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

Revision as of 16:40, 15 July 2010 view sourceChaosMaster16 (talk | contribs)8,193 edits →Pifeedback.com← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 02:41, 24 January 2025 view source Dan Leonard (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers3,483 editsm →RfC: Jacobin: fixed comment levels broken by bulleted listTag: 2017 wikitext editor
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{short description|Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}}
			{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
	{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
	|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_		{{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	|format=%%i
			|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
	|age=120
			|maxarchivesize = 250K
	|index=no
			|counter = 465
	|archivenow={{done}},{{resolved}},{{Resolved}},{{Done}},{{discussion top}},{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
			|minthreadstoarchivSee = 1
	|maxarchsize=250000
			|algo = old(5d)
	|numberstart=58
			|archive = Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
	|archivebox=no
			}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__
	|box-advert=no
	}}
	{{Archive box|auto=yes|}}
	__TOC__
	__NEWSECTIONLINK__
	<!--		<!--
	------------------------------------------------------------------------------		------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line 22:		Line 16:
	-->		-->
			------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	== Quote from Drug Prevention Organization ==
			==RfC: NewsNation==
	I have contributed text to the ] page but have had one of the contributed arguments for prohibition removed on the basis that it does not, in the view of another editor, quote from a reliable source. I am hereby looking for advice on the source.
			<!-- ] 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: ]'''
	Obviously debates regarding ‘Arguments for and against drug prohibition’ will not be found in peer-reviewed journals because such a debate is not scientific research as such, although it will rely on surveys that are done by reputable organizations. However this debate is found mainly in the political realm as well as between opposing drug advocacy organizations, particularly between drug prevention organizations and drug legalization organizations.
			* '''Option 2: ]'''
			* '''Option 3: ]'''
			* '''Option 4: ]'''
			] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	I have added an argument which appears on Australia’s official drug debate website, which is the ‘Drugtalk’ e-mail listserver operated by the peak body representing almost all Australian drug and alcohol organizations, ADCA. The listserver claims 350 participants (see http://ndsis.adca.org.au/e_list.php) who contribute to ongoing debates about national and international drug policy. This debate listserver has its own administrator and is fully archived, accessible via password from the Drugtalk administrator. I therefore would argue that the text I have contributed to this Misplaced Pages page is from a reliable source, from an appropriate organization that is constantly involved in the drug prevention advocacy area, and which is accessible on the internet as per Misplaced Pages policy.
			===Survey (NewsNation)===
	I have cited the argument below, which is contributed by the drug prevention organization, Drug Free Australia, whose name appears under this argument on the Drugtalk listserver. The text reads:
			*'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light).
			**NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
			***In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the ], Coulthart said {{xt|"... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"!}} . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including ] and ], all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects.
			***Writing in ''The Skeptic'', Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: {{xt|"Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."}}
			***He wrote a UFO book titled ''Plain Sight'' which ] described as a {{xT|"conspiracy narrative"}} and a {{xt|"slipshod summary"}}.
			***The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for {{Xt|“espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”}}
			***The ] did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking {{xt|"Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary?}} while strongly implying the former.
			***The '']'' has described him as a {{Xt|"UFO truther"}} with {{xt|"little appetite for scrutiny"}}.
			***Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked ] investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians.
			**Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs:
			***In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the ''Washington Post'': ), the channel {{xt|"was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health"}}.
			***In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said {{xt|"... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing"}}. The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to ]'s analysis, a Boeing 737 .
			:] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage ] (]) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. ] (]) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' per Chetsford. – ] (]&nbsp;<b>·</b> ]) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative.] (]) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. Compare ]. ] (]) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' why are we putting ''any'' stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “]” syndrome. ] (]) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. - ] (]) 00:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' I would go with Option 2 but their UFO coverage makes me consider Option 3. I think for anything outside of UFO-related topics they are generally reliable. Other sources should be cited. ] (]) 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' for non-UFO coverage, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. ]@] 00:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Discussion (NewsNation)===
	:The criticism that the ‘war on drugs’ can never be won (and consequently is of no value) is no more true than the argument that police ‘blitzes’ on highway speeding should be curtailed because they fail to eradicate speeding. While blitzes on speeding very successfully reduce and contain the behaviour, policing of illicit drug use does exactly the same. Removing policing of speeding drivers will have precisely the same effect as removing policing of illicit drugs. No one would suggest legalizing stealing because it has never been eradicated. My source is listed as Drug Free Australia - The Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia Drugtalk drug debate listserver 11 May 2010 12.05 PM
			*For purposes of clarification, the reliability of NewsNation has previously come up in two different RSN discussions and two different article Talk page discussions. Beyond that, however, it's repeatedly invoked to source UFO articles to the point that constant re-litigation of its reliability via edit summaries is becoming a massive time sink. ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] ==
	Interested in other observations on this one. ] (]) 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
			This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] on the multiple issues regarding that article.
			I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:<br>
			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">]&nbsp;] (])</span> 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::In general I think we've established that there is currently no way of including any claim which cannot be directly traced to the 16th-century Portuguese histories or the Hadrami chronicles (which agree). This is because no source cites any other form of evidence, and because it represents the approach of English-language academic books. I have not reviewed the details and I do not know which claims qualify, but you're free to add anything you can find in an appropriate source. ] (]) 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::not even a legacy section like the one you proposed? <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]&nbsp;] (])</span> 06:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			== RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu ==
	:Could we have a direct link to the post itself. Also ADRA Australia appears to be a a Christian, humanitarian agency, not a drug prevention agency, or is there another. This makes me doubt the expertise (and thus the reliability) of the source. Nope its the one, it seems that as well as aid they also provide drug rehabilitation services. But I cannot determine if they are any ore qulified then many other lay church aid gruops.] (]) 01:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 18:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740333680}}
			{{rfc|hist|bio|rfcid=5DC5768}}
			The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (B and C):
			* '''A: Geni.com'''
			* '''B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley'''
			* '''C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav'''
			:Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.
			:They should be:
			* '''Option 1: listed as ]''' (change nothing to A; add B and C at ] as such)
			* '''Option 2: ]''' (list them as such at ])
			* '''Option 3: ]''' (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2)
			] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu) ===
	:: The organization referred to is Drug Free Australia with website http://www.drugfree.org.au/. The actual quote on Drugtalk reads:
			* A: See "Geni.com" at ].
			* B: See ], in particular ], where this RfC for the 3 sources in question was prepared together with @]. The other sources discussed there fall outside the scope of this RfC.
			* C: See ] (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Preliminaries ===
	:::"Remember, also, in your concerns about prohibition, that 95% of Australian do not want to legalise heroin, cocaine or amphetamines, and 78% don’t want to legalise cannabis. You know we’ve had this discussion before and it’s all found on pp 11,12 of the 2007 Australian Drug Strategy Household Survey. So for the relevant argument about Australia and its prohibition of drugs, I think you’ll find that 95% support for prohibition is pretty close to unanimous, and that the ‘drug war’ as you call it, which is no more a war than a police blitz on speeding (a ‘war’ they will never win, but will be supported by the public every time) in Australia has precious few casualties while hundreds die each year from the INHERENT harms of various of the illicits."
			: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)
	::This is signed off with the organization name and address and contact details. ] (]) 05:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
			::AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a ]. But it could be a good follow-up. ] (]) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. ] (]) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. ] (]) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. ] (]) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC? &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::This is different from the quote above, which one are you asking avbout. I also notice that you have changed the name of the organisation you are trying to quote. I would have to say that Drug Free Australia looks very much like an advoacy group. I would also again ask for a direct liunk to the post on drug talk.] (]) 11:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
			::These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Read Background: B. ] (]) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::<strike>I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc.</strike> --] (]) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Survey A: Geni.com ===
	::::Here is a link to . It is a discussion mailinglist and one must become a member to browse the archive. It should be noted that although ''Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia'' is the owner of the site they give "no warranty, guarantee or representation about the accuracy, reliability, timeliness or otherwise of the information contained on the email list Drugtalk" so one can not draw from its credibility. And as with the case of other ] the status of the poster, if they are experts or not, is paramount to wither it is fit for Misplaced Pages. So the remaining question rather is can leading figures of an advocacy organization be considered as "established expert on the topic of the article"? I just assume that they have had opinion pieces - "work in the relevant field" - in "reliable third-party publications" but that really needs to fully established. ] (]) 14:24, 30 June 2010 (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)
			:'''Invalid RFC/No change''' - giving only options here that are highly negative is not a neutral stance. And there is no specific evidences shown or reason why this is even coming up or needs that all previous RSP should be declared invalid. (See discussions ). Cheers ] (]) 01:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley ===
	:::::In regards to Slatersteven's questions, the URL for the quote is http://www.lists.sublimeip.com/mailman/private/drugtalk/2010-May/006082.html but Misplaced Pages contributors will need to give a username and password to the Administrator via the sign up page before being able to access this post. There is no doubt that it can be verified once you have access. The trouble involved, of course, is no more than for a Misplaced Pages editor who does not have access to medical journals needing to get student access or something like that before being able to verify a medical journal quote. You have asked what quote I would use, and it is the first-mentioned quote that I had originally contributed to the Misplaced Pages page, rather than the direct quote from Drugtalk. I believe I have summarized the Drug Free Australia argument correctly though. Also, it is important to remember that Drug Free Australia is the peak body for more than 70 Australian drug prevention organizations, who in turn have memberships of 220,000 Australians, and it is the most authoritative voice in Australia for drug prevention, sought out by the Australian media for comment more than any other drug prevention organization. So again the authority of the organization in this drug debate is beyond question. And of course the 'Arguments for and against prohibition' page is recording the arguments out there, and this is one by an appropriate organization which holds a great deal of logical weight and should be included. ] (]) 01:38, 1 July 2010 (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)
			*'''No Change''' - no entry to RSP needed and seems has been accepted. This just is not something that often comes up for question and seems has not been hard to figure out the nature of so it also does not need a RSP entry. Yet as can be seen by , it is used and that seems evidence that common view *is* de facto RS by usage. Really seems like just declaring all those edits wrong is not a useful thing. Cheers ] (]) 02:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav ===
	::::::Who posted the message? Also it does not matter how many members an organisation has its the qaulity of its work that mattrers not how many people bleive it. In addition perhpas some links demonstating that the the Australian media seek them out mor then any other similar group (by the way they would need top be sought out as experts not just for thier opinions)? Also this seems to be opinion so even if we do accept this you will have top attributre it.] (]) 10:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. ] (]) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--] (]) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as {{xt|genealogy.eu}} and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). ] (]) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
			:'''Comment'''. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the ], Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". ] (]) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Deprecate'''. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; . --] 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			** This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site . And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. ] (]) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. ]. Deprecation will have a positive effect. And while it's always possible that someone in the know, who's really into genealogy, has the ability of figuring out out how the operator of this website makes it have the content that it has, that's not useful for determining reliability.—] 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''No change to either of these''' - seems this is referring to two different sources, both of which are somewhat widely used in WP and neither of which seems suitable for an RSP entry. Just not seeing sufficient case or benefit from any entry either. Cheers ] (]) 02:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)===
	::::::: The message was signed by Gary Christian, the Secretary of Drug Free Australia, signed with his title, the organization's name, its address and contact details. ] (]) 06:05, 6 July 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)
			: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)
			*I don't see the point to this. I can see there being concerns about quality of niche sources, but do not see a reason why a RSP entry should be made or benefit for trying it. Why should the source choice of hundreds or thousands of editors at thousands of entries be disregarded ? How can they all be effectively replaced ? I'm thinking that their de facto opinion has to be given great weight and that all those cites would either stay or that holes would be made in the affected articles -- so any RSP entry seems just pointless or causing lots of trouble rather than making any improvement. Am I missing some magic wand or an urgent concern worth the trauma ? Cheers ] (]) 02:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::::In relationship to the credibility of the organization, the Queensland Government has established an inquiry into the effects of cannabis in just the last few months as a direct response to a publication they received from Drug Free Australia, and which they clearly acknowledge in . Another clear evidence of organizational credibility is a much discussed publication by Drug Free Australia on the ] page where the Liberal party and Independents relied heavily on this Drug Free Australia publication during the NSW Parliamentary debate for the extension of the injecting room's trial tenure in 2007, for example . ] (]) 01:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	* In my opinion it doesn't look like the citation is verifiable to a reliable source as those terms are understood on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 01:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
			==RfC: Jacobin==
	== Source of important quote in a national peak body bulletin board archive ==
			<!-- ] 17:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740070870}}
			{{RfC|prop|pol|media|rfcid=857ECCA}}
			Which of the following best describes the reliability of '']''?
			* Option 1: ]
			* Option 2: ]
			* Option 3: ]
			* Option 4: ]
			— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	I am contemplating adding a small amount of text to the ] page which refers to important correspondence which is in the public domain between the Medical Director of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) and the drug prevention organization, Drug Free Australia, whose critique of the MSIC's evaluations has chiefly driven the Parliamentary debate in Australia. One of the two major political parties in that country claim they will close the facility if voted into power at the 2011 election. The NSW Liberal party has relied heavily on the Drug Free Australia critique of the injecting room, which was done in 2007 by a team from Drug Free Australia which included an epidemiologist, an addiction medicine specialist and social researchers who have between them been published in more than 20 top peer-reviewed medical journals on related drug or medical foci.
			===Survey: ''Jacobin''===
	This correspondence between the two organizations, which is reproduced in full, is sourced from the bulletin board run by the peak body for drug and alcohol organizations in Australia, ADCA which links 1,000 professionals from those organizations within Australia. Called the 'Update' bulletin board, it is administered by an ADCA Adminstrator and is fully archived and accessible via password from the Administrator. The correspondence was posted on the bulletin board because it was of national and indeed international importance.
			*'''Option 2''' I am opposed to the use of ] and think that no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2. With that being said, I would list New York Times or the CBC in precisely the same way and I don't believe that any of the complainants have demonstrated in any way that Jacobin is less reliable, per Misplaced Pages's standards, than any other American news media outlet. I am deeply concerned that many of the complaints are about "bias" when reliability does not include a political compass test. This is not grounds to treat a source as unreliable. ] (]) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2/3''', bias is one thing, getting things down right incorrect is another. As was demonstrated in the pre-discussion, the notion around the housing stock was truly an egregious error. This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts. When that happens, "Generally unreliable" or at minimum, "Additional considerations" makes sense as the guidance when using this source. I do not think further deprecation is warranted though since the reporters seem to be of a mixed quality, some are more diligent than others and the bias merging into wanton disregard for facts varies there too. The problem is, we rate sources, not just individual writers, and therefore as far as a source rating goes, "Option 2" or "Option 3" then makes the most logical sense. ] (]) 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It was corrected. Your entire case is based on a single incident where a single writer made a single mistake. ''And it was fixed.'' There is absolutely no grounds for "Generally unreliable" on the basis of presented evidence. ] (]) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::It was corrected only after significant outside pressure and even then the correction was weak and inaccurate. The guy who wrote the article was explicitly mocking the people who pointed out his error and accusing them of something along the lines of being corporate shills. It also wasn’t a single incident as they publish nonsense regarding Russia and Ukraine, including and up to outright conspiracy theories, pretty regularly. It simply is not a reliable source, however much one agrees with their editorial stance.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::So you agree with Iljhgtn's conspiracy theory that this was the purposeful result of pushing bias not an error? ] (]) 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			**::::I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including ] and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:::::You misquote the editor (to your benefit), for someone so interested in errors supposedly motivated by bias that seems odd... In context its clearly stronger than that "This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." when nothing suggests that this was the result of narrative pushing (thats how you push a narrative either, as you've pointed out although lingusitically similar its an embarrassing and obvious error). ] (]) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***::::::You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***:::::::You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) ] (]) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***::::::::No , I’m not. I’m simply asking you to refrain from trying to falsely characterize other people’s comments as “conspiracy theories” in a cheap attempt to delegitimize them since they’re clear nothing of the sort. Not everything you disagree with is a “conspiracy theory”. In this particular case, the article clearly had false info in it. No one has ever said that “information was changed” (as if on purpose) so please stop pretending otherwise. What was said was that “bias creeped in” which I think is a fair characterization. So please quit it with the strawman’ing.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***:::::::::I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we ]. I believe @] is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. ] (]) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***::::::::::Its you who needs to provide a source to substantiate your allegations against a living person. ""This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." is a BLP violation unless a source is provided or the author drops dead. ] (]) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:And what is your source for that? Nobody else is saying that this was the result of bias, the sources say that "third largest corporate owner of housing" became "owns a third of housing" which is a very understandable mistake. You appear to have constructed your own conspiracy theory around this incident. ] (]) 17:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Im sorry but “third largest owner” turning into “owns one third of all housing stock” is NOT an “understandable mistake”. It misstates the actual fact by a factor of 500. Maybe if this was like a student in some freshmen class using AI to write a paper that would be “understandable” (and still get an F) but this is supposed to be a professional, who’s job it is to get this stuff right and this is supposed to be a serious organization that has an editorial board that does fact checking. Which they obviously didn’t do.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) ] (]) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Whats “not math”? The difference between .0006 and .33? You sure? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::And let’s see these “every major and minor publications” that make these kinds of error.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::I note the failure to provide the requested source. ] (]) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:::::Right back at you.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			**::::::, your turn and no stonewalling now provide the source or go away. ] (]) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***::::::Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***:::::::Your source that this was "exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative" and not simply an error is what? ] (]) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I have to say I question your judgment in supporting option 3 "generally unreliable" over ''Jacobin'' publishing and then retracting a single erroneous sentence, and for having a bias/narrative/agenda, when you also !voted option 1 "generally reliable" for ] which routinely publishes fabricated information without retraction. Could you kindly articulate how an admittedly biased outlet with a team of fact checkers is apparently significantly worse than a think tank that churns out misinformation and disinformation ()? <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 20:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' A screenshot of a tweet documenting an already corrected error is insufficient to depreciate a reliable source. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --] (]) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. ] <small>(])</small> 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{ping|Gamaliel}} Mostly ] and at ]. Kind regards,
			:::::Thank you for the links. I will repost once I've read through those discussions. ] <small>(])</small> 18:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2 at the very least, change current assessment'''. It might be easier to comment if editors agree or not to change the current category. My position is based on coverage that mixes opinion with facts and its use of unreliable sources, some of which have been deprecated by this noticeboard (like The Grayzone). I went into more detail about this at ] and at ]. --] (]) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' (intext attribution) ] and ] cover most of the points here. Jacobin publishes opinions peice that should have intext attribution. This is how they are used in the large amount of ] that Jacobin also has. I may not like Jacobin very much but bias, opinion, or minor mistakes do not make a source unreliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' ]: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." The example given was a mistake in a book review, cubsequently corrected, about how much housing stock Blackstone owned. No reasonable editor would use this review as a source for an article on housing or Blackstone and more than one would use a reliable source on U.S. housing for an article about 19th century French poetry. ] (]) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1-ish''' Jacobin are clearly a biased source but they are also clearly as reliable for facts as any other major ]. When they make mistakes, they correct themselves, and that ''improves'' their reliability, it doesn't hurt it. ] (]) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2: additional considerations/bad RFC''' - based on the discussion above, evidently there's some kind of social media uproar about some thing that Jacobin published and later corrected. It's poor timing to hold an RFC on reliability both when emotions are high and when it's in response to an isolated incident, both of which are true here. But ignoring that, it seems (again from the discussion above) that ''Jacobin'' published something that was egregiously incorrect, then retracted or corrected it. That's pretty much the standard we expect of reliable publications: errors are compatible with reliability, it's how the publication responds to and corrects errors that determines reliability in this context. gives ''Jacobin'' a "high" reliability score of 1.9 (out of 10, lower scores are better), which is in the ballpark of the ''New York Times'' (1.4) and ''Washington Post'' (2.1). However, they also give it a "left bias" rating of -7 (a 20-point scale with 0 as completely unbiased), which is on the edge of their extreme ratings. Editors should consider attribution, and/or balancing this source's POV against publications more to the right. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2/3''' While BIAS usually covers issues like, it may not be entirely sufficient for advocacy media, which includes ''Jacobin''. While ''Jacobin'' is a fine publication and I've sourced it myself, the reality is it does not usually report Who/What/Why but almost exclusively publishes explainers and analysis pieces that have a designed structure. For instance, ''How Biden Embraced Trump’s Terror Smear Against Cuba'' is not an editorial or opinion piece, it's presented as straight news reporting in the form of an explainer article. But, as an encyclopedia, we obviously can't start injecting artistic wordsets like "terror smear" into articles. So merely saying that BIAS can cover the case of ''Jacobin'' is not sufficient. For the purposes of encyclopedia writing, there will never be anything chronicled by ''Jacobin'' that is appropriate for WP which we can't find a superior source for elsewhere. They don't do spot news, data journalism, or investigative reporting, which are the three ways we use newsgathering media to reference articles. Simply looking at the current issue, I don't see a single story that is actually reporting things. Each article is an opinion piece lightly packaged as an explainer. So, while I don't think ''Jacobin'' is "unreliable" ''per se'', I don't see any value of using it for the very scope-limited purpose of encyclopedia-writing. ] (]) 18:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	The correspondence is important because it is the only known source for a claim, by the injecting room's Medical Director, that their own 2003 injecting room evaluators had overstated the number of heroin users in the area surrounding the injecting room. While this argument is cited somewhat obtusely by Parliamentarians in a parliamentary debate about the injecting room, the accuracy of the statement can be better evaluated via a short quote directly from this public domain correspondence from that national bulletin board.
			*'''Option 1''' for facts and 2/inline attribution otherwise for articles that are mainly opinion. The hoohah over an article that was actually about Mark Fisher and since corrected such that it doesn't even mention Blackstone seems like a one off. ] (]) 18:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Nothing in the above discussion or that I've seen in the last year leads me to deviate from my !vote in the previous RfC which was this: '''''Option 2''': mostly a partisan opinion source usable with attribution if noteworthy, but occasionally publishes well-researched pieces by experts in their fields, on topics that might not be covered in more mainstream sources, in particular on the history of the left or on socialist theory.'' I also think that the closing of the last RfC, and in particular green flagging on RSP, did not reflect the consensus of the discussion, as I argued when this came up on this board in 2023: '' I have long been unhappy with the RSP summary of the many RSN discussions of this source, where the consensus has clearly been much more negative than the summary. It is clear that several editors have major issues with its use in specific areas (e.g. Russia/Ukraine, Venezuela) and that this should be flagged, and that it publishes content by a few conspiracy thinkers (Branko Marcetic was mentioned in the last discussion, McEvoy flagged here) and again this isn't highlighted in RSP. So I'd favour a rewrite of the RSP and possibly a change from green to yellow as a better reflection of the community consensus.'' In short: I think we need to approach it in a much more case by case basis. ] (]) 18:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' My assessment hasn't changed from last time, jacobin publishes mostly opinion so this is largely a moot point and the rest of what they publish often contradicts itself—] 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''1 or 2''', I think that most of the time they should be used with attribution but they're generally reliable enough that I don't think we should be requiring attribution. I also question the need for a new RfC... It doesn't seem like there has been anything substantial since last time so this shouldn't have been opened. ] (]) 18:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Weak option 2''' per above voters (especially AD and Bob), but I won't die on that hill if the consensus ultimately feels differently. '''Strong oppose option 3''', though, for somewhat obvious reasons. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 18:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1/2''' - I don't like Jacobin. They read to me like the socialist equivalent of Christian rock. But they have an editor, publisher and corrections, and I'm reasonably sure they're not actually liars. It's an opinion outlet, like a leftist analogue of Reason. I'm not convinced coverage in Jacobin connotes notability. So I'd give them a strong "considerations apply" - attribute, not ideal for notability - ] (]) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1/2''' Jacobin's fine. It's left-leaning, but it doesn't cook up facts or make shit up. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 19:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' <s>or 4</s> They publish outright falsehoods and when they issue corrections these are weak and weaselly. The recent completely absurd claim in one of their articles that Blackstone owns 33% of US single family housing stock is an example (it’s actually 1/10 of 1%). Whether you’re sympathetic to their editorial position is irrelevant. Garbage is garbage and facts are facts and as an encyclopedia we can’t rely on click bait nonsense for sources.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''', with attribution for analysis and opinion pieces. The Blackstone mistake was bad, and the author's petulant attitude upon being corrected leaves much to be desired. But the error was corrected relatively promptly, and they have an editorial team on staff. I'm not in favor of downgrading a source based on a single mistake. However, Jacobin has an explicit editorial stance that informs nearly all of its articles, and if it's used for more than straightforward facts, it should probably be attributed as e.g. "the socialist magazine Jacobin". I'm open to changing my view if others can demonstrate a more sustained pattern of errors or falsehoods. ] (]) 20:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' (with caveats) due to the lack of developments since the last RfC which could actually change the conclusion of ''general'' reliability, as opposed to demonstrating fallibility or bias. I do have some sympathy with the {{tq|no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2}} position articulated above, but I think that comes down to how we interpret "generally reliable" in practice. In other words, "additional considerations" ''always'' apply, in principle. The difference between option 1 and option 2 comes down to ''how likely'' we expect those "additional considerations" to be of practical relevance, and how exactly we should address them. ] (]) 20:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''', it doesn't seem anything has changed since the last RfC. Corrections and retractions is what a reliable source is expected to do and is a sign of reliability. Mistakes which are far greater than this are commonplace across the array of reliable sources (what matters is whether there are corrections or not) nor does partisanship equate to unreliability. Here the error appears to be about what's more or less a single sentence, an ancillary point or side-note in an opinion piece which has been corrected since. It should be treated no different a manner than any other openly partisan neworgs such as '']'' {{rspe|Reason}}. There is no requirement for reliable sources to be "neutral" or for the matter any standard that suggests newsorgs with an explicitly stated ideological position are any better or worse in matters of reliability than newsorgs that don't have an explicitly stated ideological position. ] and ] are quite clear.&nbsp;
			:Though the standard disclaimers apply which are to check for whether what they publish has ] for inclusion (not an issue of reliability), use in-text attribution with their political position made apparent when quoting opinion and that the context always matters. That there is a subreddit post critical of a error that was corrected is no basis for determining reliability of sources on Misplaced Pages or starting an RfC, so this is also a '''Bad RfC'''. This discussion has been had at a much greater depth in the ] where it was shown that the magazine in question has quite significant ] and affirmatory coverage from reliable secondary source demonstrating that they generally have a "]" which doesn't needs to be rehashed.&nbsp;<span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Option 1: Bad RfC + L + Ratio''' Creating this RfC immediately after some sort of ostensible social media outrage (ex. I nominated ] for deletion not long after the ], and people got so upset that they brigaded it via external social media) seems like a bad idea. It's been made clear in the past that ''Jacobin'' has a perspective (like literally any media outlet) but don't sacrifice factual accuracy to get there. My previous vote remains true: "While it wears its political perspective on its sleeve, it has proven itself time and again in its robust fact-checking. The issue with conservative and reactionary ] and ]] sources on the WP:RSP isn't that they have a bias – it's that they constantly express said bias through the use of provable mis- and disinformation. Jacobin does not sacrifice factual accuracy for the sake of a bias."
			:I would say the same of any other outlet whose perspective coexists peacefully with actual facts. The sort of neoliberalism adopted by American news outlets which we categorize as generally reliable (correctly so) isn't some sort of default worldview that needs to be treated as sacred and less biased than any other. If we're allowed to point to a single incident, then I could just as easily (but wouldn't, because I'm acting in good faith) point to the NYT's 2002–2003 reporting about Iraq and WMDs which was so unbelievably mistaken and grounded in literally nothing that ] to falsely luring Americans into supporting ] based on lies, yet Misplaced Pages (even in the days when that story was reasonably fresh) would balk at the idea of calling them 'marginally reliable', let alone 'generally unreliable'. Meanwhile, this one is literally just a typo in a single article – a bad typo, but one anyone with a brain could understand didn't reflect reality and which was quickly corrected. Reading some of the stories on the front page right now, they report on events similar to what would be covered in a magazine like the generally reliable '']'' and contain no obvious factual errors. <b>]</b> ] 21:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 2''', mainly per u:BobFromBrockley. The Blackrock error was quickly corrected, so I don't hold it against them. Consider this quote from ] {{tquote|Anglo-conservatives sometimes fantasize about reuniting the dominions ... where workers could be exploited freely.}} A not-insignificant percentage of the content supported by Jacobin is of similar nature. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' A screenshot from Reddit detailing an error which was corrected is not reason to lower our consideration of the reliablity of the publication. ] is generally reliable, not always reliable. Admittedly the publication does contain a lot of opinion peices, however that is already covered by ] and ]. Notably, ] is similarly heavy on opinion pecies and community consensus is that it is ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 22:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' Jacobin is basically the left-wing equivalent to the right-wing British Magazines Spiked and The Spectator. Like these publications, most of its content is opinion orientated, and citing less opinion-focused sources should be preferred. It's clear that the current "generally reliable" rating is suggesting to readers of RSP that Jacobin's opinionated content is usable carte blanche without caveat, which I do not think is accurate. ] (]) 22:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: Some Jacobin pieces have openly pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories , as well as conspiracy theories about the Euromaidan which have not been retracted. The Green RSP rating has mistakenly led people to believe these pieces were reliable , ] ] (]) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::You should probably read farther than the headline. ] (]) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::: The pieces (which are both by staff writer Branko Marcetic) are strongly slanted, but you're perhaps right that saying they are "pushing conspiracy theories" is going a bit far. ] (]) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::"The CIA bungled intel pre-9/11" is somewhat the opposite of a conspiracy theory since it ''literally attributes to incompetence what conspiracists attribute to malice''. ] (]) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			* (Summoned by ping in this thread) '''Bad RFC / No listing''' just as in 2021. Or '''Option 2''', it is a liberal analysis magazine, to be considered frequently as ]. See you at the next 1-day social media hysteria. ] (]) 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*: <small>This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but ''Jacobin'' is not remotely liberal. It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --] (]) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC) </small>
			*::For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. ] (]) 22:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I find it really funny when Americans see somebody holding mainstream social democratic politics and start calling them extreme. ] (]) 22:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1'''. Correcting a mistake is a sign of reliability. The normal caveats about bias/opinion and attribution apply, but not seeing enough to move it down to 2. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' The current summary at ] acknowledges that Jacobin is biased and that editors should take care when using it, which is exactly how it should be. Bias and adherence to factual accuracy are two different things; neutrality is not objectivity and vice versa. We do not need to demote it purely for being biased. Agree with others that an RfC being started based on a Reddit thread of a screenshot of a tweet of an editor who made a mistake which was ultimately corrected is a bit silly. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' as per the analysis by Selfstudier, XOR, and Tayi. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 23:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' ] already has certain considerations and it doesn't mean that 100% of what is published can make it to WP. Editors are expected to use their judgement. The article in question is a ]. I don't see any reason for downgrading them based on a reddit thread. ] (]) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' This entire RfC appears to be politically motivated and is predicated on a correction of a sentence that mixed up "third largest" with "a third of". Many other mainline newspapers have made similar, if not worse, errors before. The question is whether corrections were made when such errors were pointed out. And the correction was made here, meeting requirements of reliability. This is likely also about an opinion article, which makes this even more pointless. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Weapons of mass destruction from the New York Times? Was that ever retracted? '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''3'''. If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than ''Jacobin'' to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it.
			:It's not a matter of some particular instance about mistakes regarding mixing up "third largest" with "a third of" or whatever. Heck everybody does stuff like that. The ''NYTimes'' has has published more (unintentionally) misleading or plain-wrong charts than I've had hot meals. I mean, ''Nature'' finding that "among the 348 documents that we found to include the ] 'fact' that 80% of the world's biodiversity is found in the territories of indigenous peoples] are 186 peer-reviewed journal articles, including some in ], ], and ], and 19 news articles targeted at a specialist audience." Imagine that. I would guess that that's largely because "puts indigenous peoples in a good light" trumps "is true" in the ''emotional hind-brain'' of the leather-elbow-patch set. It's not a lefty thing in particular, right-wingers are just as bad I'm sure.
	I would like advice on the appropriateness of this source. ] (]) 01:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
	:What is the actual reference? Can you post a URL, or is it not publicly accessible? In general, what you describe sounds ok, but it really depends on the actual source, and on exactly what text you want to add to the article (be careful not to violate ] by drawing conclusions that are not stated in the source). Also, ] is a problem for your proposal because selecting items from primary sources could be regarded as cherry picking ]. In conclusion, it all depends. ] (]) 02:25, 30 June 2010 (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.
	:: The quote is as follows: "Meanwhile would you please note that the new estimate for the IDU population in Kings Cross during the 12 months to 31 October 2002 is 1100, instead of the 4 000 IDUs estimated in the 2003 Final MSIC Evaluation Report - not 2 000 IDUs as you cite in the following: The Drug Free Australia determination of overdoses at 36 times the rate of overdoses on the street is indeed measured using the evaluation's estimate of 2,000 users in Kings Cross each day, (injecting an average of 'at least' 3 times a day resulting in 6,000 injections per day in Kings Cross - p 58 of the evaluation)." This quote clarifies that the injecting room's own staff are stating that their own evaluators overly inflated the user numbers around the injecting room, not Drug Free Australia. ] (]) 05:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
	::: The question is, is it ]? How can a random Misplaced Pages reader verify the quote? ] (]) 14:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC) (Not meaning to imply that that is the ''only'' question...) ] (]) 18:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
			:They're big and smart enough that reporting their ''opinions'' are worthwhile, of course. "According to ''Jacobin'', consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine. As long as we include the qualifier. ] (]) 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::The quote is indeed verifiable, but requires Misplaced Pages editors to first sign up for Update by giving a username and password to the Administrator via the sign up page before being able to access this post. There is no doubt that it can be verified once they have access. The trouble involved, of course, is no more than for a Misplaced Pages editor who does not have access to medical journals needing to get student access or something like that before being able to verify a medical journal quote. ] (]) 06:17, 6 July 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)
	== Pifeedback.com ==
			::::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)
	I've previously raised the issue of pifeedback.com not being a reliable source here in May. However, the single response I got has been challenged by another editor who thinks it merits wider discussion, so here we are again. The ] are used as a source for TV ratings on multiple pages. The ratings at this site are typically reposts from other sites, and there are currently 283 links to the site from multiple articles. Since apparently anyone can post to the site, it doesn't seem to qualify as a reliable source to me. Comments would be greatly appreciated. --] (]) 07:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
	: Hard to conceive of an argument that would be used to justify this as a reliable source. ] (]) 21:16, 30 June 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)
	:: The person (its just one person) I (personally) am linking to is Travis Yann. He posts all of the FINAL numbers. His posts are linked via Tvbythenumbers.com, which is a reliable source. If they link to him, and I use tvtn's as a source on Misplaced Pages, it would therefore be unreliable? It seems really hard that some guy would sit home on his computer and make up some random numbers that many people (including myself) wait for. The numbers are further proved to be correct by DVR numbers that (mostly) line up with his in some circumstances.02:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
			*'''Option 2'''. I concur with other editors that this RFC should never have been opened. Please be more considerate of your fellow editors' time. ] (]) 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' possibly Option 3. I don't see that the source is any better than it was in 2021. Per {{u|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d}}'s previous comments and references from the 2021 RfC copied below as well as this recent incident. Yes, making a mistake and correcting it is good but when the mistake is so egreious and the author attacks people who note the error how much faith should we put in the source? Last time I also noted that per Adfont's media review (not a RS but still worth a look) this source is more biased than Breitbart!
			::{{tq| Normally, we put these extremely ideological sources in the Option 2 category (e.g., Salon {{RSP|Salon}}, Townhall {{RSP|Townhall}}). Jacobin obviously doesn't report straight news, so it (i) always needs to be attributed and (ii) check to see if it complies with ]. However, Jacobin has additional issues. Its stated political mission is to: {{tq|centralize and inject energy into the contemporary socialist movement}} . So it is more in line with an advocacy group than a news source. Also, it has pretty fringe views. ] identifies Jacobin as part of the alt-left . It's pretty fringe-y on topics concerning Venezuela , the USSR/Communism , and anti-semitism , . I would avoid using Jacobin for those topics. But if you need a socialist/Marxist opinion on something, then Jacobin is definitely a good source to use. ] (]) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) <u>Based upon Noonlcarus's comment, Jacobin does seem to frequently use deprecated/unreliable sources for facts. Some examples include Alternet {{RSP entry|AlterNet}} , Daily Kos {{RSP entry|Daily Kos}} , Raw Story {{RSP entry|The Raw Story}} , The Canary {{RSP entry|The Canary}} , and the Electronic Intifada {{RSP entry|The Electronic Intifada}} .] (]) 04:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)</u>}}
			:As I mentioned above, when a source is this biased we have to ask if that level of bias is going to have too great an impact on both the weight they give various facts thus leading to questionable conclusion and their ability to verify otherwise factual claims as we saw here. I think that puts the source deep into the use with caution territory ] (]) 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::And yet you rated the Heritage Foundation at 2/3 below and didn't find any problem with their extreme ideological bent, saying in their defense that deprecating the foundation {{tq|would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge}}. This is a group that is regularly equated in academic best sources with fascism such as in:
			::# ''Neo-fascist trends in education: neo-liberal hybridisation and a new authoritarian order'' Díez-Gutiérrez, Enrique-Javier, Mauro-Rafael Jarquín-Ramírez, and Eva Palomo-Cermeño, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS). Sep2024, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p125-169
			::# ''Pandemic abandonment, panoramic displays and fascist propaganda: The month the earth stood still.'' By: McLaren, Peter, Educational Philosophy & Theory, 00131857, Feb 2022, Vol. 54, Issue 2
			::# ''THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY THINK TANK.'' By: Stewart, Katherine, New Republic, 00286583, Sep2023, Vol. 254, Issue 9 <small>(note that the think tank that they call "The West Point of American Fascism" in this article is the ] but that they refer to Heritage as participating in Claremont events.)</small>
			::#''The Road Ahead Fighting for Progress, Freedom, and Democracy,'' Weingarten, Randi, American Educator. Fall2024, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p2-9. 8p.
