reliable news sources feel is reliable enough to use. Would you please respond to that point?—](]) 03:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::I would have preferred to simply abide by the consensus of uninvolved editors, but since you're asking for my opinion, I'll state it. Is it reasonable? That's not the question. We need to cite reliable sources. EveryHit.com is either reliable or it isn't. Whether it's inconvenient not to use it is irrelevant. So, is it reliable? Since in this case, outside citation is the only indicator of reliability, I'd like to see more than just a handful of links. <tt>'''<font size="3" style="color:#2E2E2E">]</font><font size="3" style="color:#2E2E2E">]</font>'''</tt> 06:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I agree that it would be nice to get some outside voices. At this juncture, it seems unlikely. We agree more than you think, BTW. I'd love to have some rock-solid, fully licensed and attributed permanent archive of these charts. The vast majority of my edits are eliminating poorly-sourced information and correcting sources. I'm between a rock and a hard place on this one, though. If I go 100% purist, I would be pushing for citations to the physical charts. In practice, those are unverifiable, though: very difficult for editors outside of the UK to get access to, and not easy for the average UK citizen to access, either. If someone cited a position in a UK chart to ], I would wind up verifying it against Everyhit and ChartStats, and, if it mismatched, I would wind up either deleting the information or correcting it to match the information found in the archives because, whether they meet ] or not, their accuracy has not been brought into question: if the mismatching information was referenced to the physical chart, the odds are that the information is incorrect, not that all three archives got it wrong. Worse yet, I can see people forging the physical citations as the path of least resistance: look up the date on EveryHit, and forge the reference based on the information retrieved from there. Of course, when people verify it, they will look at ChartStats or Everyhit to verify, completing the loop of forgery.
	:::::I've asked Mister sparky to search diligently for more high-quality references to everyhit.com. Hopefully, we can find enough to make you feel more comfortable. I would also like to hear your views on these cites with regard to ]. That's a guideline that I have tried to engage in discussion with you about multiple times, but you have never replied.—](]) 17:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Since ] leads to an essay, I'll ignore what is being said there and instead assume that you meant to link to ], which, by the way, is a style guideline, as opposed to a content guideline. First off, pages given as convenience links need to be reliable sources. They are not exempt from that. Secondly, it's "convenience links", not convenience references. When the original source goes offline, you place a ''link'' in the reference to the original source (in {{tl\|cite web}} this is done using {{para\|archiveurl}}), not replace the whole reference. ChartStats and everyHit.com may accurately archive the raw data of the official website, but their pages are not true copies of the originally referenced ones.<br/>If you're saying that we should rather openly use inferior sources than risking forgery, then I'll have to strongly disagree. Since we are all volunteers, it makes no sense to call any one of us lazy, but if an editor is unwilling to do the proper footwork to write the kind of quality articles that our readers deserve and instead resorts to such improper methods, then the project would be better off without that editor. I'm not willing to accept bad sources for that reason, let alone supporting the promotion of an article using it to featured status.<br/>At this point, the only two things that I can picture persuading me to accept everyHit.com as reliable is a substantial amount of high quality, third-party usage/recommendation and/or advocacy from several uninvolved editors. <tt>'''<font size="3" style="color:#2E2E2E">]</font><font size="3" style="color:#2E2E2E">]</font>'''</tt> 00:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::I'd say allow it. We have to have some flexibility in how we do things, and I think you've made a good case. - ] (]) (]) 17:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Here's a good link: .—](]) 19:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Reliable sources at ] ==

	As an option to attempt to solve a , the website http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/kilgallen.txt was . It seems even more clear to me that the use of the website as a source within the article is even more troublesome. MM] (]) 00:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	:Who is Eric Paddon and where has he published this article? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	:It is not reliable as it stands; however, it may be published elsewhere as ] notes above. It appears that Eric Paddon is an instructor (of some type) in the History Department at the ] in ]. He may well be a professor, associate professor or assistant professor. --] (]) 07:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	:Wouldn't this be allowable under selfpubs by an expert? The subject of the biography passed away in the 1960s, so the provisions of BLP do not apply. As appears in the diff, the material is properly cited and attributed, I would only suggest some NPOV tweaks to clarify that this is an "opinion", a "claim". ] (]) 01:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	There is currently a dispute on this page about the following passage of text:

	:Authorship proponents also note new research by Lynne Kositsky and Roger Stritmatter which they believe confirm the earlier sources cited by Kermode and Bullough. Alden T. Vaughan, however, has challenged the conclusions of Kositsky and Stritmatter in his 2008 paper "A Closer Look at the Evidence", particularly in charging William Strachey with plagiarism - a charge that Vaughan concluded was in error. In 2009, Stritmatter and Kositsky further developed the arguments against Strachey's influence in a Critical Survey article demonstrating the pervasive influence on The Tempest of the much earlier travel narrative, Richard Eden's 1555 Decades of the New World. '''CS editor William Leahy commented that "the authors show that the continued support of Strachey as Shakespeare's source is, at the very least, highly questionable."'''

	The dispute concerns the last sentence (which I have bolded). There is no dispute that ''Critical Survey'' constitutes a reliable source, though of course that does not mean that arguments of its contributors are therefore "true". Academics often ''propose'' POVs attacking the POVs of other academics, and this is the case here. The question is whether the opinion of the editor of the journal should be quoted as significant, or whether this, in effect, constitutes advertising for the journal, "puffing" its contents. Can the editor of the journal be considered to be a reliable commentator on the value of articles contained within it? ] (]) 03:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	:This is a difficult question. Given the conflict of interest, I'd say it should probably be avoided. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	:I wouldn't avoid it, as above, but I would treat it as an editorial opinion. --] (]) 07:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Fein, Rummel, Midlarsky,Valentino ==

	in order to remove material from[REDACTED] it has been claimed that following scholars have never used such terms and/or "there is no proof that these terms have ever been introduced"

	*], a chapter on "" in {{cite book \|title=Genocide: a sociological perspective; "Contextual and Comparative Studies I: Ideological Genocides" \|last= \|first= \|authorlink= \|coauthors= \|year= \|publisher=] \|location= \|isbn=9780803988293 \|page=75 \|pages= \|url= \|accessdate=}}

	*] on "communist democide" in {{cite book \|quote=These books on communist democide are packed with figures and graphs... \|title=Pioneers of genocide studies \|last=Totten \|first=Samue; \|authorlink= \|coauthors= \|year=2002 \|publisher=] \|location= \|isbn=9780765801517 \|page=166 \|pages= \|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=g26NmNNWK1QC&pg=PA166&dq \|accessdate=}};<br />
	:{{cite book \|quote=Next to be considered is the communist democide...\|title=China's bloody century: genocide and mass murder since 1900 \|last=Rummel \|first=R.J. \|authorlink= \|coauthors= \|year=2007 \|publisher=] \|location= \|isbn=9781412806701 \|page=100 \|pages= \|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=iIEPoEL4lG0C&pg=PA100&dq \|accessdate=}}<br />

	*Manus I. Midlarsky on "communist politicide" in {{cite book \|quote=Indeed, an arc of Communist politicide can be traced from the western portions of the Soviet Union to China and on to Cambodia.\|title=The killing trap: genocide in the twentieth century \|last=Midlarsky \|first=Manus \|authorlink= \|coauthors= \|year=2005 \|publisher=] \|location= \|isbn=9780521815451 \|page=310 \|pages= \|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=-oJuL_gcFHMC&pg=PA310&dq \|accessdate=}}

	*Benjamin A. Valentino on "communist mass killings" {{cite book \|quote=Understanding communist mass killings is of vital importance not only...\|title=Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century \|chapter=Communist mass killings:The Soviet union, China, and Cambodia \|chapterurl=http://books.google.com/books?id=LQfeXVU_EvgC&pg=PA91&dq\|last=Valentino \|first=Benjamin \|authorlink= \|coauthors= \|year=2005 \|publisher=] \|location= \|isbn=9780801472732 \|page=91 \|pages= \|url= \|accessdate=}}

	unless I'm completely missing something with this, in case the scholars listed above have never used such terms indeed like claimed, the sources where its printed on black and white must not be reliable?--] (]) 07:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	: I think it is pretty clear it is not a question of reliability of sources. The proper venue for this discussion is an RfC. (] (]) 17:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC))
	::Agree with Igny. ] (]) 18:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::Agree with you agreeing with him. --] (]) 18:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::Agree with Igny, TFD and FormerIP. And wonder why Termer started this thread without notifying people on the talk page of the article? Again? If any admins see this, please note how Termer keeps following the patterns of ].--] (]) 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

	Ask that AGF be observed where an editor has sought to use noticeboards for a specific query. The use of accusations here is not warranted, and may lead others to determine that those making the attacks are indeed the attackers. ] (]) 22:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	:In case anything was unclear from my behalf: I'm only interested in the question if the sources listed above are considered reliable by Misplaced Pages standards, and based on it either those sources can be used or not for the material in question that's getting removed from wikipedia? Thanks!--] (]) 05:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

	::I think the point implied by Igny is that no-one disputes that they are reliable, but that is a different question to the broader one of whether they are suitable for the article. If you do get approving opinions about the reliability of the sources, this would in no way entitle you to re-insert material into the article. An RfC would be better for getting comments on the wider issues. --] (]) 15:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::a note to editors who voted for deletion of the article and now attempt to delete the article in bits and pieces by removing sourced materials. I'm already aware of your opinions, there is no need to keep repeating it.--] (]) 02:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Letters to the editor ==

	An editor at ] is insisting on using letters to the editor of a newspaper as a source. Is this permitted here? --] (]) 15:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	:I would think not since anyone can write into it. And besides, the letters don't support the claim. A nurse agreed, but the doctor didn't. ] (]) 15:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	::The only situation where a letter to the editor ''might, possibly'' be considered reliable is if it could be clearly established that it was written by a recognized expert in the field that is the topic of the letter (and even then it would ''only'' be reliable for an attributed statement as to that expert's opinion on the matter). ] (]) 15:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::Even the Times has been taken in by false letters - if the opinion is notable, it ought to be somewhere else. This, by the way, does not apply to Op-Ed pieces whiere the newspaper is certain of the source. ] (]) 16:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::In this case it looks as if we have a piece that references the letter and the letter itself. Does not the fact that The Telegraph has chosen to print an article about a letter it has received give the letter higher level of notability than it would otherwise have? You could look at it that the letter is not being presented as an RS here - the statement is supported by the newspaper article alone - but just as footnoted further information. --] (]) 18:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::A letter to the editor of a top newspaper should be a reliable source for the assertion that the author holds the views that are expressed in the letter. It must not be used as a coatrack to assert those views, though. ] (]) 18:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	:The third letter, in particular, is from one of the doctors the original press piece rested on, clarifying his position, which he thought was otherwise not sufficiently clear. That seems to me extremely relevant, and worth citing -- incientally passing Blueboar's criteria.
	:Regarding Soxwon's point that the letters don't all support the claim, that is exactly one of the reasons I thought it was so useful to cite them -- to make clear that qualified respondents had widely different responses to the initial Telegraph article. Including the citation makes clear that there was no universal or even groundswell agreement with the rather scare-mongering tone of the original journalist's piece.
	:Regarding Collect's point, if this had been the case, that somebody was deliberately impersonating one of the doctors quoted in the original story, there would have been a furore, the Telegraph would have published a retraction, and you can be sure it would have been all over the press. None of this happened.
	:Finally, I'd note that a story by a medical journalist working for a mass-circulation newspaper which might have been quite happy to create a circulation-reinforcing ] about the NHS, at a time also when the U.S. health reform proposals were at a particularly sensitive stage is not necessarily the last word in absolute reliability. (See ]'s '']'', anyone, for some of the constraints such journalists have to work under). In my view, a direct statement from one of the doctors who actually started the story rolling actually constitutes at least as reliable a source. ] (]) 19:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	::I've already commented at the article. To me the issue isn't so much about reliability of sourcing but of notability of the issue. Perhaps the reasons that you're having to have a discussion about reliability is an indicator that the issue isn't sufficiently notable to talk about in the article.
	::Taking a pretty dispassionate look, there are many thousands of palliative care clinicians practicing in both the NHS and the private sector in the UK. The LCP is widely used. there are five signatories to the letter, one of whom felt it appropriate to clarify his position. The Telegraph article is 4 months old and there is little to corroborate the issue.
	::I think you need to work harder to substantiate the assertion that this is worth talking about, that way the sourcing should sort itself out.
	::] (]) 19:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