			::So I guess my question is one of consistency: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the fascist-adjacent Heritage foundation? If not why do you believe that the Heritage Foundation is more valuable to the "goal of collecting knowledge" than Jacobin? ] (]) 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::You are missing a major difference. HF isn't a media source, they are a think tank. Jacobin is a media source, not a think tank. I've argued that all think tanks should be used with great care and in particular we should generally not cite them unless an independent RS points to their work. So the question is can we cite HF when a RS mentions the views/claims/etc of HF with respect to the article topic. In that regard I'm suggesting we treat them more like a primary source vs a RS. Jacobin is different and the relevant question is can we treat them like a regular RS as we do with many other news media sources. If Jacobin publishes a claim about an article subject should we cite them? I argue they should be evaluated by the same standards we use for news media sources. By that standard it's strong bias etc means we should use it's claims and reports with caution and should question if they have weight to justify inclusion. In your post above you provided a list of texts but absent links I can't see what they say nor if their arguments are sound or crap but they don't impact the distinction I've made. ] (]) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The list of texts are available via Misplaced Pages library which is why I provided bibliographical information rather than links as links to material on WP library don't work. With the exception of New Republic all are academic journals. And now please answer my original question: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the Heritage Foundation? ] (]) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::If you want to cite those sources to support an argument you should tell us what they say or at least why you think they support your position. As for your question, I already answered. It doesn't matter if the HF is more or less compromised because the purpose of each is different. When it comes to topics of automobiles Honda is more compromised than the AP but they also might be a better source if we are asking about stratified charge combustion in automobile engines. ] (]) 21:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::On this charge I will defend Springee. I don't necessarily agree with them but I'm not seeing the dissonance in their arguments, especially as they seem to be going 2/3 on both (there is not formal vote here but that seems to be the upshot of what they're saying). Their slighlty idiosyncratic argument about the purspose of the source being primary is also one which they've been making consistently for years. With all due respect I think you're being too hard on Springee. ] (]) 21:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I take the idea that a publication being openly social democratic is ''too biased to be reliable'' personally offensive. Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. But I will concede that Springee is being consistent. And I actually agreed that think tanks should be treated as primary sources. Frankly, were Springee to be more reasonable on the "political bias" overreach, we might otherwise be agreeing. ] (]) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::We may not be disagreeing at all given we both are giving them a "2". I'm arguing that their bias is too much to make them a 1. The possible 3, the same score I gave them last time, is a concern regarding things like the issue that started the recent discussion. I was about to post something about really disliking the RSP's simplistic bucketing. It's really not a good system as we really should put more effort into asking if a source is appropriate for the claims being supported and when an encyclopedia should be citing strongly biased sources in general. If we need to use such a strongly biased source is the information DUE? ] (]) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::We do agree on disliking the RSP bucketing system. My personal opinion is no news media source should be treated as a blanket "generally reliable" because reliability is contextual. However I do think that Jacobin is, from a global perspective, not in any way ideologically extreme. Social democracy is a normal left-of-center political position. The extreme-right shift of US politics over the last few decades makes them seem like outliers but that's the real bias problem right there. ] (]) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their page states they offer {{tq|socialist perspectives}} and approvingly includes quotes describing them as supporting {{tq|radical politics}} and {{tq|very explicitly on the radical left, and sort of hostile to liberal accommodationism}}. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::I would strongly advise against getting too side-tracked by having a conversation about "social democracy" vs "democratic socialism" (same goes for any arguments over distinctions between "left" vs "liberal" in this thread). I can say from experience that these semantics rabbitholes are shockingly deep, and they're not at all necessary or helpful for this RfC. All I'll say is that these terms ''are'' commonly used as synonyms by at least some people, and the "Ideology and reception" section of ] notes {{tq|the political diversity of contributors, incorporating "everyone from social democratic liberals to avowed revolutionaries"}}, so I don't think either you or Simonm223 are wrong on this. Different people are gonna use different terms and apply different meanings to each of them. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 03:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::{{tq|Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center.}} Where outside the United States are you talking about? The world where ]? Where ]? Is it Japan, where the conservative ] has been in power since 1955? Or China, where a media outlet that is as critical of the ] as Jacobin is of the ] would have long been banned, and their writers arrested? I think we all need a reality check here, especially if we want to represent reality in our articles. ] (]) 03:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::While I can't speak for them, I'm guessing they probably had in mind specifically other western democracies, as it's common for European countries to have a mainstream Socialist Party with an ideology listed as social democracy (to name a few: ], ], ], ], etc).
			::::::::I'm comfortable speculating this is their argument because it's one that's often repeated in American progressive-left circles. This argument is usually presented as follows: ] is viewed as the furthest left one can go in America, the things his supporters want are not radical to other developed countries (paid time off, universal healthcare, etc), therefore what is far left in America is only moderately left elsewhere.
			::::::::Not saying I entirely agree or disagree with that argument, either how Simonm223 phrased it or how I interpreted it. Just saying I think they had in mind comparable democracies, not the entire world.
			::::::::<b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 16:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Yeah. I don't feel the need to put a million qualifiers on a comment on a WP discussion board when all I really need to say is that the United States has an abnormal political compass compared to its peers. But also there used to be lots of socialists, for instance, throughout the Middle East. American allies killed most of them. ] (]) 18:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::This has become a discussion about Overton windows rather than the source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3 or 2''' - Right-wing outlets that mix opinions in their articles, selectively choose facts to promote a political agenda, or sloppily misrepresent the truth have rightly been marked as unreliable ages ago. There is no reason to have a different standard for other political positions. And regardless of that, outlets that do that cannot be ''relied on'' (i.e. are unreliable) to present an accurate picture of the facts on a given topic, nor are their writers' opinions noteworthy in our articles. Op-eds from even mainstream papers like NYT, WaPo, etc. are routinely removed as sources; outlets like ''Jacobin'' that consist entirely of such articles should likewise not be used (and we have already done this for right-wing opinion outlets like ''Quillette''). The green checkmark at RSP misleads editors into thinking opinions and claims published in ''Jacobin'' are more noteworthy than they really are. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Jacobin's ] is to promote socialism, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting. However, it may be used with caution for topics within its area of expertise (such as the theory and history of socialism, labor movements, and socialist cultural commentary), provided proper attribution and corroboration from neutral sources are applied. ] (]) 03:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::This is no more a good argument than it would be to state that the raison d'etre of X publication is to promote capitalism and the geo-political interests of the United States, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting.
			*::I could apply that faulty argument to shitloads of mainstream US publications that are currently considered to be generally reliable. '']''<sup>]</sup> 05:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1'''. Folks have said it well already so I won't belabor the point. I can't really imagine an occasion when I would cite ''Jacobin'', but I consider them roughly a left-wing equivalent of ''The Economist'' or ''Reason'' (also publications I'd be unlikely to cite –– all three of these are usually rather predictable and tend to offer shallow analysis). I wasn't sure how we list those other two so I checked RSP just now and saw that they're 1s. Yes, OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument, but I was more interested in getting a baseline on where the community draws the line between 1 and 2. With respect, I object to Crossroads' comparison to ''Quillette'', which leans heavily into platforming fringe ideas and displays little editorial oversight. (Interestingly, on a hoax published in ''Quillette'', revealing the latter's abysmal editorial practices, courtesy of ]) ] (]) 01:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Personally I don’t see Reason and Economist as equivalent, and was surprised to see Reason green flagged for the same reason that I don’t think Jacobin should be. That is, whereas Economist is mostly reporting and some opinion, both Reason and Jacobin are mostly opinion and some reporting. The Jacobin piece on the Quillette hoax looks good to me, but everything else they’ve published by that author wouldn’t be usable for facts as they’re pure op eds. I’d put the Spectator and National Review in the category as Jacobin and Reason. (Whereas Spiked and American Conservative are worse, red flag territory rather than amber.) ] (]) 15:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Additional considerations apply'''. As I indicated in the ] which I started, the mere fact that Jacobin thought it appropriate to publish a statement that ] "owns a third of US housing stock" indicates that they do not do adequate fact-checking before publishing articles. Therefore, one should attempt to corroborate any facts they publish with more reliable sources before relying on Jacobin to support any factual statements in articles. ] (]) 03:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1'''. Our ] is explicit that {{tq|reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective}}. I may not personally love the political perspective of ''Jacobin'', but they don't go out of their way to platform disinformation that flatly contradicts academic consensus about reality. Regarding ''Jacobin'' as unreliable on the grounds of its bias would require evidence that said bias leads it to regularly publish misinformation and untruths. I haven't seen this established.{{pb}}Moreover, the error brought up that somehow has sparked this RFC was both A) corrected in a timely manner, which is what we ''expect'' from a reliable source; and B) a case where ], as the original source was a book review of several books written by Mark Fisher. If cited, it should be cited to warrant information about Fisher or his books or the genre he wrote in, etc. The Blackstone number was {{tq|Information provided in passing}}, and we already know that such info occasionally {{tq|may not be reliable}}, and so we use our best judgment as editors, citing and reading a wide variety of sources and going to the ]. For a topic like ], looks like ''Jacobin'' is a good resource. For Blackstone and housing, try from the journal '']''. Not every source is perfect at every subject, but when a source has a known editorial staff, issues corrections to publications, and is grounded in reality, it's reliable, even if I wouldn't personally enjoy talking politics with the editor.{{pb}}Finally, when a piece published in ''Jacobin'' is an opinion piece, we can just treat it as such, ]. ''The Economist'' and ''The Wall Street Journal'' publish a lot of opinion pieces too, yet GREL they've remained. As the perennial list says of ''The Economist'', {{tq|editors should use their judgement to discern factual content—which can be generally relied upon—from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources}}. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 06:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3''' or '''Option 2''', long overdue for the reasons already set out in this thread. And frankly, the idea that a magazine whose name is derived from the people who instituted the ] was ever acceptable w/o issue is offputting by itself. ] (]) 23:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	From: ]
			*:For the record, the that in naming the magazine, he was thinking of '']'', a book about the ], not the French. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Not that that is relevant anyway when assessing reliability. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::''The Black Jacobins'' is named so because the author analogizes the actions of the Haitians to that of the French Jacobins. It's just adding an extra step (not to mention that the word has a known meaning on it's face, so it's mostly irrelevant.). Regardless, it's clearly derived, and it's frankly silly to even argue semantics. ] (]) 02:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Just to be clear your argument about the name being relevant to reliability is literally arguing ]. Your objection doesn't make any sense. ] (]) 03:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I was referring to the semantics of what counts as "derived from." And no, while the name clearly doesn't ''inherently'' reflect relevance. If a source called "The KGB Times" came up on the noticeboard for reliability, it's perfectly reasonable for a person to point out "Hey, I don't think it's reliable for reasons x,y, and z, andddd the name also doesn't exactly inspire confidence." That's all I'm saying. Don't twist my statement into something it's not. ] (]) 05:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::That is arguing semantics. ] (]) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::If that's your benchmark, then practically everything is arguing semantics, including this whole thread. "Jacobin publishes words -> what are the meaning of those words? (semantics) -> can we qualify those meanings as 'reliable?'" Clearly distinguishing factors, and I'm not interested in ''arguing semantics about the word "semantics"'' with you like a 12 year old. My vote's been explained, ]. ] (]) 17:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1/Keep the current RSPS summary''' I think a few people arguing for additional considerations are misremembering the current RSPS legend. ''Additional'' considerations doesn’t refer to things like weight, or bias, or that you need to attribute opinion pieces because those are all standard considerations that apply to ''all'' sources. The current RSPS summary already says (in part) {{tq|Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'.}} I can't find anything that indicates that's not still a perfectly good summary. ] (]) 01:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{cquote2|
	Do you mind me asking a simple question: What is BEST for the articles on Misplaced Pages in these situations, in your opinion?] (]) 05:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
	:I wish I could give a simple answer. I'd never really looked into tvbythenumbers until relatively recently and had let additions to articles slide by. Since there's no definite consensus you can probably use tvbythenumbers but expect the information to be challenged and, if there's a better source available, use it. Pifeedback is definately out though. --] (]) 05:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	::My point is that there are no better sources other than these two, whether reliable or not. Particularly for Ghost Whisperer here, we have no other sources. What would be best for[REDACTED] in this case would be to keep the sourced ratings, whether reliable or not. Using ] would therefore allow different perspectives of both sources be challenged by the reader only. Presenting the source for them to click on to directly lead to where we have taken the information from can allow the reader to determine if they think it is reliable. In this situation, it is not neccesary for ]. Sourcing the information in no different manner than usual, meaning in no special way, or a neutral way, we do not impose whether they should or should not endorse the source where we have gotten the information from.] (]) 09:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
	:::If you're going to cite ] as a reason for ignoring core policies such as ] then you should make sure that you follow the links in its single sentence. The first of these, "]" states, "''it is Misplaced Pages policy that information in Misplaced Pages should be ] and must not be ]. Please show that information is verifiable and not original research by referencing ]. Unsourced information may be challenged and ], because on Misplaced Pages a lack of information is better than misleading or false information''". --] (]) 10:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	"Misplaced Pages has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. ''Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule.'' Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter." The precise wording of ] is: "''it is Misplaced Pages policy that information in Misplaced Pages should be ] and must not be ]. Please show that information is verifiable and not original research by referencing ]. Unsourced information may be challenged and ], because on Misplaced Pages a lack of information is better than misleading or false information''". It would be best to use common sense and allow good contributions; being too wrapped up in ] is only going to cause the removal of sourced ratings, therefore not improving the article in any way. We are not misleading the user in anyway when we predent the pifeedback.com source because the information is clearly there. But that is my opinion, which obviously differs from an averae Misplaced Pages user. Because of this, we should allow the source and have the reader be able to determine if it is reliable or not, therefore ignoring ] and ]. "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." Improving[REDACTED] would be to provide the ratings. And the only sources for them are these two.] (]) 11:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
	:I'm not sure what words of that are yours and what are quotes but, regarding "being too wrapped up in ] is only going to cause the removal of sourced ratings", ratings aren't sourced if the source is not reliable. If the only sources you have are not reliable, then the information shouldn't be in the article and if you put it in, it can be removed. If you persist in restoring information that has been removed because it's poorly sourced you might end up blocked. You really need to think about whether it's worth losing your editing rights. People have been blocked for far less. I really have to take issue with claims that the ratings are only available from two unreliable sources. Where are they getting them from? They must be available from somewhere. If they're not, then the claims aren't credible. --] (]) 11:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	::He does claim to get them somewhere. But I try to search on Google, Bing, Dogpile, exc. for them, but I don't find anything. The point I am tryign to make is: If it is reliable or not, leave it. When someone wants to see where we got the information from, they click the link and decide for themselves if the sources are reliable. Its simple and resolves the dispute over this issue by Ignoring the rules. And, by the way, since season 2 and 3? is not sourced at all (before your edits and now), we should remov them completely, unless you disagree?] (]) 21:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
	:Sorry, I thought I'd already replied but I got side-tracked with another discussion and some vandal fighting. After much research, I can accept the tvbythenumbers refs, only because there is no ] as to its status as a ]. However, in the discussions that I've initiated at ], there is absolutely no support for pifeedback.com and, as it's a forum, it clearly falls into the category of ], meaning the information from there can't be included in the article. We don't add information assuming that readers will be able to follow links so they can decide whether or not a source is reliable. If it's not reliable, it doesn't go in. As ] says, "''a lack of information is better than misleading or false information— Misplaced Pages's reputation as a trusted encyclopedia depends on the information in articles being verifiable and reliable.''" As for the uncited information from season 2 & 3, yes, that should be gone. --] (]) 07:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	::In the discussion you initiated, there is only you, some other guy, and me. Honestly, that isn't a consensus. As ], doing what is best for Misplaced Pages, is what is right for Misplaced Pages. In oder to be fair(er?) I will quote some materal from you and I here at the discussion you have started. I'll also ask some people to ontribute to the discussion (without telling them to side with me or you). I'll just give them the link and kindly ask for any feedback they would like to give.] (]) 13:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16}}
			*'''Option 1*''' Jacobin is a biased source, something that should obviously be considered by anyone thinking of sourcing them for anything contentious, but their reporting has never been an issue in terms of establishing basic factual information about a situation. One writer for a book review making a dumb statement that was corrected by the source doesn't change that. ] (]) 04:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I haven't read this whole argument because my eyes are dry. I just read the beginning and topic sentences. From what I have gathered: use the original sources. Full stop/period. <span style="border:1px solid #ed7606;background-color:#fef6e5;padding:1px;">]</span> <sup>(]) </sup> 13:54, 7 July 2010 (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)
	::Edit: Where is this "guy" getting his numbers from? Source wherever he is getting the numbers from. <span style="border:1px solid #ed7606;background-color:#fef6e5;padding:1px;">]</span> <sup>(]) </sup> 14:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1/2''': generally reliable, they have a correction policy. Bias for opinion pieces and essays should be taken into account, attribute accordingly. ] (]) 00:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Bad RfC''' As on . ] (]) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' I previously commented in the 2021 RfC based on ]. In particular I found persuasive. Most recently cites a ''Jacobin'' article from November 2024 positively. A major trade publication in the field of journalism still seems to find ''Jacobin'' worth citing as "demonstrat convincingly" how Harris lost the pro-labor vote in the 2024 election. Why should we not follow ''CJR''s lead? The arguments seem to be (1) ''Jacobin'' recently issued a major retraction and (2) ''Jacobin'' has a left-wing bias. I could buy into (1) if they constantly issued retractions, but no one has shown that that is the case. (2) is contrary to ]. Altogether, I don't see why we should treat ''Jacobin'' differently from reliable but right-of-center-biased publications like '']'' or '']''. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]</span> 07:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2 or Option 3''': Not only is Jacobin an extremely biased, ideologically charged source, but their reporting has been called into question multiple times. At the very least, additional considerations do apply. ] (]) 13:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2'''. This is not a ]. Its stated purpose is . Compare to the missions of the NYT: ; or the BBC: . The NYT and the BBC are both biased (every source is biased), but they do at least aim to deliver ''reporting''. Jacobin, on the other hand, is an advocacy organisation. That doesn't make it automatically unreliable, nor does that make it solely a source of opinions, but that does makes it qualitatively different from the newspapers that others have compared it to - and that is an important additional consideration worth noting. For the record, I disagree that one incident of inaccuracy is enough to downgrade a source, particularly one that was corrected. ] (]) 13:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Just because I note that my earlier !vote wasn't posted in to this section, for the avoidance of doubt, whilst I think this is a '''Bad RFC''' because there's no reason for initiating it, I support '''Option 2''' or '''Option 3''' because it is strictly an opinion site and not one that should be relied on for statements of fact about anything but itself. ] (]) 14:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1'''{{spaced en dash}}''Jacobin'' may be biased, but that has no bearing on reliability. They have many well-respected articles that have been cited by other reliable sources, have transparent editorial controls, and a demonstrated process for retraction and correction. I see a couple complaints above that ''Jacobin'' isn't a news organization; however, this isn't relevant to reliability. Just like ''The Economist'', ''Jacobin'' publishes more retrospective, interpretive articles which for certain subjects can often be ''better'' than using contemporaneous news articles. Overall this is a very '''bad RfC''' given the creator's undisclosed connection to the previous overturned RfC (see comment by {{noping|Tayi Arajakate}}) and a complete lack of any examples of ''actual uses on Misplaced Pages where the reliability is questioned''. This is as far as I can tell a knee-jerk reaction to a single example of an error on an unrelated topic in an offhand remark inside a book review, and which wasn't even used on Misplaced Pages. An absurd reason to open an RfC. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard"><span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 4px lightskyblue, -1px -1px 4px forestgreen;font-weight:bold;">]</span> (] • ])</span> 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' per Silver seren and Wugapodes (and thank you for providing actual reported information on their editorial process rather than speculation, heavy irony in this whole discussion). This whole saga is based on one correction? Really? ] (]) 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' bias has nothing to do with reliability. Meanwhile, corrections are a strong signal of reliability. --] (]) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Bias has plenty to do with reliability, or can. It's a worthwhile thing to take into consideration. ] (]) 21:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3/4:''' An encyclopedia should focus on high-quality, fact-driven sources. Not on ones that report the news with ''heavy'' political agendas, at least not without qualifying it. Using a highly politically charged source (of whatever political persuasion) inevitably leads to
			:# '''Bias and lack of objectivity:''' Sources with extreme political leanings present information ''very selectively'' and often distort facts to support an ideological agenda. This can lead to biased or one-sided entries that undermine neutrality. It can also lead to including content that is not encyclopedic. See ].
			:# '''Erosion of credibility:''' Misplaced Pages is expected to provide balanced, factual, and well-researched content. Reliance on politically extreme sources can damage its reputation as a reliable and neutral reference.
			:# '''Misinformation and inaccuracy:''' Sources like ''Jacobin'' often contain errors, conspiracy theories, or exaggerated claims that, when included in encyclopedia entries, could mislead readers and spread misinformation.
			:# '''Cherry-picking evidence:''' Extreme political sources may ''omit contrary evidence'' or fail to represent the full range of perspectives. This results in incomplete or skewed coverage. Critical context is lacking.
			;# '''Harm to reputation of the field:''' Normalizing unreliable content can set a dangerous precedent here. Per Misplaced Pages policy, a fact worthy of entry in an encyclopedia would be covered by ''multiple'' reliable sources. It would be difficult to "counter" each instance of citing ''Jacobin'' with another source of equal repute but on the opposite political extreme covering the same story.
			:Further, ''Jacobin'' is mostly an ''opinion'' source. While it is not the worst source in the world, it hardly among reliable sources. According to Ad Fontes Media, which monitors news value and reliability, "Ad Fontes Media rates Jacobin in the '''Hyper-Partisan Left''' category of bias and as '''Mixed Reliability/Opinion OR Other Issues''' in terms of reliability."
			:The goal of Misplaced Pages, which prioritizes reliable ], is to present information with a sense of ]. There is no shortage of such sources, and those are the ones to use. --] (]) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Well said. ] (]) 21:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: Thank you, {{Reply|Iljhgtn}}. I'd also like to add that {{Reply|Herostratus}} put it nicely above: "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." --] (]) 21:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That is also a good point. I imagine that is why as a standalone source it likely should not be relied upon for reliable reporting on the facts, but that maybe it could work to bolster a claim made already by another reliable source. Option 2 of "Additional considerations" is where I am leaning. ] (]) 21:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The OP @] also spoke to this. ] (]) 21:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::# All sources are biased, it's a natural part of human nature. This is covered by ], if that bias effects accuracy and fact checking then that needs to be shown by examples. Biased sources are not unreliable simply because of their bias.
			::# People's opinions of Misplaced Pages are not a criteria for determining a reliable source.
			::# Instances of errors or misinformation should be shown, saying they might exist isn't evidence that they do exist.
			::# This is again covered by ].
			::# This point relates to NPOV not reliability. Editors should take ], ], and ] into account, but ultimately whether a source should be used is not the same as if a source is reliable.
			::-- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Detachment is specifically not required of sources per RSBIAS {{tq|"... reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."}} -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{ping|Precision123}} did you employ ChatGPT or other LLM to compose this response? The structure is suspiciously similar to ChatGPT's writing style and your response is primarily platitudes with no specific examples or references to the specific policies undergirding RSP. Your sentence {{tq|Sources like Jacobin often contain errors, conspiracy theories, or exaggerated claims that, when included in encyclopedia entries, could mislead readers and spread misinformation}} is especially LLM-like and makes the spurious claim that {{tq|sources like ''Jacobin''}} may use {{tq|conspiracy theories}} which hasn't been brought up anywhere here. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard"><span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 4px lightskyblue, -1px -1px 4px forestgreen;font-weight:bold;">]</span> (] • ])</span> 02:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2'''. They are an analysis/opinion magazine rather than a strait news source, so their pervasive bias has to be carefully considered when assessing its use as a source. ] (]) 00:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Discussion: ''Jacobin''===
	:Internet forums don't meet the criteria for ]. I don't see why the other regular source on there can't be used. For instance, on ] where the pifeedback.com ratings have been removed, tvbythenumbers.com gives the rating 10/9/09 (8.60 million) ; it gives the rating for 10/16/09 (8.21 million) . For the same dates pifeedback.com gives the ratings to be 8.78 million and 8.05 million, so there is a discrepancy there. One of the sources has to be wrong. Is there a reason why tvbythenumbers.com isn't being used to source the remaining ratings? ] (]) 14:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
			*Seeing as there's substantial disagreement in the pre-RfC section above, I've gone ahead and launched this RfC. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I know I am going to sound Geeky, but the difference between TVBTN and PIfeedback's post is that PFB posts the finalumbers, 24 - 48 (in GW's case, about 72) hours after the preliminary ratings. I have asked Travis where he has gotten the information from and am waiting for a response.] (]) 15:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
			*:Pings to {{yo|Feminist|The wub|Thebiguglyalien|Super Goku V|Simonm223|FortunateSons|Oort1|Burrobert|ActivelyDisinterested|Hydrangeans|Vanilla Wizard|Iljhgtn|Selfstudier|Horse Eye's Back|NoonIcarus|Harizotoh9|Springee}} who commented above. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Additional pings to {{yo|WMrapids|David Gerard|Bobfrombrockley|Shibbolethink|Crossroads|Herostratus|Dumuzid|Aquillion|Gamaliel|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d|BSMRD|Wugapodes|Ip says|King of Hearts|Chetsford|Tayi Arajakate|MPants at work|Jlevi|The Four Deuces|Grnrchst|Szmenderowiecki|Dlthewave|Jr8825|Thenightaway|Nvtuil|Peter Gulutzan|FormalDude|Volunteer Marek|FOARP|Sea Ane|3Kingdoms|Bilorv|blindlynx|Jurisdicta|TheTechnician27|MarioGom|Novemberjazz|Volteer1}} who commented in the ]. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I think you should also disclose that the previous RfC was initially closed by you (back then under the usernames ] and ]) and the discussions that followed at {{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 6#Jacobin (magazine)}} and {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340#Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability}} led to an overturn on grounds of it being heavily flawed and ostensibly a ], followed by a re-close afterwards. Especially considering your statement in the above section questioning that (re)closure now, which also partially forms the basis for this RfC. Those discussions might also answer your question on why it was (re)closed in the manner it was. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 20:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I've tried to ping everyone from the prior RfC and from the discussion above. This was done manually: I excluded 1 vanished account and I tried to ping people by their current usernames if they have changed names since then. If I missed someone, please feel free to notify them. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Per my prior comments about space constraints I've split this to its own section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I've just moved the RFC out of the discussion again. The RFC shouldn't be made a subsection of the prior discussion, due to ongoing issues with overloading on the noticeboard. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' Editors should bear in mind that reliability does not mean infallibility. It merely means we can use sources where applicable. In this case, the impeached article is a book review, which combines a description of a book and the reviewer's opinions. The only acceptable use of a book review - whoever wrote it and wherever it is published - is in an article about the book reviewed.
	::Funnily enough, TVbytheNumbers' reliability as a source has been discussed previously. --] (]) 16:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::The TV ratings can be found on the LA Times too. For those two weeks we have Ghost Whisperer on 8.78 million and 8.05 million which are in line with pifeedback.com. I think this obviously proves the pifeedback.com forum is putting up the right numbers and Chaosmaster's explanation that they are revised figures makes sense. Whether this makes pifeedback a reliable source or not I don't know, but it seems to be reliable in this instance. Personally I would try to source the figures with the LA Times data, and if any can't be sourced then perhaps fill in the blanks with the pifeedback numbers but add a citation needed flag in those cases. If we have the correct figures, we may as well use them - if their numbers correspond with the LA Times numbers then this would seem a legitimate instance to invoke ] where we have gaps. ] (]) 16:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::For the two weeks after that (23/30 October) the LA Times gives 8.59 million and 8.29 million . Those match up with pifeedback too, but the LA Times seem to publish these figures every week so I'm betting you can source every single one of the missing figures with the LA Times, so this may well be a redundant discussion. If there are other challenged sources it may be worth going back and sourcing them all through the LA Times, especially if there discrepencies. If you have the number that you want to source it is easy to find using google using the search term: ''site:articles.latimes.com "ghost whisperer" 8.29'' ] (]) 17:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::: Well there's no doubt that TVbytheNumbers gets their data from ]. See the bottom of page with the ratings that say: "Nielsen TV Ratings: ©2010 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved." The forum, I'm still unsure about. <span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print">''']&nbsp;]'''</span> 20:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::: It is all a matter of fast overnight ratings or the ones published weekly on nielsenmedia.com and apparently reprinted in the LA Times too. Just by looking at the air date of the show and the publication date on tvbythenumbers for ratings of said random show it is pretty clear that most are overnight ratings. The weekly final numbers once all markets are factored are typically the preferred numbers to cite long term with the overnight being a placeholder subject to revision in an article since it is itself a placeholder number subject to revision by Nielsen. However people don't often think to check the fast overnight vs the final numbers for discrepancies once a rating is in an article. <font face="Georgia">] &amp; ] ☯ ]</font> 04:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	I did notice that LA Times do line up with Pifeedback also. And here, I agree with Betty Logan, using the LA times in most cases where we know for a fact that is a reliable source and then using Pifeedback's for the rest with a citation flag sounds fair to me. I do agree with Delarious about people not checking ratings once its published in an article. Many articles state "This show had 5.5 million viewers" one day, the following week there is a more precise number such as 5.48. Its a matter of whether or not you are using prose to explain the ratings or if you have an episode table, in which case the later would be better fit with the precise number.] (]) 16:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
	:Would it be okay to use rather than flaging every single rating (which would also cause the table to be disproportinate to the other four)?] (]) 23:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
			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.
	::Three of the 6 editors who have posted here have discounted use of pifeedback.com outright, as has the editor who replied to the May discussion. Another editor has made no comment on pifeedback.com. Only one editor proposed use pifeedback.com if the figures were not available for the LA Times but prefaced her comments with "Internet forums don't meet the criteria for ]". That editor's "support" was marginal at best. Only you fully support use of pifeedback.com. Adding the disclaimer to ] as you have done breaches ]. The information needs to be sourced to reliable sources or not included in the article at all. --] (]) 04:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
			Our time would be better spent ensuring that RS policy is adhered to.
	Why is this even being discussed, at this point? Open access forums are not reliable sources, fullstop. Use the ratings as published by Nielsen/LATimes, fullstop. I was pointed at this discussion from my talkpage. ] (]) 13:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
			] (]) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:'''Comment''': Pifeedback.com is not a reliable source. Misplaced Pages currently suffers from lack of RS use in the arts and entertainment articles. This is a good topic and may this WP:RS be used for the improvement of such articles. --] (]) 13:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:I've been asked to comment here by ], though (or perhaps because) I have no connexion to this at all. All my opinion is, why can't the figures wait for the LA Times and Nielsen Media figures to be published (as they are both presumably RS)? There's no great hurry. And if the overnight and adjusted figures are both valuable, have them both. ] (]) 13:23, 13 July 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)
			*: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)
	As a response to Hipocrite, this is being discussed because ] states to do what is best for WIkipedia. In this case, we should use the source and allow the reader to determine themselves if the Pifeedback source is reliable or not, after using the LA Times article where possible.] (]) 13:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
			*:They issued a correction. This is what we expect of reliable outlets. Your personal characterization of the correction as "weaselly" is your personal opinion on tone and has nothing to do with any Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 19:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Did this correction at least state what the correct % was? Like, the correction itself tries to make it seem like a minor overstatement rather than, you know, a completely wild exaggeration that tried to take advantage of general innumeracy. “I’m a billionaire!”. “No you’re not”. “Ok that was an overstatement”. Come on. It’s quite disappointing to see how many people are fine with misinformation, weak sourcing and “alternative facts” as long as it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. Whats even more disappointing is when these are people who are claiming to be building a factual encyclopedia. Facts are facts and garbage is garbage, regardless of whether it come from the left or right.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes facts are facts and garbage is garbage but as long as we allow garbage like ''New York "Iraq has WMDs" Times'' to be treated as a reliable source I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently. Jacobin is compliant with Misplaced Pages's requirements. If you want to talk about tightening those requirements I'd be open to the discussion at ]. ] (]) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Was the weapons of mass destruction bit ever retracted by New York Times? As far as I'm aware it wasn't. Perhaps we should be wasting community time and having a discussion about them? '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Yeah my point is just that a lot of editors are establishing a double standard where Jacobin is being held to a higher standard than what Misplaced Pages generally expects from news organizations. I would like it to be measured against the same standard as anyone else. ] (]) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Agreed. I'm not the biggest fan of them because there's so much oped stuff but we've never thought that reason to downgrade ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Exactly. And that is kind of what I was getting at when I suggested the right venue for what {{noping|Volunteer Marek}} was concerned about was ]. If we allow these kinds of sources then we allow these kinds of sources. I would be happy to restrict these kinds of sources more than we do but it has to be handled at a policy level rather than via exceptions to present policy. ] (]) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:This does not appear to be an outlet generally characterized as producing click bait. ] (]) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It is not the case that a book review can ''only'' be used in an article about that specific book. For example, they are frequently cited in biographies of authors, in order to demonstrate that those authors meet ]. And an article about the pedagogy of some subject could cite reviews of textbooks about that subject. ] (]) 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			== The Heritage Foundation ==
	: Using unreliable sources is not what's best for Misplaced Pages. I have closed this discussion as it is clear that a strong consensus exists that this forum is not reliable. ] (]) 13:29, 13 July 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)}}
			== RfC: TheGamer ==
	::When we have the numbers to list, why not use the source? No other source has the numbers but Pifeedback when LA Times fails to use the numbers.] (]) 13:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
			{{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: ]
	:::Furthermore, that is why it is best for wikipedia: We do have the information, and it has been proven to be at least 98% acurate, yet we just ignore the information simply because its on a forum? If the information on LA Times can be used, we will use it, but if not, we should use Pifeedback.] (]) 13:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
			* Option 2: ]
			* Option 3: ]
			* Option 4: ]
			]</s>
	{{Small|(Comment requested by ])}} There is , they get there ratings directly from Nielsen and is owned by ] a trustworthy outlet. But there listings are often incomplete, hard to find, a week after the fact and lacks a bunch of channels. TV by the Numbers gets there ratings sometimes from Nielsen but other posts from Travis Yanan in which they link to and as source. His twitter account often links to his post on Pitfeedback, so that would confirm the user. If those posts on TV by the Numbers are accepted so should the ones on Pitfeedback. The best I found from on Nielsen's website is the which is ''very'' limited and doesn't seem to have backlog, which would make citing this useless. doesn't seem to put concise ratings on the website, with exception of the once in a while top 10 of the month. I frankly don't understand why ] doesn't just put the ratings on there website like ] does in the UK. If they do I haven't found it and no-one on[REDACTED] seems to have either since I haven't seen a single citation to a website from Nielsen for a rating. Currently ABC Medianet is accepted and used for back-in-the-day-shows, TV by the Numbers for recent shows. If TV by the Numbers is globally used and accepted as a good source and it uses Travis Yanan as a source then Pitfeedback should be considered just as good as a source. Does Nielsen post the ratings somewhere users can find them? If so I find it weird that they would be used pretty much nowhere over third party sources such as TV by the Numbers, Pitfeedback, etc. where does the LA Times post the ratings? ] names but that website doesn't load for me.&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Palatino;">]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup></span> 13:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
			<span style="font-family:Kurale; color:#ff0000;">]]</span> 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:<small>the website requires the "www." but it just leads to the weekly top 10. <font face="Georgia">] &amp; ] ☯ ]</font> 14:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)</small>
			* '''Bad RfC'''. While begun in good faith, this RfC is malformed. The opening statement is not {{tq|neutrally worded and brief}} as our ]. I would also ask why the ] about ''TheGamer'' available at the list maintained by ] isn't considered sufficient. If this is at root a page-specific concern about ], as the opening statement causes it to appear to be, the matter can surely be handled better at ]. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 02:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			Nevermind then. I'll delete the info on the Flowey page that provides no encyclopedic value. The reason I proposed this originally was because TheGamer's content has gotten worse and more sloppy since 2020.<span style="font-family:Kurale; color:#ff0000;">]]</span> 04:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abottom}}
			== Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer ==
	:: Yeah I saw that, but it's a weekly top ten, and has no archive making it pretty useless for citing.&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Palatino;">]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup></span> 15:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			Is this sigcov , reliable for ]? ] (]) 09:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I've also been asked to comment by ChaosMaster16. I don't think ] applies here, because using a forum as is source simply not what is best for Misplaced Pages. I think ChaosMaster16 should read ] and ] carefully and understand the principles that underlie them. The point is not to provide any old source and leave it to the reader to work out whether or not it is reliable - the point is provide a reliable source, so that they can verify the information in the article. Ignoring the rules in this case would go against the spirit of the encyclopedia. It's about as open and shut a case as I've seen - you can't use a forum as a source. If the viewing figures are not available from a reliable source, they should not be listed. And attempting to assess the reliability of the information from the forum is both ] and something that the reader is not privy to. ] (]) 13:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
			:The first link goes to a summary of a detailed software review by Friedrich Blase, the “Innovator-in-Residence” of the Ontario Bar Association. It looks like Dr. Blase, whose references writings on legal technology, might qualify as a subject matter expert, so I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. The second link goes to a blog, which would not be a reliable source. ] (]) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I don't really see that pfifeedback.com is necessarily any less reliable than other source of ratings data, short of getting the numbers directly from Nielsen. A lot of the data seems to be posted by Mediaweek's staff writers, and I can't see an indication of bias that would cause them to fudge the original Nielsen figures. Obviously anyone can post to to the pifeedback.com forums, but there's an apparent level of editorial oversight from a notable media outlet. The company's ] are also worth noting. I agree that forums are not usually a reliable source, but I don't see that this one is ''not'' reliable. ] (]) 13:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
			::Ok, thank you very much. ] (]) 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			==''Pirate Wires''?==
	:::'''Comment''': Like User:Si Trew and User:Maccy69, ChaosMaster16 asked me to comment on the matter. Allow me to point out that when students ask their teachers if they can cite Misplaced Pages, the response in almost every case is to instead use the primary source ''cited'' by Misplaced Pages. I think that we have to do that here. Myself, I see it as something of a slippery slope (or, if you are on the other side of the coin, an evolution) wherein TVBtN is barely inclusive as a source, which opens the door to a far more questionable source like Pifeedback.com. Maybe their info is accurate; it isn't the point. It's a blog run by two guys who - at best - might make a mistake which isn't held up to scrutiny by internal fact-checking. At worst, they might fudge the numbers by a decimal point or a 100th of a percent to favor a particular program.
			'']'' as an "American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." It doesn't shout "reliable source" to me (feels more like a group blog), but could somebody else take a look at this and help me determine if (a) its articles, or (b) its claims about itself should be cited in articles or BLPs, ? — '''] &#124; ] &#124;''' 20:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::IAR often fails as a skeleton key in bypassing policies and guidelines, which is true in this case as well. It isn't a valid argument to use here. It doesn't benefit the encyclopedia or the reader if their perception is skewed by crappy data sourcing. That would be like using a source that says that 75% of people think that Obama is a sleeper agent for the Jihadists. If its's sourced ], then it can be used. However, if the source is a tea party or some such nuttier group forum, the numbers are clearly being skewed. It's an extreme example to be sure, but the prevailing principle is the same. We present neutral, reliable and verifiable information to the reader, so they can form an idea based upon good information. Fan forums and blogs do not meet that criteria as there is little in the way of provenance for their resulting viewpoints. - ] (]) 14:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
			:Wouldn’t this be an aboutself citation anyway? I would be more concerned about primary/OR here in that case.
	::::In response to Jack Sebastian, I understand where you are coming from. However, to me, it sounds ] to know that there information is acurate and not cite them. In all reality, Misplaced Pages credits reliable sources based on acuracy. If there was a situation similar to yours that stated Obama didn't smoke, but was posted on Jokes.com, a site (for this exapmle) that has a repuatation of posting inacurate information, why would we cite that? If Pifeedback posts acurate ratings, the only ratings for an episode in some cases, and there is no other information given by LA Times, why not cite Pifeedback? If however, someone cites Pifeedback for purposes other than ratings, like a post saying "American Idol was canceled in the spring of 2010," that would be proven inreliable beacuse of the reliable sources we have to prove that it wasn't caneceled.&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Arial Narrow;">]]</span> 15:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
			: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)
	:::::Blogs/chat forums/etc rarely meet RS standards. I'd say get rid this one too.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 16:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
			:: So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of {{talk quote inline|as of January 2025, his profile at the online publisher '']'' lists him as a senior editor|q=yes}}? I just wanted to make sure ''PW'' was something worth mentioning at all, or if it was more akin to 'he's the senior editor this super-serious blog' and name-dropping a site that bore no mention. — '''] &#124; ] &#124;''' 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::As I was similarly directed to this page from ChaosMaster, I have no background on this matter. However, it seems to me that this pifeedback.com does not appear to be a reliable source, and should not be used under most, if not all, circumstances.
			:::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)
	::::::"If Pifeedback posts acurate ratings, the only ratings for an episode in some cases, and there is no other information given by LA Times, why not cite Pifeedback?"-- ChaosMaster16
			:::: I'd eschew calling out any of his particular articles over others, since there's... no reason to, right? Without reliable third-party sourcing, they're no more notable or inclusion-worthy than his others. — '''] &#124; ] &#124;''' 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::Most likely they won't post accurate ratings, as they've done in the past. LA Times is preferred, and if the only source that we have is largely unreliable, then we don't cite it at all. As you say, we don't post information from sites that have a history of inaccurate information. It is not likely, nor even preferred, for a site to be referenced though the data might be accurate for one instance, and the ] policy applies to neither ] nor ]; it hasn't before, and it won't now. ]]] 16:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
			:::::I think this is a case for ], but it seems like a reasonable option ] (]) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::It is clear to me Pifeedback ''does'' post acurate ratings as proven by the ratings currently sourced ] compared to the ratings from pifeedback, . To make it easier to compare, is the difference in revisions. There are only two differences: the March 5, 2010 episdoe (Org. had 7.36 vs. current 7.35) and the January 8, 2010 episode (Org. had 9.00 vs. current 8.94). Honestly, wave the March episode, and of the eleven numbers that LA Times posts, ten of them prove Pifeedback as providing reliable information (the January episode is off by .06 million) and if you count March, then nine of the eleven (March being off .01 million).&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Arial Narrow;">]]</span> 20:48, 13 July 2010 (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)
	*'''comment''' - regardless of actual accuracy of checkable numbers, a forum is extraordinarily unlikely to be any sort of a reliable source. --] (]) 23:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
			:: Here's a Business Insider story on Pirate Wires that gives a good sense of its ethos . ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I'm thinking the same thing. If the ratings can be cited by the LA Times or something other than Pifeedback, that would be ideal. But there's clearly no consensus that Pifeedback is a reliable source. ] ] 03:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			::Invoking ] to attack an organization is not a good start for Pirate Wires, a new publication that does not have much of a reputation at this point. Definitely not ], and I would avoid using this publication for ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::In response to both comments: If the forum is proven to be reliable in the past, specifically one user, it should be reliable in the future. And I, again, agree that LA Times should be used where possible. Other than that, I feel Pifeedback has proven reliable, unless there is information that proves otherwise.&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Arial Narrow;">]]</span> 03:20, 14 July 2010 (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)
	:::As previously noted, it's a slippery slope, CM; we let in one forum/blog-type site, and the next thing you know, folk will be arguing for the inclusion for a host of other, increasingly suspect sites. It's best to just follow the citations presented in pifeedback to their source, and cite those sources. That way, pifeedback is still useful without messing with the reliability of sources policy. - ] (]) 04:11, 14 July 2010 (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)
	::::Pitfeedbacks source is Travis Yanan, were this person gets that information from is unknown, but proven accurate, and cited by TV by the Numbers occasionally, which is generally accepted. If Pitfeedback is considered unreliable then TV by the Numbers is also, and then some 75% of all the ratings can be deleted.&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Palatino;">]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup></span> 09:16, 14 July 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. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 03:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Pirate Wires is trashy far-right culture wars content. It is at best a group blog - ] (]) 10:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Marginally reliable, there seems to be a pretty wide spread quality wise because they seem to allow their writer a loose leash. This means that some articles are very good and some are very bad. Personally I've found them solidly reliable for the more wonkish techy stuff but have a lot of issues when they start to cover politics or culture/society in general. Crypto seems to be the only blindspot within their otherwise area of expertise, their crypto coverage is just awful and should be avoided like the plague. When used I would attribute and I would strongly advise against any use for BLP not covered by ABOUTSELF. I agree that pieces by Solana should be treated as self published and that coverage by Pirate Wire is not to be considered independent of the Founders Fund. ] (]) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Need context before coming to RSN ===
	'''Question''': Can someone link to this magical LA Times that keeps getting mentioned? Or another source that is considered reliable? I for one have only seen three sources for episodic ratings, TV by the Numbers (most for recent shows), ABC Medianet (most for pre 2007), Pitfeedback (few). I did and the last article with an actual list of shows and the ratings was from March. I see no problem waiting a week until final and reliable ratings are in but these ratings appear to be nowhere (except TVbtN/Pfb) except the sporadically averages.&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Palatino;">]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup></span> 09:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			At this point, the source is used in only 7 articles in mainspace. . in general, RSN really shouldn't be used to approve sources ahead of time, editors exercise their own discretion, debate merits of source in the talk page of article, and come here if the same source is debated over and over again, or if reliability is still at issue. ] (]) 16:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Per <s>{{U|Slatersteven}}</s> its founder describes it as a ] - it should be treated accordingly. ] (]) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{cquote2|For the two weeks after that (23/30 October) the LA Times gives 8.59 million and 8.29 million . Those match up with pifeedback too, but the LA Times seem to publish these figures every week so I'm betting you can source every single one of the missing figures with the LA Times, so this may well be a redundant discussion. If there are other challenged sources it may be worth going back and sourcing them all through the LA Times, especially if there discrepencies. If you have the number that you want to source it is easy to find using google using the search term: ''site:articles.latimes.com "ghost whisperer" 8.29'' ] (]) 17:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)}}
			*:Not me. ] (]) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Oh dear did I misread? OOPS should be per {{U|Selfstudier}} apologies. I will strike above. ] (]) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It is not ] and its founder merely said things along the lines of "I am not bought and paid for nor a mouthpiece for any billionaire" etc. Now I do not know the veracity of that statement for sure, but I do not see that Mike Solana declared Pirate Wires to be SPS or a blog. It has numerous other independent journalists and appears to run as a full-fledged journalistic organization like any other, with their own right leaning or right-libertarian bias of course. But bias is not a reason for a source to otherwise be deprecated or considered SPS or anything else, it is just the nature of nearly every source that some bias to one direction or another is to be expected. ] (]) 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::But they don't have any indication of editorial controls, or a fact-checking process, or any of the things that an ] would have; neither is there any reason to think they have a particular {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}. A statement like "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever" makes it pretty clear that it's not structured the way we'd expect a RS to be structured. I'm with the editors above who describe it as a blog - there's just nothing here that even has the ''shape'' of an RS. The fact that the person who runs it sometimes also includes guest posts by other people doesn't change the fact that there's no editorial board, no source of fact-checking, and most of all no reputation. Like... what makes you think that it's a ], according to the criteria we use? Where do you feel its reliability comes from? --] (]) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yeah by that criteria this is a SPS, one guys blog is still one guys blog even if they let their friends post. ] (]) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Usage in ] ===
	The rest of the discussion is above (below the first quote box).&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Arial Narrow;">]]</span> 14:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			Is the Pirate Wires piece by ] a reliable source of claims for the ] article? Rindsberg has published other content about Misplaced Pages on Pirate Wires, including . —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 04:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It's at best, usable for the attributed opinion of Rindsberg only, but even then, it's obviously polemical and partisan. There's lots of right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages that I personally find disingenuous, but inevitably an article on "Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages" is going to have to include some partisan sourcing, but not framing it as fact is essential. I am unsure whether Pirate Wires is prominent enough a publication that it would be due to mention in any capacity. ] (]) 04:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	:You have to google the site to find them rather than use the site's internal searchg but LA Times = '']'' a major newspaper in the land of television and silver screen dreams. Try googling using this format: ''site:articles.latimes.com/YYYY/mmm/ "SHOW NAME"'' or remove the month and year if you want all results. The weekly numbers come out i believe Thursday of the following week. For older shows it would be handy but for current episodes people will still want to use the overnight ratings that are well available the next day so as to fill that blank spot in the episode list. Also i seem to have not found any ratings for May 2010 sweeps; maybe bad googling, maybe not published. <font face="Georgia">] &amp; ] ☯ ]</font> 14:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			::I don't even think its usable for that... Can't find anything that suggests that Rindsberg is a subject matter expert. ] (]) 18:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: Yeah I already saw the google trick and know what the LA Times is. I was looking for a site section with the ratings in it. Also see next post. I looked for the ratings for the two last episodes using google , came up with nothing. LA Times seems to be completely inconsistent in there postings.&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Palatino;">]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup></span> 15:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			:Sources in that article should have some leeway, as Misplaced Pages is obviously going to be criticised by such sources. But I totally agree with Hemiauchenia that framing is key. This is the opinion of a hyper partisan source, framing it as fact is wrong. Whether it should be included or not is a discussion for the articles talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It is more or less a group
			:blog that mostly publishes opinion, including eg antisemitic Soros conspiracy theories. Any Misplaced Pages editor reading their coverage of this project will immediately spot multiple falsehoods and errors, and also personal attacks on names editors based on these inaccuracies. At best on a par with Quillette. In short, not reliable for this topic, and if this topic is a guide to how robust its general reporting is it’s probably not reliable for anything. ] (]) 16:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Both unreliable and ]. Rindsberg's views on any topic are quite irrelevant to anything. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 06:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Agree fully. Unreliable and undue. ] (]) 14:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:almost certainly no. the article attacking[REDACTED] has falsehoods and even ignoring that and arguing its an opinion piece we could use with attribution , it goes at it from a very marginal POV … there are more useful opinion pieces from more reliable outlets out there.] (]) 07:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:How is it used by others or is it even used by others? If sources have cited their work then I think we can as well. However, I would be very cautious about using it as an independent reference. Very cautious to the point where I would generally say no. Perhaps in a case where it's spot on topic (ideological bias of Misplaced Pages) but then only with attribution. Speaking generally, these sort of sources are always difficult as they may provide very good information but other than editors reading the text and using their own common sense, OR, etc, we don't have a good way to judge the quality of the output. BTW, this is also why I think "use with caution" may not be specific enough. Some sources are more like "use with caution but probably OK" while others are more like "use with extreme caution but there is probably a case where it provides more than about self content". ] (]) 14:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Pirate Wires itself is notable as it's had coverage in other notable outlets but its viewpoint about Misplaced Pages per se might not have been documented in RS yet. But I'm confused -- Why are some of these other media outlets' self-published viewpoints ] without them necessarily being considered RS themselves? ] (]) 13:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The term '']'' refers to sources without adequate editorial oversight, which includes most ]. ] are not self-published sources. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 14:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Imo Having Misplaced Pages articles that discuss whether Misplaced Pages is reliable, biased, antisemitic, etc is silly. We're all too inherently conflicted as Misplaced Pages editors to give a sober assessment of these topics and what is/isn't due to include. These topics are best left to scholars. That said, Pirate Wires is a lot less established than these other publications you mention. ] (]) 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Outright rejecting ] because it's "right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages" and has "a very marginal POV" is the issue with ] that the piece is trying to critique. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 13:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::But it does affect ] weight (which requires balance between sources, and which is the real concern for something that, as a ] or a website with no reputation, would obviously be opinion at best.) The article already contains a large number of right-wing sources with a similar perspective; does this piece add anything to them? My feeling is that articles like this are subject to problems where editors try to do this nose-counting thing where they add dozens of opinionated or biased sources saying the same thing because they feel it's a ''really important'' perspective - but that's not how opinion is really meant to be used. If we have twelve sources that are fundimentially similar saying the same thing, they ought to be condensed down to a single sentence or so saying "a bunch of sources said X" (unless some of them are individually noteworthy on their own merits somehow, eg. if they're an opinion from a significant expert, but that obviously isn't the case here.) --] (]) 14:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] makes a perfectly valid point. ] (]) 14:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::It's being rejected because it's a random tech guy's blog - not because it's right wing. ] (]) 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::One thing @] said I half-agree with. The question of Misplaced Pages bias is one best answered by academics - which we should document appropriately and neutrally - the opinion of Ashley Rindberg on a blog with no editorial board is not a notable opinion, again, not because of its left-right bent but because <s>s</s>he's just some person with a megaphone. ] (]) 14:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::It is your opinion that it is a blog. That itself would need evidence and probably an RfC. ] (]) 14:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Also, ] is a man. ] (]) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Evidence has already been provided. In this thread. The founder brags about having no editorial board on twitter dot com. ] (]) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Getting neither the gender {{tq|"she's"}} nor the spelling {{tq|"Ashley Rindberg"}} correct shows me you may not have looked into this very much. ] (]) 14:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Oh do stop. That's an awful lot to take from a bloody typo. ] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Here's a freebee for all the people looking to say Misplaced Pages has a left-wing bias. This is what a reliable source accusing Misplaced Pages of a left-wing bias looks like: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.2020.1793846 ] (]) 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Two can play that game. https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased ] (]) 14:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::The Manhattan Institute is a think-tank with no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it is obviously not a ]. --] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::This too, in addition to my comment below. Frankly I'm finding this interaction very strange. ] (]) 14:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::I should add that the Manhattan Institute was discussed previously ]; the discussion was never closed or added to ] but by a quick nose-count the total unreliable + deprecate opinions outnumbered the "unclear" opinions almost two-to-one (and there were almost no people saying it was GREL.) --] (]) 14:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::What game? I literally provided a source accusing Misplaced Pages both of left-wing bias and of bias against women at the same time. ] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::*We don't actually require an RFC for every individual dispute; and sources certainly do not ''automatically default'' to reliable. Just doing a quick nose-count in this discussion suggests that it's extremely unlikely that an RFC on Pirate Wires' reliability would support your contention that it is reliable - numerous issues have been raised, especially regarding its lack of editorial controls and its lack of the {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}} that RS requires. We can pull it through an entire RFC if you really think it's necessary but I think your time would be better-spent looking for more clearly reliable secondary sources covering this, if you want it in the article. This would also turn things back to the more fundamental ] problem I mentioned above - this looks identical to dozens of similar pieces posted by people with similar opinions; given that it's published in what's ''at least'' a low-quality source compared to the ones already in the article, what makes this one significant enough to highlight? --] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:For disclosure, I originally wrote the ] article. I think the answer is ''no'' to this question specifically, and similar questions generally.<Br/>Pirate Wires is an advocacy media outlet. Its writing is in a punchy tone -- a tech-ish form of ] -- that blends opinion with explanatory reporting. They don't do spot news. So there's just no utility in using it for encyclopedia-writing.<br/>That's not to say it's either good or bad, merely that it doesn't serve the limited purposes for which we use sources here. (It ran a widely cited interview with ] and I don't think anyone believes they made-up the interview. But if we need to cite that interview in an article it can be referenced to any of the numerous RS that, themselves, cited it through précis', versus Pirate Wires directly.) In any case, anything it publishes that ''is'' encyclopedic will be covered in a second, more conventional RS and we should reference the second source. Anything not referenced in a pass-through outlet is probably undue. ] (]) 18:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			'''Respectful comment:''' This discussion would be more helpful if we focused on how reliable sources treat a specific startup news organization and less on original research and personal opinion. --] (]) 21:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	: Not sure if that was a response to me, but I already saw that and not really relevant, I'm asking about recent ratings. LA Times only posts ratings (when they actually do) of primetime shows, leaving a whole bunch of shows out. Besides that the LA Times website is just horrendous to find something on. I did some more searches and this is what LA Times has, (didn't search earlier) , , two missing weeks , and nothing after that…
	: Were does everyone get those numbers from? Nielsen doesn't put them on there website, and Travis Yanan is clouded in mystery. What's with all the secrecy? In the UK BARB just puts them on there website (although in an annoying non-hotlinkable form).&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Palatino;">]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup></span> 15:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			== CEIC data ==
	::Furthermore, it that there are two more ratings that were proven correct on Pifeedback by LA Times. In response to you, I was on Pifeedbaack and came across an interesting by TY, stating that he "gets" the ratings? I could entirely be misinterpreting the message, but it sounds like he is subscribed to a site or some type of information that lists all of these ratings. I just thought it was interesting. And frankly, I think it would be a whole lot easier to have the posts on the site of the company that ''does'' the research too, but I think it is because of a deal or a discrepency between NBC and Neilsen that they don't: ''I think''. is the really unhelpful site for the Nielsen Research Company. And seems to be the only ratigns on their site, which doesn't help us much at all.&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Arial Narrow;">]]</span> 23:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			I often see this site being used as a source for country-list data. They appear to be professional, but I'm not sure if they're considered a proper secondary source. They do not appear to be the same CEIC as the one owned by ], as they say they are owned by "ISI Markets". ] (]) 23:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::You buy the numbers from Nielsen, or the access to them. It is their commodity. TVBTN turns what they pay for getting the numbers into a website with some advertising and a lot of business, from well us for one, that appears to more than offset their expenses in acquiring the numbers. In Canada the only thing that BBM seems to make publicly available is the weekly top 30; anything else must be bought. And that top 30 includes the 11pm newscasts too. UK ratings are by far the easiest to find.
	:::So sorry to have bothered to try to answer your query about the magical LA Times. You do know that this page has the no-edit-conflict happening here. I had no knowledge of Chaos' response to you until i eventually saved my post and saw his come in between. If you wanted a site section you could have just asked for that instead of making me think you never heard of LA Times before. Forget searching their site. It is the worst construct of a news/business website i have ever seen. And yes, there has been nothing for a long time now. You might look into searching the paid archives if you really want to find ratings; the abstracts are free. Otherwise the LA Times is just as randomly useless as pifeedback is an unreliable forum. Maybe the WMF would be so kind as to buy us a subscription or whatever to the full Nielson numbers so we can use that <tt>:P</tt> and get Canada's too! <font face="Georgia">] &amp; ] ☯ ]</font> 23:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			:It looks like just a big database. I would trust the first party sources for raw data more. ] (]) 10:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::So that means no matter what Entertainment site we go on, they all pay for it? Meaning they are ALL unreliable? Which also means we would have to deleate millions of TV ratigns from even 12 years ago.&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Arial Narrow;">]]</span> 23:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			::If in question use secondary sources.] (]) 02:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::We seem to be getting off the track here. The fairly clear consensus seems to be that pifeedback.com doesn't qualify as ]. Are you convinced yet? --] (]) 10:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::We are not getting "off track". And Frankly, I don't see why I or anybody else would need to be "convinced" on this discussion, which is ongoing. Convinced of what exactly? If you want to convince someone about an issue, Misplaced Pages isn't really the place to do so. Anyway, if the entertainment buisness pays for their information, there is absoultely no way to confirm what they report, much like Yanan. And even if we can check them with information with more reliable sources, like LA Times, there is simply no way to know if either source is acurate. So, since Pifeedback (rather, Yanan himself) cannot be a reliable source even though ''their'' numbers are proven acurate, it cannot be used, just like LA Times, TVBTN, Entertainment Weekly, exc, and therefore all ratings, even just mention of ratings in prose format, should be removed. Of course, I disagree with this and like the consensus agreed upon earlier (use LA Times first and then Pifeedback), I think we should do what is best for[REDACTED] ignoring select rules and allow all of these sources to be used to report ratings on American televison because the information is an important part of a program and the buisness, whether it be for comparison, research or simply to report how a show gets canceled. I think it would be wrong to ignore these aspects on Misplaced Pages, and using Pifeedback, LA Times, Entertainment Weekly, all sources that are proven to list correct information, we can continue to list the ratings on articles that deal with TV. I personally think the flag would be redundant in this case, and think we should remove that also, specifically on ], where Aussie edts based on earlier.&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Arial Narrow;">]]</span> 16:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
			== Fantasy Literature ==
	== visionsofjoy.com at ] ==
			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)
	A FAQ from visionsofjoy.com () has been repeatedly reinserted at ] (e.g. ). Given an incipient edit war, I'd like to solicit outside input on whether this is a suitable encyclopedic source. I am of the opinion that it is not, that the material being inserted is not particularly encyclopedic or relevant (if it were, we'd have better sources), and that the is both contrived and promotional. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
	: Clearly, (pardon the pun), no content from or citation to visionsofjoy.com could be legitimately used in any way anywhere on Misplaced Pages, unless in a hypothetical ] article. ] (])
			: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)
	::Well, this is definitely not a reliable secondary source but given the context - that this is an article about the Bates method (which I've never heard of until now, apparently it's some minority or fringe theory), I think it's acceptable as a primary source with all the usual caveats and disclaimers about using primary sources. I mean, we're allowed to cite in an article about ], right? ] (]) 23:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
			::This is the terms its staff work under:
			::Basically they're unpaid volunteers who become voting members of the staff. They are expected to review an unspecified but regular number of books in order to maintain their membership. It isn't clear that there's much in the way of editorial oversight beyond a pledge not to plagiarize review material. Considering their concentration on volume of reviews and appearance of loose editorial standards I'd be hesitant to use this group to establish the notability of a book. ] (]) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::So just for notability purposes it is unusable or is it something that should not be included on pages that are notable? ] (]) 22:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I'd say unusable for notability purposes. I'd likely leave it off other pages unless it had something significant to say that better sources didn't. ] (]) 14:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Not an RS. ] (]) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Is “Zannettou, Savvas "A Quantitative Approach to Understanding Online Antisemitism". a reliable source for ] ==
	:::This was previously discussed ], where it was rejected. --] (]) 23:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
			I can’t find evidence it’s been published. ] ] 19:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::A Quest For Knowledge has the right take on this. An alternative solution would be to delete from the article all reference to See Clearly Method, as it has no relevance to Bates Method. ] (]) 09:05, 1 July 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)
	:::::We're getting off topic here. Comments unrelated to the application of WP:RS should be made on the article talk page. --] (]) 19:35, 1 July 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)
			:::It's important to keep in mind that ''most'' of the preprints people link to as sources were eventually published; we just link to the preprints as courtesy links because they're usually what's available. PREPRINT even mentions this. --] (]) 15:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes, but in that case, you still need the correct citation for wherever it eventually appeared, and if there's a link to that final version in full, then you should link to the full final version rather than a preprint draft. In this particular case, the citations themselves were not for the final version, and the final versions are both available in full elsewhere. ] (]) 15:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:What's the context for this question? Where is it being cited/do you want to be able to cite it? ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] I'm a bit confused by the question - did you look at the article? It's cited several times there and as I can't find evidence that it's been reliably published I don't think it should be used. ] ] 08:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Sorry; that's my bad. I was running on low sleep and shouldn't have been on Misplaced Pages, and I read your prose where you don't include a link but glazed past the header text where you did include a link. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:See https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/7343/7197 ] (]) 15:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			Apologies, I missed another one, also apparently never published."Zannettou, Savvas, Tristan Caulfield, Jeremy Blackburn, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Michael Sirivianos, Gianluca Stringhini, and Guillermo Suarez-Tangil. "On the Origins of Memes by Fringe Web Communities." arXiv.org, September 22, 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.12512." ] ] 08:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I provided a link to the published version of that one in my second comment above. The citation is Zannettou, S., Caulfield, T., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Sirivianos, M., Stringhini, G., & Suarez-Tangil, G. (2018, October). On the origins of memes by means of fringe web communities. In ''Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018'' (pp. 188-202). There's an alternate citation at the top right of the copy where it says "ACM Reference Format." ] (]) 13:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::Not a reliable source. Promotional, POV, website contains the usual disclaimers to the effect that the author is not an eye doctor and shouldn't be trusted as far as they can be thrown, the information is for "educational" purposes only, etc. Warning - off topic: Sam, it clearly states in that section that the SCM contains exercises adapted from Bates although the marketers behind it do not endore Bates "overall". How is that of "no relevance to Bates method"? ] (]) 12:59, 7 July 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)
			:::I'm not sure that I'm following. Both papers were published in conference proceedings. FWIW, even preprints are ] in WP's sense of this term, which is only "a source that is made available to the public in some form." Even if there are no conference proceedings, it's possible to use a conference paper that was presented, as long as the presenter has made it publicly available (e.g., via something like arxiv.org). But all of this only establishes that the paper is published and therefore verifiable, not that it's a RS for the content in question. ] (]) 14:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Sorry, I mean when is a paper submitted to a conference run by a reliable organisation an RS? When submitted? If published as part of the publication of the conference papers? ] ] 15:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::A paper that's been submitted to a conference should be treated like a preprint. A paper that appears in conference proceedings is more likely to be an RS, but that will depend on whether the conference is one that reviews all papers in a way that's similar to peer-reviewed journals, and — as always — on the WP content that it's being used as a source for (a paper can be an RS for some content and not for other content). Assuming that the papers do substantiate the WP text, I'm guessing that they're RSs (Google Scholar indicates that they've been cited over 200 times). ] (]) 16:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::It is published, Conference proceedings of Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), volume 14. AAAI has been around since 1979 with respected associations. Submission to a conference is not sufficient to meet any standards. Acceptance by a reputable conference after peer review (some conference talks are invited and not peer reviewed) is a good indicator of reliability though not a guarantee (the conference paper may well be revised between acceptance and publication in a proceedings and even then might in the long run not be considered reliable). As it stands, I would say reliable for the use of Happy Merchant online unless other sources can be found undermining its reliability. ] (]) 15:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I would consider a paper published in the proceedings of a respected conference a reasonably reliable source. If it was contradicted by peer-reviewed research or, even better, a peer-reviewed meta-analysis of available literature I would give it a bit less due than those sources. But I'd say that yes, at its base, this looks reliable. ] (]) 16:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Thanks all. I'm really cross with myself for not checking on Google Scholar - ironically I've just done that with another paper. I would have saved you all a lot of time if I had done that. ] ] 18:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	== IAE Magazine: Reliable source? ==
			<!-- ] 19:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1751745462}}
			Should we be using articles from the Hawar News Agency, especially in relation to the (geo)political side of Rojava? This also includes articles in the scope of the Syrian civil war. It has ties to the SDF, which means there is a significant conflict of interest here; <s>I should also add that the YPG/YPD/SDF , which raises concern over its reliability.</s> I want to get community consensus before I do anything, especially because the article in question (]) is related to a CTOP. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 19:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:(Copying this response from the talk page of the ]:) Of course we have to use Hawar, simply because it is one the most prominent news sites from Syria. It ''shouldn't'' be used as the sole source for contentious issues (unless it cites claims), but for basic facts such as local election results, regional policy decisions, etc. it is one of the only sources available. It is also used as a source by academic researchers such as in ''The Kurds in the Middle East: Enduring Problems and New Dynamics'', ''The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts'', ''Soldiers of End-Times. Assessing the Military Effectiveness of the Islamic State'', and ''Statelet of Survivors. The Making of a Semi-Autonomous Region in Northeast Syria''.<br>(The following part is new, written for RSN:) These are books written by experts on Syria, released by reputable publishers such as ‎ Oxford University Press, and they have seemingly deemed Hawar to be a partisan, but useable source. Speaking from experience as an editor who has been active in editing articles on the Syrian civil war for ten years, I would also note that Hawar was previously discussed by editors and similarily assessed, as it is fairly reliable though should be used with caution in especially problematic fields such as casualty numbers (where partisanship becomes a major problem). ] (]) 20:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Having read through the article you linked it doesn't show that media is heavily censored. A relevant sentence would appear to be: <br>{{tq|"In the current situation, the journalists we interviewed usually stress that, on the one hand, they enjoy relative freedom of expression. The PYD did not forcefully close those it considers as antagonistic media. Reporters can move freely in the region and cover a wide array of issues. Additionally, journalists from international or regional media are also generally allowed to operate freely. However, they also say that there is always a tension with the authorities in power and there are red lines that cannot be crossed."}}<br>As well as:<br>{{tq|"Gradually, they seem to have adopted an editorial line that is less critical, if not supportive, of the political system in Rojava. This support, according to some local journalists, is not due so much to direct imposition from the authorities, but rather to their own convictions and, even more important, to the feeling that doing otherwise would be very unpopular in a conflict-ridden context."}}<br>So it doesn't sound like they have the most freedom of media, but it appears a long way from heavily censored. Restrictions on reporting matters that could effect security are common in areas of conflict (and even outside of them).<br>Hawar News Agency has some ] and would probably be covered by ]. Issues of bias (]) and opinion (]) don't immediately make a source unreliable. In general I would agree with Applodion, reliable but caution should be taken for issue where it's bias or censorship of security matters may effect it's reporting. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Agree with above, helpful to understand its bias, but this means to use with caution and understanding rather than preventing use. ] (]) 00:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Agree with the above. If we are citing it for contentious claims, then it's better we provide attribution. Unless OP or someone else can come up with credible sources that ] the reliability of ''Hawar'', I don't see any reason to worry about its inclusion. Looking over the article, it seems most of the citations to it are for easily verifiable facts (i.e. changes in AANES leadership, recognition by the Catalan parliament, etc.), rather than anything contentious. --] (]) 10:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:If we consider TRT sub-optimum in relation to Rojava and the Syrian war because of its affiliation to the Erdogan government (see above on this noticeboard), the same should apply to Hawar. It’s fine for reporting the statements by AANES/PYD/SDF or uncontentious facts, but it should always be attributed and triangulated for anything at all contentious. I’d rate it above Al-Masdar and below the SOHR for reporting facts about eg battles in the Syrian war, but like them is a weak source. ] (]) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Is there anything to show that Hawar is not independent of the SDF? I couldn't find anything making an explicit link. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}} from the ]: "On Thursday, the group held funerals for 17 of its fighters in the border town of Tal al-Abyad, the '''SDF-linked''' Hawar news agency said...". 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 22:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That would indicate a need for caution. Whether to the level of TRT I couldn't day. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 01:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The difference between Hawar and TRT seems to be how they are treated by independent academics and subject experts; as far as I know, TRT has been repeatedly accused of spreading outright falsehoods (), whereas Hawar is seemingly deemed to be mostly reliable despite its connections to the PYD and SDF. ] (]) 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Being censored is a ] issue and a reason to use a source with caution (with attribution for anything remotely contentious), but it doesn't automatically render them completely unreliable. The big question is whether they're yielding to pressure to publish things that are actually inaccurate rather than just one-sided. If not, they can still be used with caution - we'd want to cite better sources when possible and avoid giving ] weight to a source with a clear bias, but there's some advantage to having sources that are close to conflicts. And a major problem with removing sources simply for being subject to censorship is that it could produce systematic bias by removing every source from a particular region; I'm not familiar with the Syrian press specifically, but in other regions with similar censorship, there's still a difference between sources that carefully report as much as they can get away with and as accurately as they can within the restrictions of government censors, and sources that full-throatedly broadcast misinformation to support the party line. --] (]) 15:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			== RfC: LionhearTV ==
	I happened to notice an editor removing a ton of references from articles , and while I have no doubt they're acting in good faith I'm questioning whether this really is not a reliable source. From appearances, it looks like a fairly run of the mill entertainment industry magazine that also has a website . Here's their URL . Opinions? ] (]) 21:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
			{{Moved discussion from|Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Sources#RfC: LionhearTV|2= Royiswariii, 19 January 2025 00:55 (UTC)}}<!-- ] 11:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740135721}}
	:Seems that the reason it was removed was not due to reliability, but because {{User|Newsfeeder}} was using Wiki for ] by spamming links to the site all over the place. — ] <sup>]</sup> 21:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
	:: Sure I saw that, but is that enough of a reason to revert what would otherwise be a reliable source? I could see removing them if they were just dumped in the external links section or placed indiscriminately, but based on the Statham ones these actually seemed to help support the material in the article. ] (]) 21:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Honestly, it doesn't really strike me as reliable. It seems to be a ], and doesn't seem to have any claim of notability. As to using it for the text in the Gossip Girl article, there are out there that could be used. — ] <sup>]</sup> 21:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::: OK, fair enough. I don't feel especially strongly one way or the other but it seemed ok to me. That's why it's good to get other opinions before you go and put everything back. :-) - ] (]) 22:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Part of the rationale for the removal was the spamming; the other was because the site itself does not appear to be a reliable source, and would likely not even be accepted as an externmal link even if the spamming wasn't an issue. --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 05:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	:It looks like this is resolved, but I had a look at the first couple of edits and it is classic ]: add an inconsequential or obvious factoid with a reference that just happens to be a link to your website. If these were not reverted, we would end up with ten fake references in every paragraph in every article. ] (]) 02:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
			I want your comments about the reliability of LionhearTV, I can't determine whether it is reliable or not, on ], the Lionheartv is in the unreliable section, but, despite of that some editors still using this source in all Philippine Articles. So let's make a vote:
	== and wrt Stephen Ambrose ==
			* '''Option 1: ]'''
	I didn't see any substantive resolution to on the subject prior to its archiving, so I'd like to pose the following followup questions in response to the defense presented for these sources:
			* '''Option 2: ]'''
			* '''Option 3: ]'''
			* '''Option 4: ]'''
			] ] 10:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	# Wrt someone's private, self-run non-peer-reviewed non-commercially-published website: Does documentation that a reliable source mentions the existence of the website, or repeats the fact that it made an allegation, prove that said website is now a reliable source?
	# When said website is the personal ad-funded property of a Misplaced Pages editor who argues for its continued inclusion, is that not a massive conflict of interest?
	# When numerous traditional reliable sources are available other than said website, why does ] demand its inclusion as if it were the only reliable source that can be found?
			:'''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)
	For the record, I'm not arguing that either "side" in the previous discussion was right or wrong about which nontraditional sources should be accepted as if they were reliable. I'm saying neither should be, absent a logical rationale.
			* '''Comment''': For better understanding and context, especially for editors unfamiliar of this topic's origin:
	And for that matter, I would accept CPRR as a reliable source in a heartbeat for most questions on the Central Pacific Railroad, assuming a dearth of other reliable sources on a field that's mostly of interest only to collectors and buffs. But I don't understand why the website's owner wants to use it as a reliable source on Stephen Ambrose. ] (]) 21:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
			::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.
	:CPRR.org is a non-commercial, not-for-profit site that does not charge anything to its users to access it or its content. While it has a few sponsored links on a very, very small number of the over 10,000 pages on the site, none of these were solicited and they produce miniscule amounts of revenue all of which goes to help cover a fraction of the operating expenses (i.e., webhosting) of the site. The linked to Ambrose article was not produced by CPRR.org, but is only hosted on the site for free because its topic relates directly to the CPRR. (The page also carries no sponsored links.) Also please see the AN/I discussion located for a full accounting of the years of misconduct, disruptive editing, ], and ] practiced by anonymous IP User 75.2.209.226 on Misplaced Pages as well as his/her apparent motivation in "challenging" inclusion of the link to the paper in the Stephen Ambrose article in the first place. ] (]) 22:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
			::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.
	::# By using the third person, are you asserting that you are not in fact the owner of the website, which uses ads for funding and therefore profits from increased traffic?
			:<span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 13:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	::# I would ask that you refrain from further false ''ad hominem'' insinuations that I'm a Wikistalker or a sockpuppet, whether or not 75.2 was. I'm about as provably innocent as you can get, given that I'm on the other side of the country and leave my IP open for everyone to see. ] (]) 23:02, 1 July 2010 (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)
	::::*The above reference to wikistalking, etc, is ''not'' to 76.22.25.102, but is instead to 75.2.209.226, the anonymous user who posted the original "complaint" and who has stalked me and many other editors on Misplaced Pages since at least 2007 using many anonymous IPs (all of which resolve to SW Connecticut or adjacent areas) as well as several named accounts. My posting above is not meant to imply that there is ''any'' relationship or connection ''whatsoever'' between that user and 76.22.25.102 whose IP appears to resolve to Washington state. I am also ''not'' the owner of CPRR.org, but am instead only an unpaid contributor to it who derives no income or other pecuniary benefit whatsoever from the site. The very small amount of income derived from the few persons who asked to help sponsor the site is not based on traffic. ] (]) 23:29, 1 July 2010 (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)
	:::::That doesn't seem to match the information located in the page source code (which contains links to akamai), or the site's about page cross-matched to your user page. However, the CoI question is turning into a derail massively out of proportion to its importance in this specific issue.
			:'''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)
	:::::First and foremost: Why, in the presence of several other unquestionably-reliable sources, should ] necessitate using either the highly-questionable warchronicle site (a blog which reads like a collection of letters to the editor) or CPRR site (a nominal museum / amateur hobbyist blog with a specialization completely unrelated to Ambrose)? For the record, my primary objection is actually to warchronicle. But the CPRR site seems equally out-of-depth, albeit more properly attributed. ] (]) 00:35, 2 July 2010 (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)
	::::::I have no connection whatsoever with the Warchronicle site nor am I expressing any opinion here one way or another as to its reliability. The ''only'' page on the CPRR site (a site with which I have fully disclosed my association on my userpage since registering on[REDACTED] in 2006) that is linked to the Ambrose article is to a December, 2000, paper that documents more than sixty factual errors in Ambrose's '']'', his August, 2000, book about the building of the Pacific Railroad of which the CPRR constituted the Western portion built across California, Nevada, and Utah. (The corrections to the errors contained in the paper were all accepted and incorporated by the publisher in the book's paperback edition published in 2001.) By the way, the CPRR website (which has been online since February, 1999), is not an "amateur hobbyist blog" but a comprehensive compilation of period writings, scholarly papers, original source materials, Government and railroad company reports and documents, hundreds of maps, thousands of period photographs, and many other papers, articles, on-line exhibits of artifacts, etc, that relate to the CPRR, UPRR, and Western US railroad history. Altogether the site hosts more then 10,000 separate web pages. ] (]) 01:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
			::# 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:
	:::::::I appreciate your forthrightness, but the lack of connection between CPRR and the topic of Ambrose is exactly what disturbs me. If the CPRR site were being cited as a source for the history of the CPRR, I'd probably have no issue with it at all. I don't doubt that it's attracted a great deal of interest from the railroad history community. (Which does make it a hobbyist subject, at least according to these pages ,,. And if it's not being used as someone's main source of income, then it is amateur.) That makes it functionally close enough to peer-reviewed to make me think it's a great RS for non-controversial assertions about the CPRR. But it's not being used as a source for a CPRR article here. It's being used as a source for an article on a modern semi-historian.