	:Seeing that the doctor who signed the letter that the story was based upon felt the need to comment further on how their views were presented, I think this is valuable information for the article. Their views are already being cited in the article if you include the Telegraph piece, so this would be directly relevant. However, in the larger scheme of things, we have many more reliable sources that this tabloid newspaper, so including more than this single reference to the story and a response from ''The Times'' would be undue weight. ] (]) 20:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
	::Since when is the London Daily Telegraph a "tabloid"? At any rate, the letter to the editor is only cited to show that some doctors have criticized the guideline, not for facts. In general a letter to the editor would fall somewhere between a secondary and a primary source; an editor has decided the opinion is notable enough to print, and there may be some fact-checking. Also, a practicing physician writing on a medical topic should qualify as an expert. I'd say if the opinion is worked into the fabric of the article and not just a tangent, then it should be a fine source for the way it's used. ] (]) 00:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Human_Rights_Foundation ==

	Could someone (Spanish required) please pitch in at ]? I see no evidence that the statement is supported by the sources. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Shochu ==

	Please confirm the following two sources are unreliable and should not be used for Misplaced Pages. The disputed point is the description about history of Shochu.
	#{{cite web\|url=http://www.practicallyedible.com/edible.nsf/Pages/shochu\|title=Shochu\|publisher=Practically Edible}}
	#:The says "''The articles provided on this website are for '''entertainment purposes only''' and should not be relied upon for any purpose other than '''entertainment'''.''" Is Misplaced Pages entertainment?
	#{{cite web\|url=http://www.cocktailtimes.com/dictionary/shochu.shtml\|title=What is Shochu?\|publisher=Cocktail Times}}
	#: Curiously enough, there is exactly the same description in both articles; "''I was disappointed that the manager didn't offer us a glass of shochu for all the hard work we've done for his shrine.''" This description is a translation of Japanese document. So it cannot be the same unless either of them copied another or both of them copied other article. The corresponding description in ] is "''The high priest was so stingy he never once gave us shōchū to drink. What a nuisance!''". ―― ] (]) 10:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

	== mako.org.au ==

	Is the website ''ever'' a reliable source? It is a kind of public list of convicted (or not) criminals (" 98+% of offenders listed in the MAKO/Files Online and MAKO/Files Online- (WTC) have been convicted by a court of law."), without any kind of official backing, reputation for fact-checking, ... As this is used for extremely sensitive information (identifying paedophiles, murderers, ...), I don't believe that this source is good enough. It is currently used on 36 pages. Any ideas?

	== Original US gov't or academic sources, and excerpts from those sources ==

	* ORIGINAL US GOVERNMENT SOURCES

	Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS)
	http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/FRUS/

	FRUS is a good research tool for persons interested in foreign policy and related issues. FRUS is the official documentary historical record of major US foreign policy decisions, produced by the US Dept. of State. Is this a reliable source? I would think so, but would appreciate some verification.

	*EXCERPTS FROM US GOVERNMENT SOURCES

	Additionally, when doing research in the FRUS, some of the relevant documents may extend over several pages, and the portions relevant to the particular research subject at hand may be scattered here and there, etc., etc., over various pages, so for various reasons it is desirable to produce a series of excerpts of the FRUS, with a LINK back to the original page or pages. Is there any rule against quoting from a US government source in this fashion? The following would be an example -- http://www.taiwanbasic.com/state/frus/frus1948aa.htm

	Continuing on in this line of inquiry, as regards what constitutes RS, we have some US government documents which are very difficult to locate online, or if located, are quite lengthy. The 1971 Starr Memorandum of the US Dept. of State is one good example. It is actually online at -- http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/One-China.cfm in PDF format, and is thirteen pages in length. Such a format, and length, makes it less than "convenient" for the access of many who use the internet. Nevertheless, I believe it meets the requirements of being an RS . . . . . so is that affected if a page of excerpts are presented in friendly html format? For an example, see -- http://www.taiwanbasic.com/nstatus/starr.htm (I don't believe that a collection of a few excerpts presents any kind of copyright problem.)

	*ACADEMIC SOURCES

	Long before the days of the internet, a very important article discussing the international legal status of Taiwan was published in the Yale Law Journal. See ''Who Owns Taiwan: A Search for International Title'', by Lung-chu Chen and W. M. Reisman, The Yale Law Journal, March 1972. Is this a reliable source?? I would think so, being in such a prestigious law journal. However, it is very difficult to reference this article, because neither I nor my associates have ever been able to find a complete copy of the article in a publicly accessible internet site. I did manage to find a copy in a library once, and it was 73 pages long. I did photocopy some portions, and put those excerpts on a webpage, whereupon a friend was kind enough to fix it up in html format and post it on the web, see -- http://www.civil-taiwan.org/cairo-potsdam1.htm Does presenting the information in this way violate any rules?

	*TREATY SOURCES

	Is an international treaty considered an RS? When making reference to a treaty, are we required to quote various articles of the treaty to back up our statements? For example, in the Treaty of Peace with Italy (1947), there was no authorization for transfer of the sovereignty of the Dodecanese islands to Turkey. For someone who has read the treaty, this is common sense, but others might argue that this is an "interpretation" or violates NPOV? How do we deal with such claims of other Wiki editors?

	In a similar fashion, the Treaty of Paris (1898) did not cede the Philippines to New Zealand. But, if I write this on some Wiki page, and someone challenges my "assertion," and quickly deletes my statement(s) from the relevant Wiki page, how should my response be made? I am presenting the material objectively, and yet I am being challenged!!! This is very disturbing. Are there rules against "propaganda"? (I don't find any page for WP:Propaganda) My point is that there may be some people who believe that the Philippines are a long-lost island chain of New Zealand. From my point of view, that appears to be propaganda, but the people who promote that view obviously don't question it very thoroughly.

	So . . . . where do verifiability and objectivity end, . . . and propaganda and political posturing begin?? I find myself often having this problem when quoting from US government sources and also from international treaties. Arguably, for someone with a lack of expertise on the content of a particular treaty, it might be necessary to read the entire treaty to comprehend one fact. What one fact? Well, an example would be if I wrote that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) did not cede the Mexican state of Tamaulipas to the United States. (Obviously, some treaties are long and somewhat complicated.) So, what is the correct course of action for me when I am challenged on something like this which (from a straightforward reading of the treaty) is an objective fact? And/or when I can offer verifiable commentary from prestigious sources (law journals, US government documents, etc.) to support my writing?

	Significantly, in the Peace Treaty of San Francisco (1952) and Treaty of Taipei (1952) there was no authorization for transfer of the sovereignty of "Formosa and the Pescadores" (aka Taiwan) to China. This is quite clear from a straightforward reading of both treaties. The Starr Memorandum (mentioned above) also clarifies this point in detail. And yet when making simple references to such matters on various webpages, I often see my contributions deleted by other Wiki editors or moderators who claim that I have violated the rules for Verifiability (RS), NPOV, or OR.

	I don't think that I have violated these rules. Can someone explain the rules/guidelines in more detail? ] (]) 12:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
	:The sources you list above all seem to be primary sources. They may well be reliable, but being primary they require a secondary source to interpret them, establish their notability and put them in context. If you already have such a secondary source, then using these primary sources to add details would generally be OK, as long as there is no interpretation or analysis required. Even selecting or highlighting a specific piece out of a primary source can be viewed as advancing a position, so this too can only be done if it is backed up by a secondary source. In summary, per ], primary sources should be used very carefully, and never to establish notability. Secondary sources should be used to establish the big picture, with primary sources in a supporting role to add non-controversial details. ] (]) 14:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
	::Exactly as Crum375 says. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
	*I am not going to be able to address all of the original poster's questions, but I do have some comments. With regard to the Yale Law Journal mentioned under "Academic Sources" above, there is no problem with citing a journal article that is available in print but not online. As stated at ], "It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." In this case, the Yale Law Journal is likely to be found at law libraries throughout much of the world. According to WorldCat.org, it is collected at hundreds of libraries throughout the United States, as well as some in Canada, Ireland, the UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Argentina, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Hong Kong, New Zealand, South Africa, Australia, and Singapore. So anyone who wants to take the effort to track down the article and confirm the citation should be able to do so. The link you provided to civil-taiwan.org is at best just a convenience link. Looking at that page, one cannot be sure if it is an accurate reflection of the Yale Law Journal article because it is a very unofficial reprint -- the only way to be sure is to compare it to the original article, but if one had the original article, one wouldn't need the convenience link page. Finally, I note that the Yale Law Journal article most likely takes a position in support of one particular side of the dispute over Taiwan, and so Misplaced Pages should not take the opinions expressed in the article as the definitive truth due to ] concerns. Rather, it should present the opinions in that article as one perspective on the dispute. --] ] 18:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
	*Also, with regard to the Starr Memorandum, I note that its appearance at heritage.org is itself a reprint (presumably there is some official U.S. government publication where it previously appeared), although the Heritage Foundation is an established organization (notwithstanding it may take a particular point of view on this dispute) and can presumably be trusted to reprint the document in full accurately. Putting up excerpts from the document at taiwanbasic.com would be getting even farther from the original source -- an unofficial reprint of an unofficial reprint. I don't see why the 13-page PDF at heritage.org is considered so inconvenient; as computers get faster, even much longer PDFs can be read without much difficulty. So I would strongly recommend citing either to the PDF at heritage.org, or even better to a reprint at an academic site, or best of all to a U.S. government site, for this U.S. government document. --] ] 18:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Adolf Hitler's 50th Birthday - sources. ==

	An editor of ] is attempting to use the following sources to verify the scale of the event.

	*UfA TON-WOCHE, Hitler's 50th Birthday - Documentary film
	*http://www.ihffilm.com/16.html

	The first appears to be a Nazi propaganda film, which he maintains is "an official record".
	The second appears to be advertising blurb on a site selling a DVD of the same. ] (]) 20:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
	:If the film backs up what it is being sourced for (the leader of the Slovak republic attended the celebrations) then I see no problem with that (though I would prefer an English language source)t. As to the second, there is a problem I think here. It does not contain any information beyond this event happening. Nor does it strictly reflect the passage it is used as a source for, but this may be a translation problom (demonstration as opposed to parade).] (]) 22:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

	I don't see a problem in the film being termed "an official record". An official film record in Nazi Germany will, after all, be a Nazi propaganda film. Indeed, any official records that take a point of view are going to reflect to some extent of the regime it is an official record of. The film can certainly be used as a source - although as Slatersteven notes, as and I am sure you know anyway, it does take a biased view. The second link, as Slatersteven says, is not actually a source. It merely shows that you can acquire a film called "Hitler's birthday parade". It shouldn't be used as a source for anything other than that fact. I don't really have a problem about the film not being in English. ] (]) 13:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Does a site that has been claimed to be copy violating automatically non-RS? ==

	Whether or not truckads.com is a RS on its own is not the question right now, it is only an example I have handy for this question, so please dont get sucked into tangents, as I know there are other issues about this site. The question is- it is claimed that this site doesnt have Nielson's permission to use its data and therefore it is a copyvio problem and therefore we cant use it, because the site we are citing is a copyvio even though we arent violating any copyrights because we are simply citing non-copyrighted information that happens to also be on the site. But is that an issue for us? Do we automatically not use legitimately accurate information because the site we link to MAY be copyviolating? I have no proof other than others say "it is claimed" that it is a copyvio site, I assume since we've had this link for quite some time now and the site still exists and hasnt been sued and removed that these are just "claims". I dont believe it is a matter for us to consider in considering whether or not this or any site is a RS. Along with the problem that we use neilson information ourselves, so do newspapers, there's nothing proprietary about the information that it cant be used on another site, so I'm not sure what the copyvio issue exactly since the articles in question do say that the description given is of Nielson geographic DMA's, it isnt claiming that they are something else, it is giving credit to Nielson. But anyways, in my opinion the only thing that should matter is in regards to being an RS or not is- is the information being cited accurate? If so, it's a RS for that piece of information; if not it is not a RS for that information. The NY Times for example if it gets a piece of information wrong it can not be cited as a RS for that information because the information is not accurate. We throw around things like "verifiable, not the truth", but ultimately it DOES come down to- is the information accurate? I am talking about information in which there is in fact a truth, eg- Nielson's DMA geographic area either does or doesnt cover certain counties; I dont want to get into an argument about "there is no truth" on this issue, I want to keep it to topic please.] (]) 21:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
	:Please note that the issue some have is they claim the maps are copied from Nielsen, and are copyrighted, when looking at the truckads DMA maps it appears they are created by truckads.com itself and not copy/pasted from a Nielsen website, it is similar to us creating our own maps based on the boundaries seen on copyrighted maps. I find that us linking to those said maps to cite a prose description of what counties are in a DMA to not be a copyvio problem. Would like many opinions.] (]) 22:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