			::# 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)
	:::::::Absent spending a ridiculous amount of time cross-checking the paper versions of the book, we have only your word that Ambrose or his publisher accepted and made all of the corrections in the essay cross-posted in CPRR, unless I missed seeing where you have a source which states that. If not, then that assertion needs to be struck from the article as unsourced. ] (]) 02:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
			::# 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)
	* Please refrain from using this noticeboard to attack other editors, praise other editors, or discuss other editors in any way whatsoever. Please limit your discussion to the reliability of specific sources for specific citations. ] (]) 23:47, 1 July 2010 (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)
	:*My comment was not for the purpose of attacking other editors, only to point out that the original charges made by 75.2.209.226 against the reliability of the source in question contained misrepresentations and the reasons therefore. ] (]) 00:24, 2 July 2010 (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)
	Hmmm...Regarding CCRP, their About page says that this is a "family run" web site. I don't seem to see an editorial policy, or any credentials of the authors. However, it does seem to enjoy some sort of following within education circles. According to the ], Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum "''features more than 10,000 files with a terrific online library of more than 2000 19th century pictures, maps and descriptions of railroad construction and travel. It tells the story of the Pacific Railroad in human terms with lots of exhibits and first person accounts. It also has a simulation game for elementary students called The Great Railroad Race.''" ] lists it as additional resource in this student handout. ] recommends it as further reading. ] says it has an "''Extensive collection of photographs related to building the Central Pacific Railroad, as well as its early years of operation. Includes some now (1997) and then (1868) comparison photos.''" I don't know. My initial thought is that it is probably an informative web site, but doesn't quite live up to the standards set forth by ]. But I could be wrong. ] (]) 01:15, 2 July 2010 (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)
	:Thank you for the input, and for spending the time to look up more information on the subject. It definitely helps.
	:Separately, my apologies - I should have made it clearer, but it's being used as a source for ]'s bio page, not the history of the ]. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear from the beginning, given that RS-iness often hinges on who knows the most about a ''specific'' topic. ] (]) 01:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	::I would suggest that the whole matter as to relevance would be completely answered in the affirmative for anyone questioning it simply by looking at the on CPRR.org that is linked to the Ambrose article which is ''exactly'' on the point of the section of the article in which it appears, i.e., inaccuracies in Ambrose's book on the history of the CPRR and the Pacific Railroad. ] (]) 02:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::As noted above, the very fact that this is the only area where CPRR presumes authority on Ambrose is exactly the problem. If a railfan tells me that Reading Railroad should be pronounced "redding", you can bet I'll take their word for it. But if they tell me that reading aptitude scores in the United States have dropped 37% as a direct result of Obama's presidency, I'll take it with a grain of salt because they're speaking well out of their field of expertise. ] (]) 03:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::With respect, that's just a ] argument about giving arbitrary process precedence over provable substance. Read the paper and you will find that is an objective, well sourced, and carefully documented exposition of more than sixty demonstrably inaccurate "facts" in the text on Ambrose's book on the subject of the CPRR, and this is exactly the topic of the section of the Ambrose article (]) in which it appears as a source. Whether or not the authors of this particular fact checking paper were paid or not to compile it has absolutely no relevance as to its reliability, it is the documentation and sources upon which the paper is based that does. The three "railfans" (as you call them) that prepared this paper all have decades of experience in researching and writing about the history of the CPRR and western railroads, and even if they have not done so "professionally", an objective review of their paper demonstrates that they are far more reliable sources on the subject as "amateur" historians than Stephen Ambrose proved to be in this case as a "professional" one. And that's exactly the point that the paper demonstrates. ] (]) 04:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	::This is the third time this IP has brought up this issue, to two different noticeboards. Each time, it's led to a rather lengthy debate. I would not object to the IP having the discussion once. Three seems excessive.--] (]) 01:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Wehwalt, I am not the IP you're accusing me of being. Please note that even CentPacRR has conceded this, and feel free to verify it for yourself as he did. ] (]) 01:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Further, please note that the IP you're accusing me of being was arguing for the inclusion of warchronicle (if I understand correctly), against CentPacRR's quite true arguments that it wasn't any more of a reliable source than cprr.org. I don't think either of them is a reliable source for this topic. ] (]) 01:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I'll accept the assertion re identity, though I would feel more comfortable if your user contributions showed either an interest in Ambrose, the Central Pacific RR, or reliable sources in general.--] (]) 01:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::If you have an accusation to make, make it. If not, I would ask that you not find cute ways to insinuate it and pretend you didn't. Yes, I know this is practically an invitation for you to get me checkusered, but I don't have anything to hide. ] (]) 01:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::(checks own browsing history) If it makes you more "comfortable", I ran into the discussion at NPOV Noticeboard while checking on my own question there about Chernobyl. After digging a little, I thought that the NPOV allegation was on shaky ground, but not the RS question. While looking up more information on the topic, I discovered that it had been brought here but wound up ignored due to TLDR-ing. (Possibly also due to the absence of the originating editor; I didn't look into the timeline of exactly when he got banned for socking.)
	::::::I suspect that if almost any editor went through their own contribution history, they'd find material just as likely to get them accused of being a sock when they wiki-walked into a new topic area. Given only one degree of separation, I'd hope for a little more AGF from someone who's tool-enabled. ] (]) 02:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	:A Quest For Knowledge, thank you very much for the collapse. ] (]) 02:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	*Back to the actual topic: Are and reliable sources on Stephen Ambrose? ] (]) 01:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	::I do think the historical context for this question warrants some consideration in how it is handled. It was raised by editor 75.2.209.226, who has now been indefinitely blocked (i.e. see his Techwriter2B ID). 75.2.209.226 engaged in severe wikihounding of several editors, including Centpacrr. One aspect of this harassment involved starting threads on multiple forums (I believe at least 16 threads primarily directed at Centpacrr), for which 75.2.209.226 apparently received a forum shopping warning (and he received other warnings as well). This is one of those threads. To further perpetuate this process (which was designed to harass an editor) is, I think, rather problematic. Incidentally, I should mention that I was pretty much a neutral observer in this (never had direct conflict with 75.2.209.226 myself, though several days ago I posted about the situation at AN/I, which resulted in the indefinite block being placed).
	::On the merits of the question. Centpacrr is neither an author of the paper nor an owner of the website, nor does he derive financial benefits from the website (nor has Centpacrr ever been harmed by Stephen Ambrose). So there doesn’t appear to be a reasonable case for COI here. The contents of the paper appear to be straightforward factual information and quotations of text from Ambrose, with primary sources cited for the material included in the paper (i.e. high verifiability). Importantly, the contents of the paper are limited to the intersection of Ambrose and railroad history, with rail history constituting a topic on which the paper authors (and website) have clear expertise. Your “reading score” analogy is thus entirely flawed. The authors of the paper don’t presume to make inferences regarding Ambrose in other ways (e.g. his health, his political beliefs, his writing style, etc.). They only speak to the accuracy of his statements writing about rail history (i.e. their area of expertise), and the paper is only cited in the WP article in this regard. ] (]) 04:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::P.S. Minor point - I also would tend to disagree with the characterization that the topic "wound up ignored" here when originally posted, since looking at the archived thread I see an intensive discussion lasting over three days (00:58 May 12 - 09:27 May 15) and involving five editors (with 75.2.209.226 commenting heavily for the duration). Also, regarding the speculation that it might have gotten dropped "due to the absence of the originating editor" 75.2.209.226 - he was only blocked on June 23. ] (]) 09:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::<s>Eurytemora, could you explain why the fact 75.2 brought up the question makes my bringing up the question suspect, unless you're claiming that I'm 75.2? This is getting increasingly reminiscent of the "Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore all vegetarians are wrong" argument, a guilt-by-association variant on ''ad hominem''. And it's particularly tiresome because I'm '''not''' 75.2, and I'm tired of answering for his/her behavior as if all IPs are alike. ] (]) 13:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)</s>
	:::(Struck because I was probably being hypersensitive about why Eurytemora brought up the point. I'm glad Eurytemora's present, and wish I'd known to contact him/her via talk page notice or via cross-posting a notice to the Stephen Ambrose discussion board. Speaking of which, I'll go do so - better late than never.) ] (]) 16:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	To answer the question "Are and reliable sources on Stephen Ambrose?" I see that another editor said "The linked to Ambrose article was not produced by CPRR.org, but is only hosted on the site for free because its topic relates directly to the CPRR." If this is true (and it appears to be) then shouldn't the scrutiny be on the authors of the content? <big>]</big><small><sup>]</sup></small> 10:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Publication at CPRR is tangentially relevant (e.g. the paper is not self-published). I should also point out that one of the authors of the paper (Edson Strobridge) has a commentary (on the precise topic of this paper) published at HNN. The various authors appear to have multiple publications concerning railroad history and their work/expertise appears to be cited by others in the field. ] (]) 11:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	:I would tend to agree. This discussion, in common with the previous ones, is framed as "the expertise of this website about the Central Pacific Railroad when it talks about Stephen Ambrose". In fact, it is "the expertise of this website about the Central Pacific Railroad when it talks about Stephen Ambrose talking about the Central Pacific Railroad". It is no different than a website about Nixon pointing out errors in Ambrose's bio of Nixon. Self publication, editorial oversight, yes, these are factors we consider pursuant to ], but those are not the only factors. It is in my view a reliable source on the railroad. Thus, to the extent that Ambrose stuck his nose into the area of expertise, it's a reliable source for that as well. I do not think it would be a reliable source, on an unconnected aspect of Ambrose's life or work.--] (]) 13:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	::The scrutiny in this case should be on the demonstrable reliability of the facts and their sources that were cited in the paper, not on whether or not the paper's authors are "professional" historians or not. The whole point being demonstrated by the section of the Ambrose article in which the paper is cited is the abject ''fallacy'' of blindly accepting statements made in Ambrose's writings as always reliable simply because he was paid to make them and they were then published in a book. Whether or not those who were able to objectively prove that many statements of "fact" Ambrose made in the subject book were false were then paid by a third party to do so -- or, for that matter, whether or not they have the same academic "credentials" as the late Dr. Ambrose -- just has no baring on that question. Demonstrably false "facts" do not suddenly become reliable simply because they were stated, written, and commercially published by an academically credentialed professional, nor does their debunking become ''un''reliable because those who demonstrated them to be false are "amateurs" who did so without without seeking monetary compensation for their efforts. ] (]) 12:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	There's clear consensus to use CPRR as a reliable source in this case, and no hard feelings. However, part of my question still stands - is warchronicle also a reliable source in this case? ] (]) 13:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	:In my view, the warchronicles.com case is very analogous. It’s not self-published, and it appears to be written by a military historian with relevant expertise (specifically USAAF Troop Carrier Historian Randy Hils), whose work is cited by others in this field, and who appears to have articles published in other reliable sources (including HNN). In both cases under discussion, the respective authors did not come through the usual academic route (i.e. doctorate in history), but have gained and demonstrated extensive specialized knowledge in their respective areas (railroad history and military history), have placed a premium on accuracy, and appear well regarded by other historians. ] (]) 13:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	::I tend to agree. In addition, they accept "submissions" so there seems to be some sort of oversight going on. And I agree, Mr. Hils's credential, while they wouldn't get him in the door at a lot of history departments, are adequate for our purposes. Are there additional questions unresolved? No matter what the outcome, and exhibiting the same neutrality that the IP has professed, I'd like to drive a stake through the heart of this topic.--] (]) 14:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Could you link exactly where they assert that they reviewed his "submission" (or any other), titled "An Open Letter to the Airborne Community on the History of OPERATION NEPTUNE" for accuracy? By its very title, it suggests it was subject to no review whatsoever.
	:::With all due respect, your "No matter what the outcome... I'd like to drive a stake through the heart of this", your simple reiteration of Eurytemora's characterization, and your pejorative description of me, suggests that you've simply decided to automatically "vote" against anything I say and that you've shot neutrality out the window. ] (]) 14:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::No, sorry, not true in the least. I call them as I see them.--] (]) 14:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Then would you mind providing the requested basis for the rationale you assert, since it wasn't simply a knee-jerk response? ] (]) 14:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Sure, per ], "the word "source" as used on Misplaced Pages has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, paper, document, book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both." This discussion has really only focused on the website, and discussion above has convinced me that it is run by an authoritative person in the field. The fact that it accepts submissions is at least surface indication that it conducts a review process. As in common with many website, that process is not spelled out in detail, but neither does ''The New York Times''. I therefore feel that the website is reliable enough not to disqualify it, though I feel that close-in analysis of the article and author should take place at the affected article talk page itself.--] (]) 14:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::"run by an authoritative person in the field" - I'm pretty sure Hils doesn't run it, whether you think he's authoritative or not. Your lack of comprehension of the arguments you're trying to paraphrase, again, suggests that you're "voting". If I'm wrong and you do know who runs it and have evidence that they're "authoritative", I would welcome the information and the correction.
	:::::::"The fact that it accepts submissions is at least surface indication that it conducts a review process." - I believe you have that backwards. If it ''rejects'' submissions, that would indicate it conducts a review process. There are a number of ill-regarded "journals" that accept every submission that includes the "publication costs". And for that matter, on the same page where it says it accepts submissions, it goes on to say "General comments, questions, raspberries, criticism, corrections, and additional information are also all welcome." ] (]) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	:P.S. I will add though – when I get a chance, I plan to add a couple of additional references for this section in the Ambrose article (e.g. Philadelphia Inquirer piece in regards to the military material). ] (]) 14:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	::That would be most welcome. I'm personally of the opinion that the best cure for theoretically-questionable material is to reinforce it. ] (]) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	:(Note - this was written without seeing Eurytemora's response) Qualification: They appear to have consensus for their acceptance for their assertions about Ambrose's accuracy. Is there also consensus for "Note: G.J. Graves comments that "The paper back edition has all of our corrections, but we are not given credit."" being repeated as fact, given that even they don't appear to be endorsing Graves' comment, just attributing it to him?
	:Also, if if it helps, this is the tenor of the writing in the warchronicle "articles", which read much more like letters to the editor: "Would General Eisenhower have expected US Army officers to pull a gun to the heads of British sailors on D-Day? Should American officers be portrayed as thugs, and should British sailors be portrayed as cowards? Are these the type of men who put their lives at risk on D-Day? The reputation of Captain Ettore V. Zappacosta of B Company 116th Infantry Regiment has been besmirched. British sailors from 551 Assault Flotilla, Combined Operations, Royal Navy have been dishonoured. This bad reporting and blatantly poor research has caused great bitterness and resentment amongst American and British veterans. Popular history it may be, but accurate certainly not!" . , which also includes an incredibly dubious "I saw it on C-Span" cite (23).
	:Personally, my gut feeling is that they're probably correct, although they're both describing the ''same'' incident - but aside, my gut is not an RS. ] (]) 14:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::The strong wording you note (i.e. with which Hils closes his piece on the coxwains) – in many ways , that’s not terribly different from many good (i.e. reliable source) Gawker or Village Voice articles. The accuracy/verifiability/reliability of the underlying information in the article is the relevant thing here. Also, just to make it clear - the C-SPAN cite is in the WP article (not in Hils).] (]) 14:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Thank you for reading the articles in question and for the possible correction - I was aware that the C-SPAN cite was distinct from Hils, but I think it's a lot better to hear a correction I already knew than to not hear a correction I needed. My apologies for the ambiguity of saying "Supported text, which includes" - I was trying to draw a distinction between the supporting cite and the section it supported, but it obviously didn't work.
	:::::Not a particularly critical distinction, but the strong wording was actually in Elsby's piece. (I'm a lot more glad that you read it and were aware of it than I am concerned by mistaking which piece it was from.)
	:::::I've only found the one article by Hils on HNN, and a reference to him in another article written by someone else. Could you point me toward other RS's he was published in? That would go a long way. ] (]) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Yes - thanks for correcting me also; should have referenced Elsby (on coxswains).
	::::::I looked into much of this a while ago, and found other references to Hils, etc. at that point. Don’t have time to dig into this again right now (perhaps tonight or tomorrow if I can find the time). ] (]) 17:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	::My point above was that the website qualifies ''but individual articles might not''. Obviously articles which are speculative, editorial, or downright alternate history would not. Source has several distinct meanings, as I quoted. Among these are both the publisher (website) and the article (page). My view is the website is reliable ''but not everything in there is necessarily reliable''. Not everything in ''The New York Times'', a reliable source, may be used on Misplaced Pages, for example certain opinion columns and letters to the editor.--] (]) 14:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Then you might want to look more closely at the articles you're endorsing. That's a quote from one of them. And Hils' piece (the more reliable one) is actually titled, "An Open Letter", while the Elsby piece (the one with the unfortunate wording) is called an article. ] (]) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	::I don’t know how to ideally deal with the WP Ambrose article ref 23. Looking back into the Ambrose article’s history, it seems that the current composition of the sentence and ref 23 placement reflects the removal of substantive details (in interim edits), which rather muddied the content. Ambrose was using oral histories in his writing, and ref 23 refers to one such recorded oral history (of a Sgt Slaughter) that was discrepant with other information and that was explicitly used by Ambrose. The Slaughter recording was apparently once broadcast on C-SPAN. ] (]) 14:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Thank you for taking a look at that one, despite its not being in the original subject. If you saw anything which included verifiable/refutable information at some point in the history (i.e. "broadcast on July 13, 1987 at 1:35 pm"), I'd be much less leery of it. As it is, it comes across as suffering from the same flaw Ambrose seemed to have - if you get called out on giving specific dates that don't match, stop giving specific dates. (For all I know, the editor may have been copying Ambrose's attribution verbatim.) ] (]) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::I actually found the C-SPAN recording online, and listened to the whole damn thing (it’s the American Eyewitness D-Day Accounts Forum 05/17/1994). And I dug further into the whole coxswain controversy this morning. As written, the current WP text on the coxswains is not technically “inaccurate”, but a rewrite of the coxswain material might be preferable – not sure. Will share more thoughts when I have a chance. ] (]) 17:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::''"I actually found the C-SPAN recording online, and listened to the whole damn thing"'' - Wow. That's what I'd call "taking one for the team".
	:::::I don't know if we have the same issue with the coxswain controversy; I'll toss mine out.
	:::::#Hils and Elsby are not each describing an incident. Elsby describes both; Hils only mentions the incidents in passing.
	:::::#To elaborate, Hils says this in a list of Ambrose's and Marshall's other sins: "Marshall's credibility has been severely damaged by the discovery of fabrications related to his accusations of cowardice by British coxswains at Omaha Beach." That's all he says about it. To me, a) that doesn't sound like he researched or verified it himself at all, and b) he doesn't actually say ''anything'' about Ambrose's involvement in the coxswain controversy, much less that he copied Marshall. It's likely that he did, but to attribute this to Hils is a synthesis that's missing a few pieces.
	:::::#Elsby not only appears too emotionally invested in the subject (the quotes I gave actually feature some of the ''less'' histrionic terms he uses), he quotes this debriefing as if it proved him right: "Four hundred yards from the shore the British coxswain insisted that he could take the craft no further. He started to lower the ramp but the platoon sergeant Willard R. Northfleet blocked the mechanism and insisted that the boat was going in farther". That's neither an endorsement nor a denial of either the "Nothing of the sort happened" that Elsby infers or Slaughter's gun to the head.
	:::::Honestly, it sounds like men under the intense stress of imminent death later embellished their fragmented memories to the story they wanted to remember, and weren't consciously aware that they might have been amalgamating details from other people's stories. There still exists controversy that should be properly documented, but not in terms of which side "claimed" or "denied" anything - I think it needs to be recounted without prejudice as a he-said-she-said (in which Ambrose unwisely took sides).
	:::::My suggestions:
	:::::#Hils needs to be dropped from this paragraph. He doesn't make the claim he's represented as making, and the claim he does make isn't germane to the article.
	:::::#I'll defer to you about whether Slaughter is verifiably (not synthetically) talking about the Northfleet incident; Elsby omits any mention of Slaughter so I can't say.
	:::::#I have extreme doubts about Elsby's reliability as a source, and about warchronicle's reliability in general (in the absence of outside qualifications like Hils'). But assuming that the consensus will be to include him:
	:::::#If Slaughter can be brought in, it needs to be noted that the debriefing Elsby mentions is ambiguous, or simply quote the debriefing - the unsourced "other veterans of the landing have denied that the incident took place" should be struck.
	:::::#Sales' account of the Zappacotta incident absolutely deserves inclusion, as does the fact that Sales was on the boat in question. Terms that explicitly pass judgment on who's right would be inappropriate, but the witness's qualifications aren't inappropriate in the slightest. ] (]) 22:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::I've continued digging into this. Will try to post something tomorrow. ] (]) 10:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Trying to synopsize it for you until you get back (these are my own conclusions which are open to challenge, not final group conclusions):
	:::::::#Warchronicle appears to have little reliability of its own, as a self-published website that posts submissions (or general comments, questions, raspberries, etc) without any apparent editorial review. No one has shown otherwise, only asserted that they "accept submissions" and insinuated that they might therefore ''review'' or ''reject'' unreliable material, which are the true tests. Warchronicle does not confer reliability, but it does not negate it either in the case of individuals (i.e. Hils) who have unique qualifications that make them RS's independent of warchronicle.
	:::::::#Hils is likely an RS, taking on faith that you've seen other instances of him being published besides the one HNN piece. But it seems to be moot at this point, because he doesn't actually make any claims about Ambrose's role in the coxswain controversy, or about Ambrose repeating Marshall in that matter.
	:::::::#I personally believe Elsby is nigh-worthless as a source in terms of his ''conclusions''. He hasn't been shown to be published or respected as an expert. He omits contradictory accounts, misrepresents sources, and inflates Ambrose from a flawed historian to a Monster who Desecrates the Graves of Servicemen. But he at least appears to give accurate ''quotes'' from his sources, given that he's quoting them in language that contradicts the conclusions he draws from them. It would be far better to have original sourcing for Sales and for the debriefing, but I don't think that's possible. What are your thoughts on whether an unreliable source can be trusted to accurately quote a reliable source (such as Sales or the debriefing)?
	:::::::#Reiterating a point, strong consensus appears to be that CPRR is a reliable source wrt their essay, since a majority of the assertions they make therein are directly about or tangential to railroad history. But CPRR does not put their reliability behind Graves' assertion (that their corrections were incorporated), or call it accurate. They're simply repeating what someone told them, and it doesn't touch on railroad history. I didn't see any contradiction to this, but it's worth repeating to allow challenge before dropping it as not reliably-sourced. ] (]) 00:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::*The point regarding all corrections to the errors documented in the paper having been incorporated in some later editions of the book is now moot as, in an abundance of caution, I deleted it from the article on my own on July 2nd as not currently independently verified. ] (]) 03:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::Thank you, I didn't realize you had. Doing so suggests that I ''was'' in error in casting aspersions on your principles - I apologize. I should have AGFed rather than being as cynical as I'm wont to be in cases of apparent economic benefit. Economic benefit and high principles are not mutually exclusive. ] (]) 01:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::I'm suspecting that now that the discussion has gotten down to brass tacks, it ought to move to ].--] (]) 02:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::I've posted followup at ]. ] (]) 14:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	A number of editors are battling to keep a version of the article that relies heavily on self-published group blogs to make a claim about the political partisanship of the subject. Are group blogs like ] and ] reliable sources in this instance? ] and ] seem to say very clearly that they are not, but it appears there are a number of people who don't see it that way. ] (]) 15:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
	: It would be helpful if, ''one at a time'', you told us: ''What is the exact url of the source in question? In which article is the source being used? What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting? Where is the relevant talk page discussion, if any?'' ] (]) 15:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
	::The ]. The section is relying almost entirely on blog sources to make a political statement, causing significant undue weight issues anyway. All the points can be made using reliable, non-blog sources. The section of the article that keeps being restored with the bad sources is ], with the inline references in place to ThinkProgress, Daily Kos, MyDD, Media Matters, HotAir.com, and Right Wing News.com, none of which are appropriate. ] (]) 15:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
	::: The most important thing, if you want to have a constructive discussion of this, would be to point to '''one specific citation''' for us to discuss. After we reach consensus about the first citation, we can move onto the second, and so on. If you don't want to discuss specifics, you're just wasting your time and everyone else's. ] (]) 16:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::It's all the blog citations. It's not simply one - are you saying that some self-published blogs are okay? I have pointed you to where they are and who they are, the policy appears clear in this instance. ] (]) 18:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::: Since you aren't willing to discuss any specific citation, I'm marking this as resolved. Feel free to re-open the discussion if you wish to discuss anything specific. ] (]) 18:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::I'm unresolving it since you somehow think this is about one source. It's not. Did you look at the article and discussion in question? If you're unwilling to do so, leave it to someone who is. ] (]) 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::: This noticeboard is for asking questions about sources and citations. It isn't for general discussion of the sourcing guideline or the verifiability policy. It isn't for making blanket pronouncements about the reliability of any one source or category of sources. And it definitely isn't for rallying support for your 'side' in a dispute. But if you have questions about the applicability of a specific source for a specific citation, this is the place. ] (]) 21:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::It's the specific use of Daily Kos, MyDD, Hot Air, et al. Are you actually patrolling this board to help out, or what? I am asking you questions about those sources, and you seem to be stonewalling me in terms of responding. It's a yes or no. If you can't answer, tell me so I can find someone who can. ] (]) 21:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::: I can't attempt to answer a question that hasn't been asked. Do you have any specific question about any specific source or citation?
	:::::::::: What is the url of the source in question?
	:::::::::: What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting?
	:::::::::: ] (]) 22:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::There are 9 of them. I'll go to RfC instead, clearly this is not a place that can help the situation out. ] (]) 22:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, some self-published blogs are okay. Now can you please provide specific examples as requested? Thanks! ] (]) 19:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::I've linked the section already. Please take a look. ] (]) 21:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Unless you have a specific concern you want to address '''here''' in the manner Dlabtot has repeatedly tried to solicit from you (which I think shows an admirable level of politeness and restraint), coming to a board and making general assertions of wrongdoing then asking editors to come join you at the board in question could be perceived as canvassing. This is true whether you're at this board, RfC, or anywhere else.
	:::::::While canvassing is not inherently "wrong" ''per se'', it doesn't often improve quality of discussion unless the editors you're trying to canvass have useful, specialized knowledge of the topic in question. By asking editors to go into a discussion such as you've described above blind, you've almost negated that possibility.
	:::::::And if I may speak bluntly? Trying to fight consensus, whether you consider it to be fair or unfair, is almost always a losing battle that few people would charge into without strong motivation. Unless you have the experience and knowledge for how to show that give people reason to believe you, I personally believe you would be far better off letting this go, no matter who's "Right" or "Wrong".
	::::::: There are plenty of useful, low-stress tasks you can work on, like adding information for a favorite hobby or contributing to a reference desk where you have specialized knowledge or... well, just look around. Fighting a battle you're not equipped for will usually only end in frustration and stress to the point of grief, followed by abandoning the project. That doesn't do anyone any good. ] (]) 23:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::Funny, I did exactly what I'm supposed to do. It's fine, I've moved along to a dispute resolution process that might resolve the issue one way or the other, since no one here is willing to do so. ] (]) 23:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
	== Self-published sources ==
	WP policy on self-published sources (]) seems vague as to what qualifies as a self-published source and what does not. Apart from academic papers, books by established publishers, magazines, and newspapers, please give several examples of what is and what isn't self-published. I am particularly interested in the work product of organizations and websites which don't clearly qualify as news organizations. ] (]) 19:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
	:You might want to start by searching for "self-published" in the archives of this page. Then, if you still have questions, feel free to come back. ] (]) 19:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
	::I looked at "self-published" entries in the archive, but that didn't help. Does the self-published designation only apply to self-published books, press releases, and personal websites, or can it also apply to non-news organizations? Examples I had in mind were ], the ], the ], and ]. ] (]) 21:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Odd that you couldn't find in the archives, considering that you precipitated it and participated in it. ] (]) 21:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::Of course I found that. The question of whether that one specific source was self-published was not decisively determined. ] (]) 04:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::The simple answer is that material that we do not regard as properly published, i.e. it has gone through no process of peer review or fact checking, can in general be regarded as self-published. If that isn't clear in the policy and guideline you might want to suggest an improved wording. "Non-news organisations" is such a broad category that we wouldn't be able to make a general ruling on them. ] (]) 09:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::If a single individual produces and has control over all content, without other editorial oversight, then it's self-published. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	== Opinion of climatologist ] re a pop-science climate book ==
	Recently, I posted the following information at ], a popular-science book, at the "Reception" section ():
	:Climatologist ], chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the ], wrote: "I recommend that you read the “Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montford. ... The book is well documented, it obviously has a certain spin to it, but it is a very good book." Source: , posted by Keith Kloor, June 18, 2010. ] (]) 20:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)]
	The quote is taken from an<s> interview of</s> ''exchange between'' Curry and another scientist ''at a discussion hosted by'' Keith Kloor, a well-known environmental journalist and former editor at ]. His resume is , and he would easily qualify as an "expert journalist," I believe.
	Editor ] removed the quote, commenting "While i am 99% convinced that this is Curry - WP:BLP states categorically that we cannot use this as a reference, since the medium isn't reliable for this." Discussion at ] seems unlikely to reach a conclusion. On advice of another editor, I'm moving the discussiion of whether to use this source and quote here.
	While a strict interpretation of ] and ] might disallow the source, this would appear to be a gray area, "best treated with common sense" per the regs. I'd be happy to contact Curry and confirm that Kloor did indeed convey her remarks accurately. I think we would be unnecessarily depriving readers of (so far) the only published climatologist's opinion of an interesting book. --] (]) 18:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	: Leaving aside for the moment the sps questions, which I agree are in the gray area, your quote seems entirely inappropriate, the ellipsis removes necessary context, and the reader is left with an impression quite different from what Curry meant to convey, imho. {{unsigned|Dlabtot}}
	:Collide-a-scape.com appears to be a personal blog by Keith Kloor. As such, I think its use would collide (apologies for the pun) with ], which seems quite definitive on that topic: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)." This blog is clearly not written or published by the subject. There appears to be no exemption for blogs by "expert journalists". The only exemption is for "online columns" hosted by news organizations, which clearly doesn't cover personal blogs, "so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control", which again clearly isn't the case with a personal blog. I can't see any wriggle room in BLPSPS that would allow the use of this blog. -- ] (]) 19:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	:: If everybody agrees that the source is actually Curry and the only resistance is due to policy, just invoke ]. That being said, I agree with Dlabtots sentiment that you are misquoting him. Curry was recommending the book to Bart Verheggen specifically, not making a general statement people should read the book. ] (]) 19:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	::: Well, it seems to me that the problem with using a personal blog - which is the reason why BLPSPS exists in the first place - is that you have no editorial oversight. The basic principle of reliable sourcing is that whatever we cite must have gone through an editorial process. That guarantees that at least one other person has seen, hopefully reviewed and approved the material. A personal blog lacks the editorial oversight that reliable sourcing requires. ''Particularly'' when it comes to material about living persons, you need that oversight to be in place. -- ] (]) 19:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	{{ec}}
	:::There is no doubt that it is Dr ] The above comments from her were a follow on from an interview with her on Kloors site ] (]) 19:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::Mark, it is not an interview. --] (]) 19:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I did not say it was an interview ] (]) 19:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::{{ec}}The context is that Curry (who is a she, if it is indeed her) is recommending the book to understand the climate sceptic view (specifically the one surrounding climateaudit.org), she also points out that the book has been completely ignored by mainstream scientists. <u>It is not an interview</u> - but rather a cut/paste from another comment thread. Elevating this to a reliable source is to my eyes rather problematic. --] (]) 19:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::If Curry's comments are notable, then you should be able to find them reported in a reliable source. ] (]) 19:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::Thanks for pointing that out, Kim - it changes the situation substantially. ] and ] both state: "Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources." That seems pretty conclusive to me. -- ] (]) 19:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Good points from Dlabtot and Yoenit. As for ChrisO's point about citing a blog, we need not cite the blog. Instead, we can cite Curry herself. In this case, it falls under ]: she's an established expert who has been published in the relevant field. ] (]) 19:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::See the comment right above, how do you justify citing a blog-comment - which isn't allowable by policy (with ''no'' exceptions given). As i read policy, it is specifically to ensure that people aren't taking things out of context that you can't cite commentary - and that is ignoring that we have no verification that this is Curry. --] (]) 19:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::: (ec) We are never allowed to cite comments to a blog post, as stated above. Besides, there is no proof that Curry made that post She doesn't appear to have an account, so anybody could have posted using her name. ] (]) 19:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::You're looking at this the wrong way. We're not citing a post made by a reader per se. Instead we're citing Curry herself as an SPS. '''Posting a comment to a blog is simply the way she choose to publish herself.''' (Sorry to use bold face, but this is the key point I am trying to make and don't want anyone to miss it.) ] (]) 19:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::Yoenit it is her, she has been interviewed by Kloor on the site ] (]) 19:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	{{outdent}} Policy is quite clear on this, it is not allowed. Posting a comment on a blog is not a way to publish yourself as a respectable climate scientist. I have no doubt it was her, but there is no way to prove it. Anybody could have made that post under her name (in fact I just posted as Judith Curry on the site). Why do you think this sort of stuff is not allowed? ] (]) 19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	:It's not her blog, so not exactly a SPS, and if she wants her views presented for publication she has plenty of other options for publishing them. Also, she's not a subject expert on the topic of the book, which is not about hurricanes, and has professed ignorance about the claims in the book. . ], ] 20:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	----
	::{{EC}}"''Posting a comment on a blog is not a way to publish yourself as a respectable climate scientist.''" Perhaps, but this has no basis in policy. It's not up to us as Misplaced Pages editors to say how scientists should behave. OTOH, I am sympathetic to the argument that we should verify that this indeed was Curry. ] (]) 20:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::It is <u>explicitly</u> set in policy that we ''cannot'' use such commentary - so your "its not up to us.." statement is rather far-fetched. --] (]) 20:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	*Why don't we cut the ], ask Dr. Curry for a quotable opinion on the book & a free CC license, archive it under the ] files, and cite that? Would that satisfy the objectors? Or should I just do it, & see what happens? I've corresponded with Dr. Curry in the past & found her pleasant & cooperative. Thoughts? TIA, ] (]) 19:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	:A perfect solution, and one i did not know existed, well done pete ] (]) 19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	: The reason we don't conduct ] of the type you are proposing is that it is as against ]. ] (]) 20:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	:: Please read the ] on this noticeboard for a similar case and some reasons why it is not allowed ] (]) 20:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Well, I don't think that's OR -- but what if we just ask her to confirm she wrote the bit at Kloor's, & that it's OK to use it here? ] (]) 20:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::: No. We have to base our editorial decisions on material that is verifiable to reliable sources. Not on original research we conduct (for example, our own personal correspondence.) ] (]) 20:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::: I've seen this issue ("can I use my own personal correspondence as a reliable source?") before, and the consensus has always been that it should not be used. I suggest taking a look at the archives of this page. -- ] (]) 20:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::No one said anything about citing an e-mail as a source for article content. ] (]) 20:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::: That is effectively what is being proposed, albeit at one remove: using a personal email to convert a unreliable source into a reliable one. But since the personal email is itself an unreliable source, that can't be done. -- ] (]) 20:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::: It's original research no matter how it's used. ] (]) 20:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::ChrisO, so when Hipocrite sent a personal e-mail to Newsweek, was he wrong? ] (]) 20:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::: That is definitely and obviously conducting original research. I'm not sure what you mean by 'wrong' or why you keep bringing this up. ] (]) 20:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::: I assume you're referring to the discussion above at ]. He gained some useful though uncitable information that way, but we had a reliable third party source (the ''New York Observer'') describing Newsweek's editorial arrangements and confirming that the blog is under senior editorial supervision. Hipocrite's email was not needed to confirm that and it would not have sufficed by itself if we had not had that reliable third party source. But that case was fundamentally different - it concerned a piece written by a journalist working for a major news magazine and published on its website under editorial supervision. The presumption was always in favour of "The Gaggle" being a reliable source. None of those circumstances apply in this case. -- ] (]) 21:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::Dlabtot: I bring it up because a Newsweek blog is being cited by our ] article even though Newsweek makes no claim that the blog falls under their full editorial. So Hipocrite e-mailed Newsweek who said that it does and cited that e-mail as evidence that the blog falls under their full editorial. If it is original research for us to e-mail Curry, then it is original research for us to e-mail Newsweek.
	::::::::::: Yes, that is original research which was unnecessary anyway because the blog obviously is an official blog under their editorial control, spurious and disruptive claims to the contrary notwithstanding. ] (]) 21:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::ChrisO: Can you please tell us where in the New York Observer article where it says that this blog falls under their full editorial control? ] (]) 21:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Since you apparently haven't checked what I wrote in the earlier discussion, let me repeat it: "The ''New York Observer'' article clearly states that (1) "The Gaggle" was established by Newsweek's editorial staff; (2) it is written by the weekly's reporters; and (3) it is edited by the senior editors". Hipocrite's email merely confirms that. -- ] (]) 21:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::::No one's disputing the fact that the blog is written by Newsweek's staff. The question is whether it falls under their full editorial control. Can you please tell us where in the New York Observer article where it says that this blog falls under their full editorial control? ] (]) 21:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	{{outdent}} Please keep the newsweek discussion in the newsweek section and keep this for the comment Curry made. ] (]) 21:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	----
	----
	Time to reboot the discussion, I think.