	::I'm going to ignore the context of your question and purely address the hypothetical. Yes, a copyright violating site can be a reliable source, though empirically it would be quite uncommon for a site to be reliable while also violating copyright. The copyright provisions say we cannot link to copyright violating sites, so don't link to them. The site could still be referenced as a source in much the same way that dead tree media can be referenced, i.e. with no url or other online link. Hence, there is no strict connection between the legality of the content a site hosts and the reliability of that site (especially when the content being cited may be strictly separate from the content that is subject to a copyright dispute). However, as I said above, it would be very unusual for a reliable site to host copyright violating material, and the reliability of any site suspected of doing so would have to be reviewed carefully. But the reliability of the content is, in principle, a separate issue. I'm not personally interested in considering the specifics of the case you outline above, but perhaps someone else will be able to do so shortly. ] (]) 22:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
	:This isn't a question of RS, it's a question of ]. ] (]) 22:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
	::Stifle, from what I've seen you write elsewhere I believe you think it is a copyright violation because you think Truckads.com is using maps directly from Nielsen, this is not true as far as I can ascertain. The maps on the site are those created solely for use by Truckads.com, this would not be a copyright violation then. Please explain if I got things wrong, if you have proof that the maps are copy/pasted directly from Nielsen then you would be correct. If you are saying that no one can create their own maps showing what counties Nielsen puts in their DMA's then you are incorrect, as anyone can do that, we do the same thing on Misplaced Pages all the time. In fact I bet there are several throughout Misplaced Pages showing DMA's of Nielsen. Please explain why you believe the site is a copyright violator. If it isnt then I'll be putting the links back.] (]) 23:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
	:: is a link to one of their maps. It is the map itself that is being called a copyvio. The map is clearly labeled being the copyright of Truckads.com and I have found no evidence it is lifted from any other site. This isnt a copyvio issue. Anyone can make a map of anything they want. You cant copyright the information presented in a map, only the particular map you created itself. Prove me wrong.] (]) 23:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::It is possible to claim a copyright in a determination of what counties/regions/cities come into a region, as this is a judgment of opinion and is creative authorship. ] (]) 09:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Source I used on ] ==

	I used a website set up by ] to illustrate that the track "Kill D'White People" is hate speech against whites. Whilst the source may or may not constitute a reliable source, I hope there's no one here who does not consider a black rapper saying "kill the white people" to be a form of hate speech.--] (]) 22:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
	:In principle, I think you'd be better off using a neutral source, than one racist bad-mouthing another. ] (]) 22:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
	::Unless an RS calls it that we cannot, no matter what our views may be.] (]) 22:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

	== List of review farm websites? ==

	Is there a wiki page or project that holds a list of known "review farm" websites?

	Every week I am contacted by about twenty different websites wanting to write reviews on software my various companies sell. All they want in return is a reciprocal link. Such reviews are never neutral as they want to get as many reviews on their websites as possible and ideally you to publish the article on your own website. eg: cmswire, cmswatch...

	There are also a number of websites that allow marketing managers to publish articles themselves. eg: pcworld.com, pressdispensary.co.uk...

	In terms of quickly establishing and flagging non-notable references, if such a list existed the wiki system itself could be made to highlight such references. ] (]) 00:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Pseudonymous news column ==

	I just inserted in an article in which I'm the main editor, ], a tidbit from a political news article from March 1950, from the ''Los Angeles Daily News'', about a bid for the Senate being dropped. The article consists of a number of various political tidbits, but the byline is given as "Frank Observer", something which was not unusual in Southern California newspapers of that era (possibly elsewhere too). I've put a comment in the reference stating "obviously a pseudonym". Anything else needs to be done?--] (]) 03:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
	:I think that would be OK, as long as the publisher is reputable, which is what we focus on. I don't see it different from not having a byline at all, which would still be reliable if the publisher is. But I don't see the comment there at the moment. ] (]) 03:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
	::The only caveat is that the publisher of the ''Daily News'', in fact the day of this article, ''began his own run for the Senate seat.'' However, there is no mention of that in this news article, it would not have been in until the following day's edition. And there is no indication in this column that there is anything but straight news being reported.--] (]) 04:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::If there is reliable sourcing for a potential conflict of interest by a source, it should be mentioned, in my opinion, but does not disqualify the source (POV is allowed). Also, I still don't see the comment about the pseudonym in the footnote. ] (]) 05:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::It is there now, I had it as a hidden comment and made it a visible part of the footnote. How's that?--] (]) 08:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

	== "Come Softly to Me" appears to have been performed by Delta Rhythm Boys in 1955, several years before the Fleetwoods! ==

	I have seen some references from Billboard Magazine dated March 9, 1959, P 52 and 53 referencing the Fleetwood's release of "Come Softly to Me."
	<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=ux4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA52&dq=%22come+softly%22+delta+rhythm+kings&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22come%20softly%22%20delta%20rhythm%20kings&f=false</ref>

	Also can see the video clip of their appearance on the Dick Clark Show on Youtube the same year 1959.
	<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgJwm9erBaQ&feature=related</ref>

	But "Come Softly to Me" appears to have been performed by Delta Rhythm Boys in 1955, several years before the Fleetwoods!
	<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28xWrUbdTEs</ref>
	] (]) 06:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

	<small><references/></small>

	:A youtube video of the song, with the only claim to have been performed in 1955 being the title chosen by a random person on the internet, is not a reliable source for that claim. ] (]) 07:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
	::I agree with Someguy. There's no way to know that the YouTube poster put the correct year on the video. --] ] 16:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::Appears to be 1961 from the cites I can find - Scopitone was still alive then, so the video could date from that time easily. Fun looking it up <g>. ] (]) 01:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Are Amicus Briefs Reliable Sources? ==

	Are amicus briefs from relevant experts reliable sources? ''']]''' 03:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
	::Amicus briefs are designed to advance a particular POV. They exist solely to advance a particular position before a Court of law. Instead of relying upon Amicus briefs, one should link directly to the sources contained within the briefs. ] (]) 03:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

	::Amicus briefs are reliable only in terms of stating what party X believes about a question of law. Stuff that is on point is reliable in terms of what party X believes. Beyond that, then no. ] (]) 03:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

	:::For example, are amicus briefs from ] a reliable source with respect to ]? ''']]''' 03:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::I think they would be fine in suggesting what the APA believes about a position. However, research within the brief should be linked directly. It is important to remember that an Amicus brief exists only to assert a particular POV. That's why they are created and filed. They are inherently biased towards a certain position. It is best to extract the scientific research directly. Science > advocacy. ] (]) 04:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::The American Psychological Association is the association of psychologists in the USA, therefore an official statement by the APA is a reliable source for facts about psychology. It should be regarded as a secondary source, whereas the individual scientific papers are more likely to fall into the category of primary sources. The only caveat that applies is that there may be more than one view among psychologists, in which case all major viewpoints should be mentioned. ] (]) 23:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Is Weekly Standard a Reliable Source for Facts in a BLP? ==

	To those not involved in the Bill Moyers article, would The Weekly Standard be regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of a BLP citation about facts on the subject? The author of the article, Stephen Hayes, is a graduate of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and a former director of the Institute on Political Journalism at Georgetown University. The article cited is used for simply describing the earnings of the subject of the BLP. {{unsigned\|Drrll\|08:54, January 25, 2010}}

	: As much as I dislike the Weekly Standard's ideology, I would say yes. Just because a source is partisan doesn't mean it can't be reliable. ] (]) 15:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
	:RS for that sort of factual material (the WS does have editors). Opinions, however, must be cited as opinions. ] (]) 15:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

	:I agree. Weekly Standard is a RS for facts, but opinions should be cited as opinions. ] (]) 17:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

	What does the article actually say, and why would it have access to the information it provides? Are there other reliable sources available for the same information?

	Although not relevant to the question as to whether The Weekly Standard is a reliable source for the information you wish it to support, I do wonder why a subject's earnings (presumably for a particular period of time) are relevant or notable enough for inclusion in the article. ] (]) 15:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

	:Some excerpts from the article about earnings (it has access on some specifics because they're public record; the rest don't come with specifics):
	::If I have it wrong, so does the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Their records show that over the past decade, Moyers took a total of $969,377, though nothing since 1994. Some might call this nitpicking. After all, PBS was created with federal funds, and the indistinguishable streams of taxpayer, corporate, and foundation money that flow through public broadcasting makes the Enron partnerships look simple in comparison. What's more, many of the shows Moyers produces for public television come with companion books, and Moyers sells most of his productions in video after they air on PBS...What he will tell us, though, is that with the production of "Now with Bill Moyers," he has decided to suspend his privatization...When I asked Moyers if he sees any irony in the fact that he's a wealthy man owing in no small part to his long association with public television...He quietly earns $200,000 a year as president of the Florence and John Schumann Foundation...
	:The issue of earnings is relevant because he earns quite a bit from publicly funded public television.--] (]) 16:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

	First, the excerpt seems quite old - presumably you can date it. If he took that amount over the ''past'' decade, but nothing since 1994. It suggests it is information from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. If WS is usually considered reliable, I'd say this info appears to be reliably sourced - but be careful about the year. Even if the 200k figure is correct for the Florence and John Schumann Foundation, it is not clear where this info came from (could it have come from the Foundation itself?), nor is it clear what year it refers to. Did he receive 200k once for one or more years, and which years? The article seems as though it ought to be treated as reliable for the info from the CFB, but be careful over what you actually distil from it given its apparent age. In the absence of some idea as to where the info on the Foundation would come from, I wouldn't want to use the 200k figure. ] (]) 17:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

	I also note this , which offers greater clarity on dates. I do not comment on its reliability though it does appear to have been written after an interview with him. ] (]) 17:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

	:Weekly Standard is a partisan source, but it is completely reliable to use in BLPs. --] (]) 02:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

	Since the founder and editor in chief of the WS is neocon ], a well known GOP apparatchik who has had his errors and slanted reporting revealed numerous times (look it up, but for example ), I find it hard to believe editors here are okaying his partisan periodical as RS for the BLP of one of his hated enemies. A RS is defined as known for fact checking and accuracy, and there are numerous examples where this has not happened in the Weekly Standard. ] 05:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

	:RATEL, an isolated case of error reporting by a single individual does not make the entire magazine unreliable. And your claim "there are numerous examples where this (fact checking and accuracy) has not happened in the Weekly Standard" is unsubstantiated claim. --] (]) 06:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

	::You want I should dig up a long list of refs for that claim? Because they exist, rest assured. ] 09:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

	:::And moving on from Kristol, what about the author of the piece, ]? From his biography on wikipedia:

	::::''' Bill Moyers dispute'''
	::::Hayes also gained some attention with a piece attacking former ] host ] whom he claims interviewed "], ] attorney ], and '']'' playwright ]. Bill Moyers replied in a letter to the editor, "He gets it right only once. I have never met or interviewed Alan Dershowitz or Eve Ensler." Moyers summarized the piece famously as "replete with willful misrepresentation, deceitful juxtaposition, and outright error, with a little hypocrisy thrown in for flavor.

	:::Now ''that's'' what I call the '''''exact diametric opposite''''' of a reliable source. ] 09:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

	::::echnically a general rule where we assume that one side of the debate is telling the truth violates ], unless we can fact-check it ourselves or we can agree that it's too minor to merit inclusion. WS is not the best but it is citeable - we don't just remove all sources which are critical. That would violate ]. ] \| (] - ]) 00:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Moonfruit.com ==

	I recently afd ] who seems to me to be self-verified. But is moonfruit.com OK as a source? If not, should it be added to a spam list? ] ] 15:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
	:Moonfruit.com looks like it is just a platform for people to build their own Websites - what is the specific page which is being used as a source? ] (]) 16:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
	::] ] ] 16:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::If that's his website, then it should be fine as a source for content about him. Such a source can be used for a biography when it belongs to the person being written about. However, I don't think it would have much weight for Notability with regard to an AFD. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>16:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)</i></small>
	:I agree with ]. If there is an article hosted on a subdomain of moonfruit.com I personally wouldn't trust it to be independant or a notable source. Subdomains are given away to anyone using their website development platform. Regarding "spam list": I have a topic on the ] page asking if such a list exists in wiki. ] (]) 16:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
	::$10 and you can spin up your own domain name.. where the site is hosted is of little relevance. Follow the RS policies and you should be fine, regardless of where the site is hosted. I'll also note that independent is not a requirement, particularly if you're talking about the website of the biography person, which would also be notable for that person. So again, it all depends on what it is being used for, which the RS policy should already cover. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)</i></small>

	== ] ==

	{{resolved}}
	A request for clarification: the article is about some people hacking into an academic server and the resulting investigation of both the crime and the reaction to the content of the released email. There have been two self published books about this incident - they are obviously not reliable sources, but the fact that they were published seems to be notable to the reactions section. What constitutes a reliable source to make such a claim? Simply the fact that the books exist would be trivially cited. On the other hand, there have been no news stories about the publications in a reliable source. But that is the case for most books. What is the correct way to go about this? ] (]) 16:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

	: The existance of the books cannot be verified from a reliable source. ] (]) 17:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

	:: Updated (quoted from Hipocrite and my discussion on his talk page): "Nothing about the books except their existance is verifiable. They exist and have titles, publishers, whatever. They are not notable untill a reliable source mentions them. That's all we know. This is like[REDACTED] 101. It's the same as if I made a blog. Hipocrite (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)"

	::: So then the question is - is the fact that two books were published about the article topic notable to the article if they have not been mentioned in a newspaper? It seems like a high hurdle for information that a reader would want to know. One of the main uses for[REDACTED] is to find more in depth information regarding a topic. I have not read the books, and I suspect that they have some seriously fringe ideas in them, but I am not sure that excludes them. ] (]) 20:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

	:::: What information do you want to put into the article, and what is the reliable source that leads you to believe that information is verifiable? Please don't commit ] by ], for instance, by subtracting dates and stating that the books were published "very quickly" or anything. ] (]) 20:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

	::::: In the reaction section, something along the lines of "Since the incident occurred, two books, (blah) and (blah blah) have been published by climate skeptics, alleging that the behavior of the scientists is worse than is being portrayed in the media." Or something like that. That's just a paraphrase from the amazon editor's notes on one of the books. ] (]) 20:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

	:::::: So you'd like to paraphrase an unreliable, self-published source to assert the notability of a book that has no reliable secondary sources that mention it. Are there other articles where you see books about the topic referenced in this way? ] (]) 20:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

	::::::: The back cover of the book and title are reliable enough to determine what the subject of the book is, I think. Since that subject is identical to the[REDACTED] article's subject, that makes the fact that people wrote books about this subject notable enough for inclusion (although obviously not reliable as a reference for content). I believe that the notability hurdle is lower because I am not suggesting that a separate article be written about these books or that they be cited for other article content. ] (]) 20:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

	:::::::: I don't see that it's at all notable. Bear in mind that self-publishing is trivially easy now - there are plenty of websites that do it - so this is really no more noteworthy than some random individual creating a web page or uploading something to scribd.com. If these books get coverage by third parties, then we might consider it, but as it stands they have zero notability. -- ] (]) 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

	:::::::::Suggestion: since this has changed from a reliability question to a notability question, we should take this to the verifiability talk page? ] (]) 21:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

	::::::::::Since there is quite a bit of argument happening on the CRU hack page which may be taking up your time I will wait until tomorrow to resume this discussion on that page. ] (]) 22:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

			Sources
	Sorry you didn't get the answer you wanted, but the policy is absolutely clear and no 'clarification' is necessary. All content must be verifiable to reliable sources. ] (]) 22:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
			1.https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/02/01/turkey-exposed-fatal-flaws-in-russian-made-s-400-surface-to-air-missile/

	: Huh? The source for verifying that the books have been published and their names (and subject) is and - note that ] is a redirect to the article we are discussing. The book database is one of the links from wikipedia's how to find books search. We weren't talking about adding information into the article with these books as a citation, but instead adding that these books were published by skeptics about the incident, with the book database as the citation. I am completely clear on the policy of not using self published books as sources of information, since they are not reliable. But what is a reliable source for the title, subject, author, and publication date of a book? ] (]) 22:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
	:: Again, I understand that repeatedly being told the same answer that you don't want to hear is frustrating. But the answer will remain the same no matter how many times you ask the question. ] (]) 22:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
	::: The frustration is from different answers. I would be quite willing to drop the issue, and I think the books are probably crap. But the answer moved from "we cannot verify that the book exists" to "the books are not notable" to "don't perform OR or synthesis" back to "not notable". And I can see the case for not notable. I get it. I'm not trying to wikilawyer or just ignore the answer. If it is a question of notability then this is the wrong place to ask the question (I think, could be wrong...) But as for the others, what would be the right way to prove that a book exists? What sort of synthesis would it be to say, "this book is about the same subject as the article"? I'm begging you - don't just say WP: something. Please just say, "oh, it is a notability problem, and if the new york times reviewed it, then it would be included" or, "because it is not notable, then we cannot verify anything about the book". Anything along the lines of a concise answer.
	::: Also, I see how this could be viewed as being intentionally obtuse. I assure you that I am not feigning confusion on this issue, and your AGF earlier was much appreciated, believe me. I took it to talk:Hipocrite specifically because I was trying to avoid an argument about this. And then when that didn't remove my confusion, I took it here, with the hopes that it would be laid to rest. I failed at avoiding an argument, so I apologize. ] (]) 22:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::I think you're confused because you were asking so many different questions at once. No one here said anything about the books not existing; your "summary" of the books' contents would fall afoul of ] as written; and notability seems to be a key problem with these books. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 14:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

	There's a general confusion surrounding OR which is exemplified by Hipocrite's comment: "Updated (quoted from Hipocrite and my discussion on his talk page): "Nothing about the books except their existance is verifiable. They exist and have titles, publishers, whatever. They are not notable untill a reliable source mentions them. That's all we know. This is like[REDACTED] 101. It's the same as if I made a blog". This was the subject of a long discussion (]). Consensus is not that these things cannot be mentioned (there was no consensus). Whether or not they are allowed to be mentioned is up to the judgment of the editors involved. Personally I would wait until they're reviewed or discussed by another source. ] \| (] - ]) 00:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Would these sources be considered reliable? ==

	All of these have been published in written form:


	^ The American Naturopathic Association, Inc, Newsletter Jan, 1948

	^ The Platform of the American Naturopathic Association as drawn up by the Golden Jubilee Congress. July 27th – August 2nd, 1947

	^ American Naturopathic Association Certificate of Incorporation and Standing, Issued by the DC Department of Consumer Affairs, Corporate Division. (Continuously Incorporated since 1909)

	^ National Board of Naturopathic Examiners of the ANA Certificate of Incorporation and Standing Issued by the DC Department of Consumer Affairs, Corporate Division. (Continuously incorporated since 1952)

	^ Wendel V. Spencer, U.S. Appellate Court for the District of Columbia (1954)

	^ Naturopathy, A Definition by Dr. Benedict Lust, MD, ND, DC, DO, March 1936, American Naturopathic Association, Washington DC. ^ Standardized Naturopathy, Dr. Paul Wendel, ND, MD, DC, DO ©1951

	^ “Independent Practitioners Under Medicare”, U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare. (December 1968)

	^ _ Study of Naturopathic Licensing, State of Florida, (1986)

	^ Performance Audit, Naturopathic Licensing, State of Utah, 1979

	^ Sunset Report on Naturopathic Licensing, Arizona Auditor Generals Office, September 16, 1981

	^ Study of Naturopathic Licensing, State of Florida, (1986)

	^ Oregon Educational Coordinating Commission: Summary of Staff Findings at National College of Naturopathic Medicine (1985)

	^ Correspondence from the National Association of Naturopathic Physicians to Hon. Tom Vail, Chief Counsel, Senate Finance Committee (September 10, 1970)

	^ “Independent Practitioners Under Medicare”, U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, (December 1968)

	^ Self Study Report, National College of Naturopathic Medicine, Portland Oregon (1979)

	^ School Catalog, John Bastyr College of Naturopathic Medicine, (Volume 4 Spring 1982)

	^ Performance Audit, Naturopathic Licensing, A report to the Legislature, State of Utah, 1979

	^ State of Arizona, Attorney Generals Office, Special Investigations Division, Report # AG191-0511.

	^ Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, Founders list.

	^ (NPLEX)Oregon Educational Coordinating Commission: Summary of Staff Findings at National College of Naturopathic Medicine (1985)...

	^ NEPLEX Board Roster (1991)

	^ https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=147E&view=chapter&year=2009&keyword_type=all&keyword=Naturopathy

	^ http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=36135910197+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

	^ http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title54/T54CH51SECT54-5106.htm

	--] (]) 03:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

	:Some of the above mentioned sources (1,2,6,,15,16) are ] and ] sources. These sources should never be used for a general statement ''on'' medicine. These can be used ''only'' in the article ] or topics directly related to Naturopathy to elaborate the view of Naturopaths with proper attribution. For example, "according to Naturopathic viewpoint" etc. However these sources can be used to mention non-medical facts like budget of a Naturopathy institute etc with attribution. The other sources are non-Naturopathy government sources and can be used as reliable source to mention the legal status/situation/infrastructure related to Naturopathy. --] (]) 05:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

	Thanks, The "fringe" sources were only used in the naturopathy article for the purpose of relating how naturopaths view themselves and defined their profession. The governmental sources were used generally for historical background related to the profession or to document the legal status of an organization or group (for example the corporate status and history of an organization) I thought I was using these correctly but kept butting heads with somebody does not like what the sources say and so dismisses them as unreliable. Just wanted to make sure I was operating according to policy. --] (]) 07:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

	:As Defender of torch correctly implies, it is never correct to refer to a source as being generally "reliable". The real question is whether it is reliable for a particular piece of information. Without knowing what that particular piece of information is, how that source supports that information, and why it is reasonable to take the view that the source would be right about that information, it is impossible to say anything definitive. ] (]) 09:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	::Aside from the question of reliability, these sources are so poorly cited that the question is premature. Most of those have online versions if not controlled archival versions. They should, at minimum, be linked in order to aid verification before posing the question of reliability. ] <small>]</small> 19:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::For instance, the first listed appears to refer to either
	:::*{{cite journal\|journal=Nature's Path\|issn=0028-0909\|oclc=24298005\|date=January 1948}} or
	:::*{{cite journal\|journal=The journal of the American Naturopathic Assn\|oclc=24225069\|date=January 1948}}
	:::but gives no author, article title, volume, issue, or page numbers that would clarify the intended work. Please do the groundwork needed to help others help you.] <small>]</small> 05:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

	Some of these sources are primary, which could be good for descriptive basic information. Per ], naturopathic sources should be cited for views in their own articles and on particular topics they are close to. ] \| (] - ]) 00:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Source ==

	Please tell me whether the follwoing sources reliable or not:

	# viscom.miami.edu
	# prague.tv
	# prague-stay.com --] (]) 20:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
	:I have rechecked the sources and found that prague.tv is a user edited site which makes it unreliable. I am not exactly sure about prague-stay.com, but probably a poor source. However I think is perfectly reliable because it is published by the School of Communication of the ]. I am using this source in the article ]. --] (]) 04:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

	What piece of information are you seeking to support by reference to these sources, and why is it reasonable to conclude that those sources would be reliable for that piece of information. No source is reliable for every piece of information - without the piece of information you are looking to support, it is impossible to answer your question. ] (]) 09:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Freebase.com - circular and unreliable references ==

	About to ] - a user generated database that also scrapes content from Misplaced Pages leading to many a circular ref. FYI and for folks willing to clean up. N.B. Freebase itself may be using reliable sources - in those cases, those sources should be referenced directly. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 20:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
	:Agree, Freebase.com should be removed as reference from the article in which it is used. --] (]) 02:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	::I have started to remove Freebase from articles as I also agree that it is an unreliable source. ] ] (]</span>) 19:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for your help with this. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 15:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Self-published and hard to verify primary sources ==

	How to deal with self published and hard to verify primary sources (i.e. catalogs, press releases not found online or in any libraries) that are provided by the subject of the article? The usual procedure would be to accept them on good faith, if the claims are uncontroversial and plausible. That was done in one article, ] initially. As there was a conflict of interest at least two editors tried to verify some of the more accessible sources and were not able to verify the claims (see and in particular]). Either the individual was not even mentioned in the source, or the source did not support the claims. Note that at least ] was a completely uninvolved editor, with no prior contact to the subject of the article and not editing in his topic area (i.e. Eastern Europe, apparently a quite contentious topic area).

	The question now is of course what to do with the other sources which are almost impossible to verify (not in libraries, not published, let alone anywhere online). For some sources the subject of the article provides convenience links to copies on his webpage. Compounding the problem is that whenever a claim in the article is questioned, new (and for all practical purposes inaccessible) sources suddenly appear. What to do? Can we trust the sources; should we stub the article to the most basic biographic information; should we stub the article to only include what at least allegedly though unverified third party sources published and exclude everything in primary sources (i.e. press releases and the like)? ] (]) 07:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

	:It's reasonable to ask whoever has added the information what the source actually says (ie to provide a direct quotation), and why it is reasonable to assume that the source is accurate. If they are not able to satisfy others with those answers, then that information should not be used.