	First, Yoenit remarks above, "in fact I just posted as Judith Curry" (19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)), at Keith Kloor's site (last comment). He was apparently unaware that this is a moderated forum. His imposture was promptly detected and removed. Yoenits' concern that "anybody could have posted using her name" (19:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)) has been answered: "EDITOR: Removed test comment by imposter.//KK"
	Second, from the discussion so far, it's clear that we need a '''publicly verifiable confirmation''' that Dr. Curry indeed wrote what (we almost all agree) she wrote. She has been an invited guest at the Kloor forum; for instance, Kloor interviews her . My proposal is to contact Kloor and ask '''him''' to verify Curry's contribution regarding the Montford book (perhaps for him to emaill Curry to confirm this), then add a '''public editorial note''' to .
	Assuming Kloor is willing to do this, would this satisfy the objections to using Curry's comments on the book? --putting aside (for the moment) what exactly should be quoted. Thanks, ] (]) 04:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Clearly, NO. ] (]) 04:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Would you care to say why? --] (]) 18:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::: You mean, repeat what I and many others said in the discussion above? No, there is no need, just as there was no need to 'reboot' the discussion. ] (]) 19:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::Dlabot, you appear to be a regular here and I'm trying to work with you (and other such editors) to see if there's a way to make Curry's remarks verifiable, and thus usable here. I've proposed asking Kloor, the moderator, to '''publish an editorial statement''' at his blog saying "Curry wrote this stuff". Public & verifiable. Now tell me what's wrong, please. Thanks, ] (]) 21:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::: You can't 'make' something verifiable; it's either verifiable by way of being previously published in a reliable source, or not. ] (]) 21:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Tillman: Because you're using a third-party blog to verify that that the blog is reliable. A better approach might be to contact Curry herself to see if she would post something on ''her'' site verifying the account is hers. I think SPS will be satisfied then. However, given the 'imposter experiment', now might not be the best time. ] (]) 21:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::: Which would be irrelevant to the question of whether is a reliable source in this instance, which is the actual question we have before us. ] (]) 21:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::*AQFK: Yeah, I doubt she'd go out of her way for Misplaced Pages right now. Kloor either. Sigh. ] (]) 21:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::Dlabtot, I agree that the blog is not a reliable source for this content. However, I'm suggesting a new source. ] (]) 22:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::To be honest, I think this source is fairly iffy. As someone else said above, if prestigious scientists like Curry are starting to talk about this book, then it won't be long before their opinions are mentioned in more reliable sources. One thing her statement does do in the meantime, however, is bely the comments by a couple of editors that this book is being ignored by non-skeptics. ] (]) 05:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Curry is the ''only'' "prestigious scientist" who has talked about the book, pro or con. Otherwise it has been completely ignored by the scientific community. That's hardly surprising given that it's not a "popular science" book (as misleadingly described above) but a collage of already-falsified claims written by a fringe non-scientist for a section of the public that is hostile to climate science. It's merely one of dozens of similar works of politically driven pseudoscience. There's nothing I know of that makes it stand out from the rest. -- ] (]) 06:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::Is it fair to conclude from your statement that you personally don't appreciate Montford's book, the conclusions that he draws, or the fact that Curry thought the book was worthy of recommendation? ] (]) 07:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I'm simply pointing out the obvious flaw in your statement that "prestigious scientists like Curry are starting to talk about this book". They're not "starting to talk about this book". Curry is the ''only'' "prestigious scientist" to have done so, and your statement merely speculates about what other scientists might do in the future. There is certainly no indication that they will take any greater notice of the book. It has been out for, I think, about six months. In that time it has received zero reviews from scientists (including Curry, who didn't review it). It is not cited anywhere that I can find and has been ignored in print by all but a handful of right-wing columnists who have generally only mentioned it in passing. So Curry's comments certainly can't be taken as indicative of any trend in opinion. But I think we are in danger of straying off-topic here - getting back to the issue at hand, it's clear from this discussion that there's a fairly strong consensus that Curry's comments are not a reliable source and the policy prohibition on citing posts left by readers is clear. Unless anyone has any new points to make, I suggest closing this discussion as resolved. -- ] (]) 10:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::: I have one last remark, about my posting as Judith Curry: the comment in question was "testing whether it is possible to post under a false identity" + a link to the current discussion, so it is no surprise that my comment was detected and removed by a moderator. However, what if my comment had been a serious reply to other comments? Would the moderator have known I was not Judith Curry? ] (]) 11:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	Dr. Curry herself noticed your impersonation, and posted a warning at Kloor's blog that any posts allegedly by her at other blogs would be imposters.
	Impersonating someone is a pretty drastic way of making a point -- it gets you banned here, and isn't appreciated anywhere. In RL, it's known as "fraud". I urge you not to undertake more of such "tests". --] (]) 18:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Link? Did she confirm that the comment we're discussing is hers or that the account we're discussing is hers? ] (]) 19:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	:: wow, it is actually true . It was never my intention to seriously impersonate her, but it seems it would have been discovered anyway. ] (]) 19:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Oh dear, what should we do? Should we send her a polite note explaining that Yoenit intended no harm? Should we contact an admin or Jimbo on how to proceed? ] (]) 20:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::: You have to do nothing. I did it, so it is my responsibility. I assume a mail from me to her will be enough to deal with the issue. I strongly suggest that you do not attempt to contact Jimbo. If you want to report me for it, do so at ANI. I have no idea which policy might be relevant here though. ] (]) 20:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I'm sure Yoenit meant no harm, and he has apologized, so that should end the matter. I think his impersonation was a bad idea, though. ] (]) 20:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::I've decided to notify Jimbo of the situation. This may reflect poorly on the project itself and think that Jimbo's diplomatic skills may prove useful. I suggest we wait until we get some feedback. ] (]) 20:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	== Court Documents ==
	Can we use court documents as a source to determine a legal outcome? I ask this because there is a dispute over at ] in which court documentation seems to be the only source to determine if Mr. Rawat was emancipated by a Colorado court. Essentially we are not looking to gather facts from the documents, just the judge's ruling. However there is an editor who insists that this source would need a secondary source to prove its validity. Thus the matter is "Are court documents reliable sources for determination of a judicial ruling." As ridiculous as it is, this argument actually exists. ] ], 02:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	: How could a random Misplaced Pages reader ] that the court document actually says what the article says it does? As long as that's possible, and there truly is no interpretation involved, it would be usable as a ], I think. ] (]) 02:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	Here in the US all court docs are avalible after a certian period of time, an editor with time on their hands could find them. ] ], 02:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	: If that flippant response is meant to be an answer to my question about ''how could a reader ] it?'', then no, such a document would not be usable on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 02:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Court documents need to be verifiable. If the documents aren't available yet, then they are not verifiable. Also, caution should be used when using primary sources. If the information is worth including, a secondary reliable source will most likely have reported the information. ] (]) 03:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	No. Per ]:
	<blockquote>Do ''not'' use trial transcripts, other court records, or other public documents to support assertions about a living person, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material.</blockquote>
	Please find a secondary source. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	There is in fact a secondary source available that we are currently using in deference to the court documents, but the same editor who opposes the court documentation is opposing the secondary source which seems to be rather reliable. ] ], 12:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::I think we need to differentiate exactly what is meant by "court document" here. A judge's final verdict/decision is a reliable primary source of fact as to the outcome of the trial. A complaint or indictment is a reliable primary source for the fact that wrongdoing has been ''alleged'', but it is NOT a reliable source for the fact that any wrongdoing actually occurred (and, as others have noted, ''extreme'' caution is needed here - ''especially'' in a BLP). A trial transcript is not a reliable source for fact... it ''might'' be an acceptable primary source for a quoted statement of opinion in limited situations.
	::But Jayjg has it right... if something from a trial is worth mentioning in an article, it is likely that a ''more'' reliable, secondary source will have noted it... and, if so, we can and should cite that secondary source instead. ] (]) 12:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Agreed, all court documents are primary sources and should be used with extreme caution. Note that it is not true that all court documents become public after a period of time; in many states lowest-level court records are often destroyed, except for information as to the outcome. I know juvenile court documents are destroyed in many cases after a period of time, as an attorney.--] (]) 13:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Just to clarify, I am the editor who put forward the "ridiculous" argument. Actually all I did was copy from WP:PRIMARY which Ronk01 described as "simply not true". Above Ronk01 says "There is in fact a secondary source available that we are currently using in deference to the court documents, but the same editor who opposes the court documentation is opposing the secondary source which seems to be rather reliable". In fact, there is no secondary source cited for Rawat's "emancipation". Despite this discussion and numerous requests asking him to provide sources he inserted this unsourced material in the lead. Thanks for upholding Wiki policies and guidelines.] (]) 03:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	Actually Momento, I have provided you with sources, I contradicted your argument for application of WP:Primary, since we are not interpreting, and the above seems to prove you wrong, as long as we use the outcome files a fact sources only, we are fine. I oppose much of this secondary source obsession anyway, secondarys are just as flawed as primarys. ] ], 15:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	: Since it's '''not verifiable''', it's '''not reliable'''. ] (]) 16:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	Nothing is more verifiable than government documentation, which are cross refferneced hundreds of times, unless of course we are willing to say that all government documentation is non-verifiable, which would damage many, many articles which rely on facts from government documents that don;t get that much press or academic coverage. (I am thinking of ], ], and any number of articles that rely on government documentation. ] ], 17:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	: If you could explain how a random Misplaced Pages reader could verify it, it would be verifiable. Since you can't, it's not. ] (]) 17:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Contrary to Ronk01's claim that he has provided sources for his edit, he has not. One source he provided is cited in the article but contradicts his edit. The other is cited in the article numerous times but not for the edit he made. I am going to remove his edit and would appreciate it if any of the people in this discussion could come to the ] article to ensure that Ronk01 abides by Wiki policies and guidelines as he ignores me when I point them out. Thanks.] (]) 20:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::So far as I'm aware, this discussion is hypothetical since no one has found the court documents that are only assumed to exist. Until these documents are found this discussion doesn't seem likely to lead to a conclusion. I suggest we drop this thread until we can discuss actual sources. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 03:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	== Youtube ==
	Can somebody confirm to me whether the use of youtube as a source is acceptable? The source in question is not from an official channel, and is copyrighted. I've have been warned for reverting the addition of this source, and would like confirmation on whether this is an accepted source. As an aside, the article in question is a BLP. Thanks, ♥]♥]♥]♥ 03:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	: You Tube has been used to prove TV content in the past IIRC. Copyright issues don't even come into it under those circumstances. In this case it has been used to prove a wrestler's billing (where they come from) which appears to be the subject of the dispute. Under these circumstances I would consider it reliable enough to disprove the accuracy of the previous source. ] (]) 04:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Can you provide a link to any of these previous circumstances please? In addition, what happens if the video gets removed? WWE regularly has videos of their television shows taken down from youtube. What happens then? ♥]♥]♥]♥ 04:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	: Why not post the link, the article, the diffs, the talk page dispute, etc? That would sure make it a lot easier for editors to discuss the issue. ] (]) 04:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::I thought the general question would have explained enough, but of course.
	::*Editors: myself, ]
	::*Article: ]
	::*Diffs: , , , .
	::*I decided to being it up here instead of breaking 3RR, in the hopes that this will resolve the matter. ♥]♥]♥]♥ 04:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::The first thing about youtube is that a lot of their content are copy vios, and we have a rule against linking to copy vios. Some stuff is published there by the copyright holder, and it's reliability will depend on whether the publisher is reliable outside of youtube. - ] (]) 04:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::As far as I can tell, it's just a regular uploader. is the uploader of the video in question. It's not one of the official WWE channels. ♥]♥]♥]♥ 04:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::I actually recently proposed this based off of the numerous related guidelines and policies ].] (]) 04:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::This particular instance is certainly contributory copyright infringement since the uploader put it up without permission. It looks like some of his other videos have been pulled based on doing that. You are tottaly correct to remove it.] (]) 04:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks for your help and opinions everyone. ♥]♥]♥]♥ 07:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::We cannot broadly state that YouTube is or is not a reliable source. In most cases, YouTube is not the source, it is a host. For example, a US government video could certainly be public domain, but the government agency would be the publisher. Many organizations and companies have channels on YouTube and could be considered reliable— although primary —sources. ---'''''—&nbsp;]<span style="color:darkblue">&nbsp;'''''</span><sup>]</sup> 02:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Just as we can generally state that most of the time content in New York Times will qualify as a reliable source, we can also generally state that most of the stuff on you-tube does not qualify as a reliable source. "Official" sites are quite few, the quantity of materials posted on the official sites is quite limited as a percentage of overall material on the site and an overwhelming majority of attempts by editors to use you-tube are not from that limited quantity of material on the site that might be acceptable. ] (]) 03:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
	== Purported Hepatitis C Virus Image ==
	This posting is about an and whether the who posted it can be considered a reliable source.
	This image can be found both ] and ], and also , all from the same source, a former Misplaced Pages editor who's parting remark to readers is "Goodbye ''forever''."
	That's it. No other source is indicated anywhere.
	The question, then, is ''How do we know this is the Hepatitis C virus''? The answer, without some kind of reliable documentation, is ''We'' don't ''know that this is Hepatitis C virus''. Conclusion: the image should either be deleted or its caption modified to reflect its uncertain source.
	Discussion of this issue can be found ]. In the course of that discussion I changed the caption of the image, as indicated . That edit was immediately reverted, .
	To me it's perfectly obvious that the image has no reliable source. Assumed good faith is no reason to accept it. Looking for consensus on this. ] (]) 05:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	: uhm, your rationale seems to be: user submitted => not reliable source => delete/modifier of uncertainty. We might as well close down wikicommons if we start doing that, as any picture can be faked. I have to admit I don't know much about about the policies surrounding pictures on wikicommons, but my gut feeling says leave it as it is. The only case where this is not HCV is if the editor was acting with the intention to deceive everyone and I see nothing to support that in his contributions. What is the reason you doubt this picture is HCV? ] (]) 10:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	What is the reason I doubt this pictures is HCV? Its lack of a verifiable source, that's what. Your personal gut feeling is no substitute. As for the fact that "all pictures can be faked", that would seem to be a cause for greater vigilance, not a total lack of it -- and by that I mean that you seem to oppose inserting the word ''purported'' into the caption. Or don't you? ] (]) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::: I could try to explain it again, but several other editor have already tried to do so. You are wrong, they are right. ] (]) 19:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::That image is far too ambiguous to determine a viral identity, though it ''looks'' like a hepatitis virus in my professional opinion (can't tell if it's C though). <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:23, July 6, 2010</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	So I take it you support my position in favor of removal. ] (]) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::This again? This was, I believe, dealt with weeks if not months ago at ] (and ] and ]) to everyone's satisfaction but BS'. The threshold for the use of images is fair use or copyleft, and whether it looks like what it is supposed to, not reliability, which governs sources. This looks very much like ] when numerous editors have already commented on the inappropriateness of the edits. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 13:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	Regarding the comments by ] immediately above, I urge readers to follow the three links (particularly the last one) he provided and judge for themselves whether the issue was dealt with "to everyone's satisfaction" except mine, thus warranting a charge of "forum shopping". ] (]) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Ronk01's comment seems very much in line with Graham Colm's comment ], clarified as stating we can't be sure that it's a hep C virus, but is acceptable since that's reasonably what a hep C virus is expected to look like. I don't believe Ronk01 is endorsing a removal, just like WhatamIdoing didn't either ]; nor did TimVickers, or Scientizzle ever remove the image, or revert to BS' preferred version. The only person who thinks this image is problematic is BS, and the policies and guidelines he has used to support his advocacy for removal on this page and others look more like a mis-application than an interpretation in line with the community norms. So far, Bruce, the image is acceptable to everyone else and people seem to agree that WP:RS does not apply for images - WP:IMAGE does. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 19:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Images don't require a reliable source. If you think the image isn't what it purports to be then you need to gain to consensus on that issue. - ] (]) 19:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::: I don't see any exception in ] for images. It says, pretty clearly and plainly, "'' '''All''' material in Misplaced Pages articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research.''" ] (]) 20:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::That discounts pretty much any pictures taken by any editor, the molecular diagrams of proteins, medicines and chemicals, and how could an image be original research? The account uploading the image has left, but there is no evidence it was ever used to upload false information. Also, the next line is "''This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions''" - which doeesn't mention images, and images have their own policy at ] that doesn't mention reliability as a criteria. There was never consensus for the removal of the image, and BS has a history of idiosyncratic interpretations of the P&G and ] against ], mostly in relation to his belief that HIV does not cause AIDS. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 20:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::I thought that there's a policy or guideline that images generated by editors are preferred because they avoid copyright issues. I'm not sure where I remember reading it. ] (]) 20:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::: ] talks about the copyright issues. However, it doesn't negate the verifiability policy. ] (]) 20:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::: I've posted on the issue at ]. ] (])
	:::::The image is consistent with hepatitis C virus. At this point, we pretty much have to decide whether to trust that the original uploader acted in good faith. And, perhaps, whether Bruce is acting in good faith. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	How does MastCell know what a Hep C virus looks like? Has he seen one, or another image of one? Has anyone? If so, where? As for good faith, the "original uploader" was one PhD_Dre. ], admire, and assume good faith. And come to think of it, isn't PhD_Dre telling us ''not'' to assume good faith? He is, isn't he?
	] something pertinent. Says nothing about good faith.
	It does say of images that:
	{{cquote|Their origin must be properly referenced. In the case of an image not directly attributed to its creator, (e.g., in the case of reproduction of ancient artwork or artifacts) it is not sufficient to merely indicate the image's immediate source, such as an URL, but the identity of the image's content (author, manuscript, museum id) must be given. }} ] (]) 00:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	== Advanced Media Network RS? ==
	Is RS? ] (]) 05:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	: not inherently unreliable, but I would say it depends on what you are using it for. Article? statement it supports? ] (]) 08:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::I think of using it for reviews and interviews for ]. ] (]) 09:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::: I would say it is a reliable source for that. ] (]) 11:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	:I seriously question that. While they appear to have some editorial oversight, it's minimal. If that were that's the standard for a mainstream news coverage site then standards have really fallen as there is no indication the site nor anyone on it meets ]. Over at ] we are not sure about its reliablity and I've removed it from our list until it can get a more thorough review.]]] 05:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Their Kombo.com seems to be accepted by some other media outlets. Similar with jeuxfrance. More research is needed. - ] (]) 05:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	{{od}} Let's take a look at the for example:
	:*It lists the review equipment used --> similar to Mania.com reviews
	:*Reviews are done by staff
	:*Attributes used images to its sources --> All images have AMN logo on it, preventing people from distributing their pictures around as a unaltered screenshot of the anime
	:*Most importantly: it has a clear judgment of the anime at the end of the page with a summary of it in a tabulated format. ] (]) 23:52, 8 Jul0y 2010 (UTC) as {{User|Extremepro}}
	::*Mania.com which was formerly animeondvd.com is also one of the premeire review sites on the web which is known for editorial overisight and factchecking. That hasn't been shown here and looking at the AMN's staffing page I could say the same for almost any review website out there that is just above a blog.
	::*Finally style can easily be mimiced and is not a sign of reliability and watermarking images is done by many sites not deemed RSes.]]] 23:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::*If they have editors, their writers are paid (fast but not hard rule), and they've had other RSs mention their findings, then they're reliable without evidence to the contrary. Without that kind of judgement, it's just our opinions (imagine Israel/Palestine, pseudoscience, etc.). I've only seen them pass the first test that I mention, but they may be able to pass the other two. - ] (]) 01:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::*Peregrine, about your third point ''they've had other RSs mention their findings'', that doesn't really prove reliability. ] frequently uses Moonphase's finding and yet Moonphase is not RS. ] (]) 07:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC) as {{User|Extremepro}}
	::::*How is it possible to tell if a staff gets paid for their reviews? I doubt many reviewers will state that they get paid X amount in their reviews. ] (]) 01:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC) as {{User|Extremepro}}
	I won't oppose this one but don't give too much weight compared to ANN or Mania.com . Reviews are pieces of PoV that why you must have good reasons to mention them in a Misplaced Pages article and have to find a good balance between the different opinion based on the expertise of the reviewer and/or the reach and impact of the review website within the targeted audience and beyond. I find ironical to tag pieces of PoV as Reliable. Getting paid for reviews in the Anime/Manga field is uncommon, many RS reviewers don't make a living out of it, even more got only freebies like reviews copy and press accreditation for anime/manga convention. --] 06:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
	*So how do we prove that they get paid for their reviews? ] (]) 07:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC) as {{User|Extremepro}}
	:*Very difficult as much as i remember i only found once a such evidence with an official forum post looking reviewers for hire mentioning that they do pay reviewers but not much. --] 19:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
	::*From their recruitment page:
	<blockquote>Any staffer of appropriate age will also receive several press convention passes (depending on age restrictions of attending event), Anime press events and conventions, video gaming events, and plentiful anime material to review (DVDs, Manga, Visual Novels, etc. [if applying, and approved for, a review position)
	</blockquote>
	::*So I guess they don't get paid but they get given freebies. So what now? ] (]) 23:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC) as {{User|Extremepro}}
	:::*Well as someone whose done such reviews for a site () both of which had the same level of editoral oversight as this site appears to have and worked on getting promotional items I'd be shocked without showing evidence of being cited that they would be considered a RS and I'd question those two sites if they meet Misplaced Pages's RS criteria.]]] 17:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::*Cited by: Brigid Alverson (RS due to writer of ] and ] -
	::::Cited by ] - (A national magazine is RS yeah?)
	::::Therefore cited by RSes. ] (]) 22:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC) as {{User|Extremepro}}
	:::::Don't see the latter on wired and merely citing ins't generally enough otherwise tons of sites would be viable RSes.<p>Per ] (bolding my emphasis):<p>{{quote|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.}}]]] 14:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
	== www.buddhistchannel.tv ==
	Would an article on www.buddhistchannel.tv be considered a reliable source for controversial material about a BLP? ie this article for ? Per this page it appears that anybody can submit an article to Buddhistchannel, though it does appear that there may be some moderation and editing articles before they are published.. Personally, I find the article polemic in tone, and likely a partisan posting as part of an off-wiki dispute concerning the man which has spread onto Misplaced Pages,( See ) and it is not clear that Buddhistchannel has the kind of editorial oversight required per ]. Given the seriousness of the allegations, the highest quality sources are clearly in order, which I don't believe www.buddhistchannel.tv to be, though I would like to get the opinions of other editors about this. FYI, there is a similar posting at BLPN, but no response to date, so I thought I would try here. --] (]) 23:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Given that that they have a disclaimer absolving them of all responsibility of the content they publish, "''While the greatest care is taken in the information contained here but no responsibility is assumed for any errors or omissions and no liability attaches to the Managing Editor, Lim Kooi Fong and or any person and/or company appointed by him for the development of this site and its content therein for any loss or damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly by or from the information or ideas contained, suggested, or referenced in this site. No liability is assumed for any third party content on this site.''", I would say no, it's not a reliable source. I doubt if any legitimate news source such as the New York Times or BBC News has a similar disclaimer. ] (]) 23:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
	::The article in question is not making claims for veracity of allegations, only that allegations exist, where, and by whom. Article is clear about subject's denials. What we are looking for here is simply a tertiary source to validate the existence of allegations beyond outdated print publications, and in particular an unprecedented letter sent by 8 senior American Zen teachers calling for action against another. This was in 1995, but only revealed more recently, so it is not in dated print pubs. Our standard shouldn't be the New York Times. We need verification of existence of allegations only - the evidence is overwhelming, and I would argue that perhaps certain editors involved in entry have particular axe to grind, clouding perspective.] (]) 14:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Um, I think our standard probably ''should'' be the New York Times. ] (]) 14:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	Um, then most of Misplaced Pages would go poof in an instant. Here is the Buddhist Channel - while they publish a disclaimer for content (a legal necessity), they clearly also have clear, high editorial standards for fairness, balance, and egalitarian coverage of Buddhism. This source is of considerably higher quality than many others cited on nearly every page in Misplaced Pages. "Using the latest web technologies on content publication, the BC remains the world's only dedicated Buddhist news servcies, providing daily updates and in-depth coverage...To augment the BC's premier position as a Buddhist news site, five prominent Buddhist individuals were appointed as members of the "International Advisory Panel (IAP)". Each of the panelists - coming from different countries and with expertise in various disciplines - is expected to play a critical role in establishing the Buddhist Channel as a truly global, web based media platform...The BC will remain loyal to the 'non-sectarian' emphasis of the news coverage. It shows in its logo, a three petal lotus of different colors, each shade representing the mainstream schools of Buddhism."] (]) 15:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	* Any source that claims it isn't reliable, isn't reliable. ] (]) 15:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	That is a gross mischaracterization of their quite standard legal disclaimer - they repost articles from other news sources. Of course they have to have a disclaimer for content they didn't generate - however, their statements clearly show that they have an editorial policy that promotes fairness and balance, and that they are selective about content. It's not just a chat room or news dump. Come on - review the site, people. Furthermore, I would like to say that one has to look beyond the simple "brand" of the source - the New York Times prints retractions every day - and review the actual content being reported. Is it accurate? Is it fair? A sort of willful ignorance is being displayed when sources are being discounted just because they are not a major daily newspaper. In this case, validity is gained in part precisely by the source being of special interest in the field of Buddhism as a whole.] (]) 15:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	*NYT's disclaimer: "Neither NYT nor NYTimes.com represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information displayed, uploaded, or distributed through the Service by any user, information provider or any other person or entity. You acknowledge that any reliance upon any such opinion, advice, statement, memorandum, or information shall be at your sole risk. THE SERVICE AND ALL DOWNLOADABLE SOFTWARE ARE DISTRIBUTED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. YOU HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT USE OF THE SERVICE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK.". It's a standard legal nicety that has nothing to do with whether a source is reliable. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>] 15:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	I had a feeling there was one of those. Nice work.] (]) 15:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	:That disclaimer appears to be about the Member Center section of the web site. ] (]) 16:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	: There's no equivalence at all. '''It's not a disclaimer for NY Times-produced content''', and it's nothing remotely like the www.buddhistchannel.tv discliamer, which says: "'''no responsibility is assumed for any errors or omissions'''". ] (]) 16:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	::No, you're not reading it right. It is a disclaimer for ''all content'' on the site (there is a separate section for user-generated content), and it says in brief that the NYT does not endorse the reliability of any information placed on the site by any person or entity. This is a standard legal disclaimer. It basically means that if you rely on the information and it causes you harm or loss, that's your problem. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>] 16:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	::p.s. "The Service" is defined as "The New York Times on the Web ("NYTimes.com"), an Internet service of The New York Times Company ("NYT") (the "Service")." ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>] 16:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	I don't understand how a CYA disavowal of liability can be immediately translated into an inherent lack of reliability. As pointed out above, even The Grey Lady has this kind of standard, boilerplate legal disclaimer regarding its content. The reliability of a source is determined by its enacted practices, not by the espoused-but-largely-ignored principles forced upon it by risk averse lawyers. ] (]) 17:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	::: The critical difference between the two disclaimers is that the NY Times disclaimer simply says that it will not be "''liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions in any such Content, or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof, or for any damages arising therefrom''" whereas the www.buddhistchannel.tv disclaimer says "''no responsibility is assumed for any errors or omissions''". A disavowal of legal liability for damages and a disavowal of responsibility for errors are two entirely different things. ] (]) 17:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::Sorry but I'm just not seeing that distinction. ] (]) 17:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::But I don't think it's talking about the New York Times as a whole, just the Member Center section. ] (]) 17:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::I think the URL is deceiving. The same Terms of Service is linked to in their standard footer from all over their website. (What a neat example of how confusing and misleading URLs can be for external users! Usability folks have warned against that for years but it's an oft-forgotten lesson.) ] (]) 17:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::: ElKevbo: OK, you don't see it. That doesn't mean it's not there. AQFK: Section 2 of the user agreement covers NY Times content; Section 3 covers user generated content. ] (]) 17:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Oh geez, this is becoming too messy. I'm talking about material in section 5 and you're misquoting material from section 2 (the statement you quoted above appears to apply to material from wire services).
	::::::Regardless of the specifics of the NYT and their confusing Terms of Service (thank you lawyers!), my original point still stands: interpreting standard legal boilerplate disavowing liability as making a source unreliable is an untenable position. ] (]) 18:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::: I disagree with your assertion that it is 'legal boilerplate disavowing liability'. The NY Times disclaimer fits that description. The www.buddhistchannel.tv disclaimer does not. That is the distinction. ] (]) 18:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::: You and I completely disagree and I don't think we're going to change each other's mind. Can other editors please weigh in? ] (]) 18:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::"''AQFK: Section 2 of the user agreement covers NY Times content; Section 3 covers user generated content.''" Dlabtot, OK, thanks. I see that now. ] (]) 18:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	My view is that the decision about reliability should not be decided based solely on the legal disclaimer issue. I'm personally more concerned with whether buddhistchannel.tv has the kind of editorial oversight required to show that it has ''"a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"'' per RS. Based on the various -type pages, this is a news service: it publishes or republishes content submitted by the public, rather than write original content. Their choice of material is wide. Buddhistchannel.tv appeare to republish what are likely copyright infringements of mainstream news sources, such as and also thoroughly unreliable sources such as . The has been posted anonymously, and I am not clear that the owner and the four staff who "also edit and moderate articles" part of the time, constitute enough of a reputation for and interest in fact-checking to make it a reliable source for a controversial material about a living person. --] (]) 18:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Exactly! That is the kind of analysis and discussion that should take place to determine reliability. If the above statements are accurate (no judgment of you, Slp1; I simply haven't taken the time to independently verify them) then the source is not reliable in a broad sense. Of course, specific instances may be judged different depending on the context. ] (]) 18:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Thank you :-). However, if you could find the time to check my statements and the evidence and then pronounce on this website, that would be great. The more voices the better in my view. --] (]) 22:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	"Errors or omissions" is a legal term of art. Individuals commenting here might want to review ] for why someone might disclaim "Errors or omissions." I don't see how a legal disclaimer means that a site lacks a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Does this site have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy - is it used by other, obviously reliable sources? ] (]) 18:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Back to the article in question - byline states it was written by/for this site. it meets standards of journalistic English and NPOV. It is simply reporting on the prevalence of allegations of abuse against a religious leader, using among references a website that contains photocopied archives of evidence for said allegations of abuse. Issue here is simply reporting of ALLEGATIONS, for which we also have numbers of print pub. sources not in dispute. BC.TV site however provides crucial later info not in earlier print pub texts.] (]) 18:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	::That site is fine for non controversial simple statements but has not the journalistic authority and editorial checking of a[REDACTED] reliable source and should in no way be used to attempt to verify opinionated and POV comments that are supported by the organization that is publishing them. ] (]) 18:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	You're completely missing the point. What we are using the source for is the FACT of there being ALLEGATIONS, ONGOING CONTROVERSY, and especially the existence (including transcription and pdf of original) of a letter from 8 zen masters calling for Shimano to be disciplined. There is NO POV being expressed; only facts! These facts quite clearly include that Shimano denies all wrongdoing. If source is ok for your "non-controversial Facts" it should be fine for existence of facts that there simply is controversy - which is not in dispute here. We have other sources. This one is helpful.] (]) 18:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	The print publications are far better sources than the website, which is questionable, at best. ] (]) 19:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Pure conjecture. Your argument has no consistency or coherence. If the web article proves the print source to be inaccurate or incomplete or simply dated, clearly one form is not inherently better than the other. This is wiki's strength. Duh.] (]) 19:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	::There is no debate about there being allegations of abuse. The wish is provide up to date, more accurate info about said allegations, so that limited and hence inaccurate earlier sources can be corrected. Don't lose the thread for all the hypotheticals. We are talking here about one added line and a few word diffs.] (]) 19:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::It's pretty simple: the above discussion shows that some good-standing editors have doubts about the reliability of the source, and the source is wanted to introduce pretty inflamatory material into a BLP. Conclusion: ''no way!'' To add serious allegations to a BLP, you need very reliable sources (plural), not a single source which, as the above shows, is not known for reliability in the Misplaced Pages sense. If a serious allegation is worth adding to an encyclopedic article, there should be several sources for the allegation (because otherwise the material is of very dubious encyclopedic value). ] (]) 01:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::There is no evidence that this site has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Such a reputation needs third-party support, not their own claims. I couldn't find any true reliable sources that have cited or used information from buddhistchannel.tv, which would be required to show it has such a reputation (see ]). ] (]) 04:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	No one is addressing the actual particulars of this case. The facts in question in this article contain their own proofs in the article - the whole letter in question is quoted, with source. This letter is acknowledged all over the place online. You don't have to be willfully obtuse here - you can verify that a source is indeed accurate. Wiki guidelines suggest this, folks. We are not hogtied by some perfect measure and rule.
	This is not a "serious allegation" we need proof for. We have undisputed sources for allegations of abuse. What this article provides is proof of significant letter confirming allegations by peers years after last printed source. This is being widely discussed in Zen field, and has been for years. Again, allegations are NOT IN DISPUTE. This article is a helpful adjunct, to bring info up to more recent past and make issues more comprehensible. I wish someone would actually carefully review the material and context, instead of this "angels on needle heads" debate.] (]) 04:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Editors please review Shimano talk ] for particulars.] (]) 14:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	::"We are not hogtied by some perfect measure and rule." - ] is pretty DAMN clear that we are indeed "hogtied" to the use of sources of the highest quality regarding contentious claims about living people. ] (]) 17:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	Of course! But that is NOT the only measure here - is article fair? Yes. Is it balanced? Yes. Is it reasonable? Yes. Does it meet standards for NPOV and content? yes. Is it the only source of controversial info? NO, its not even one of the primary THREE. Is their any reason to suspect subject matter to be forged, falsified? Clearly not - no one is arguing so. Look at the actual material - don't just wade in with more template blasting and hypotheticals, of which we have pages now.] (]) 18:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Addressing the particulars of this case, then: buddhistchannel.tv (a non-reliable source by WP standards), used to support an allegation that several "American Zen teachers wrote a letter...recommending (subject of a ]) be disciplined or asked to resign" (a controversial allegation) = "no way" should this source be used in violation of ]. ("Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be '''removed immediately and without waiting for discussion'''." ] (]) 20:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	:www.buddhistchannel.tv has no particular reputation for accuracy or editorial oversight, and publicly disavows responsibility for its contents. It therefore does not qualify as a ], and in particular may '''not''' be used as a source for '''any''' claim whatsoever in ] articles. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 06:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
	== The New Catholic Encyclopedia ==
	Does[REDACTED] consider the ] a valid source?] (]) 16:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	:As always, it depends on what statement it is supporting. No source is 100% reliable. Give an example of a statement and a citation from NCE, so that others can show you how to evaluate. &ndash;&ndash; ] (]) 17:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	Pg 191 article about ].
	::"He was also a leading exponent of Semi-pelagianism and is considered its founder. Revered as a saint in the Eastern Church, he was never canonized in the West, although his feast is kept in southern France, particularly in Marseilles on July 23." ] (]) 17:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	Also the Merriam-Webster's encyclopedia of world religions By Wendy Doniger appears to validate this statement as well.. And also page 984 "From that point on, semi-Pelagianism was recognized as a HERESY in the Roman Catholic church."] (]) 17:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	: Presumably someone is disputing that this is a reliable source ... I don't care to speculate on what basis. Could you take a look at the instructions for posting a question at the top of the page and include the missing details? (diff of the disputed edit(s), talk page discussion, etc.) tia ] (]) 18:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Ok.] (]) 18:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	Here goes.
	*Source number 1)
	*Source number 2)
	*Articles are the ] and ]
	*The articles are locked down in a dispute and there is a need for consensus to add the statement to the effect of :"that the Roman Catholic church condemns the Semi-pelagian teachings of John Cassian."
	And also that I think that Cassian's status as a saint in the Roman Catholic church is ambiguous and it should be clarified that Cassian is not really considered a saint in the church. I was going to get to that after this disagreement.
	*Article talkpage diffs.
	Thanks
	] (]) 18:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	Sorry addendum the statement should be to the effect of :"that the Roman Catholic church condemns the Semi-pelagian teachings of John Cassian as heresy."
	Thanks Again
	] (]) 19:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	: I've just spent twenty minutes looking at it and I still could not find the dispute about this source. Could you please provide a specific diff where someone objects to the use of the The New Catholic Encyclopedia? You can find an explanation of what I mean by a 'diff' here: ] ] (]) 19:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	:: OK, I've found the relevant section of talk page, but I'm still not sure who - if anyone - is saying that The New Catholic Encyclopedia is not a reliable source as Misplaced Pages defines the term. Trying to read that discussion is like trying to swim in cotton candy. ] (]) 20:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::OK at least the cotton candy is candy and tastes good. Uh I haven't added it yet because the "Old Catholic Encyclopedia" is now not considered a valid source. What is states is not valid according to the talkpage and an earlier entry here. So I was looking for approval in advance so to try and not have a 3 page argument on the article talkpage in order to use the source on the talkpage let alone even at this point adding it to the article. Since the Roman Catholic editors on the article talkpage say that what any source other then their sources and the Pope can not speak for any Roman Catholic position (yes thats the position they -Esoglou and Richard are now taking on the talkpage for the Catholic - Orthodox theological differences article).] (]) 20:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::: Historical sources can still be 'reliable sources' for particular citations. 'Reliable sources' is a term of art that has a specific meaning on Misplaced Pages, as described in ]. However, in general, sources can ''only'' speak for themselves. Therefore when in doubt, use attribution. ] (]) 20:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	Forgive me for that last statement being lost on me. What is meant by "Therefore when in doubt, use attribution".] (]) 00:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	: Attribute the material to whoever you are citing. In other words, without attribution: "only blue widgets are genuine widgets", with attribution "according to the Widget Encyclopedia, only blue widgets are genuine widgets". ] (]) 00:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	This is good advice thanks Dlabtot.
	== ] ==
	{{user|Commator}} has been adding to this, and other metalworking articles, a number of links to their commercial web site. These have been added as ELs, and as references. The linked site is "relevant", in that its topic area is related to the subject under discussion, however it has almost no content on it. It's way short of the ] standard. I don't even see it as adequate for a reference: not merely not being ], but not even enough for a reference in passing. I'm happy to accept (in the spirit of ]) that they could be knowledgeable in the field and have knowledge that could usefully be added to this article, however the content ''accessible on the linked site'' is nowhere near enough.
	Their discussion since is welcomed, however the style of these two threads could be seen as needlessly personal and combative:
	* ]
	* ]
	This went to RfC a week ago, but the editor still sticks to their position and continues to regard unanimous comments by a number of other editors as merely a vendetta against their site. ] (]) 20:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	: http://www.metal-art.com.ua does not look to be RS. Commentary about other editors is not appropriate for this noticeboard and is counterproductive. ] (]) 20:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	My intension is to undo Wizard191's action, which removed my contribution. My goal is to contribute to the article section "History" the text:
	"Since the advance of the PC era the manufacturing of complicated and unique forged items is usually accompanied by realistic 3D ]. This accurate and relatively fast technology allows accumulate all needful knowledges, equipment and intermediates for the future forged items before the starting of manufacturing<sup></sup><sup></sup>. Computer ] is now not scarcity even for small companies<sup></sup>."
	i . This footnote supports reality of using 3D computer simulation in forging.
	ii . This footnote tells which tools are usable.
	iii . This footnote supports reality of using 3D modelling in small forging companies. --] (]) 01:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	:I have just commented at the RFC that it seems clear that the site is not helpful for Misplaced Pages. For this kind of issue, I would post at ], or at ] if very persistent. I do not support the edit proposed above by Commator because the useful content that would be added to the article is not significant, and we do not add links to commercial sites merely to illustrate their availability. ] (]) 02:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	::I understand that there may be people with imagination of spam and useless changes everywhere in Misplaced Pages. Johnuniq from these ones and has clearly declared this on own page: <<... most of my time is taken resisting the erosion of articles by unhelpful changes or linkspam additions ...>> --] (]) 04:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::I agree with Johnuniq. Your website is not close to being a reliable source, by Misplaced Pages standards, nor does it meet the standards laid out at ]. You are specifically violating ]. Continued addition of links would be spamming. ] (]) 04:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::Has opened your own article ] and found this your link: {{cite web|url=http://www.plantaxa.com/asclepias_cordifolia_heartleaf_milkweed.xhtml|title=Asclepias cordifolia (Heartleaf Milkweed)|work=Plantaxa|accessdate=2008-12-21}}. It was only first opened one from many your articles. --] (]) 05:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks for finding a dead/expired link in that article. I've replaced it with a valid reference to the same Barrett and Gifford (1933) book, this time from the USDA website. If you find any more like that, feel free to let me know. ] (]) 05:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Instead of making assessment of not related with your profile links, it would be better for all if you continue your own contributions and permanently check your own array of links from Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 06:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::No, instead it would be appropriate for you to respond the way I did when you pointed out my missing link, which was to fix the problem. In your case, that would be to find a truly reliable source—and additionally, to learn WP policies about what is a ], ], and adding ]. ] (]) 14:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::I try to do what I can for a <<... world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge ...>>. It would be better for all if you'll try to do so too. --] (]) 16:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	In view of the discussion above and at ], I have removed the link from a number of pages because checking showed that where used as a reference, the text in the article was not particularly helpful, and the statements were not verified by the reference. This ] currently shows links only here and at ]. ] (]) 11:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Commator is now trying to add links to his metal-art.com.ua site to ]. As apparently with his prior attempts, the links don't match up with the text he's inserting, which poorly duplicates content already in the article. He's also under the mistaken idea that Johnuniq put me up to opposing him. ] (]) 19:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::From the
	::18:57, 12 July 2010 TheRealFennShysa (Undid revision 373125337 by Commator (talk) rv poorly written (and unnecessary) addition based on poor and/or advertising links.) (undo)
	::18:53, 12 July 2010 Commator (Undid revision 373081101 by TheRealFennShysa '''Two weeks TheRealFennShysa said nothing until Johnuniq not invent this "claims are not supported by the refs"''') (undo)
	::13:52, 12 July 2010 TheRealFennShysa (rv - '''claims are not supported by the refs''') (undo)
	::07:12, 12 July 2010 Commator (Undid revision 372613341 by TheRealFennShysa His action has obviously the Johnuniq's influence. It may be even Johnuniq has encouraged him to do so.) (undo)
	::17:34, 9 July 2010 TheRealFennShysa (Undid revision 372609268 by Commator (talk) rv to prior version '''for similar reasons as Johnuniq offered''') (undo)
	::17:03, 9 July 2010 Commator (Undid revision 372566601 by Johnuniq (talk) The article readers and authors not criticise the contribution.) (undo)
	::11:43, 9 July 2010 Johnuniq (rv edits by Commator: some of text is obviously true, but the '''claims are not supported by the refs'''; link is unhelpful; see Talk:Forging#Rfc: Commator's links to metal-art.com.ua) (undo)
	::09:34, 5 July 2010 Commator (→Models) (undo)
	::02:42, 4 July 2010 Commator (→Models) (undo)
	::10:04, 2 July 2010 Commator (→Models) (undo)
	::07:08, 2 July 2010 Commator (Undid revision 370969106 by JamesBWatson. His contrib. seems to be a bad shaded act of personal vendetta and national dislike) (undo)
	::09:19, 30 June 2010 JamesBWatson (Revert edits which (1) introduced an inappropriate link (see WP:ELNO) and (2) was not in clear English (e.g. "lets prepare all needful knowledges").) (undo)
	::06:04, 30 June 2010 Commator (→Models) (undo)
	::04:40, 30 June 2010 Commator (→Models: Added reference to material "Forging Process Modeling") (undo)
	::09:35, 27 June 2010 Commator (→Models) (undo) --] (]) 23:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::From the
	::Edits___User_____________first edit_______last edit
	::11(10/1)TheRealFennShysa 2009-12-14 20:37 2010-07-12 18:57
	::10(6/4) Commator 2010-06-27 09:35 2010-07-12 18:53
	::1 (1/0) JamesBWatson 2010-06-30 09:19 2010-06-30 09:19
	::1 (1/0) Johnuniq 2010-07-09 11:43 2010-07-09 11:43 --] (]) 00:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::From the
	::18:28, 20 May 2010 TheRealFennShysa '''Reverted''' 2 edits by 78.150.159.60
	::16:29, 18 May 2010 TheRealFennShysa '''Undid''' revision 362809339 by Enanko
	::19:10, 12 May 2010 TheRealFennShysa '''Undid''' revision 361710890 by Skhedkar
	::15:23, 26 March 2010 TheRealFennShysa '''Reverted''' 1 edit by 178.92.88.150
	::06:18, 22 March 2010 TheRealFennShysa '''Reverted''' 3 edits by 210.193.14.11
	::22:38, 21 February 2010 TheRealFennShysa '''Undid''' revision 345381763 by Baiutti
	::17:32, 10 February 2010 TheRealFennShysa '''Undid''' revision 343182985 by Parametric66
	::20:37, 14 December 2009 TheRealFennShysa '''Reverted''' 2 edits by 78.149.94.189 --] (]) 00:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	== Transcript of a lecture hosted on a student organization's page ==
	*Note: Moved from ]
	I'm pretty sure this isn't a reliable source, but since the user is persistent I'm bringing it up here. At dispute is a citation in an article where the subject made a talk at a student organization. A transcript of the talk (the only one apparently) was put on a <s>freeweb style site</s> student organization's page. The student organization apparently had consent to make the transcript, but that is all that has been said about it. I've tried to explain that that consent doesn't mean anything since it's hosted on some site where anyone could upload anything and claim anything. the only thing I've found in the archives here is someone mentioning that a lecture or talk would only be a reliable source if a transcript existed and while he didn't specify, I'm sure that the intended meaning was that that transcript existed on a reliable source.--] (]) 23:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Persistent user here. I must add that the "freeweb style site" in question is owned by the student organization. ] (]) 00:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Are they an organization that has a reputation for editorial oversight and fact checking like say the New York Times? Exactly what kind of student organization is it ? It doesn't seem to be one that uses real names. When you say student organization, are you basically just saying "an interest club" at a university? Even owning the domain doesn't make it a reliable source, except for anything about them. Not for claims made about others.--] (]) 00:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::If you had the mind to bring the issue over there, then I assume you would allow others to do the talking in your stead? When the page in question is a transcript of the lecture, made with the consent of the person who gave the lecture, is the club stating any claims? I believe the answer is no, and I await the opinions of the denizens on this board. ] (]) 00:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::It's a discussion, anyone can contribute. Who approved it is irrelevant. It is where it is published that is the problem. It is a self-published source and as such cannot be used as a citation on[REDACTED] unless the source is created by the subject of the article which it is not. Can you deny any of those things? The club is making claims. The club is claiming that that transcript is accurate and happened. Per wikipedias guidelines and policies we simply cannot take them at their word because they don't meet our threshold for a reliable source.--] (]) 06:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	Please post this question at ]. This page is for discussion of policy, not of specific sources. ] (]) 03:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Please tell us what article is involved, and give some information about the student organization. And which country would help as well. ] (]) 07:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	::The article is ], a game. The student organization is "La Bomba: General Amusement Research Circle" of ]. The country is Japan. The point of contention here is if a transcript that is approved by the speaker posted on the host's website is reliable. I had wanted to use that source to cite a statement that is now appended by a cn tag in the article. Hence I want clarification if the view "Who approved it is irrelevant" presented by Crossmr, denying any case-by-case analysis, is one that is endorsed by Wikipedian consensus and not of one single user speaking improperly on behalf of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 09:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Yes because we're speaking of where it is published, not who approved it or who said what or even what is contained on the page. Self-published sources refers to where the content is hosted. Random[REDACTED] editors need to be able to trust that the source is reliable and that what is said there is true, random student club website isn't it. Where is the evidence that the subject has unequivocally stated that what is contained on that page is 100% authentic and will always be 100% authentic?--] (]) 09:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::You need not repeat yourself, I already know exactly what you are trying to convey. Will you give other people a chance to form their own thoughts? If you worry about them changing the content, there are technology like webarchives that makes it readily apparent if a page has been changed or not. To summarize my points: I believe the student organization, being the host of the lecture, is an authoritative source for the lecture that had been given on their grounds. Considering, also, that the transcript was made with the approval of the speaker (maker of the game), the transcript is therefore reliable as a faithful representation of the lecture. ] (]) 10:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Not reliable. We do sometimes use convenience links. This is an informal student group and the information is trivial anyway. ] (]) 11:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::: Agree with IMJ, not reliable. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 12:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::In order for them to be authoritative they'd have to be published and recognized experts in the field. That is the only situation under which a self-published source by someone who is not the subject should be used. Authorization has no bearing on whether or not[REDACTED] considers it reliable. Misplaced Pages is concerned with the place in which it's kept. Anything that is self-published has a very narrow set of terms under which it can be used.--] (]) 13:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Yes....you've repeated yourself for the fifth time now. But now that your assessment has been supported by two other individuals I am satisfied and will drop the issue. Though I wonder, if the information is trivial anyways, why had it been challenged to begin with. ] (]) 16:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Because I'd already removed an obviously bad source from the same piece of information. You replaced it with another bad source.--] (]) 22:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	:There's a few other ways for something to be citable as a source. For instance, material published by advocacy organizations is usually allowed if the organization's opinion is influential on the topic, and this is an ambiguous area between primary, secondary, and self-published sources. See if you can establish a reputation for this web page you want to cite. Are we sure this page belongs to the student organization? Who links to it; does the school's web site link to it? Do they have a reputation for accurate transcriptions of guest lecturers? Is it cited by other works? ] (]) 03:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
	== AllAfrica Global Media ==
	This website - http://allafrica.com/ - isn't used on any article I have edited. 'All Africa' mirrors African newspaper websites as well as digitising National newspapers from different African countries. I was wondering whether, considering the stability of the website, it could be used when the site/web page that it mirrors isn't available online. Would there be an issue with this? Thanks. ''']'''...] 13:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	: It could be used as a ], but the actual source being cited would be the original newspaper. ] (]) 20:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	:: All right, thanks. ''']''' - ] 21:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	== Reliable sources for the number of ] ==
	Hello, are the following sources reliable for the numbers of ]?
	1)
	2)
	3)
	4)
	Please see also this dif for the original edit
	] (]) 13:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	:(numbered sources for ease of discussion) 1) unsure if publisher is generally reliable, but possibly 2) greenwood is general publishing firm of academic works so unless there is specific reason to doubt, this is reliable source 3) if as according to[REDACTED] article, joshua project keeps population figures "with Christian progress status indicators" it is a site with a particular POV and unless there is evidence that other reliable sources use them for data, I would think not. 4) ] does not meet the criteria for a self published site and it is unclear how much editorial oversite and fact checking is present. So - 1 out of 4? ] (]) 04:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
	:: Thank you. You state you are unsure if the publisher of link number 1, , is generally reliable. Looking around on their website I don't see anything which would point the contrary, so I am gonna assume it is reliable as well. ] (]) 10:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
	== Ancestry.com as a reference? ==
	I was looking at some biographies today and noticed generic links to ancestry.com used as references for birth dates. (See references in ]). I thought, "hey, that's cool, someone linked some genealogical information." Then I noticed these links were not to specific entries for the individuals at ancestry.com. The links were to the front page. That struck me as surreptitious advertising for ancestry.com since a) the link is to the front page of the site, and b) the site requires paid membership to access their data. It also occurs to me that information in ancestry.com is not authoritative since it can be entered by anyone and isn't subject to editorial review. So, is a link to ancestry.com a valid reference? ] (]) 23:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	:I'd vote no, especially when the link is just to the front page. --] (]) 23:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Agree. The proper place for questions of this nature is at ]. ---'''''—&nbsp;]<span style="color:darkblue">&nbsp;'''''</span><sup>]</sup> 02:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::For what it's worth, I agree too. You occasionally see links to the front page of other sites too—I doubt it's generally intended as promotional, but it's bad form nevertheless. (I wonder; is a specifc user or IP range adding links to ancestry.com all over the place? That would be problematic and indicative of surreptitious advertising.) <font style="font-family:Constantia" size="3" color="#0077bb">]</font> 03:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::There are over 800 links, almost 200 to the home page. ---'''''—&nbsp;]<span style="color:darkblue">&nbsp;'''''</span><sup>]</sup> 11:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
	:''Moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Citing sources''
	::For the situation you just described, no, it is not a reliable source. (There some articles which are written by the Ancestry Magazine staff writers which ''might'' be reliable.) For past discussions, see: and ] (]) 14:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::I'll also add that if the people involved are living, then the ] kicks in, which says that the dates of birth should only be included where they have been "widely published by reliable sources". If the information is only available behind a paywall, then it can hardly be considered widely published.--] (]) 16:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
	For the most part, Ancestry.com contains user generated material without editorial oversight, and thus fails ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
	== PMAnderson and Democracies vs electoral states. ==
	On ] ] contantly re-adds Dean V. Babst's article "Elective Governments — A Force For Peace." The Wisconsin Sociologist 3 (1, 1964): 9-14;" as a source. However, that article does not talk about democracies, but about elective governments, ie goverments that have elections. That is not generally accepted as being a democracy, for example South Africa under Apartheid was an elective government, but not a democracy. IMO it's ] to use it as a source for wasr between democracies, when it only talks about wars between elective governments. Am I wrong?
	The first time I took this up was here: ].
	It was re-added recently: --] (]) 19:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
	:This is a verbal quibble: that the founder of ], writing a paper about "elective governments", did not mean ''democracies'', when he wrote about the peace between states which elect their legislature and administration, with secret ballot and civil liberties.
	:Since this good soul seems to like ], I present to Rummel's summary of Babst's paper, which uses the string ''democracy'' repeatedly. ] <small>]</small> 20:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
	:I think you are wrong, or at least you're being overly pedantic. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>] 19:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	::How is it pedantic? The article was once called "exceptions to democratic peace theory", and Babst list certainly fits there. But the article was renamed, and as a result of that renaming, everything that's not actually a war between democracies has been removed. PManderson tried to revert those changes, but finally gave in that only those conflicts who in fact have ] that calls them wars between democracies should be included. Despite this PManderson uses sources that does *not* call the conflict wars between democracies, in an apparent attempt to slowly revert the article back into it's pre-rename state. He refers to that Rummel calls Babst definition of electoral governments "democracies", but that would then be ] or at least he should use Rummel as a source, and not Babst. An electoral government is *not* a democracy in normal usage. As an example, Apartheid South Africa would fit Babst definition. *Nobody* would call it a democracy. Now if the article was renamed back or to something else, that would be another questions, but ''Titles should match the article content''. Then we can't add conflicts that isn't wars between democracies, and then our sources must claim that the conflicts was between democracies. That clearlyand obviously means Babst source is not useful as it claims no such thing. --] (]) 10:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
	::*''The Politics of South Africa: Democracy and Racial Diversity'' was published in 1977; that would appear to answer the loudest claim here.
	::*It is quite true that South Africa under apartheid was only a democracy for some people, and that is what was wrong with it; but it was a democracy for them. This effort to adopt a single view of democracy as the only one is the problem here; Rummel also denies that Israel was a free state under Golda Meir - but that is not the consensus view. ] <small>]</small> 22:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Democracy for some people is not democracy at all. And if you had bothered to double check the book title you used, you'd know that the book isn't a description of South Africas politics, but a *prescription*. Apparently also a "vapid" prescription written by a supporter of apartheid. . Obviously somebody that supports the system will call it a democracy, that goes for every regime. Even Cuba, USSR etc has been called a democracy by it's supporters, even though it's blatantly obvious that this is not the case. That's why we can't use one source that says "it's a democracy" and another one that says "it's a war" to say "It's a war between democracies". That would be ] and every single conflict in the 20th century would have to be listed, as every single state has been called a democracy by it's supporters. And that is why we must restrict ourselves to using sources that claim the conflict is a war between democracies. --] (]) 07:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::''Democracy for some people is not democracy at all.'' That's your opinion; however virtuous it may be, it is not consensus of the sources. Please stop blanking Misplaced Pages to install your opinions. ] <small>]</small> 12:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::The claim that the right to vote isn't a part of the modern concept of democracy is patently absurd. --] (]) 13:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	== Somalia - Transparency International and Somali news sites ==
	Hi there,
	I'm unfortunately involved in a fairly frustrating discussion on the ]. In it, an editor (who I believe is biased towards painting a rosier picture of Somalia than is entirely neutral) has stated that ]'s ] ranking for Somalia (180/180) should not be mentioned, because he claims it is not a reliable source. Pressed on why, he says it's because he believes one source of the ranking, a Matt Bryden, is not reliable.
	Here a second reliable source question comes up. To support his allegation that Bryden (a UN Monitoring Group's chief coordinator) is unreliable, he provides a bunch of, in my view, amateurish looking news reports (, , , ) and asserts that those are reliable (I do not agree). My opinion is that the Transparency Index has its detractors, but it is still a widely used metric of perceived corruption. But while use the index, on the ] page, there is no mention of corruption at all, despite it placing dead last and several high profile corruption allegations over the past year or so (namely misdirection of UN food aid and government collusion with pirates). I believe Transparency International is a reliable source ''on its own ranking'', and that its ranking, being the most commonly cited metric of perceived government corruption, is notable enough for inclusion.
	I was hoping someone with more experience on reliable sources could weigh in on this issue. Thanks a lot, ] (]) 20:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
	:As has already been ] to the editor above, the fact that Transparency International's corruption index is used on other articles on Misplaced Pages does not in itself mean that it is a reliable source, and specifically with regard to Somalia. This is because Transparency International bases its corruption index on a small group of specialists on each given country and also because "there is evidence that perceptions of corruption are influenced by the disclosure of major scandals" (c.f. ). Transparency International's corruption index is thus by definition not a one-size-fits-all metric; it necessarily varies in reliability from country to country depending on the sources used for those specific countries. Unlike most other countries, Somalia is also plagued by disinformation in the media, which is precisely why there's an entire article devoted to ]. And as it so happens, Transparency International itself that its idea of corruption in Somalia is based on a recent "UN monitoring group report assertions about corrupt diversion of food aid". The report in question has drawn controversy for not one, but two key reasons: 1) it was prepared by one Matt Bryden, who is an unreliable, biased contributor with direct ties to ] groups ( is a photo of him at a rally for his cause) and a long history of publishing dubious material on the region (, , , ), and 2) the actual ''sources'' Bryden relies on for his corruption charges are unsubstantiated anecdotes featured in completely ] Somali-language articles and blog posts published on low-key websites (namely, the following: , , ). . What is also fact is that those sources fail not only ], but also ] and ]. Since the corruption charges in question involve specific individuals, those unreliable sources likewise fail ]. That's pretty much it. The editor above, however, insists on arguing that Transparency International's corruption index vis-a-vis Somalia is still somehow reliable despite the country's well-documented problems with disinformation in the media, the dubious sources the report it was based on uses to obtain its corruption allegations -- sources which have been in this way -- and the unreliability of the author of that paper himself as a neutral contributor. Let's put it this way, if Transparency International's corruption ranking for Spain were primarily based on a report by someone with a long history of direct involvement in and advocacy for the Basque separatist movement, and that report in turn obtained its actual corruption allegations from unverifiable Basque-language sources -- sources that have been expressly identified in this way -- no one would question the unreliability of said sources. The present situation is no different. ] (]) 00:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	::One non-involved editor's opinion: Transparency International's ] is most clearly notable, and used by countless reliable sources specifically regarding Somalia. There's no question that any of those reliable sources could be used to support inclusion in the ] article. If you have a problem with Transparency International's particular rating of Somalia, then you could also include a neutral, third-party reliable source that raises the issues you bring up. In my opinion, www.wardheernews.com wouldn't qualify as that reliable or neutral source, so you should find something more mainstream and neutral. ] (]) 04:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Again, it is not Transparency International's corruption index that is the question here; it is specifically its ranking for Somalia. As I've already explained above, citing a lot more than that article (which, by the way, is indeed a reliable source that even the Huffington Post deems trustworthy enough to republish material from (), including editorials ()), Transparency International bases its corruption index on a small group of specialists on each given country, and "there is evidence that perceptions of corruption are influenced by the disclosure of major scandals" (see ). The "expert" that Transparency International readily its idea of corruption in Somalia is based on is a recent "UN monitoring group report assertions about corrupt diversion of food aid"; that is the "scandal" in question. This report, however, was prepared by a gentleman with a long history of open advocacy and publishing dubious materials on the region, as many sources have repeatedly highlighted (, , , , ). And as I've also pointed out, the actual sources the author of that report relies on for his corruption charges are unsubstantiated anecdotes featured in completely ] Somali-language articles and blog posts published on low-key websites (namely: , , ). So it's ''both'' the author himself and his sources that are the problem. There are also not just many journalists that describe Bryden's latest report as unreliable, but three governments (, and ) and one international organization (the ) as well. None of the above can be said for any of the other countries ranked in Transparency International's corruption index; none of those other countries rankings were based on reports from such openly biased parties and dubious sources, parties and sources that have been expressly identified in this way. And if they had been, no one would have trouble understanding why this is unacceptable, especially given Misplaced Pages's rules on reliable sourcing (see my Basque/Spain analogy above). ] (]) 00:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::The fact that multiple mainstream and extremely reliable sources (Forbes, BBC, etc.) feature the Corruption Index's rating of ''Somalia'' can't simply be removed from the article. If those other sources you mention really are deemed reliable by Misplaced Pages standards (which is different from Huffington Post standards), then they could also be included in the article. Since most/all of the mainstream sources give credibility to the rating, there is still no legitimate reason for excluding that information. ] (]) 01:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Most/all mainstream news sites do not at all give credibility to the rating. Some merely mention it, as they do with news on murder allegations, lawsuits, Enron, etc.. That's not an endorsement, much less an appraisal of the reliability of the corruption allegations' sources; that's reporting. The articles I have cited above, on the other hand, expressly identify the ''very sources'' of those corruption allegations as unreliable, not to mention the person behind them. Further, ] is clear that the actual source of the corruption charges (i.e. the creator of the work) "can affect reliability". And the actual source of the corruption charges is not Transparency International itself. TI, again, bases its rankings on a few so-called "experts" on the country in question (see ), which it itself in this case is that dubious UN report by Bryden. That is the point. Similarly, ] also specifies that questionable sources:
	:::::<blockquote>"include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."</blockquote>
	:::::Bryden's paper fits that description to a T, as not only does it completely rely on innuendo for its corruption allegations (unsubstantiated claims drawn from articles and blog posts published on low-key, foreign language websites, and which are thus ]), it is also promotional in nature (). So actually, it's not that there are no legitimate reasons to not include the ranking; it's that the ranking clearly belongs on the ] article since it is directly based on a questionable source citing contentious claims about third parties. ] (]) 02:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::I still hold that repeated and widespread reporting of the Corruption Index rating on Somalia in mainstream reliable sources, by itself, merits its inclusion in the ] article. Your sources and argument haven't convinced me otherwise, and I'll leave it at that. ] (]) 05:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::You have not appealed to Misplaced Pages policy to substantiate your argument; you've just shared your opinion. The consensus process, however, is unfortunately not determined by ]. You must attempt to prove your argument citing actual policy, something which has yet to happen. ] (]) 02:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::I believe the exchange above demonstrates my frustration at the Somalia talk page in a nutshell: the obvious is pointed out, and Middayexpress repeats the same convoluted argument to use unreliable sources to dispute something that everywhere else on Misplaced Pages is accepted as a notable, reliable source worth mentioning in country articles. ] (]) 06:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
	{{outdent}}
	You were certainly right to bring it here, and I hope other non-involved editors aren't discouraged from getting involved in this discussion by the wall of words. ] (]) 14:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
	:It's reliable and worth noting. Lot's of coverage in the highest quality sources. The sources generally attribute to TI, so we should as well, "According to TI Somalia is the most corrupt country." or something. - 14:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
	::TastyCakes: If proper sourcing were what really concerned you, then you would have first and foremost taken exception to Bryden's use of anecdotal evidence to obtain his corruption allegations, material that was drawn from completely unverifiable foreign language articles published on low-key websites and blogs as I've explained above (references that have also been expressly identified as unreliable by third party sources). Instead, you've attempted to question the very sources that simply point out how unreliable Bryden's foreign language references (not to mention himself) are to begin with. Your line of argument that since Transparency International's corruption index is used elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, it is thus reliable for Somalia as well, is likewise completely invalid since Transparency International bases its rankings on the work of specialists on each country it ranks, and its rankings therefore necessarily vary in quality from country to country. Those other countries' rankings are also not largely based on a controversial report that was prepared by someone openly involved in advocacy, with a long history of publishing such dubious reports to boot. And yes, TI's actual sources most certainly :
	::<blockquote>"We find that there are many limitations to corruption indicators due to the methodologies used in aggregating or averaging, the reliability of the sources on which they are based, and the varying definitions of corruption utilized."</blockquote>
	::Moreover, TI's corruption index doesn't even use the same number of surveys per country; in Somalia's case, it bases its ranking on only 3 surveys (), almost 3 times fewer data sources than some other countries and the absolute minimum required to be included at all in the index. This too the reliability of its rating:
	::<blockquote>"The CPI relies heavily on “expert assessments” of corruption, representing the views of a small number of people.16 For the most part, these expert assessments are carried out by expatriates of the countries involved. The longer these expatriates are living outside their country of origin, the less likely they are to have an accurate understanding of the current situation in the country. Absolute objectivity is difficult to achieve, and most people naturally will be biased toward either a government or its opposition. To the extent that the expatriates making the assessments of corruption are members of particular economic or social groups, expert assessments of corruption may be biased."</blockquote>
	::The corruption index also the extent of corruption among the population as a whole -- just in the public sector:
	::<blockquote>"As the website of TI pointedly notes while the Index identifies Somalia at the very bottom of the ladder in 2008, that does not mean that Somalia is the ‘world’s most corrupt country’ or that Somalians are the ‘most corrupt people’. All it takes for a country to be very corrupt is a few powerful politicians and officials perpetrating corruption on the rest of the population... All sources measure the overall extent of corruption (frequency and/or size of bribes) in the public and political sectors."</blockquote>
	::Lastly (and this is key), Transparency International's CPI changes in corruption regulation that might have taken place in the considerable lag-time that's inherent in its metric:
	::<blockquote>"Since corruption is the result of entrenched dysfunctional institutions in a country, changes at the country-level will be slow to appear. It will take some time for anti-corruption reforms to take effect after they are introduced, and even longer for people to notice the effects of the reforms so that perceptions to change. Since the CPI uses up to three years of data, then even if there are reductions in corruption according to the most recent figures, those advances will be tempered by the inclusion of previous years data. The 1998 CPI Press Release even states, “It needs to be emphasized, though, that it can take some time for these actions to influence international perceptions, and be consequently reflected in the CPI."</blockquote>
	::] itself indicates that "some scholarly material may be outdated". And as another editor already explained to you on the Somalia talk page, many such major anti-corruption measures have recently been implemented that the CPI simply has not factored in yet or weighted properly. This includes Somalia's central government's of ] to monitor development federal funding and improve transparency, as well as the resumption of its relationship with the ], something which only became possible due to what the AfDB itself describes as "the formulation of a national plan and the establishment of a functional Central Bank and effective anti-corruption commission". Similarly, the new Puntland regional administration's (term started in 2009) has also implemented numerous reforms such as the expansion and improvement of its security and judicial systems, and the establishment of a transparent, budget-based public finance system (). This only serves to make the CPI's ranking of Somalia an even more unreliable measure of corruption in the country. ] (]) 02:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	* No problem using this source, with attribution, like any reputable advocacy organization. ] (]) 04:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Ok, it seems we have 4 opinions for and Middayexpress against, can I safely put this into the article now? ] (]) 04:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Not that it even matters, but that's actually 2 opinions vs. 4 (see the Somalia talk page again). The consensus process is also unfortunately ]:
	:::<blockquote>Misplaced Pages is <span class="plainlinks"></span> or any other ]. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining ] is through ] and ], ''not'' ]. Although editors occasionally use ] in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more ] than any other consensus decision. Elections and votes are only endorsed for things that take place outside Misplaced Pages proper, such as when electing the ].</blockquote>
	:::That means there won't be getting around the discussion process, especially what I have just posted that belies the claims of "corruption". If you think there is, bear in mind that there is always a ] one can appeal to that won't have any trouble seeing the situation or what it is -- an authority that actual understands and values Misplaced Pages's rules. ] (]) 04:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::I've commented at ] that there is unanimous consensus here among uninvolved editors for inclusion of the TI Corruption Index ranking in the ] article. ] (]) 04:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::I've added the information to the article . In it I cite the Transparency International ranking, the UN Monitoring Group's report, and a New York Times article saying the report is disputed by the Somali government and businessmen and the UN World Food Program. ] (]) 04:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	As Midday pointed out concensus is not based on popular vote, indeed if i were to do a mass transparent canvassing campaign and suddenly the score was 40 against inclusion compared to 5 for inclusion, this doesn't equal concensus. No! concensus would be for either side to convince the other of their argument for inclusion/exclusion and then agreeing to a compromise, regardless in whose favour it is. This is something that hasn't occurred here, that so-called 'wall of text' has yet to be countered, and do tell us why a respected Somali news outlet like '''Wadheernews''' is not legimate enough to be featured on wikipedia? --] (]) 12:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Scooby (and Midday for that matter), please read ] and once you're done, if you still don't see why the ], the ] and ] are reliable sources on alleged Somali corruption and , , and aren't, come back and talk. ] (]) 14:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	'''Comment:''' I would not count American Chronicle as a reliable source for ''any'' Misplaced Pages article. I am not sure how their editorial policy (if any) works, but from what I've seen it is essentially no better than a blog. -- ] ] 14:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Response to Scoobycentric: Midday was adamant about excluding any mention of TI's corruption ranking of Somalia, even though it is reported by countless mainstream reliable news organizations. That widespread mainstream sourcing is why every non-involved editor here will continue to say that 'of course it meets WP requirements for inclusion'. Midday never responded to that issue. Nor did he respond to my very first comment in this thread: ''"There's no question that any of those reliable sources could be used to support inclusion (of TI's ranking) in the Somalia article. If you have a problem with Transparency International's particular rating of Somalia, then you could also include a neutral, third-party reliable source that raises the issues you bring up."'' I think the only unanswered question is whether wardheernews.com, etc. meet ]. I don't see that yet with wardheernews.com, but that's where you should be tying to make your case - proving that your sources meet the standards at ], including that they are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." ] (]) 15:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	*'''Tastycakes''', if you actually read Middayexpress's reply on '''00:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)''', you would have noticed his use of sources such as ''AllAfrica.com'' and ''NYTimes'' together with Somali news organisation such as ] and Wardheernews, the onus is on you to provide the exact reason why the latter two specifically are not ''reliable sources'', just stating this as many times as possible doesn't make it ''fact''.
	::Garowe Online and Wardheernews almost certainly fail the criteria for reliable source, particularly on political issues. The reasons (straight from ]) are they are apparently self published, they have no reputation for fact checking or accuracy, and in some cases their material appears to be "unduly self-serving", they print as though they're the mouthpieces of local powers (which they almost certainly are, on some subjects). AllAfrica seems a more borderline case, but I certainly wouldn't characterize it as a strong source (, after all). You are correct: I did not read Midday citing a New York Times article supporting his allegations against Matt Bryden, or any of his other complaints. Could you please provide that link again? ] (]) 19:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	*'''Firstlight''', as you have may have noticed i share Midday's stand on this issue, because i have perused the report this ranking is based on myself. The report quoted websites that are considered highly biased, and have very little credibility amongst analysts, or ] (see Midday's replies for more detail) therefore it shouldn't come as a suprise that editors knowledgable about this report's flaws are 'adamant' that the index based on this report was not added. However it is now, with a detailed explanation about the criticism + reforms in governmental institutions accompanying it. As for Wardheernews, i feel this is simply a case of not being familiar with this highly respected newsoutlet reporting for the Somali world, because in no way should i have to defend Wardheernews's credibility, accuracy and fact checking, --] (]) 17:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Misplaced Pages only reports what reliable sources are reporting. The news sources that constantly report on Somalia's ranking in the Corruption Index clearly qualify. What's not so clear is wardheernews.com as a reliable source, by Misplaced Pages standards. The article that you just linked makes it even more doubtful in my mind. That's my opinion - pretty simple and very straightforward. I'll let others add their two cents, because I don't really have anything more to say than that. Peripherally, I would add that the ] article and talk page are full of broader issues that will probably need some mediation sooner or later—issues that probably include incivility, name-calling, nationalistic editing, ], and ]. ] (]) 20:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	== Combatant Status Review Board transcripts ==
	This is not really a question of the reliability of the source, but more how to cite it. Both the NY Times and the Washington Post host a number of documents released by the US government about detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The NYTimes hosts the exact same material that the Washington Post does , with the NYTimes site including an additional page. On ] these two sources are treated as though they are not the same and that they were "published" by the NYTimes and the WPost. To me this is akin to linking to the same AP story multiple times on different sites and claiming they are published by each of the places it appears. The article is currently up for AFD, so it is understandable why somebody would seek to inflate the number of sources in the article to give an impression of greater notability than is really there. In my view the publisher of this work is the ] and the two sources are the same. editor apparently feels differently. How should this be cited and should they be treated as two separate sources? Apologies if this is an improper venue, not sure where else to ask though. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
	:I ran into this at ] concerning original images. The original images and duplicate sources issues are both perplexing. In general of course there should not be duplicates: if two reliable sources publish the same document, we should choose one of them as a reference. However for the Guantanamo issue I would be inclined to use both sources because the fact that two independent publishers have chosen to carry the material lends a useful degree of credibility to the very unusual documents. Also (in some cases I looked at, not sure about the article mentioned above), the duplicates are in different formats and each has its own useful characteristics. I don't know that ] warrants its own article, but the material should be included somewhere since it is important. ] (]) 00:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	*Agree with the articulately stated view of Johnuniq with regard to the question posed.--] (]) 04:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	== ComicAttack RS? ==
	Is RS? It's about page: - shows that it has staff. Though it mostly focuses on OEL comics, it does have manga and anime reviews.
	Example review:
	They also release news articles for anime and manga:
	It has been mentioned by Melinda Beasi in her reviews. Beasi is RS in the anime and manga field due to writing for PopCultureShock. ] (]) 09:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC) as {{User|Extremepro}}
	:Simply having staff doesn't make one a reliable source. Having a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight does. Have they been cited by other reliable sources as a source of information? "ComicAttack" doesn't appear in the google news archive at all, so the chances of that are pretty slim. I'd say no.--] (]) 11:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Cited by PopShockCulture and placed on the same level as ]. ] (]) 23:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC) as {{User|Extremepro}}
	:::No, it isn't cited. It's linked for an interview, they're not citing information. And who? PCS seem to be on par with comicattack. Their address is a gmail address for pete's sake. They seem to be nothing more than a group blog. Also attaching a username to your signed-out sig isn't allowed. We have no proof you're that user account. if you want to put your user account name on it, you need to sign in and sign it.--] (]) 00:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::Um, I don't see why he isn't allowed to do that? I've seen administrators doing it when working while logged out. I've done it myself as have other users. Can you point to something that shows it is against some policy? No view on whether either site is a reliable source. -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 08:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::I agree with AnmaFinotera on the first point --] 09:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Has he claimed the IP with his user account? I don't see anything obvious noting that, and it's been a few days. The IP could claim any account. We have no idea that account belongs to that IP.--] (]) 10:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Editing pattern & editing time (ANZAC time). Extremely difficult to impersonate another editor pattern especially on the interpersonal communication side with editors used to teamwork & interact with that person. --] 11:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	Back to the issue i'm inclined to give weight to Manga Recon (PCS) due to the quality of its key contributors
	*Katherine Dacey former Senior Editor at PCS Manga Recon: , for the ], ], panelist twice during the 2010 ] Annual Conference "The Best Manga You’re Not Reading" & "Good Comics for Kids: Building a Graphic Novel Collection for Young Readers"
	*Erin Finnegan creator of the PCS Manga Recon: , at ], for ] --] 09:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
	*:Which might be fine by they still aren't citing comic attack, they're simply linking to an interview.--] (]) 10:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
	**Well you were asking also about PopCultureShock RS thus i'm replying you on that point. Reviews are pieces of PoV and i find it rather funny to tag a personal opinions reliable instead we should focus weight given to those opinions. --] 11:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
	***The original question was if ComicAttack was an RS, I asked for reliable sources citing it and demonstration that it had a reputation for fact checking. The response was a group blog linking to an interview, but not citing it. Even if PCS is a reliable source, they haven't done anything for ComicAttack.--] (]) 13:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
	== Lawrence Solomon ==
	There is (again) a battle raging over whether or not ] is an Environmentalist . Would the following canadian newspaper be a reliable source to finally put this issue to rest? as it does describe as such ] (]) 10:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	: Mark, I wonder - why is there a problem including the alternate, sourced PoV that he's a "free market environmentalist." It appears that you're attempting to censor one PoV because it's not yours. ] (]) 10:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Why did you change your question? Please comment on content not contributor please ] (]) 10:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	::: Mark, I am commenting on the content. A PoV is being censored from the content. Why? ] (]) 10:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::No you are commenting on me trying to censor a source. This section is to ask if the source i have presented is acceptable for use in the article, if you wish to discuss another source please do so on the article talk page or open another thread, thanks ] (]) 10:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	I've never heard of this newspaper, even though I live in Quebec where it is published. I gather it is a ]. From the "about us" page, it "is a journal of opinion, reflection and the arts", and indeed the article in question is clearly framed as an opinion column (see the I, we statements) rather than journalism/news. It appears that The Metropolitain accepts unsolicited manuscripts, but it does have a editorial board full of names I recognize and with a background in journalism etc. So... the article would be a of ] (described in our article as being known for his "polemical outspokeness") but nothing more. --] (]) 12:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Does this source help resolve this dispute? ]: ] (]) 14:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	::It's a "letter to the editor" and thus the personal opinion of one Jarrett Wampler. Not a suitable source in my view.--] (]) 18:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Yes, you are correct. That's what I get for trying to answer questions first thing in the morning when I'm just starting to wake up. ] (]) 21:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::: :-) Yes, I totally understand. A strong cup of coffee is essential to get my brain cells firing in the morning too! ] (]) 23:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	== Information about small and remote communities. ==
	One of the great things about Misplaced Pages is the drive to make sure that information is accurate and verifiable.