	:I should add that, to the extent that the usual procedure is to accept them in good faith, the usual procedure is wrong. People can easily, in good faith, make a mistake about what a source is saying, and how reliable that source is. We should not just readily accept a source in good faith. I note it is not contrary to the "good faith" rule to ask questions that would allow you to be able to determine whether the source is reliable. ] (]) 09:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

	:Additionally, a source must be published - in that it must be possible for someone (possibly with time and money on their hands) to see that source. A pamphlet that is thrown away, and not kept in any library, is not accepted as a source. It is not enough for someone to upload the pamphlet onto their webpage. Also for a source to be used, you must be able to question who wrote it and why it should be treated as reliable for that information. ] (]) 10:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Is 'Africa News' a reliable source? ==

	An editor has been inserting information into the article on the Lockerbie bomber, ], based on Africa News. Leaving aside the fact he's using a two month old source saying he's been alive for three months to say something about now, I don't think Africa News is a reliable source, based on this . The linked article does say "The editorial team of Africanews.com supervises the content in the news section." but I still don't think this is an RS. Thanks. ] (]) 15:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	::Agree. It is hard to see what controls they have to ensure the veracity of their content. --] (]) 16:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

	:::It seems like they support ] news : "Simple. When you think something is news, it is news. ''Please post your article or photos to us and we will publish''. Or not." --] (]) 16:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

	:The source looks citeable. Information which is dated should be noted as such in the article. The journalist' name and credentials are shown and they encourage people to cite the sources. Obviously, it's African and is best used for African-specific information. Note that if someone submits something and they publish it, obviously it is not self-published (by definition). Such an argument is analagous to saying that if I submit a paper to a journal (or whatever), it is self-published... ] \| (] - ]) 00:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Horus and Jesus comparison sources ==

	There is an ongoing content dispute as to whether the article on the Egyptian god ] should include a comparison to Jesus. The sources that have been added detailing the comparison have been called out as unreliable by ]. The question involves this edit: from three separate editors, which was then reverted here: due to "rampant use of unacceptable sources." These are the sources being used:

	#{{cite book\|title=The Horus myth in its relation to Christianity\|author=William Ricketts Cooper\|publisher=Hardwicke & Bogue\|year=1877\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=EA4GAAAAQAAJ&dq=horus&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s }}
	#{{cite book\|title=Ancient Egypt, the light of the world: a work of reclamation and restitution in twelve books\|author=]\|publisher=T. F. Unwin\|year=1907\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=3k4XAAAAYAAJ&dq=massey+kamite+christianity&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s }}
	#{{cite book\|title=Bible myths, and their parallels in other religions: being a comparison of the Old and New Testament myths and miracles with those of heathen nations of antiquity, considering also their origin and meaning\|author=Thomas William Doane\|publisher=J. W. Bouton\|year=1884\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=C6oTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA484&dq=horus+crucified&cd=4#v=onepage&q=horus%20crucified&f=false }}
	#{{cite book\|title=Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection\|author1=]\|author2=S. Acharya\|publisher=Stellar House Publishing\|year=2009\|isbn=0979963117\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Iaqe9CG_s6cC&source=gbs_navlinks_s }}
	#{{cite book\|title=The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light\|author=]\|publisher=Walker & Company\|year=2005\|isbn=0802714498\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=pzG7HAAACAAJ&dq=The+Pagan+Christ%3B+Recovering+the+Lost+Light,&cd=1 }}
	#{{Citation \| last = Charles \| first = Larry \| author-link = Larry Charles \| last2 = Maher \| first2 = Bill \| author2-link = Bill Maher \| year =2009 \| title = ] \| publisher = ]}}
	#{{cite news \| first=W. Ward \| last=Gasque \| coauthors= \|authorlink= \| title=The Leading Religion Writer in Canada ... Does He Know What He's Talking About? \| date=2004-08-09 \| publisher=] \| url =http://hnn.us/articles/6641.html \| work =] \| pages = \| accessdate = 2010-01-20 \| language = }}

	Are these sources demonstrably unreliable? Or can they be rightfully used as references for a section of the Horus article detailing the comparisons made between ] and ]? ] (]) 18:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	:Well a comedy show is unlikely to exercise the same level of editorial control as a high end newspaper or scholastic journal. Nor is it likly to be written by a notable expert in the field of theology. So no its not RS.] (]) 18:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	::Well, Religulous wasn't a comedy show, it was a documentary. And what about the six other references? Remember, this isn't a question of whether the claim is accurate, but, rather, whether the claim has been made in a reliable sourced reference. ] (]) 19:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::It was a comedy documentary not a pure piece of scholastic (or even popular sociological) filmmaking. Gerald Massey was a self taught Egyptologist, And there have been some doubts raised as to the reliability of much of his work. The HNN article does not support the claim, it dismisses it, and so any use of it should reflect that (it also heavily chritisises Tom Harpur basicly accusing him of poor scholership). The others I would have to see. D. M. Murdock appears to be self published, so no its not RS ].] (]) 19:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::So the context of this section is to ''establish that the comparison has been made by reliable sources'', it was not written to address the ''veracity'' of the comparison, which is more of a ] question than a ] issue. The HNN article is used to rebut the comparisons in the article. Also, Religulous is a "comedy documentary," and should not be scrutinized as a serious piece of research. But in the article, again, these references are being used solely to ''establish the existence'' and of the comparison. So, in that context, are these sources reliable? ] (]) 20:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Now a comedy/documentary is not an exceptional source for anything, for all we know he just looked for the bigest loonys on the block. Nor (I would argue) is a source RS for a view it says is silly, its only RS for the fact that that person thinks that view is silly (and that is definalty fringe).] (]) 21:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Again...forgive me if I sound like a broken record, here is the claim being made in the : "Several authors have written about possible similarities with the origins story of Horus and Jesus Christ." How on earth does that qualify an "exceptional claim?" It seems downright pedestrian to me. You're arguing that there are ''not'' several authors claiming a similarity? We're discussing the existence of the premises, not the validity of the conclusion (which is a ] issue). That's basic WP:V stuff: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth". It doesn't matter if they're loony, silly, or even ]. This is not intended to be an article called ], this is simply an attempt to establish that, yes, this belief is repeated in reliable publications. And yes, it deserves inclusion in the Horus article. ] (]) 22:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::] makes it clear that we should avoid claims not covered by mainstream sources and claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them. It also says that Exceptional claims in Misplaced Pages require high-quality sources See ] as an example of the same claim (but about a different Egyptian god). The sources used here are recognised Egyptologists and biblical scholars. Not comedians and self published self-proclaimed experts. An exceptional claim is not one that is weird or extreme, its one that goes against mainstream theory. Nor does it matter hoow its worded in the article, its the status of the claim outside the wiki community that makes io exceptioal.] (]) 22:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::I should point out, at one of the sources quoted in the ] article (Stephen Benko) has said similar things about Horus / Jesus in his book "The Goddess: Studies in the Pagan and Christian Roots of Mariology." Also, noted Egyptologist ], in his book "The Secret Lore of Egypt", page 60, says: "There was an obvious analogy between the Horus child and the baby Jesus and the care they received from their sacred mothers..." If you deem the evidence for the Osirus article sufficient, then you must surely accept that identical sources would be sufficient for inclusion in the Horus article, yes? You would consider those two to be reliable scholars? ] (]) 23:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::Not that sure about Benko (I can't find anything about his academic background), but his publishers do appear to be reputable publishers of books on the subject so I cannot find any reason to not consider it RS. As to Mr Hornung yes it does seem to be RS, I would have no objection to its use.] (]) 13:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::Excellent. Thank you for your feedback -- I think you've helped to find a new way forward with this material. I located several reliably sourced references referring to the similarities in Christian iconography with Isis/Horus & Mary/Jesus, so that's what the comparison needs to start with. The Christ Myth theory stuff is dubious, flawed, and (oftentimes) totally fallacious...so to start the comparison there is a very bad idea (I now realize). But, like I say, it's a theory that's been advanced by several notable individuals (regardless of their background or qualifications, they are notable), so it's my opinion that it warrants some kind of mention. But nothing more than a sentence or two. Again, thanks for the feedback on this. ] (]) 17:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::A source is only usualy on ly RS if the views are expressed by some one whoese views on that subject would be notable, nit if that person is notable. You should stick to the accademic sources, and leave out the opinions from self proclaimed experts. Remeber you do not know why they have writen this material, or even if thet belive it.] (]) 14:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

	== The Dartmouth ==

	Is '']'' considered to be a reliable source for a BLP issue?

	It's a college newspaper (]'s official student newspaper), but it's 211 years old (the oldest student newspaper in the United States) and has interviewed substantial figures such as ] and ]; it's not tabloid-ish or exploitative.

	The article I wish to use as a reference is from 2008, discussing a speech given at the college by ], a conservative columnist and fellow with the ]. The article notes that Murdock is gay, a fact which had been in his Misplaced Pages bio (unsourced) but was removed, citing BLP concerns. While it shouldn't be a particularly controversial point (several of Murdock's columns are available at ], which explicitly identifies its contributors as gay or lesbian), Murdock doesn't discuss his personal life all that much, and finding a reliable citation without wandering into the realm of synthesis proved to be difficult.

	There have been quite a few discussions about the reliability of student newspapers on this noticeboard, and there has never been a definitive statement one way or the other on the topic. Due to the sensitive nature of the material I intend to use the article to source, I'd like to see if there is a consensus that '']'' is a reliable source on this issue. ''']''' <small>]</small> 19:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

	:If his sexual orientation is so hard to verify that you need to refer to a (respectable) student newspaper interview, and to the fact that he has columns on a gay-oriented forum, then it looks to me as if his sexual orientation is not that important (for his article, his public figure: of course it is important in his private life): including this hard-to-verify but probably correct fact in his biography seems to be giving undue weight and invading his privacy, and should be left out of the article. ] (]) 14:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

	* This seems fine, and as you note it is uncontroversial. If he's writing articles in the Independent Gay Forum then he's obviously not in the closet. No definitive statement on college papers, but I'd say student newspapers are generally citeable. ] \| (] - ]) 00:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	**I disagree. I would avoid citing a living person's sexual orientation to a college student newspaper, because such newspapers are subject not only to all the sources of error that a professional newspaper would have, plus others as well (such as being written and edited by amateur journalists). If the subject is "out" as being gay, then there ought to be better sources to verify that than a student newspaper. --] ] 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Gonzaga Journal of International Law ==

	This is a law journal, edited by students to "Law Review standards" (http://www.gonzagajil.org/content/view/123/37/). Can material published there be used on WP? ] (]) 21:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

	:Certainly (pretty much all law journals are student-edited). Has someone tried to argue otherwise? ] \| (] - ]) 00:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	::Yes, see . Not so much an argument as a revert with a request that this be discussed here. ] (]) 00:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Is it a blog? ==

	The web site http://blog.taragana.com/politics/2009/12/21/russias-communists-urge-nation-dont-criticize-stalin-on-his-130th-birthday-9548/ looks like a blog. Can it be used as a RS in the article about Stalin?--] (]) 00:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	:Yes, it is a blog maintained by who is the founder of . Actually it is the blog of that company and you will find a link to the blog . This is why the web site you mentioned is not RS. But the article you cited is a newspiece by the ] and you will find this same newspiece in other reliable sources. Try , it is ] which is a reliable source. --] (]) 02:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	::Than you Defender of torch.--] (]) 16:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Islamic Q&A website ==