	This can present problems for information about small and remote communities.
	Often there are no published sources of up to date or detailed information.
	Should standards be lower for this kind of material or should we just accept that parts of the world that do not have newspapers should fall off the radar?
	:If you start making exceptions (we dont need to have reliable sources for Xtype of articles becuase they are hard to find), then it becomes then it becomes, well reliable sources are also hard to find for Ytype of articles too, so there should be an exception for them. And Ztype articles, AND QRSTUVtypes as well!
	:I do not see any reason that the community would decide to accept lower standards for any type of article. If there is not much in reliable sources for us to say about a particular topic, we just dont say much. ] (]) 15:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	: No. ] (]) 16:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Also if its not noticed its unlikely to be notable.] (]) 17:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::No, his specific example was keeping things up to date. Notability is not temporary. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>] 19:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::And detailed, so it mighyt be that in fact there is no notability.] (]) 19:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	:There has to be some level of sourcing, whether it's secondary, primary, or self-published by an expert. Usable sources are probably out there; dig a little deeper. Try local newspapers, government statistics, and so forth. Though, if this part of a notablity debate, consider merging an article about an isolated village into an article about the region. ] (]) 21:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Census data serves to give a backbone for most communities in the United States. Actually any country should have similar basic information, even if it is not on-line or easily accessible. There is a great temptation if the editor is familiar, lives in, or has spent some time in a remote or tiny place to engage in some original research. is an example where both I and others who are familiar with the community have added material. I see very little harm done in such instances but strictly speaking, about half of the content of the article comes from two individuals who have visited the town, myself and . No strong objection could be raised to deleting most of the article, but doing so seems a waste of time and a dis-service to our readers.
	::Bottom line, I'm not sure time spent identifying and deleting such information is well spent. However, there is a problem if such information is wrong. And there is no way to check. Perhaps there are 2 houses in Bois d' Arc, after all it's been twenty five years since I was there. ] ] 18:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC) ] ] 18:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	== Is ] a reliable source for proving opposing opinions? ==
	I wanted to include a sentence stating that there is mainstream right wing criticism of teh ].
	I wish to use an essay published in an opinon journal as evidence of this fact
	The article is written by a mainstream conservative activist/personality (Matt Barber-- he has a mention in http://en.wikipedia.org/Conservapedia).
	The essay pretty much says the SPLC has drifted from its civil rights mission and now maligns mainstream right wing personalities.
	My attempt to include this reference has been contested because townhall.com is not a reliable source.
	However, I am not using the article as a means to prove fact, I am using teh essay as evidence of criticism.
	I would also like to anticipate criticism that this is original research, but I am not sure if this is the venue.
	So here are my questions: can a mainstream opinion journal be used as evidence of criticism?
	Is it original research to include a statement acknowledging published criticism of an
	I wish to include some form of the statement:
	The SPLC is seen with suspicion by many on the right wing because in many cases it has rephrased its mission from
	one of monitoring hate groups to one of monitoring and 'unmasking' the 'radical right'.
	<ref name="townhallcritic">{{cite news | url=http://townhall.com/columnists/MattBarber/2010/03/25/southern_poverty_law_center_officially_declared_%E2%80%9Cleft-wing_hate_group%E2%80%9D | title=Southern Poverty Law Center Officially Declared “Left-Wing Hate Group” | publisher= |date= March 2010 | first=Matt | last=Barber | accessdate =2010-07-11}}</ref> <ref name="oldhatewatch">{{title=Hatewatch: unmasking the radical right.| url=http://web.archive.org/web/20070812161447rn_1/www.splcenter.org/blog/]}}</ref><ref name="hatewatch">{{title=Hatewatch: Keeping an eye on the radical right.| url=http://www.splcenter.org/blog/]}}</ref><ref name=klanwatch>{{url=http://web.archive.org/web/19981206135537/www.splcenter.org/klanwatch.html}}</ref>
	discussion of this point is at:
	http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Claim_of_controversial_sources.
	revision history is at:
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&action=history
	] (]) 17:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Let's make this simpler. We could construct a template saying that someone at Townhall has viewed the subject with suspicion; we could even have a variable for the poster. We would then be able to add this to almost all articles on American politics and foreign countries - including most of the posters at Townhall, of course.
	:Or we could leave the opinion-blogging where we find it. The second seems simpler. ] <small>]</small> 17:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	::I would have to say its RS for his opinions, then it just becomes a matter of determining if his opinions matter.] (]) 17:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::A better way of putting it. ] <small>]</small> 18:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::It seems you are saying I should use it in a list of particular criticisms, revolving around the radical right notion. FOr instance: Some right-wing commentators, activists, and scholars, including Ken Silverstein<ref name ="silversteincritic">{{cite news | title=The church of Morris Dees: How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance | url=http://harpers.org/archive/2000/11/0068709 | author=Ken Silverstein |date accessed=07-11-10}}</ref>, Matt Barber<ref name="barbercritic">{{cite news | url=http://townhall.com/columnists/MattBarber/2010/03/25/southern_poverty_law_center_officially_declared_%E2%80%9Cleft-wing_hate_group%E2%80%9D | title=Southern Poverty Law Center Officially Declared “Left-Wing Hate Group” | publisher= |date= March 2010 | first=Matt | last=Barber | accessdate =2010-07-11}}</ref>, and Carol Swain<ref name ="swaincritic">{{cite news | title=Guilt by Association: The Southern Poverty Law Center Hurls a Punch | url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-m-swain/guilt-by-association-the_b_316107.html | author=Carol M Swain |date accessed=07-11-10}}</ref> have criticized the Southern Poverty Law Center for attacking mainstream right-wing individuals while 'unmasking' <ref name="oldhatewatch">SPLC.2007."Hatewatch: unmasking the radical right." </ref> and 'keeping an eye on the radical right' <ref name="hatewatch">SPLC."Hatewatch: Keeping an eye on the radical right".</ref> ] (]) 19:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	:{{ec}}x2 Then it both fails ] and as a ] source you are using it to introduce ] and improper ]. So, no it should not beused, and not in this way. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 17:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Exactly right. Why is Matt Barber's opinion significant -- especially to be included in the lede? Who has appointed him as the spokesperson that represents the "mainstream right"? Who even says he is part of the "mainstream right" rather than the "radical right"? ] (]) 18:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::I think ] is mainstream. It has a reasonably big readership, publishes AP, has a biweekly print journal and a mainstream publisher ]. Matt Barber is a regular columnist there ]. That said, I think your hit the main issue on the head-- mainstream and radical are vague labels and it is important to have multiple opinions when using them in wikipedia.] (]) 18:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::Can I summarize this as a decision that it is a reliable source for the statement? ] (]) 18:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::No -- Matt Barber is NOT a reliable source for the statement that you have proposed which is ''The SPLC is seen with suspicion by many on the right wing because in many cases it has rephrased its mission from one of monitoring hate groups to one of monitoring and 'unmasking' the 'radical right'.'' It would be a reliable source for ''The SPLC is seen with suspicion''' by Matt Barber because he believes''' it has rephrased its mission from one of monitoring hate groups to one of monitoring and 'unmasking' the 'radical right'.'' ] (]) 18:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	If you want to say there is mainstream criticism, you'd have to find a mainstream source to support that statement. Isn't that rather obvious? So the answer is no. ] (]) 19:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::I've just given Mrdthree a 3RR warning. One problem is that be believes, to quote him, that "Consensus is not a Necessary feature of[REDACTED] policy. Truth is.". ] (]) 20:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::And that Townhall is a mainstream source. ] <small>]</small> 20:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	::I have made mistakes. Very true. I correct them when people point them out. In any case, please offer an opinion on the topic when you post here. thanks. ] (]) 20:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	The problem is one of original synthesis. You cannot take two or three essays, even if the source is reliable and the opinion is notable, and generalize it to say there has been much criticism or many critics. You'd really need an analysis piece to support that wording. ] (]) 21:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	The alternate wording, ''Some right-wing commentators, activists..., X, Y, Z'' is better, though it belongs in a Criticism section, not in the lead. I also wouldn't consider Dr. Swain to be right-wing. ] (]) 21:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	:It is better, but the actual sources are people fingered by the subject organization, saying that they're not racists, really they aren't. Whether or not they are, this is scarcely notable, unless independent sources note it.
	:Prof. Swain is (according to our article) a member of Princeton's little right-wing groupie, the so-called James Madison Society, the friends of ]; doubtless there are little earthquakes around Montpellier in Virginia. ] <small>]</small> 23:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	One further point, why doesn't that article have "praise" and "criticism" sections? That's pretty unusual for an advocacy group. The whole article has an almost promotional tone. It shouldn't be too hard to find material for either a praise or criticism section. But for criticism especially, you'd want to use generalist sources before citing specialty conservative publications. ] (]) 21:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	:I would not encourage praise and criticism sections; they collect edits like this. At the same time, any promotional tone should be removed. ] <small>]</small> 23:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Criticisms will presumably be of specific operations (besides the section I see on financial questions), and should be so stated. ] <small>]</small> 23:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	:: I dont mean to confuse things, I should have said townhall.com is mainstream right-wing, not mainstream. However, here I am interested in whether Townhall.com is a reliable source for statements such as (1) there is mainstream right wing criticism of the SPLC or (2) there is Matt Barber's criticism of the SPLC or (3) nothing. So when you weigh in, try and weigh in on one of these topics too. ] (]) 04:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::It's reliable for number 2. Whether to include it is an editorial decsion. - ] (]) 05:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::Quite so.
	::::I regret to see that Mrdthree has declared his activities a "". I've mentioned ]; perhaps he'll think again. ] <small>]</small> 22:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::: Please don't use the noticeboard to comment about other editors. ] (]) 03:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	Here is my proposed summary: an opinion piece can be used as a reliable source to indicate that the author has criticized a specific organization and as a reliable source for the reason the author has criticized the organization. However it is a editorial decision as to whether the authors opinion is relevant to the article. ''Agree?'' ] (]) 16:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:I don't see any consensus for that. In any event, this discussion is not about rewriting policy. It's about who is Matt Barber and is he a reliable source for adding this sentence to the SPLC article:
	:''The SPLC is seen with suspicion by many on the right wing because in many cases it has rephrased its mission from one of monitoring hate groups to one of monitoring and 'unmasking' the 'radical right'.''
	:Clearly he's not and Mrdthree's latest effort to refocus this discussion away from the ACTUAL LANGUAGE PROPOSED and the ACTUAL SOURCE suggests to me that he/she also realizes that. If the intent is for this discussion to carry over into the SPLC article discussion, then the actual NEW language should be discussed here. ] (]) 18:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:: My understanding is that we are not debating content here. My understanding is that the purpose of this blog is to debate the application of WP:RS policy to a particular case. The case involves an edited, opinion magazine and an opinion. IT has been stated and I agree that a primary source opinion piece cannot be used to substantiate claims made in the opinion piece (assuming this is a primary source). However, it can be used to substantiate the claim of what someone said and who said it. Then the there are separate issues to be addressed in discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard), not relevant here: OR, SYN, and relevance/significance. ] (]) 19:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	== Kuri-ousity RS? ==
	Is RS?
	Lead editor (Lissa Pattillo) is reviewer for ]
	Shannon Fay has written for and MangaLife - both RS by ]
	Website has been cited by Anime News Network: , ,
	I can't tell whether the reviewers are paid or not. ] (]) 03:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC) as {{User|Extremepro}}
	==AkibaBlog RS?==
	Is RS?
	Used as source by ] - , ,
	] (]) 22:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC) as {{User|Extremepro}}
	:It appears to be a standard ], in this case written by a "Mr. Geek" (I assume that's not his real name). Therefore, it does not satisfy the requirements of ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::The English version is backed by HimeyaSoft USA:
	::From ]:
	<blockquote>This may be one to take to the RS noticeboard for a review, mentioning that the site that comes closest to being the newspaper of record (ANN) uses it as a source. — ] 14:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)</blockquote> ] (]) 02:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC) as {{User|Extremepro}}
	Not sure how any of that is relevant to ]. It's some guy's blog. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	== Can the book The Hockey Stick Illusion be used ==
	Can the book ] be used as an ] source for the following statement "''The MBH99 reconstruction was prominently featured in the 2001 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) and as a result has been widely published in the media.''" specially and more generally as an ] source for the ] article and related areas? ] (]) 10:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	{{hat|Degenerating. Let's try starting from scratch? You are free to remove this colapse in totality. ] (]) 14:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)}}
	:Essentially the same thing has been said by less partisan sources, so why not use those? ] (]) 11:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::{{edit conflict}}This is not the question (I don't disagree with you, but it's not done - no other book is added: ). The question is if the book ] is in accordance with ] and therefore ]. ] (]) 11:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Is that the question? Surely that is a subsection of the general question, in what areas is Montford accepted as a reliable source? ] (]) 11:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::You may have persons that has published both non WP:RS material and WP:RS material so looking at Monthford in the wider area is maybe not the case to do here? Is the publisher ] not fact checking their published books? ] (]) 11:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I dunno - their wikiarticle is sparse and I can't find much commentary about them on the internet. Do they? And if we can find even one factual error in ''The Hockeystick Illusion'' then does that make everything they ever published innacurate? ] (]) 11:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Yes of course it can, the book meets all the criteria for wp as a reliable source. The book is not a partisan source, unless you have a source stating it is of course? ] (]) 11:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:I love that guy! Seen all his movies. Problem is he is not a climatologist nor is he a news reporter - ''He has a degree in chemistry and a background in finance and IT.'' (from the sources used on his wikipage). As to the specific reference, is that really the only reference that can be found to say that the hockey stick was widely published? I am pretty confident there will be other references in what might be considered more reliable third party sources that say the same thing.
	:As to the general question, do you have references to show that Montford is considered a reliable source for scientific arguments or political commentary in this area? There are many areas he has commented on that he is certainly qualified to do, but I believe there are also some where he wasn't as well qualified to comment as we might expect for use as a third party, reliable source. I think the kind of blanket validation you are asking for may be impossible, and that each attribution needs to be checked on it's own merits. ] (]) 11:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::I've read the book and it's not pertaining to say anything about the science as far as I see. It presents the the hockey stick storyline and as far as I know this is one of the few book that contains all the arguments and discussion on this case. ] (]) 11:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Yes, but your question was ''is he reliable for articles in this area'' which covers a lot of science and politics - that's why I say this is a case by case solution, not a RS/N solution. ] (]) 11:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::Maybe it's not possible to handle the complete area, but my main question was to ask if it's reliable source to back ""''The MBH99 reconstruction was prominently featured in the 2001 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) and as a result has been widely published in the media.''"". No one seems to object on a sound ground on that (we can use other sources but that is not to do with this sources WP:RS ability). ] (]) 13:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	*As discussed extensively at ], the book is by ], a blogger attacking the scientific consensus on climate change who has no good reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Only five sources have been found giving any sort of notice or review of the book, these are by supporters of Montford's ] position. One of the five, ], is an ] ] who has also praised '']''. The paragraph in question has been cited to one of the reliable sources already used in the article. The book is a reliable source only for the fringe opinions of its author, to the limited extent that they're shown to be notable by other sources. . ], ] 11:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	*:For the first there exist no scientific consensus (consensus is a political term, and has very little to do with science), but that's a sidestep comment. Your comment about Gilder has nothing to do with this book. If a person A says something about book B, and person A says something about subject area C (where C is unrelated to B) you can't dismiss book B because the subject A has said something fringe about subject area C... Basic logic. The four other comments, including the fine science journalist and editor ] do not support your claim about that the book support and propagate a ] theory (have you even read the book?). ] (]) 14:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	Note: MN is currently on parole that resticts him from introducing any new sources into articles. This was necessary due to his repeated failure to understand sources or our policy. His comments above should be evaluated in the light of this ] (]) 11:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Note also that WMC has been repeatedly sanctioned in the climate change probation because of problematic editing (]), so his comments should be evaluated in light of this. ] (]) 12:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:: ], ], please do not use this noticeboard to comment about other editors. ] (]) 14:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::I dispute Dave Souza's characterization of the book's author as "fringe." As the Hockey stick controversy article shows, there has been a lot of well, controversy, around the hockey stick research, including hearings before the US Congress in which two independent investigations (Wegman and North) also presented serious concerns. So, Montford's opinion is far from "fringe." Contrary to what Souza claims, Montford does not attack the scientific "consensus" on global warming in the book, just the hockey stick research. I don't believe that Dave has a copy of the book which is probably why he is mispeaking. The Hockey Stick's team of authors runs a blog called ], of which William M. Connolley was one of its founders. That being said, this book also represents one of the ''only'' independently published sources on the controversy so far, as a quick persual of the article shows a lot of primary sources and blog posts being used as citations. I have not yet seen any sourced objections to this book, it has received only praise, including a blog post recommending the book from ], a prominent climate scientist . ] (]) 12:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::With regards to Judith Curry, that's actually not true. Apparently, a Wikipedian rather ] impersonated Dr. Curry on that blog ''comment'', and it was not made by her. See for more. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 12:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::I thought he had done that on Misplaced Pages. If true, he needs to go back and make that clear in the blog. ] (]) 22:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::OK, I've been trying to stay out of this one, but let me clear up one misconception. The blog comment in question is by Curry. What happened was that a Wikipedian tried to impersonate Curry at ''another web site'' to see if he/she would get caught. So, these are two different blog comments. The first one is legit, and the second one is not. There's also a third where Curry (legit) says someone is impersonating her. ] (]) 23:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Was the one I linked to the correct post for Curry's recommendation of this book? ] (]) 23:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::This is getting a bit tangled, so let me write out the sequence of events:
	:::::::# Curry posts a comment to the collide-a-scape.com blog. We all agreed that it was legit.
	:::::::# The owner of the collide-a-scape.com then posts an entry about Curry's comment.
	:::::::# A Misplaced Pages editor impersonated Curry at another web site.
	:::::::# Curry finds out about the impersonation and then posts another comment at the collide-a-scape.com.
	:::::::So, to answer your question, the one you referenced is #2 above. ] (]) 23:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::I agree with Dave Souza's characterization of the book's author as "fringe." It is comparable to using James H. Fetzer's ''The Great Zapruder Film Hoax'' as a reliable source on who killed John F. Kennedy. A controversial topic apparently! ] (]) 16:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	I fully agree with dave souza, this book is not a RS for that statement in that article, and has general problems that precluded it from generally being considered a reliable source. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 12:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:As far I see I don't see any founded arguments for why it's not WP:RS. More the opposite. Do you have any? ] (]) 14:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::I think we can agree that it's a journalistic book. These vary in quality, so the verdict on the book given in reviews in mainstream sources is crucial. For the way that a controversy unfolded, a journalist's account could be an appropriate source. Can those who want to use this source pull out any reviews that praise it, especially if they say "thorough", "impartial"? Thanks.] (]) 14:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::: Well there`s thourogh for you ] (]) 15:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::The first is a comment piece rather than a book review, and comes from the '']'''s business section which they call the ''Financial Post''. It shows clear factual inaccuracies, some of which presumably derive from the book. The second equally uncritical piece from the ] local paper '']'' gives an interview with Montford as a local resident. Montford says "The hockey stick is discredited and attempts to save it have been discredited. It's all down to the assumption that tree rings respond to temperature and it's not clear that they do." which itself is wrong, as the graph is generally supported in science, and the same graph appears when tree ring proxies are omitted and other proxies are used. The interviewer concludes "If anything, the evidence against man-made global warming is growing", a statement clearly at odds with mainstream science but heavily promoted as a fringe view. While both newspapers could be described as mainstream, albeit conservative mainstream, the articles are not good sources on science. The book has not been reviewed by credible sources. . . ], ] 18:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::The book is not in any way "journalistic" - it's effectively an extended blog post, by a blogger with no previous publication history (I believe this is his debut book) and no qualifications of any sort in the topic area, or as far as I know in science in general. It presents a fringe perspective of the subject matter. It has been completely ignored by general book reviewers and has, as far as I know, only been the subject of coverage in a handful of opinion columns. It is not cited as a source by any other source that I know of. It is rather comparable to ]'s ''We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle'' and takes a similarly fringe editorial line - that the subject of the book is a gigantic hoax - though at least Kaysing had some relevant professional expertise (he was a rocket engineer). The people arguing here for the inclusion of ''The Hockey Stick Illusion'' are the direct equivalent of moon landing hoax theorists seeking to cite a moon landing hoax book in an article about the moon landings, or intelligent design creationists arguing for the use of an intelligent design book in an article about evolution.
	:::However, this discussion is a bit pointless anyway because there's actually no need to cite this book. People are seeking to cite it to document things reported by uncontroversial reliable sources, so why not just cite those sources and save everyone the trouble? If the sole source for a claim is a controversial source, then sourcing should either be sought from indisputably reliable sources or the claim shouldn't be in the article in the first place. -- ] (]) 18:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::Clarification on scientific qualifications – Montford went to the University of St Andrews about 25 years ago and graduated with a BSc degree in chemistry before making his career as a chartered accountant. . . ], ] 18:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::OK, thanks Dave. A chartered accountant-turned-blogger does not exactly seem like a qualified source... -- ] (]) 18:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::So far we have one uninvolved editor saying that the book appears to have journalistic merit. ] (]) 22:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Who? Please give name and time of comment in this section, or diff if it's somewhere else. Also note that you can't just disregard involved editors. See the instructions at the top of this page. . . ], ] 23:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::, and this editor is and I appreciate his/her courage for stepping in and giving an honest opinion on the book. Dave, this noticeboard is to get uninvolved opinions. We involved editors can argue the source on the article talk page, but we bring it here for other opinions. So yes, uninvolved editor's opinions do carry more weight than mine or yours. ] (]) 23:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::I fail to find the "merit" in Judith's comment. In fact, she specifically writes that "the verdict on the book given in reviews in mainstream sources is crucial". --] (]) 08:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::Judith's reference to the book as "journalistic" suggests that she thought the author is a journalist. Clearly he's not - he's a blogger with little notability of his own and no publishing record in print to speak of, as this is apparently his first and only book. -- ] (]) 08:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Yes, I looked for any statement finding "merit" and Judith's comment does not match Cla's description or interpretation. "Journalistic" is a broad term, and there has been considerable discussion in relation to other issues about whether bloggers should be considered as journalists in terms of press freedom. However, in Misplaced Pages blogs have to meet specific requirements to be considered reliable. ChrisO's comment that Montford is not a professional journalist is valid, though even professional journalists have been known for successful stories such as ]. "Journalistic merit" implies high quality journalism, and reliable mainstream sources are needed to support any such assertion about Montford, as Judith rightly says. . ], ] 08:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	OK, I didn't really want to get involved in this, but the discussion seems to be heading in the wrong direction. First, let me stress that reliability is not a binary 0/1 switch. Reliability is heavily dependent upon context and a source can be reliable for one statement but not reliable for another. In this particular case, the source represents a minority, if not fringe view point. I don't think that it is <s>not</s> reliable for matters of science. However, this article is not about the Hockey Stick Chart, it's about the Hockey Stick Chart ''controversy''. Within this context, it's reliable for the viewpoints of climate change skeptics. ] (]) 23:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Well, can the book be used for more uncontroversial facts, such as the general timeline of events in the controversy, such as when which paper was published and where? ] (]) 00:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::I don't know. I'm undecided about that. I intentionally skirted the issue above because I wasn't sure. :) ] (]) 00:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Would it not be simpler to cite uncontroversial sources for established facts? -- ] (]) 08:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::ChrisO: Yes, I would tend to think so. ] (]) 01:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I'm glad we agree on something at last. ;-) I'm basically a pragmatist. I don't believe it's worth dying in the ditch over something if there's a different and easier way to achieve the same objective. -- ] (]) 01:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	The book is fringe and should not be used as a source at all. ] (]) 00:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:What are the fringe arguments that is presents? ] (]) 00:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::TFD: That's not true at all. Even assuming that this source is fringe, it's still valid for the views of climate change skeptics. As I pointed out at visionsofjoy.com at Bates Method above, it's OK to cite in an article about ]. ] (]) 00:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::It's OK to cite in an article about ] as the fringe views of those proposing the conspiracy theories, but it would be inappropriate to cite it for the exact timing of the impact, for example, when the source is inherently questionable. Other sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy should be used for factual statements. . . ], ] 10:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	Let me repeat a point I made above: why do we need to cite this book in the first place if the information that people want to cite from it is contained in other uncontroversial sources? -- ] (]) 08:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Agree. The book is a RS concerning Montfords views about the hockey stick controversy, and not much else. --] (]) 11:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::It saddens me to see people argue that this book is not an RS. It's reliably published and has had good reviews. From the dustjacket:
	::*"For anyone wanting to understand the mind-boggling complexities of the debate over the "Hockey Stick" I've seen no single better reference than the engaging narrative by Andrew Montford."&mdash;], professor of environmental studies, University of Colorado.
	::*Although the science is not always straightforward, Andrew W. Montford manages to make the story both exciting and accessible to the reader. He uses the Hockey Stick as an example of how manipulation of data and publication routines can change the whole world's view of an important subject."&mdash;], professor emeritus of geography, University of Stockholm.
	::*"This is a thriller about codebreaking ... computer codes that generated a false signal to the world ... Like most codebreaking it was painfully slow but Montford keeps the drama pacy as the years pass, while he explains the intricacies in the plainest possible language."&mdash;], former editor of ''New Scientist''.
	::Part of the point of ]&mdash;which this noticeboard is supposed to apply&mdash;is to prevent editors from trying to exclude reliably published material just because they don't like the POV. Increasingly, editors who see themselves as "scientists," including a few who really are, are trying in effect to overthrow the policy by introducing their own ideas about what "reliable" means. If you want to do that, please go to the policy page and try to change it. Don't try to do it by stealth. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 15:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Maybe I'm missing something here, but dustjacket blurbs are not reviews. -- ] (]) 19:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::You miss the point made by SlimVirgin as far as I see. I think we all agree on that "dustjacket blurbs" is not technical a review. This is not the point. If you look at the article you will find at least five reviews that has stand it's time. The blurb citations just expand who has said something (positive) about the book. It's not used in the article (since it's "dustjacket blurbs"). It's just an indication that the book '''IS''' ]. ] (]) 10:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	===Book used as a source in academic papers===
	I see a lot of "This book is ignored" and a lot of "Scholars have passed this book over" This book was cited in the Hartwell Paper it was written by the following,
	*Professor Gwyn Prins, Mackinder Programme for the Study of Long Wave Events, London School of Economics & Political Science, England
	*Isabel Galiana, Department of Economics & GEC3, McGill University, Canada
	*Professor Christopher Green, Department of Economics, McGill University, Canada
	*Dr Reiner Grundmann, School of Languages & Social Sciences, Aston University, England
	*Professor Mike Hulme, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, England
	*Professor Atte Korhola, Department of Environmental Sciences/ Division of Environmental Change and *Policy, University of Helsinki, Finland
	*Professor Frank Laird, Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver, USA
	*Ted Nordhaus, The Breakthrough Institute, Oakland, California, USA
	*Professor Roger Pielke Jnr, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado, USA
	*Professor Steve Rayner, Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, England
	*Professor Daniel Sarewitz, Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, Arizona State University, USA
	*Michael Shellenberger, The Breakthrough Institute, Oakland, California, USA
	*Professor Nico Stehr, Karl Mannheim Chair for Cultural Studies, Zeppelin University, Germany
	*Hiroyuki Tezuka, General Manager, Climate Change Policy Group, JFE Steel Corporation (on behalf of Japan Iron and Steel Federation), Japan
	So as it is being cited by this many eggheads, is it still to be called not reliable? ] (]) 19:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:It is also i believe being cited in this Journal ] (]) 19:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Reliable sources often quote unreliable sources. However, it is expected that they would only quote information if they had checked its validity, and would not use information they knew to be false. This is frequently the case with historians, and Montford is used here as a source for historical information. But that does not represent an endorsement of his book. ] (]) 20:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::The only reason anyone would oppose this book as a reliable source is that they don't like the POV. It's a meticulously researched piece of work, written by someone who works in publishing and who has clearly immersed himself in the subject. It's published by a reliable publisher, and it has had a good reception from other reliable sources. There's no reason within policy to exclude it. If anyone tries to use it and is opposed, please give me a shout. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 21:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::No the reason not to use it is that it is not a reliable source. if you can find the same POV in a reliable source, then that would be acceptable. ] (]) 21:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::TFD apart from ] can you actually give a reason within policy whic hsays this book is unreliable? ] (]) 21:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	Oxford's ''The Journal of Environmental Law'' charges $32 to view that paper, which is a little beyond my price range. Does anyone have access to that journal to check if the book was used a source in it? I don't think that journal's articles are included in ], although I'll check. Anyway, this book has been used a source in at least one academic paper, which Mark linked to above, so I think it has been definitely established as meeting our RS guideline. ] (]) 23:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Nonsense. All kind of crap is cited occasionally. Some crap is even cited explicitly because it is crap. --] (]) 23:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	::The academic paper does not cite the source pejoratively. It uses the book as a credible source. Any further comments, hopefully constructive ones? ] (]) 00:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::mark nutley, the writer has no qualifications, there was no fact-checking, the book is a politically polemical work and advances fringe theories rejected by scientists. If you believe that there is a conspiracy by the mainstream media and, to use your terms, the "eggheads" and the "commies" to suppress the truth and that therefore we must turn to the fringe to find the truth, then you are entitled to believe that. But one of the principals of Misplaced Pages is "verifiablity" which means we ignore fringe sources. ] (]) 00:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::No Cla, they aren't using it as a credible source. They are using it to point out that there is a controversy on the emails, and that certain allegations have been made. We also, by now, know from the 3 inquiries that the speculation and allegations were wrong. --] (]) 01:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::Not true. They make an assertion on the controversy in the article text and use this book as a source to back up their assertion. ] (]) 01:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	===Red flags indicating unreliability===
	Lots of red flags here indicate the source is unreliable for the purposes of an encyclopedia:
	#Released by an ]
	#Authoritativeness and accuracy has not been demonstrated
	#Questions persist about the credentials of the author and his expertise
	#Indications that the book lacks appropriate editorial oversight and was written as a polemic against climate scientists
	#Release was ignored by academic and scholarly sources, and experts in related fields
	#Timeliness of the book is in question. It was published before the CRU reports were released exonerating the scientists and before major claims retracted by news organizations. As such, it repeats claims that are no longer plausible. ] (]) 02:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Which policy and/or guideline lists all of these qualifications? Please be specific (exact quotes, exact cites to exact policies and/or guidelines). Thanks. ] (]) 02:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Are you kidding? ] (]) 02:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::No, I am not. I am asking honest questions. Answers to these questions would be helpful. ] (]) 02:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::Tell me how this source can be considered reliable based on the criteria I have described above. Feel free to use whatever policy or guideline you require. ] (]) 02:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I'm sorry but there appears to be a failure to communicate. You were the one who added these qualifications to the discussion. I asked you to provide us with a list of policies and/or quidelines which supported these qualifications, and unfortunately, you have not done so. Can you please list which policies and/or guidelines that contain these qualifications? This is a simple question. Either you can, or you can not. If you cannot, that's fine, but I suggest that you not waste our time on qualifications that have no basis in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 02:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::I'm not claiming the source is reliable, you are. Feel free to show me, based on the criteria I have outlined above, how it could be considered reliable according to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. ] (]) 02:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Are you withdrawing your arguments about "Red flags indicating unreliability"? If so, please strike them out. ] (]) 02:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::I'm not withdrawing anything. You have the burden of proof to show that the source is reliable. I have shown that it is not. I am not required to prove a negative. ] (]) 02:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::See ]: "Reliable sources on Misplaced Pages include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.... Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article.... Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether."
	:::::::::There is a burden of proof to show that something is fringe. That hasn't been met here, not even close. ] (]) 07:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::No, you're inverting the burden of proof. You need to show that the source is reliable. Others do not need to show that the source is ''not'' reliable. As ] says, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." That would be you. -- ] (]) 07:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	(od)
	#] is a very respected publishing house.
	#All the sources say it is authoritative and a full recounting of the affair.
	#What questions? We have a source saying he has done a great reporting job here
	#No such indications exist, if they do please point them out
	#Not any more, it is being cited by well respected scholars.
	#The book make`s no claims regarding the e-mails. ] (]) 07:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:1) Says who? But I notice the publisher himself says that they ""maintain a resolute tradition of adaptive and imaginative publishing" - imaginative does not exactly jibe with reliable... --] (]) 08:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Says the guys who run the ] . next please ] (]) 10:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Mark, that is the self-submitted advertising blurb of the publisher himself. Please try to think about where you get your opinions. If PepsiCo buys an ad on the BBC (assuming the BBC does ads), it's not the voice of the BBC that's telling you about the sugary delights. --] (]) 11:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::The publisher appears to be quite reputable. It publishes many reviewed books not on controversial topics, and where no suggestion of any impropriety has been made. See , , etc. Books include also many books on the middle East, travel (including Iceland etc.), and such books as most general publishers have. In short - there is no reason at all to disparage this particular publisher. As to the claim that a book must be prescient about later events - that is sufficiently absurd as to merit no notice. Books are reliable sources based on thier simple existence - else every book on any topic would cease to be usable on WP as soon an any later information became published! ] (]) 11:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::: is what you are calling reliable? The non-neutral-polemic-approaching-science-fiction-sounding-absurdity of it all blows the mind. The page even links back to Misplaced Pages! Is this some kind of a joke? There isn't a single reliable thing about this book. Not sure where you get the idea that "books are reliable sources based on their simple existence", but it's dead wrong. It's published by a small independent publishing house for a reason. The only thing it is missing is the "fiction" tag on the spine. ] (]) 12:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::So this book is also a reliable source? Do note that these books are all printed in the "independent minds" shelf by the publisher ("Books that challenge the lazy orthodoxies relating to our most important issues."). Which seems to be their category for outside of mainstream material. --] (]) 13:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::: 2 for 2. How many other "reliable" sources does this publisher have on their site? I think we're done here; last one out, please turn off the lights? ] (]) 13:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	{{ec}}What part of what you have linked to is absurd? And what`s wrong with a link from the publisher to wikipedia? ] (]) 12:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:What's wrong with the publisher driving traffic to Misplaced Pages? I'm not sure if there's anything wrong. I've just never seen this kind of close coordination before. You know, where you create an article on the book, and the publisher adds a link to their page. ] (]) 12:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::That`s probably because i told them about the article. I sought permission from them for the use of the cover. And i mentioned i was also doing an article on their company (which i really must expand on) ] (]) 12:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Viriditas: I did not ask you to prove a negative, I asked you to prove a positive. Please state which policy or guideline lists these qualifications. ] (]) 12:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::A positive would be, "this is why I evaluate the source as reliable", and that's precisely your job. Please do your duty. ] (]) 12:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::I'm not (right now) referring to this source's reliability. I'm referring to your list of qualifications that apparently has no basis in policy or guideline. Is there at least a user essay which contains these qualifications? ] (]) 12:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::Perhaps you need to read the policies and guidelines a bit closer, starting with RS. ] (]) 13:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::Please stop speaking in generalities and tell me something specific. You seems to have invented a list of requirements that have no basis in any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline, and perhaps even any user essay. ] (]) 13:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Wow, you really are confused. Have you even read RS? Every word is in it. You really need to look at it for the first time. ] (]) 13:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Yes, I've read ] many times. Please just answer the question. Which part(s) support(s) your list of qualifications? Please be specific. If it's in ], it should be easy for you to substantiate your argument. ] (]) 13:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Actually, I'm starting to think you've never actually read it, because you are questioning why we should evaluate the reliability of a publisher, the authority and accuracy of the author and work, and the currency of the material. It's all there, Sherlock. ] (]) 13:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::Cool, if it's that easy, it should only take you a few minutes. I await your response. ] (]) 14:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	{] (]) 13:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	===Evidence that the book promotes unreliable fringe views===
	From one of the few reviews in the article on '']'', "It exposes in delicious detail, datum by datum, how a great scientific mistake of immense political weight was perpetrated, defended and camouflaged by a scientific establishment that should now be red with shame.", "Andrew Montford’s book built around the long, lonely struggle of one man— Stephen McIntyre...", "As a long-time champion of science, I find the reaction of the scientific establishment more shocking than anything. The reaction was not even a shrug: it was shut-eyed denial." So, it's one man's struggle against "the scientific establishment", by definition a fringe view.
	Far from being a "great scientific mistake", Mann's ] has been replicated – "Upwards of a dozen studies, using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records, have produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original hockey stick. These reconstructions all have a hockey stick shaft and blade. While the shaft is not always as flat as Mann's version, it is present. Almost all support the main claim in the IPCC summary: that the 1990s was then probably the warmest decade for 1000 years. A decade on, Mann's original work emerges remarkably unscathed." "So far, it has survived the ultimate scientific test of repeated replication." The ] has investigated the original graph, and "agreed that there were statistical failings of the kind highlighted by M&M , but like von Storch it found that they had little effect on the overall result."
	Note that "Although it was intended as an icon of global warming, the hockey stick has become something else – a symbol of the conflict between mainstream climate scientists and their critics. The contrarians have made it the focus of their attacks for a decade, hoping that by demolishing the hockey stick graph they can destroy the credibility of climate scientists." . . ], ] 08:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Do you not think about what you write? "''Upwards of a dozen studies, using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records, have produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original hockey stick''" That actually means his work was never replicated. And it never has been has it. Anyway, this is not about the science, it is about the controversy. Are you saying there was no controversy over manns work? ] (]) 10:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::The whole "its not about the science it is about the controversy" misdirection is getting old. The ''entire'' controversy is centered around ''attacking'' the science, and manufacturing controversy to do it. ] (]) 12:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::You guys are just making it up as you go now. Please provide your source for the above statement ] (]) 12:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::]? ] (]) 12:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::And ClimateGate has what to do with the hockey stick exactly? ] (]) 13:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Mark, science is not about replication - it is about independent verification. Replication isn't useful for anything... it doesn't expand our knowledge, nor does it catch methodological flaws or faulty assumptions. Independent verification does. --] (]) 13:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::I recommend you read up on ] if no other researcher can replicate what has been claimed then the work has no value. To verify the claims made then the data, methodology and code must all be released to ensure it can be A Replicated and B that it has been done correctly. You cannot receive independent verification if no others can replicate your work. ] (]) 13:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	{{hab}}		{{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)
	=== Cutting to the chase ===
			*:FWIW, the person behind this blog is not a subject matter expert. Like, we don't even know who this is. (One subject matter expert in Philippine showbusiness that I know of that runs a similar blog is , and I event won't even use the blind items as sources there lol) As explained above, once this gets to be used as a source, it won't be challenged and people just accept it as is. This is a low quality source that has to be blacklisted. ] (]) 01:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Yeah that's fine. I was just saying that, in general, those are the only two avenues to use someone's blog. ] (]) 20:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 4''' Their reportings are obviously flawed and a per example above copypasting is a not a good look nor a good indication for "reliability" and it is often used in BLP, yikes. '''''Warm Regards''''', ] (]) (]) 12:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Hatebase.org ==
	Look, the book is a reliable source for some things, and not for others. It's not reliable for scientific facts - it's from an individual who believes in the minority or fringe view that the entire body of science regarding Climate Change is wrong - but I don't see anyone proposing to use it for that. It's usable for the opinion of the author on controversies in the climate-change space, as a polemic. Further, it's probably reliable for dry historical fact (On June 23, 1934, John Smith shot his dog). In the context of this discussion, the proposed use was to source "MBH99 reconstruction was prominently featured in the 2001 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) and as a result has been widely published in the media." No one doubts this to be true - in fact, we have other, obviously reliable facts that say it. We can all have beliefs about why some editors want to use this source - I share those beliefs. They are not relevent.
			Is a reliable source? ] (]) 19:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	However, the second part of this request was " more generally as an ] source for the ] article and related areas?" Possibly. It depends on what you'd like to use the source for. Typically, we do not use polemics as sources for disputed facts or for scientific statements. ] (]) 12:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Hipocrite: Your summation seems reasonable to me. ] (]) 12:45, 15 July 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? ==
	] is a term used on Misplaced Pages for a source that is used to ] material. Saying that a source is 'reliable' doesn't mean that we can rely on the material in it to be correct - it simply means that it meets our ]. Our ] policy requires that on any topic, we present all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Common sense indicates that often, when significant viewpoints disagree, some of those viewpoints must be wrong. That doesn't mean the sources in which they were published are not reliable sources, as the term is used on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 14:27, 15 July 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)
	== Using a self-published article by an academic who is not a specialist in the field ==
			: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)
	by C.J. Verduin], an article by Kees Verduin at the Unversity of Ledien, is being used as a source for our ] article here . My removal and addition of a cite tag has been reversed, with the claim " this is valid historiographic information". Dr Kees Verduin's home page says:
			::oops, I missed that. Thank you for the advice. I'll use WorldCat if I can't find a news article. ] (]) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Usage of AirPlay Direct for music articles ==
	Field specific
	My interests lie in hypertext, databases, information management in general, graphics, and (statistics) computer applications in education and not necessarily in that order. Through my participation in the M & T education, I browse occasionally some time in the history of probability statistics and just recently with Christiaan Huygens busy. In addition, a collaboration with Iris' s Life of toemalige Safety Office of the University of Leiden a smallcommunication module to display works created
			Is reliable for use in articles about music (such as songs, albums, artists, etc.) ] (]) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	Not Field specific
	Besides the above interests I hold myself in my spare time also working with art-historical topics, the question of the identity of the figure GIIOHARGIIIVS an example. Other things I want to spend some attention to, are
	The image of Jonitus the Campanile of the Duomo in Florence.
			:Per their about page they are not a normal news source, but a promotional platform. Their articles, etc are likely based on press releases and information from the subject of the article. So they might be reliable as a ] source within the limits of ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	I don't see how his self-published article can be a reliable source. I can't find it mentioned on Google Books or Google Scholar. ] (]) 12:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
			== Global Defense Corp ==
	:I don't see any justification for claiming this is a reliable source whatsoever. The "not field specific" interests of academics should absolutely be published by a reliable publisher if we want to treat them as reliable sources here.] (]) 12:21, 12 July 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
	::Everything he researched is correct and in the historiographic sources, and this is pertinent information to the subject that should not be suppressed on a pretext of his supposed credentials. Otherwise we might have to cite ] and all the other historiographic sources that have written about this subject individually... ] (]) 13:39, 12 July 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 them claiming it's the nebo-m and they didn't just claim this once they've claimed it at least twice in two different articles.
	::: "Everything he researched is correct ..." See ]. Your argument has no bearing on reliability, which is what this noticeboard is about. The source is not a reliable one. Move on.] (]) 14:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::''Everything he researched is correct and in the historiographic sources''. Then cite the sources. This is a reasonable ''guide'' to research (he's done what we do, but without the footnote), but not a source itself; look up Michael the Syrian and cite by page number so other people can find it. ] <small>]</small> 15:37, 12 July 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.
	* Clearly not ]. ] (]) 14:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	Obviously does not meet the requirements of ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
			3. in this article they talk about how the S 400 range decreases against objects at low altitudes which is true but fail to explain that this is true for all radar guided Sam systems thanks to an effect known as radar horizon where objects at low altitudes are able to hide behind the curvature of the earth and therefore can only be detected at certain distances but not only do they not explain this to the reader creating a false impression that this is an issue unique to the S 400 but they even claimed that Turkey accused Russia of fraud because of this. which is weird for several reasons one Russia has at no point claim that the S400 range does not decrease with altitude but also because it implies Turkey believed the S 400 could defy the laws of physics they also have no source of this claim and no other articles on the Internet claim this.
	{{hat | moved to ]}}
	== ]s "]" ==
			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 .
	There is a discussion on ] about various things. One thing that repeatedly pops up is claims that R.J. Rummels "Death by Government" isn't a reliable source, or that it is fringe. Could we get some guidance and recommendation here to determine if it's a reliable source or not, because the repeated claims of it being ] or similar takes up a significant part of the discussion, but isn't going anywhere. The two sides are at an impasse regarding Rummel, with no new arguments coming from either side, it's just repetition, and no consensus is in sight. --] (]) 12:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:This is the same authority mentioned above, who is so Libertarian that he classifies the Israel of Golda Meir as "only partially free". He also manages to have an extreme position on Stalinism, difficult though that is to achieve, and several quotes on the talk page indicated say so. The book in question is published by a small press in New Jersey, the private project of a Rutgers professor, which has a line of ideological books. ] <small>]</small> 13:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::This small press in question is ]. I'm not sure the amount of employees is relevant, nor is the political opinions of Rummel relevant. As he has published a lot on the human rights violations of authoritarian regimes it's self-evident that he is disliked by anti-democrats, this is hardly a reason to declare his research unreliable or fringe. --] (]) 13:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Let's see. The views of the author are not relevant to whether he is fringe, nor is the amount of fact-checking - nor the partisanship - of his publisher.
			5. in this article they berate the S 400 for not intercepting Israeli F35’s in Syria but forgot to mention that Russia and Israel were long believed to have an agreement in the Syrian civil war to not engaged each other.
	:::And of course anybody who criticizes OpenFuture's favorite author must be EEEeevill.
			There bias is also evident in just in the words that they say frequently attacking Russian equipment with ad hominems such as cooling the S 400 ,another lame duck missile system, or starting there articles with stupid Russians or Russian equipment exposed. they also lack of any transparency no one knows who owns the website none of the articles say the names of the people that wrote them making the website Even more suspicious but despite all of this they are still frequently cited all the time on Misplaced Pages.
	:::I seem to have seen these arguments before; they weren't valid then either. ] <small>]</small> 14:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::] please. --] (]) 15:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
			Sources
	::::::Which doesn't mean No Attacking my Post, which is what I have done. ] <small>]</small> 15:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
			1.https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/02/01/turkey-exposed-fatal-flaws-in-russian-made-s-400-surface-to-air-missile/
	'''My claim is ''not'' that the author is fringe, but rather it is my contention is that ] instructs us to ''treat'' the source's contentious assertions as a view outside of academic mainstream, ''until proven otherwise.''''' Specifically, we have ] that, "''If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance''". The burden of proof to show this level of acceptance has NOT been met. ] (]) 13:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:The claim that Rummel is fringe is done repeatedly on the talk page. Don't misrepresent the discussion, please, it's not a constructive way forward. --] (]) 13:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:: You know what's constructive? '''Not''' distracting from the issue any longer, and for you (or another editor) to finally post the requested citation that would meet the burden of proof, as directed in the quote from ] above. ] (]) 13:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::From ]: ''Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. ... The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes.'' The 445 citations the book gets in Google scholar clearly confirms this book has entered mainstream academic discourse. --] (]) 13:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::'']'' gets 19,700 cites on Google scholar. ''Mein Kampf'' has entered mainstream academic discourse, but is not regarded as reliable. You need to look into what the sources citing the book are using it for. ] (]) 17:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Mein Kampf is a primary source and not a scholarly work. This objection is invalid. The proof stands. ] is a reliable source. ''You need to look into what the sources citing the book are using it for.'' - I have. --] (]) 19:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	*'''Fringe''' While Rummel is a scholar, this book was published outside the academic mainstream, and was not peer-reviewed. The estimates he makes have been widely discredited and his theories about the causes of mass killings have gained no acceptance or even been published in the academic mainstream. ] (]) 14:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::You make a lot of assertions, and you never back them up. Could you do so now please? Otherwise I simply assert that everything you say above is incorrect, and your whole argument is rendered null and void. :-) --] (]) 15:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::The onus is on you to establish the reliability of the source. If I am wrong, then it should be no problem to show that. ] (]) 17:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::You are right, it wasn't, see above. --] (]) 18:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	*Fringe per TFD, PMA and BigK. Not a reliable source. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 14:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	*Most certainly a reliable source, fringe books or papers do not receive 445 citations. And the amount of dite`s kinda proves he is mainstream ] (]) 15:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	*'''Acceptable''' Is it cited by others? Yes. Do we have the ability to ] that it is somehow wrong? Not that I have seen. Can it be balanced by sources with contrasting claims? That is, after all, how WP works - by including more sources, not by exclusing sources one does not like, or one "knows" are wrong. ] (]) 15:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	*'''Notable Fringe'''... even if it fits a technical definition of "Fringe", because it ''is'' cited by others, it merits mentioning (best phrased as an attributed statement of opinion and not as blunt fact). ] (]) 15:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Ehhh.... in what way does it fit a technical definition of fringe? And what does notable fringe mean in this case? We are not discussing notability, but if it's a reliable source. ''We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.'' Rummels theories does not do that, instead, as the 445 citations show, he is a part of mainstream. --] (]) 15:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	*'''acceptable'''several other wp:rs support the claims made by Rummel. here are the supporting published academic mainstream books:
	*The Aggressors: Ho Chi Minh, North Vietnam, and the Communist Bloc By Martin Scott Catino. page 17
	**Published by Dog's Ear Press. ] <small>]</small> 16:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	*The russian revolution and the soviet state, 1917-1921 by Martin McCauley page 188, 189.
	**Published by Macmillan, a respectable - but not an academic - publisher. ] <small>]</small> 16:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	*Mao's China and after: a history of the People's Republic By Maurice J. Meisner, page 1 ] (])
	**Published by Simon and Schuster. Ditto. ] <small>]</small> 16:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Let's please not mix up two things: whether this source is fringe and whether it is reliable. On this board, we consider whether a source is reliable for the purpose proposed. Please everyone re-read the guidelines for history articles. What this isn't is a book written by a historian and published by an academic press. It may or may not be fringe, doesn't matter. Academic history texts should be preferred. WikiProject Military History should be able to advise. ] (]) 16:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::It's not history, it's a book on political science written by a professor in political science. --] (]) 18:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	In my opinion, both parties of the dispute voluntarily decided to play a ] game. The question is not in if "Death by government" is fringe. The number of citations is a strong argument that by no means this book is fringe. Rummel can be credited for drawing attention of scientific community to the problem of killing of people by their own governments, he was one of the first persons who started to talk about bloody nature of Mao's regime, Rummel was arguably the first scholar who applied advanced math apparatus to the field of genocide studies, and all of that is quite sufficient for his book to be widely recognised and extensively cited. However, does it mean that ''all'' Rummel's claims are widely accepted? No. As I already demonstrated previously, both his estimates (the data he used for his computations) and some his conclusions have been criticised by scholars. This criticism has not been refuted, therefore, it is valid. That means that the statement about the problems with Rummel's data and conclusions must accompany every notion about Rummel's theoretical findings in Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 16:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:No, one side (yours) have played this straw man game as a part of the filibustering you are doing now to prevent the removal of POV and SYN tags. Nobody ever claimed ''all'' Rummels claims are widely accepted. But there ''has'' been a constant repetition of the claim that Rummel is fringe and should be disregarded completely. Yes, this ''is'' a straw man, I agree. So is your argument here. If Rummel is used to support a statement then the opposing POV can be quoted as well. For example, should there be a Yugoslavia under Tito section, both Rummels and Dulićs estimates can be included. This I'm pretty sure you know this, and nobody has argued against it, so that is ''also'' a straw man argument. But, that said, I'm happy you admit that Rummel is a reliable source. And as such, he can be included. And so can opposing views. --] (]) 16:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::''Nobody ever claimed ''all'' Rummels '''' claims are widely accepted.'' No, merely that they should be treated ''as though'' they were widely accepted. ] <small>]</small> 17:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::No, merely that they should be treated as a reliable source. --] (]) 17:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::Since I never claimed that Rummel is fringe, your notion is probably addressed to someone else. With regard to the SYN and POV tags, they are quite justified, because only part of views are presented in the articles, and those views that are presented are somtimes misinterpreted. However, it is another story.--] (]) 17:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::Re misinterpretation. Your "''For example, should there be a Yugoslavia under Tito section, both Rummels and Dulićs estimates can be included.''" is an example of it. Dulic's criticism concerns the Rummel's method ''in general''.--] (]) 17:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::No it isn't. He claims that because the numbers in his opinion is wrong, this casts doubt on the methods. That's not the same thing. --] (]) 19:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::You obviously haven't read Dulic's articles in full.--] (]) 22:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	'''Comment''' Sources being used on this entry seem to be brought here all the time. I'd suggest that the problem might run a bit deeper than individual sources when it becomes this difficult to write an entry based on unquestionably reliably ones.] (]) 17:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:No source is unquestionably reliable. You can always do what TFD and BigK does and say "I claim it's not reliable, now *you* prove that it is reliable" and then just repeat "You haven't proved it's reliable" forever despite evidence given. The dispute is not about if you can question Rummel. The debate is about if he is ] or ] or neither.--] (]) 19:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Why does this stuff come up over and over for this entry? Its not just because "other people" are POV pushing. Outside observers with no horse in your race at this very noticeboard are constantly weighing in saying that these sources are questionable at the very least. There is clearly a bigger problem with this entry.] (]) 01:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Who does this and why? Where are the arguments, aside from "I don't like what he says"? --] (]) 06:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	The work is most definitely '''not fringe'''. As an example it is frequently assigned in college course related to the subject (and not in the same way that ''Mein Kampf'' may be - which is why this is a wholly inappropriate false analogy which says more about the person making the analogy then about Rummel's work). However, per Paul's comment above, the work is pretty old and, unsurprisingly as usually happens in academia, it has been subject to some criticism and some of the results have been revised. The proper course of action in such a situation is to present the material from the source, attribute it explicitly to Rummel and, if reliable criticisms of this work can be found, include these in the article as well.] (]) 17:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	Also, I'm having trouble understanding how a "professor emeritus of political science at" a top 30 US university can be considered "fringe". Outdated, maybe even incorrect, sure. But most definitely not fringe. "Fringe" does not mean "includes views I disagree with" which is what it looks like some people are basing their opinions on here.] (]) 18:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Is this a failure in American idiom? Rummel taught for a quarter of a century at the ] and is now retired; that's all "professor emeritus" means in the United States. That the University of Hawaii is "top 30" in anything is news to me - and to their article; I should like a citation. ] <small>]</small> 19:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::'''Rummel taught for a quarter of a century at the ]''' - yes exactly. As far as whether it's top 30 or top 50 or whatever (honestly it probably depends on the discipline) is immaterial. What matters is that it's a very well respected university{{cn}} and not some flight by night operation.] (]) 22:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::It has an excellent geology department, for ]; it has access to a very nice telescope. Beyond that, it is an American state university. There are some 50 of them; it's not the best, probably not the worst, of a class which are in general not the best institutions of higher learning in the United States, let alone the world. Please stop making things up. ] <small>]</small> 01:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	: Well, simply put, editors such as OpenFuture have declined meeting a burden of proof as directed at ]. One would expect that a top professor shouldn't have much trouble getting the attention for his theories that would lead to "academic acceptance" being easy to source. The[REDACTED] article in question has a potentially huge problem with undue weight, and establishing the proper context of these works has become a necessity for progress. This isn't really one of the more important issues I would have tackled at the moment, but another editor presented it (apparently in preference to the more pressing issue). But, since the issue has been presented, I will point out that the buden of proof is unmet. ] (]) 18:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::No, you are misunderstanding and misrepresenting WP:FRINGE here. And from this statement: ''One would expect that a top professor shouldn't have much trouble getting the attention or his theories that would lead to "academic acceptance" being easy to source'' I can only guess that your connection to academia is tenuous at best. Academics disagree with each other all the time and, outside of the hard sciences, it's very rare that anybody's work has any kind of "academic acceptance" (which is in fact as it should be). It's always pretty easy to find some academic who disagrees with another particular academic. That don't make anyone "fringe". Rather what would make somebody "fringe" in this context is general "academic rejection" (like say with creationists) - but that's not the case here at all.] (]) 22:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::: I'm not misrepresenting anything. I've quoted ] verbatim. Very certainly it is ''not'' me who is conflicting with the directions given therein. As mentioned, I'm fairly ambivalent on this particular issue, but since it has been raised, I have been forced to point out the policy-related issues. The bottom-line here is simple -- ] is pretty clear on the burden of proof that should be acceptable, and -- failing that -- ] is also just as clear about how carefully we should use the assertions of the source. ] (]) 22:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::Certainly, it *is* you who are conflicting with these instructions: ]. The burden of proof has been met. --] (]) 06:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:It is always wrong to ask whether a writer is fringe, we should only look at individual works. Rummel's book ''Statistics of democide: genocide and mass murder since 1900'', published by the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law is a reliable source, ''Murder by government'' is not. Radeksz, a scholar may choose to write a book that is written in a way that would not be acceptable for an academic publishing house. Since the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada is a noted scholar on human rights do you think that something he posts on his party website about the Canadian Conservative Party should be given the same weight as books published by academic publishers? ] (]) 18:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Ok so at least we agree that Rummel himself is not fringe. The part of your post about the fact that not all works by a non-fringe author may be "reliable" (I would still not call them "fringe") is true enough as far as it goes, but it just doesn't apply here. DbG itself is non-fringe as exemplified by the fact that it is used in university courses, and is cited (in a scholarly manner, not in a "Mein Kempf" manner) by other scholars. But again, note my qualifiers above.] (]) 22:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::TFD, BigK: Did you not see the reply above? You asked for proof. I have given you proof. --] (]) 19:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	'''Comment''' From my experience Rummel is extremely ideological in his works and tries to be as sensationalistic as possible, including usage of emotional language and terms. His methodology is dubious, I recall that for example he uses extreme cases of massacres or places where people were killed and then applies numbers from them to all events happening in that timeperiod coming to impossible rates of deaths. I would strongly advise against using him as a source and recommend using better ones when possible. His interesting aspect is that he tries to give deaths in historic events where information about death rates is very scarce, but his methods leave much to be desired in terms of reliability.
	--] (]) 19:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Well, MMa, the fact that he may be ideological is not a disqualifier and the concerns about his methodology are part your own interpretation, part part and parcel of the topic he is studying (i.e. these kinds of estimates are always going to be controversial in one direction or another). Other sources, especially available better ones, should of course be used. When possible.] (]) 22:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Well according to these guys they say nothing of him using extreme cases, nor that his rates of death are impossible ] (]) 19:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::No, Wayman and Tago just call his figures astonishingly high (p.11), two to ten times those used by other investigators; the difference underwhelms me. ] <small>]</small> 19:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::"Genocide Surveyed" by W. D. Rubinstein, The International Journal of Human Rights, Spring 2001, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 117-120
	''Rummel's statistics are derived from a comprehensive range of sources; he is one historian of this subject who is invariably fair, condemning right-wing and left-wing governments alike, as well as many regimes whose crimes normally receive little attention from either the media or scholars. '''Yet his methodology is often somewhat questionable'''. His statistics for genocide are not generally derived from original research in primary sources, but by taking the most probable figure after examining the range of estimates given by previous writers on the event. This procedure is not necessarily unreasonable, but '''can lead to the acceptance of figures for a particular act of genocide which are distorted by inaccurate and sometimes biased sources'''.''
	(...)
	''The Encyclopedia, using Rummel's figures, claims (p.29) that Stalin murdered 42,672,000 people between 1929 and 1953. Rummel's statistics are set out at length in his book Lethal Politics. Here, Rummel claims that Stalin murdered 20,889,000 persons between 1928 and the outbreak of the war in June 1941, including 4,345,000 during the zenith of the Great Terror in 1936-38. These figures (indeed, even higher ones) had previously been given widespread publicity and seeming credibility in the well-known works of Robert Conquest, Roy Medvedev, and others. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, a wealth of previously unavailable sources has become available which very recent historians have employed to revise these figures dramatically downwards. These researchers, such as Alex Nove, J. Arch Getty, Sheila FitzPatrick, and Stephen G. Wheatcroft, are scholars of international repute whose views on Stalinism are identical to those of any other person of goodwill; they have, however, the possibly quaint belief that historians are obliged to tell the truth, regardless of what that truth might be. Nove concluded that 10-11 million persons perished in the Soviet Union during the decade 1930-39, 'with peasants numerically the main victims'. It would appear that 'only' 786,098 persons were shot by Stalin for 'counter-revolutionary and state crimes' between 1931 and 1953, with 682,000 of these killed in 1937-38, the height of the Great Purges. Rather cleverly examining the dropout rates of random samples of individual telephone subscribers listed in the Moscow phone books of 1935-36 and 1937-38 Fitzpatrick concluded that the rate of disappearance was no more than 7 per cent, although the dropout rate among senior party officials was much higher, around 60 per cent/ '''In other words, Rummel (and many other historians) has vastly exaggerated the scale of Stalin's mass murders, whatever else might be said about Stalinism or the Soviet Union.'''''
	Other examples of innaccurate data are mentioned.
	--] (]) 19:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::The question is not if he is wrong (which is not up to us to decide) nor if he is ideological. The question is: Is he a reliable source. As he fulfills the requirements he therefor is a reliable source. This really shouldn't been that difficult. --] (]) 19:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Again reliability refers to books and articles not people. If Rummel called one of his collegues a "f***ing idiot" during a party, could we add that to the person's article here as a reliably sourced fact? ] (]) 19:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::That you have to resort to this kind of argument conclusively shows that you haven't got a leg to stand on. --] (]) 20:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	===Summary===
	This is an attempt to avoid the tangents this discussion for some reason always ends up in, and focus the debate back.
	# BigK is completely right in that a source should be assumed to be fringe unless proven otherwise.
	# ] outlines how to identify a reliable source.
	# ] fulfills the requirements, specifically "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes."
	# The answers are comparisons with "Mein Kampf" and questions if its' a reliable source if Rummel insults somebody at a party.
	'''Conclusion''': This debate is over. ] is a reliable source, but the people that oppose his conclusions are too dogmatic to ever admit that. ''The end.'' --] (]) 20:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:By this logic, ] is a reliable source. Let's try a conclusion which may be less satisfying to our Wikilawyer.
	:*A source is frequently cited.
	:*In particular, it is frequently cited on a given subject by authors that say ''it is wrong'' about that subject.
	:*It is not a reliable source on that subject. ] <small>]</small> 20:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	: '''Re: Conclusion''' ] again seems to be proposing an unhelpful "response." His "conclusion" above appears to blatantly conflate ] with ]. The two policies address different issues.
	: OpenFuture quotes an important part of the RS page regarding citation counts. But, what he fails to recognize is a part of that SAME ] page which states, "'''If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims.'''" Editors, such as OpenFuture have provided absolutely no evidence that the claims are anything other than minority (and there's much evidence that the claims are contentious).
	: If ] does not like the idea of Rummel's theories ], then he has a burden of proof to meet. It's just that simple. ] (]) 02:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::It has been met, see point 3. --] (]) 06:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	I would say, the conclusion is that Rummel is not fringe, but outdated, and somewhat superficial in his conclusions. The articles cannot rely heavily on his works as a source, and reasonable criticism should be added every time when Rummel is cited.--] (]) 20:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:That's pretty nuanced, but since you're intent on going there - could you flesh out when and where Rummel is acceptable to use as a source and when he isn't? Why ever would you even quote a scholar who's "outdated" and "somewhat superficial in his conclusions"? ] (]) 21:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::He ''is'' acceptable as the source for:
	:::#A concept of democide (death by government); since I failed to see any serious difference between democide and Valentino's mass killing, I think he is a good source for future "Mass killing" article;
	:::#Connection between Communism and democide (historically; he proposed such an idea and he should be mentioned every time this idea is mentioned)
	:::#Methodology (application of factor analysis to genocide studies);
	::He is ''not'' a reliable (or outdated) source for:
	:::#Numbers (vastly exaggerated, especially for some Communist regimes);
	:::#All conclusions that are bases ''primarily'' on these numbers.
	::However, since the initial question was if it is ''fringe'', I believe this discussion is a deviation from the main thread.--] (]) 21:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::That does sound decent. Thanks for clarifying. ] (]) 21:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::On the connection between communism and mass killing (I say as little as possible of the neologism ''democide'', for which Rummel does bear full responsibility), Paul Siebert may give insufficient credit to ]. ] <small>]</small> 21:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	I think I generally agree with Paul here, though I think it's fine to cite Rummel's numbers, though any critiques should be noted. AFAICR not all of the communist numbers he gives were exaggerated, or more precisely, overestimated. Some were. Some weren't. That's why it's important to note the critiques.] (]) 22:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Which numbers are correct?--] (]) 22:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::To the extent one considers that there is always going to be some variance in these kinds of estimates, I believe there's good bit of support for his numbers for the victims of the Khmer Rouge and North Korea. I can't remember wrt to Vietnam. And it's very possible he '''under'''estimated Mao. Also, I assume there's little to no controversy over the numbers he calculated for victims of the Nazis which I think are pretty comparable to what other scholars estimated.] (]) 22:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Well, I thought you claimed some numbers on the USSR were correct. Since scholars generally agree about Campuchea, I don't think Rummel is too useful, because he never did independent archival studies, just worked with secondary sources. In addition, as I already pointed out, Campuchea is can hardly be an example of genuine Communist regime: it was condemned by the USSR (and supported by the US), this regime was overthrown by Connumist Vietnam (which eventually lead to Sino-Vietnam war). In the USSR Khmer Gouge were treated as fascist, ans some scholars independently came to the same conclusion.--] (]) 23:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	For my part, I've never claimed a direct RS problem. IMO, the potential problems that could use investigation include:
	# Rummel's assertions being relied upon extensively, and yet (though controversial as they are) they've been left unbalanced (and that editors continue to this imbalance), and
	# the heavy reliance on a source which has not been shown to be a reflection of broad consensus (which isn't normally a huge problem, but coupled with other problems in the article, the weight/potential fringe issue has been magnified), and
	# a potential ] problem in the context of this wiki article , as Rummel's theory seems more concerned about relating ''totalitarianism'' and "mass killings", not necessarily "Communist regimes" per se. ] (]) 23:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Please do not restart the discussion done on the talk page of the article here. This is about one thing and one thing only: Is ] a reliable source. Your attempt to restart the discussion could be interpreted as you trying to shift focus of the discussion as you are realizing that you are wrong. I don't think you want that. --] (]) 06:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	=== Specific quotes ===
	I'm sorry for not doing this at once, but I'm new at these source conflicts, and one learns from ones mistakes. :-) The discussion on the talk, page was always about Rummel himself (because people don't like his views), and he was claimed as fringe and not rs, etc. The above discussion has made it blatantly clear to me that such accusations and discussing such accusations is completely pointless. So now let's do it by the "book" (yes, I think a template at the top of the page would be good).
	It also turns out, although the criticism when not directed at Rummel, is directed at the book in question. However, most of the times Rummel is used as a source, it's not the book but specific articles. So the claim that the book is not peer-reviewed etc is an utter red herring. My mistake for not double checking the claims of the people who critisized Rummel. Extremely stupid of me.
	Anyway, I've added a ] at the bottom, using the proposed template. Let's see if that works better. :) I propose that we archive this whole section, it was a waste of time. Sorry about that. --] (]) 06:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	== ] ==
	John Prescott said: “I’ve always felt very proud of Wales and being Welsh. People are a bit surprised when I say I’m Welsh. I was born in Wales, went to school in Wales and my mother was Welsh. I’m Welsh. It’s my place of birth, my country.” Please advise if you consider his statement to be self-identification of his nationality. If so, would it support the lead saying: "'''John Leslie Prescott, Baron Prescott<!-- NOT Baron Prescott of Kingston-upon-Hull, see talk page for explanation of why-->'''<ref> Uk Parliament</ref> (born 31 May 1938) is a ]<ref name="IcWales">{{cite web|title=WalesOnline - News - Wales News - John Prescott learns of incest among his Welsh ancestors|url=http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/11/30/john-prescott-learns-of-incest-among-his-welsh-ancestors-91466-25284089/|accessdate=2009-12-01|publisher=Media Wales Ltd|date=2009-11-30|work=WalesOnline website}}</ref> former ] and ] of the ]." Talkpage discussion . Thanks, ] (]) 14:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	: It looks to be a reliable source for that statement. ] (]) 14:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Thank you. ] (]) 22:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	Editors on this page might wish to be aware of the lengthy discussion at ]. There is no dispute on that page over what Prescott has said, or over the fact that it comes from a reliable source - . The unresolved question is over appropriate balance and weight in the wording of the opening sentence of the article, together with the various meanings of the term "nationality", and the weight to be given to the essay at ]. Those are not matters, in my view, for which this noticeboard should provide advice. Am I right? ] (]) 21:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::: Yes. ] (]) 21:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::Thank you. <small>(Is everyone always this polite here?)</small> ] (]) 21:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Nevertheless, the statement is considered to be John Prescott's self-identification of his nationality. ] (]) 10:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::It is a reliable source - agreed. He is Welsh, and has said he is Welsh - agreed. The opening sentence should reflect the fact that he is Welsh ''and only that, without reference to the fact that his nationality is also British'' - not agreed. ] (]) 10:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::This is not the venue to discuss article content. However, it is to suggest that I am intent on stating that John Prescott is Welsh ''and only that, without reference to the fact that his nationality is also British''. ] (]) 11:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::Fair point - I withdraw that. But I was referring to the two (or three) wording options currently being discussed. ] (]) 11:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::Thank you. ] (]) 11:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	==Manchester United F.C. Kit Sources==
	I'd welcome everyone's thoughts on the following sources:
	unitedkits.com
	historicalkits.co.uk
	prideofmanchester.com
	Some people have raised concerns regarding the reliability of these sources because they are considered fansites. The first two in particular, however, are just the most comprehensive sources for Manchester United kit information on the internet.
	Thanks, ] (]) 00:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Fansites are, by their very nature, not reliable as they are not authoritative. Relying on unreliable sources simply because they are comprehensive is not a good idea. Misplaced Pages needs a variety of sources to verify information anyway, so comprehensive sources shouldn't be given any more weight than any others in general. In addition, if reliable information can be found on a fan site, it can also be found in an actual reliable source, as fan sites just regurgitate information from elsewhere. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	unitedkits.com is the personal website of two United fans. historicalkits.co.uk appears to be the ] of "Dave". prideofmanchester.com is the commercial website of Neil Jones, "Jim" and "Rob". There is no indication that any of them satisfy the requirements of ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:But unitedkits.com has photographic evidence to support all of it's kits. Lets say the author of one of these sites released a book using exactly the same information, would that be reliable? ] (]) 17:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Who would the publisher be? If it was ], then no. If it was published by a university press, then yes. It all depends on the editorial oversight. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::OK gotcha. Thanks for comments. ] (]) 14:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	== ] used at ] reported by ] ==
	'''Page:''' {{article|Mass killings under Communist regimes}} <br />
	'''Source:''' ], , <br />
	* Diff or proposed edit: ''R. J. Rummel <strike>coined</strike> uses the term "democide", which includes genocide, politicide, and mass murder.''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	Think that even if it is supported by the text (which I am not sure is clear), this falls foul of ] with regards to the proposed wording (because, if he claimed a coinage, that would be self-serving even if true). We could say that he "used" the term, but not that he coined it.
	Also, if you have encountered objections to the use of the cite, I reckon they are probably on weight grounds rather than the reliability of the source per se.--] (]) 11:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:We'd need an RS that says he coined that term in that book. Selfpub and primary/OR. Also, not an RS per discussion above. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 11:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::FormerIP: ''Think that even if it is supported by the text (which I am not sure is clear)'' - From the box at the top of the page: '''"Democide: The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder."''' It's obviously supported.
	::Verbal: You have a point, but if we change it from "coined" to "uses", would it be OK then? I'm sure it's easy to find a source to say he coined the term too, but that's hardly the point here. Who invented the term is irrelevant, IMO. --] (]) 12:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::I meant it may not have been supported because it was not clear that the author was claiming to have coined the term. I hadn't seen the discussion above (thank you Verbal), though. Since the usability of this source seems to be heavily disputed, I would say it would be best to keep that discussion in one place. The modified statement passes RS, IMO, but it seems clear that the noteworthiness of the source in relation to the article is contested, so the edit shouldn't be made until that is resolved. --] (]) 12:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::There has been no discussion about "the noteworthiness of the source in relation to the article", so it can hardly be contested. --] (]) 13:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::]? To be honest, OpenFuture, this seems a little like asking your dad when your mum has said no. --] (]) 13:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::That's not about "the noteworthiness of the source in relation to the article". It's about if the book is a reliable source. You might want to read that discussion before you decide to insult people. --] (]) 13:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Why are we now arguing over who coined the term Democide? ''R. J. Rummel, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, has compiled statistics accounting for the number of people killed worldwide by “democide,” a term he coined to describe intentional killings by governments'' ] (]) 14:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Apologies, OpenFuture, I didn't mean to be insulting.
	:::::::I'm not sure what you are saying here. The book is the same thing as the source, I think. The discussion above does not seem to be restricted to whether it is a reliable source and I think it is pretty clear that it did not result in a consesus to use it in the article. --] (]) 14:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Of course the book is a reliable source, and the well reasoned arguements above proved it. I believe there was a consensus for it`s use as those arguing against used ] as the only reason for it to not be reliable ] (]) 14:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::''The discussion above does not seem to be restricted to whether it is a reliable source'' - No, but the discussion above *should* have been restricted to whether it was a reliable source, because that's what is relevant, and what this noticeboard is about. Why does the people who don't want Rummel to be used as a source always so intent on discussing everything else than the subject? Stop going off on tangents, it's disruptive. --] (]) 14:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	What is the issue here?
	There is no source that Rummel coined the silly word (still unknown to the OED); on the other hand, this is not the place to discuss whether this irrelevant sentence belongs in any article other than the one on Rummel, and the one on the word itself. That isn't a ] issue; it's an ] issue.] <small>]</small> 14:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Do you mean apart from the one i just posted above? ] (]) 14:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Which post? ? You could have put that much more succinctly: "] and ] all the documented problems with his methodology."
	::But none of that answers either question:
	::*What source of any kind do you have that Rummel coined ''democide''?
	::*What does that matter to the article in question? The history of words belongs on Wiktionary. ] <small>]</small> 14:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::1. The coining issue is already over and done with. Read the rest of the discussion above.
	:::2. Stop trying to change the subject. Why do you people always change the subject when you are cornered? What is it that is so painful with RJ Rummel being quoted once in a while? Honestly? --] (]) 14:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::That is, again, no answer; and a leap to a conclusion. Rummel should be cited on significant things on which he is reliable; I've cited him myself. But whether he uses an obscure and ill-formed neologism is on topic only when explaining his system. ] <small>]</small> 15:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::''obscure and ill-formed neologism'' I think not 934 hits on google scholar and 6,570 on books ] (]) 15:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Thank you for proving my point. A word used primarily in Rummel's own works, and solely in discussing them, is indeed obscure; and we can discuss whether it is used often when it is listed by the ''OED'' (as it is not), or if it ever achieves, say, 1% of the uses of . ] <small>]</small> 15:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Your wrong, the majority of books are not by rummel, how many books do you think he has written? The term is far from obscure ] (]) 15:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Sigh. I think this conversation has gone far enough; encounters by writing with somebody who has not understood what I have actually written and has not responded in English are unlikely to be productive. ] <small>]</small> 15:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::Stop this off topic discussion, both of you. This is about whether he is a reliable source for the above statement and *nothing else*. If you feel that statement shouldn't be in the article, PMAnderson, then bring that up on the talk page of that article. Stop disrupting. --] (]) 15:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::Your right and i am sorry, it is of course a reliable source for the edit in question ] (]) 15:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::No, it is a ] for the edit in question; but like much use of primary sources, the question immediately arises: if it's not of interest to secondary sources, why should we, a tertiary source, say it at all? ] <small>]</small> 15:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Isn't a primary source