	I ran across an artile using the site Islam Q&A as a source. According to the site, ''"Responses are composed by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, a known Islamic lecturer and author. Questions about any topic are welcome, such as theology, worship, human and business relations, or social and personal issues.All questions and answers on this site have been prepared, approved, revised, edited, amended or annotated by Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid, the supervisor of this site."'' While the sheikh may (or may not) be all he claims, I'm not comfortable with the reliability of the site. Much of the site is devoted to issuing new fatwas. Would someone else mind taking a look at this site and seeing what kind of impression they get? ] (]) 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	:The site is definitely a pro-Islamic advocacy site as can be seen from . --] (]) 02:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	::*Definately not NPOV. I just don't know enough about Islam to know if the guy is much of an authority. ] (]) 02:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	::No indication that the source is notable or reliable. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::Being a pro-Islamic advocacy site and not NPOV aren't relevant. Jayjg's criteria are the ones that count. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 04:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::*And that's why I followed up with my comment wondering about his expertise.] (]) 14:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::There may be a case for having more specific guidance about sources around Islam. It very much depends what flavour of Islam that one is discussing and what the source is talking about. There are many interpretations of Fiqh, and they can depend on the training of the Imam.
	:::::] (]) 15:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::*That's where I start having the problem. Does the site appear to be run by an "expert" who can be considered reliable. Or is this the opinion of a cleric who is really not any more of an expert than any other cleric? ] (]) 15:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Define ''expert'', there are many Imams who can recite the Q'uran and Hadith by rote who would be considered ''expert'' by some traditions in Islam. They will tend to give a formulaic answer to a question. There are others who will a more nuanced and sophisticated response who would not be considered acceptable by those traditions. On the other hand the former wouldn't even be consulted. Normally reliability is in the eye of the beholder, more so when it comes to Islamic jurisprudence.
	:::::::] (]) 15:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	*That's why I'm here. Personally, I look at this and see a Q&A site run by a guy who claims to be renowned, but I can't prove that. I tend to be skeptical of it. Trying to find out if I'm alone in that. ] (]) 16:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	:Personally I'd avoid anything about straightforward Sunni/ Shia that's not out of Cairo or Qom. Sufi teachers are a lot more difficult, but the reputable ones can demonstrate a lineage.
	:] (]) 20:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	::Again, the issue here is reliability and notability. I see no indication of either. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::I would say that notability is not relevant here, it doesn't really matter how notable or otherwise the individual might be he's only ''reliable'' when talking about the interpretations of Islam from his own tradition, not Islam in general. Which is why I floated the idea of some specific guidance around Islam above.
	:::] (]) 09:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Blog used on ] ==

	Hey. On the Westboro article, someone recently added the following text and used http://www.gayindynow.com/news/?id=news&item=136 as a source:
	{{Quotation\|Some targets of the church's protests assert that counter protests provide publicity and encouragement to the church, and serve to foster continued protesting.}}
	{{Quotation\|Some groups against whom the protests are directed have used it as a fundraiser, getting their community to donate money to combat intolerance.(ref) One method used is to get donors to pledge money for length of time a given protest lasts.}}
	The reference is a blog belonging to the Indy Rainbow Chamber of Commerce. Aside from the issues of ] in the quotes above, I'm pretty sure that the given reference doesn't back up the text in the article. And it's a blog, so it's not really a reliable source as it's self-published. Or am I mistaken? — ] <sup>]</sup> 03:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	::The way I interpret ] is that it can be removed as an unreliable source. ] ] (]</span>) 04:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Can we use SPPI Blog ==

	is written by ]. Is it a reliable source to confirm his Graves disease? ] ] 06:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	:Personal blogs by notable persons/experts can be used as reliable source (in the field of knowledge in which the blogger has expertise) as long as you attribute, eg. "XYZ in his/her blog claimed...". --] (]) 13:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

	== No sources for Sectarianism ==

	The sectarianism page claims that
	:'''Sectarianism''' is ], ] or ] arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different ]s of a ] or the ]s of a ].
	There are absolutely no sources for this claim, and none of the dictionaries that I checked agreed with that definition. After mentioning this on the talk page and stating my intention to move the page to a more appropriate article name, and waiting nearly four months (!) without anyone objecting, I did so. Then Dr.enh, who apparently has developed a vendetta against me, reverted my edits without any reason. He also forged a comment by me at the bottom of the page. Then Nate showed up and threatened me with a block if I continued with my editing, citing absolutely no[REDACTED] policy. Seems to me that unilaterally telling other people what edits they are and are not allowed to make is a clear violation of[REDACTED] policy. When I rejected Nate's right to tell me what to do, Jauerback showed up, accused me of vandalism, and then blocked me for a week. This is completely unacceptable. Jauerback's accusation of vandalism is completely without foundation, and a blatant violation of civility.] (]) 06:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	:Heqwm2 was blocked for ], which they already have a track record for as . <s>No where did I mention "vandalism".</s> I take this back, apparently, I used the wrong block template. Clicking the "abuse of editing privledges" is a link to ]. For that, I apologize, but not for the block itself. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 12:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

	== Venezuelanalysis ==

	The issue has come up whether the website can be used as a source. I'm not sure exactly how to proceed with a discussion on this, but it needs settling.

	Some background on Venezuelan media (I can email on request: Dinges, John. Columbia Journalism Review (July 2005). "Soul Search", Vol. 44 Issue 2, July-August 2005, pp52-8); or is online and gives background too. From Dingles (2005): "media owners and their editor used the news - print and broadcast - to spearhead an opposition movement against Chavez... Editors began routinely winking at copy containing unfounded speculation, rumor, and unchecked facts." ] also has some details on national and international media in relation to Venezuela reporting.

	Notable too (I can find sources for this if needed) is that international media sources rely heavily on reporters who work with (and live in the same areas as) the largely oppositionalist Venezuelan private media. The reason I mention this is to illustrate that this source is not easily replaceable with international media sources, which most obviously manifest their bias in an extreme selectivity. So many details are sourceable only to Venezuelanalysis, occasional Spanish-language sources, or sometimes academic papers and books (which are obviously less accessible and searchable). ] <sup>]</sup> 12:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

	: The problem across Chavez/Venezuela articles on Wiki is pervasive and is larger than the use of one pro-government website (venanalysis), and extends to aporrea.org, Venezuelan-government-controlled sources, rethinkvenezuela.com, ], and many others, although venanalysis is the most frequent source of bias, in favor of mainstream reliable sources. I suggest a thorough read of these two pages, so that Venezuelan/Chavez articles on Misplaced Pages can begin to be approached neutrally: and . There are many editors on Wiki spreading these sources to the exclusion of more neutral and reliable sources, and few who speak Spanish and can deal with all of this bias on Wiki; a first method to addressing Wiki's pervasive pro-Chavez bias would be an insistence on solid sourcing. Most of these issues and events are widely covered in mainstream sources like ''The New York Times'', ''LA times'', CNN, and the BBC, so there is no reason to use sources with a known bias. As a side note, I have rarely found any neutral accounting of any issue from Venanalysis, and I do speak and read Spanish and can access Spanish-language sources, so that argument is a red herring, as is the unsubstantiated statement about "largely oppositionalist Venezuelan private media"-- the NYT, LA Times, BBC etc. are reliable sources. Editors who examine the pervasiveness of this problem on Wiki will need to explore offline sources like ''Foreign Policy'' magazine, and others, to offset the sources that Rd232 provides, in the context of the ] efforts on behalf of the Chavez government, and also review ], ]. The problem of biased sourcing across Misplaced Pages extends beyond the Chavez/Venezuela articles, and includes many BLPs. ] (]) 12:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

	::"Widely covered" - yes, in a generally very shallow way, hence the difficulty in replacing this source with others. This is not a question of ''bias'' (well it is that too) so much as of ''information''. You've not addressed my argument about selectivity, and what those links are supposed to prove is anyone's guess. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	::Also, the language point you allude to is another reason to use Venezuelanalysis: other sources providing equivalent levels of detail, where available at all, will often be in Spanish. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

	::: My apologies for expanding my response while we edit conflicted twice. Again, I speak Spanish, and refute your allegations about reliable sources with respect to ], a pillar of Wiki, and the problem you allege with Spanish-language sources, which I can and do read. The bias on Wiki is best understood in the context of the articles about the ]. Venanalysis is clearly biased, and works closely with the Chavez administration and typically reports their version of events. Further, most of the editors who use these sources rarely balance them with mainstream reliable sources (see ] as today's example, students were killed in Venezuela yesterday in protests over RCTV), instead sourcing articles almost exclusively to these biased sources. ] (]) 13:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::There's no evidence for your claims. For instance, VA reports the protests . Any tendency of editors to over-rely on one source or set of sources is (a) common, and quite human (b) fixable by ''adding'' sources, not taking them away by declaring some "unreliable". ] <sup>]</sup> 13:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::: Possible, but not feasible with so many editors spreading ''only'' these sources across so many articles (]?), and only one or two editors on Wiki who speak Spanish and can do the necessary work. Wiki needs to globally address this very pervasive problem. Iffy sources are being used to the exclusion of reliable sources, and virtually every Chavez/Venezuela article on Wiki is POV as a result. And I linked two articles which evidence my "claims"; more can be found by anyone who has the time to do offline research. ] (]) 13:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::: For clarification: since the article ] does not have any sources from Venezuelanalysis, you are in fact claiming that editors connected with VIO are editing on their behalf? ] <sup>]</sup> 13:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::: Please don't read words I didn't type (and do stay on topic here :) ] (]) 13:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::: ?? Please clarify what you meant then. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::: That possibly, according to the two articles I cited, the VIO has been very effective in putting its message out to the media. ] (]) 13:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::: Since you won't clarify exactly what your two sources are supposed to prove (the National Review article doesn't even mention VA), I'll quote from the Public Integrity source, which has VIO saying "We encourage people to go their site because it is the most in-depth, comprehensive coverage of Venezuela in English... but we certainly do not have a structural relationship with them." ] <sup>]</sup> 13:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: Golinger writes for Venanalysis, and you're quoting ''James'', not Public Integrity, which proves the point. Whether or not they have a "structural relationship" doesn't make them any more reliable, less biased, or negate the effectiveness of VIO in putting out a biased message to the media. ] (]) 13:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::::: And the relevance of VIO to this is what? We're talking about Venezuelanalysis. Also the point I made above has been completely ignored: the reason VIO was set up in the first place was to counter the evident and documented bias in international (especially US) media. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

	:::::: Venezuelanalysis is a hardline pro-Chavista site which recives fund from the Chavez government . Using it in politics related articles is like using ] in North Korean politics related articles. --] (]) 13:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::: I'm sorry, I thought this was the ''Reliable Sources'' noticeboard - so why are you citing a random blog? And of course your ludicrously hyperbolic statement is wrong. VA just scraped its $10k fundraising goal from public donations. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::: I'm not sure where the hyperbole is; Venanalysis is certainly "a hardline pro-Chavista site", and ''if it's true'' that they no longer receive funding, that fact doesn't change. ] (]) 13:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::: "a hardline pro-Chavista site" - source for that? Even some examples from the site would do. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::: (ec) Though the site is a random blog, the author is not any random guy. Aleksander Boyd is a notable Venezuelan political analyst based in London who wrote for highly respectable publications like . BTW the random blog is mentioned by publications like ''ResourceInvestor.com'' Anyway, venezuelananlysis is very obviously a pro-Chavez source and should be used with extreme caution (for example with proper attribution) if ever used. However the best option is to avoid it on politics related articles. --] (]) 13:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::: Correct (and the fact that he also writes a blog doesn't negate the validity of the info in the blog. It may not be a reliable source for articles, but the info in it is relevant to whether Venanalysis is biased). ] (]) 14:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::: That's not info, it's an unsupported claim, in a random blog, by someone who either is part of or identifies with the Venezuelan opposition. None of this is anything but smoke and mirrors: no reliable source has said they're unreliable, and there's no evidence that information from them is not generally correct. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::: They're unreliable because of their close association with the Chavez administration; they don't report all sides of an issue. ] (]) 14:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: Both points are unproven, and I think untrue. Have you actually ''read'' any of their stuff, and compared it to other sources? If anyone's not reporting stuff, it's the news agencies. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

	::::::::::::: Arguing that Venezuelanalysis has a close association with Chávez just because some blog says so is a very feeble argument. With the same reasoning you could argue that a lot Venezuelan media is opposition-aligned and therefore unreliable. In fact, you could prove that all sources in the world are unreliable. ] (]) 15:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

	:::::::::::::: There '''is''' a reliable source (]) which says that Venezuelanalysis is a pro-Chavez site . --] (]) 16:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::: That piece is not exactly Exhibit A for that Center being a reliable source. See the . Probably the most notable part of the response would be "It is also worth noting that Miriam Kornblith, who is identified as the "Lead Social Scientist" responsible for your "Global Integrity" report on Venezuela is part of the Venezuelan opposition. Miriam Kornblith currently represents the opposition on the National Electoral Council (CNE). She is also listed (see NED Grant No. 2003-548.0, page 5) as an advisor to Súmate, a group that led the signature drive to recall Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez." ] <sup>]</sup> 16:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::An article published by a reputed organization is reliable, not some random grievance letter to the editor <s>by some angry socialists</s>. A major signatory in this letter expressing personal grudge is ] who is an adviser to El Presidente. --] (]) 16:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::There is no reliable source saying he was ever an adviser. I note you don't seek to minimise the importance of the information provided in the letter, which was of course taken seriously enough to be published by the organisation being criticised (to their credit). We may assume that they would have corrected any egregious errors of fact in their publication of the letter. (Though Kornblith's CNE membership and contribution to the 2004 Global Integrity report are anyway not hard to verify from other sources.) ] <sup>]</sup> 17:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::: There is, example . It is difficult to understand why is it that Chavez apologists have such a difficult time admitting their connections to their paymaster.--] (]) 20:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::That source does not mention Venezuelanalysis. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

	Lets have a critical look at the website Venezuelanalysis. According to , the site is written by Federico Fuentes, Michael Fox, Eva Golinger, Kiraz Janicke, Jan Kühn, Tamara Pearson, James Suggett and Gregory Wilpert.
	*Federico Fuentes is a socialist, a frequent writer for the Australian socialist newspaper ''Green Left Weekly'' and member of the ''Democratic Socialist Perspective''
	*Eva Golinger is the writer of a pro-Chavez book ''''.
	*Kiraz Janicke is a journalist for the socialist ''Green Left Weekly'' and member of the socialist youth organization Resistance
	*Tamara Pearson stood as a candidate for the Socialist Alliance Party

	It is obvious a site written and controlled by an all socialist team will be highly partisan. --] (]) 18:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

	Site looks more reliable than some of the other websites opponents of this site have put forward in this thread. ] (]) 18:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

	It is a fact that Venezuelanalysis is run by chavistas: it was registered by Martin Sanchez, Chavez's Consul in SF (formerly in Chicago) who admitted having received funding from the Chavez government; it is run by Gregory Wilpert (husband of Chavez's Consul in NY); it counts among its staff with Eva Golinger, who is also a paid apologist of Chavez; all this information is verifiable. I understand that my site should not be used as a source, however all the information I have published over the years with regards to the people associated with Venezuelanalysis, can be corroborated simply by following the links to reliable sources, such as Center for Public Integrity, Venezuela's Gaceta Oficial, US DoJ, etc. The fact the is, Rd232 and JRSP run Venezuela/Chavez related pages, as if it were their own blog. They have no qualms in deleting perfectly sourced information, just like that. This is a case that should be brought to higher authorities within Misplaced Pages community, and those editors should be requested to either uphold Wiki policy or refrain from editing these pages.--] (]) 19:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	: The POV in all Venezuela/Chavez articles is a huge and pervasive problem on Wiki across hundreds of articles; this does need to be dealt with at higher levels of dispute resolution, but first dealing with the sourcing issues is a good first step. It is simply not possible for one or two Spanish-speaking editors, knowledgeable of Venezuela, to clean up this pervasive and embarassing and systemic mess that has been allowed to grow for years; global help is required. When I came to Wiki in 2006, I engaged the Venezuela articles, along with dozens of others; they have all since given up and left, in the face of serious pro-Chavez ]. I also stopped following Venezuela articles, because one person can't keep up with all of it. ] (]) 20:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

	* All sources are biased, so it is irrelevant to attempt to exclude a source because you don't like their bias. That's why we have a ] policy. ] (]) 20:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

	* The entire line of reasoning (above) by JRSP and Rd232 about bias in US sources is absurd, wrong, and goes against the very core of the Wiki pillar, ]. I have never seen neutral reporting from Venezuelanalysis.com, while sources like ''The New York Times'', the ''LA Times'', the BBC and CNN go to (irritating) pains to put forward the pro-Chavez point of view along with the anti-Chavez point of view. Neutral, balanced, unbiased sources are available, but we have a couple of editors filling articles with other sources, overlooking mainstream sources, deleting text they disagree with, adding text to marginal sources, etc ... textbook tendentious editing. ] (]) 20:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

	* Well we agree that there is a systematic problem here, but then any attempts at providing balance, are immediately quashed by these two. For newcomers it is incredibly frustrating having to explain to senior editors the very rules that supposedly govern this encyclopaedia. And since no one in the wider Misplaced Pages community really cares about Venezuela, then these guys continue running the show. If you think in English is bad, I invite you to visit, for instance, Eva Golinger's entry in Spanish. There it's even worse, crude propaganda and self promotion, any attempts at balance, you get, as I did, a block for life. These pages are a joke, and although I agree with what you've said about clearing up sourcing, a good way to start would be to eliminate all links to Venezuelanalysis. If it is to be used, it should be clearly stated that it is a semi-official chavista site, run and funded by chavistas with very close connections to the Chavez regime. I agree that all sources are biased, hence the need for balance and weight, which at the moment is simply non existent.--] (]) 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

	:{ec}I'm sorry but based on what I've seen this is not what is happening. I understand you may disagree over content but the site in question seems relatively reliable and US news sources are generally exceptionally conservative in bias. ] (]) 20:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

	* Simonm223, let be say very clearly that Venezuelanalisys is reliable as far as the Venezuelan government official line is at a given time: in that is very reliable. The problem is, in my opinion, to pretend that it is an independent source of information, totally disconnected to the official line, when in fact, is anything but.--] (]) 20:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

	I hope this outpouring of prejudice and accusations of bad faith is cathartic, because it's got bugger all to do with Venezuelanalysis as a source. Unsourced opinion is worth... nothing. Nobody's saying Venezuelanalysis is '']''; clearly it has a left perspective. In any given conflict between it and other sources, the weight to be given to the respective sources can be debated. So far nobody's even given a single example of a conflict. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

	* The website is reliable enough to be cited, surely. ] states that articles must represent "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". The pro-Chavez view is certainly significant, and it cannot be excluded in compliance with ]. So, the website should certainly not be excluded, but it should be balanced by other views from the anti-Chavez group. ] \| (] - ]) 00:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

	===Break===
	It's unclear to me on what grounds this website could qualify as a ]. Can someone briefly explain why they think it qualifies? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	:It's a well-known, fairly longstanding Venezeula news organization. Whether it is printed or not is irrelevant to reliability considerations. It certainly represents a significant POV in the Venezuela news spectrum. As the Venezuela Analysis website itself , now that Venezuela has recently launched an English language newspaper, it might be less necessary to use it (although the trend, as shown by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, is for news to drop print). ] \| (] - ]) 05:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	::: '''Thank you for providing a brilliant example of the Venanalysis misleading reporting''' and the ignorance about Venezuela from many people weighing in here and their willingness to believe that VA (not to mention VA's faulty fact-checking and strong association with Chavez regime, which has everything to do with it as an RS, and the people citing VA almost never balance their viewpoints because VA is an extremist site that attracts extremist viewpoints). Does no one question why there seems to be so far not a single edit on Wiki about the students who died day before yesterday during protests about freedom of the press in Venezuela and no reliable reporting anywhere on Wiki about the level of state-controlled media in Venezuela, while Rd232 and others go on about "bias" in mainstream sources? Does anyone notice that the success of the ] has now permeated and furthered Wiki as another arm of their influence, undermining Wiki's pillar of ], and the level of state-controlled media that exists in Venezuela?
	::: Now '''as to the completely false VA report and headline provided by II,''' (who is clearly uninformed about Venezuela), "Announcing Venezuela’s First and Only English Language Newspaper, Correo del Orinoco International", this provides a perfect example of how misleading they are, as well as an example of how far the level of state control of the media has gone in Venezuela. ''The Daily Journal'' existed for eons in Venezuela, and I read it during the ten years I lived there. Does anyone wonder, in an environment where journalists can be prosecuted and media outlets closed when they report anything the Chavez regime doesn't agree with, why the level of state control of media has grown? This is ''not'' the "First English Language Newspaper" in Venezuela (and I should also mention that one of the leading newspapers, ], also publishes an online version in English, but their reporting is very brief, otherwise Chavez could shut them down). ''The Daily Journal'' is gone, state-controlled media has taken over in Venezuela, read up on freedom of the press in Venezuela. Point made, thank you. Let's not have Misplaced Pages become another arm of the state-controlled media in Venezuela. ] (]) 12:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::Well if you read beyond the headline into the first paragraph, you'd find "While in the past other English-language publications have existed, none remain in circulation today..." I take that as a reference to the ] (funny, the article there notes censorship in 1988... guess that was Chavez too), whilst the English language edition of El Universal is excluded because it's online only. (I think - never seen it in print anyway.) In sum, try reading the source you're so keen to damn. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::: No, I think the point is clear; even when reading the article, one finds absolutely no neutral or comprehensive or unbiased reporting of ''The Daily Journal'' or mention of ''El Universal'''s online English version, and II ''clearly'' fell for it. This is typical of Golinger, Venanalysis, and all the non-reliable sources; their reporting is one-sided and biased. ] (]) 18:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::::I really didn't want to get into a drawn-out discussion, but I should clarify - I thought the headline was odd - I doubted that Venezuela had no English newspapers - and did a little research before posting. Since I couldn't find any English-language newspapers for Venezuela (and had noted the clarification in the first paragraph), I figured the slightly misleading headline was not a big deal. Since you've mentioned El Universal, I agree with you more. However, I hardly see how Venezeula Analysis is worse than the you recently added to ]'s article. I don't support blanket exclusions of news organizations without ''very'' good reasons, and this article certainly isn't enough. ] \| (] - ]) 20:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::::: So? It's a piece on the launch of a new newspaper, not an analysis of English language sources in Venezuela. This sort of criticism could be levelled at absolutely any news piece from any organisation: details are left out - ones not known about or felt not to be so important. Far more important details are routinely omitted from international media sources; which is exactly why different sources should be combined - and one of them should be Venezuelanalysis. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

	:::: That's right, Eva Golinger, that beacon of objectivity and independence, will be the Editor in Chief of the 'First English Language Newspaper of Venezuela'. The Daily Journal never was, neither the English version of El Universal. Collect said it best "When a source is that disingenuous, it is clearly not reliable". --] (]) 13:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::: Alek, the level of comprehension and digestion of relevant info isn't running high on this page; best take care with the sarcasm, as some may not get it :) ] (]) 17:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

	::Thanks -- that PR shows precisely why it is not RS. Saying that no English language newspapers are now in Venezuela seems to elide the reason ''why'' there are none <g>. Nor would I regard the new "Bolivarian Revolution" newspaper as being RS. When a source is that disingenuous, it is clearly not reliable. ] (]) 11:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::See above - the existence of prior English language papers is mentioned in the article. And any unsourced speculation about why ] closed is worth... nothing. (If you have sources, please add them to that article.) ] <sup>]</sup> 14:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

	*The extent to which Venezuelanalysis is run by the goverment is irrelevant, and hence much of the above discussion seems irrelevant to me. We do not require that our sources be unbiased. The importance is "a reputation for fact-checking". I have no idea if this holds for Venezuelanalysis or not, but that is what the discussion should focus on. Most newspapers have a political bias, and for that matter we use CIA as a reliable source. ] (]) 12:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	** Can you please explain how the extent to which they are run by the government, in a country where media is state-controlled, is irrelevant to Wiki's core policies of ] and ]? ] (]) 13:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

			2. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/07/11/rostec-nebo-m-radar-is-it-a-scam-or-propaganda/
	***To sum up your argument seems to be it's leftist and treats Chavez favourably therefore it's not reliable. Is that about it? Because that's all I've seen. So I'd have to say '''source is reliable.'''' ] (]) 13:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

			3. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/12/28/russian-su-57-will-carry-four-missiles-in-the-internal-weapons-bay/
	* I suggest some of the uninformed people weighing in here might want to google "Venezuela press freedom" and peruse some of the 625,000 hits. And if you're weighing in here, please try to be informed about the laws that the Chavez regime enacted to control the media. ] (]) 13:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	** Uninformed people would also benefit from looking up the ]. But really, what does that have to do with ''Venezuelanalysis''? ] <sup>]</sup> 13:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	*** Yes, they should look at your use of one-sided sources there, and the failure of that article to reflect in any way mainstream, reliably-sourced viewpoints. Particularly since you just added a lot of radical sources there, and completely failed to balance them with neutral mainstream sources ... you're fond of saying "] much"? :) PS, Wiki is not a reliable source (and that article is Example Number One of why); sending readers here to a biased, unbalanced, POV article isn't very helpful. ] (]) 13:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	**** Yeah, '']'' is a hotbed of radicalism. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	***Using an undue source like Venezuelanalysis may establish the POV of pro-Chavez editors, but it will ultimately harm the project, will further decrease the reliability of the project which[REDACTED] is already loosing . --] (]) 14:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	****More unsupported assertion. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

			4. Radar Horizon. (n.d.). www.ssreng.com. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www.ssreng.com/pdf/Radar_Horizon.pdf
	Based on the foregoing, I think it's clear that Venezuelanalysis isn't the high-end journalism that forms the best sources, as per the background of the persons responsible for it and also the general low level of name-recognition of the site. --] (]) 16:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

			5. Butowski 2021, pp. 78–82
	Venezuela attracts a lot of strong feelings. <strike>I seem to have mised example of misleading reporting</strike> OK, I see it now. See comment below. I'm personally no fan of Chavez, but the Chavez view cannot be excluded in articles relating to Venezuela, and as a news organization Venezeuala Analaysis is average. If we excluded every source which was "disingenuous" according to some editor, we'd exclude everything: NYT is socialist, WSJ is a right-wing business rag, medical journals are heavily sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, ect. It seems to me that SandyGeorgia is too close to this to be neutral. I'd agree that other sources should be looked at first, but name recognition is not really a way I like to see sources evaluated, particularly when we're talking about foreign reporting. ] \| (] - ]) 17:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	:: You do seem to have missed my clarification of how the example given was ''not'' misleading reporting. It was a misleading headline, yes (shock - whoever heard of a news organisation doing ''that''... quick let's disqualify anyone as a reliable source who's ever done it!) ] <sup>]</sup> 18:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	: Mainstream reliable sources like the NYT, CNN and BBC do not exclude the Chavez POV ''by any means'' (they go to lengths to include it); honestly some of the arguments made here really worry me about the future of Wiki and it's core pillar of ], and I'm equally worried about the number of editors weighing in here who don't seem to have done the minimum amount of research and homework on state control of the media in Venezuela, and why we don't want to accept another radical source closely associated with the regime there. ] (]) 18:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	::Your increasing hysteria ("wiki in peril"? really?) seems to stem from the fact that you don't have any actual arguments. You just don't like the source - that's your right. If you want to show in any given instance that it's wrong or biased, and balance it with other sources - fine. If you accumulate ''lots'' of examples of it being wrong, come back to RSN. But declaring it blanket unreliable on the basis of nothing more than your vociferous opinion is simply an attempt to blanket-ban a source which is an important part of the information spectrum for Venezuela. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	::In fact, the "]" story neatly illustrates exactly the information gap Venezuelanalysis fills, certainly in English. At least, English language sources on its launch seem pretty sparse, and I can't find any CNN or BBC coverage. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	::: Look, we all agree that all sources are biased. We all agree that Chavez POV should not be excluded. It is a verifiable fact, that Venezuelanalysis is nothing more than just another propaganda outlet of Chavez vast media empire. So, in light of this information, how come we can not agree that use of Venezuelanalysis needs to be balanced by other sources? Rd232 and JRSP will believe everything chavista outlets print, but there are others who will take everything printed there with a rock of salt. Misplaced Pages is not RD232 and JRSP personal domain, ni mucho menos. Mind you even Jimbo Wales is aware of this. So then again, how come can we not settle this futile conversation by agreeing that for every time chavista apologists are cited, an opposition voice and an independent one must also be used? ''Gap of information...'' in Misplaced Pages, for sure.--] (]) 20:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::In general, where there are different ''opinions'', those should be balanced from different perspectives. For the n-th time though: this is about ''information not easily available elsewhere (at least in English)''. If the information is generally accurate (and nobody has made any serious attempt to show otherwise), it can be used a reliable source for points of fact. Where there is a dispute about the facts based on different sources conflicting, the matter will be settled by discussion on a case by case basis in the usual way. PS Naturally I disagree with your description of VA, which is completely ludicrous. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::: Rd232, I think it is evident that I couldn't care less whether you, or chavistas in general, agree with me. For me your opinion has no value whatsoever, and this is compounded by a rather simple reason: anyone who refuses to deal with demonstrable facts deserves no consideration. I have demonstrated, with evidence and official documents, that Wilpert, Golinger, and Sanchez are up to their necks with the Chavez regime. You may disagree all you like, the facts remain though. Learn to deal with them, only then you can expect others to give consideration to your biased understanding of what goes in a country totally alien to yours.--] (]) 11:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
	::: As per Golinger's 'Correo del Orinoco' and her 'artillery of <s>ideas</s> propaganda', beyond information related to how much it costs (zero as in free), everything else in there can be ripped apart by anyone whose knowledge and sources of information go beyond Chavez gospel. Here is an example, from the lede of the main article: "The polarization that has characterized Venezuela over the past 50 years..." So according to Golinger's wisdom, polarization started in 1959, that is, the year after the second to last dictator was ousted by popular uprising, in which everyone and its sister participated. Surely a fountain of objectivity, no? The launch of a such a rag, by Venezuela's girlfriend nonetheless, will get much attention by serious news organizations.--] (]) 21:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::I don't know where the hell you got that quote from, but adding a ludicrous interpretation like that discredits you, not her. I don't know the context of the quote, but from the fragment I would interpret it as referring to polarisation of freely expressed political views within a democratic context; it doesn't make sense to talk about that kind of polarisation in a non-democratic one. I could say more by looking at the context but your quote doesn't seem to be from the article under discussion and doesn't show up in Google. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
	::::: The quote comes from the front page, but it won't be me the one who places here link to such rag.--] (]) 11:10, 29 January 2010 (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/
	===Break 2===
	Reams of hot air between the most interested parties aside (rather obscuring other input), none of this is really getting any closer to a conclusion. Instead of more of the same I suggest doing something rather different instead:
	# close this discussion, for now.
	# editors wishing to show VA is too unreliable to be used go away and accumulate evidence for that on a shared userspace page. This combines naturally with their concern of fixing the alleged problem: just and check each instance that seems plausibly problematic. Check these, fix any problems, and list the problem on the userspace page. (For fairness, cases that check out as OK should also be listed there, but that may be asking too much.)
	# moratorium on inline tagging VA as "unreliable" etc. This is to be shown, and tagging like this is a poor substitute for checking out the alleged problem and fixing if necessary.
	# in a month or so (maybe less if the editors don't need that long), come back here for a discussion of the findings.
	This sort of systematic, evidence-based approach might actually settle the issue, whilst also fixing what some people see as a desperate problem, instead of talking endlessly and unproductively about it. How about it? ] <sup>]</sup> 01:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
	:Actually, we need to re-ask the question. The last time I asked the question, the initial responses were that it was "well-known, fairly longstanding" and "represents a significant POV". All of these are interesting, but are true of both reliable and non-reliable sources, and have no particular bearing on reliability. Again, I asked for evidence that this was a ]. That would require those using it to provide such evidence. Can that be provided succinctly? In particular, we'd need to see evidence of strong editorial oversight, or some other similar indication that this is a reliable news source. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
	:: But there may well be editorial oversight, by a man who is married to Chavez Consul in NY, and has received funding from the Chavez regime. Reliable? It is, without a doubt, as far as Chavez gospel goes. See, the point is not whether what Venezuelanalysis publishes is reliable, but rather that they can not claim to be an '''independent source'''. I would describe it as a collective blog, of people closely associated and funded by the Chavez regime. I maintain that it can be used, so long as it is properly identified as a propaganda mouth of the Chavez regime. If people have a problem with that, RNV or other such sources -that publish exactly the same info- can be used to reflect Chavez's POV. --] (]) 11:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
	::Eh. Why don't you take a stab at showing "evidence of strong editorial oversight" for the NYT and the WSJ? Hint: it's not easy to do, and in fact I'd say it's impossible, but nevertheless I strongly request it. And don't cite Pulitzer prizes, since a test like that can't be generalized to small papers. Any paper can say it has "editorial standards", and even put up a few names. We could try secondary sources, although ] is pretty US-focused, and also has spent a fair bit of time ] as right-wing. See , , in stark contrast to Sandy's assertion that the US media go out of their way to show the Chavez perspective. The authors of the site have already been shown to be notable journalists and analysts on the country, with one of them serving as editor-in-chief for the new English paper. ] \| (] - ]) 07:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
	:: '''''The authors of the site have already been shown to be notable journalists...''''' Please place here evidence of Wilpert, or Golinger, journalist credentials. Thanks.--] (]) 11:15, 29 January 2010 (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/
	It's worth noting that Alek Boyd was until at least 2008 employed by the ]. Having him come here and criticise Venezuelanalysis is a bit like someone from the ] coming onto Misplaced Pages to decry use of Human Rights Foundation as a source. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

			8. When Israel bombs Syria, Russia turns a blind eye. (2022, January 3). thearabweekly.com. Retrieved January 22, 2025, from
	== Opinion needed on a website ==
			https://thearabweekly.com/when-israel-bombs-syria-russia-turns-blind-eye ] (]) 15:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Do we use them? ] (]) 15:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The S 400 Misplaced Pages page has 20 citations from them and the su 57 Misplaced Pages page has four. ] (]) 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Should we trust ] for statistics ==
	I have cited as a source in the article ] , but its reliability has been questioned. I would like some input as to whether this meets reliable sourcing standards or not. ] (]) 02:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	:It appears to be the website of the USS IOWA(BB-61) Veteran's Association. They'd obviously have some knowledge of the subject, but little in the way of real editorial oversight. I'd say it's o.k. for non-contentious claims. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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

			"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."
	Any thoughts how can the reliability assessment can be done on ]? Specifically, ] publishes his analyses of the ] in . --] <sup>(])</sup> 21:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	:Not particularly easy. MERIA, I would say, counts as a political magazine. OK as a source for notable commentary, would need to be presented as viewpoint and attributed. Landes is a well-published historian but his real expertise is in millennarianism, not in the Israel-Palestine conflict. So consider carefully the question of notability of his viewpoint alongside the sourcing question. May be other views here. ] (]) 11:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

			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?]] 15:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	POV push by ] regarding a notion about "Post-Disco" as a specific genre of music, despite many requests on the for an RS source to support the claim.
	*The single source provided, that weakly asserts post-disco is a genre, is an anonymous All Music Guide feature.
	*The reliable sources available, some of which are cited in the article, overwhelmingly use the term "post-disco" or (postdisco) in discussing the era subsequent to disco's commercial decline.
	*Much of the article's content is derived from the editors OR based observations and are supported by an assemblage of random references, that happen to feature the term "post-disco"; and in any particular context.
	*None of the sources provided, except AMG, refer to the articles's subject in manner that is directly related to post disco as a genre of music.
	*User currently engages in edit warring to stifle dissent
	The article was recently considered for , where similar observation's were made. I'm interested in hearing other views on this, should there be any. Cross-posted ] (]) 23:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
	:Can you please give links to the specific source(s) you are concerned about? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

			:It is ] - I don't think ] applies since it is drawing its data out of an API but I'd say it's a marginal source. ] (]) 16:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Yes, you have to give us links to the specific sources that you are concerned with, along with the content the source is being used to support. As for edit-warring, this is not the venue to discuss this. See ]. ] (]) 03:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:03, 22 January 2025

Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context

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

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

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

Additional notes:

Shortcuts

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

Start a new discussion

RfC: NewsNation

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

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

Misplaced Pages proposals
Maths, science, and technology

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

What is the reliability of NewsNation?

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

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

Survey (NewsNation)

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

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

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

Discussion (NewsNation)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now show me where in your sources does it say that Abo Yemen ✉ 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

You were just denying that this happened after I showed you the sources, why are you asking this now? Didn't I just give them above? Javext (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

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

History and geography
Biographies

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

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

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

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

They should be:

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

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

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

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

Preliminaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey A: Geni.com

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

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

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

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

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

Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Jacobin

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

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

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

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

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

Survey: Jacobin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion: Jacobin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Heritage Foundation

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

Sources for Chapel Hart

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

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

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

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

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

My assessment:

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

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

RfC: TheGamer

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

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

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

Option 1: Generally reliable

Option 2: Additional considerations

Option 3: Generally unreliable

Option 4: Deprecate?

~~Link to previous discussion~~

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

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

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

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

GBNews can be reliable for group based child sex exploitation

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

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

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

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

There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what if it isn't.

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

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

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

A few examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pirate Wires?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need context before coming to RSN

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

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

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

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

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)

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

It is more or less a group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CEIC data

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

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

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

Fantasy Literature

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

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

This is the terms its staff work under:

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

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

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

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

NASASpaceFlight.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hawar News Agency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: LionhearTV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion about moving RFC to RSN

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

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

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

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

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

Hatebase.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LaserDisc Database?

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

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

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

Usage of AirPlay Direct for music articles

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

Global Defense Corp

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Butowski 2021, pp. 78–82

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

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

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

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

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

Should we trust Social Blade for statistics

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

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

The question is should we trust it?

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

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

Categories: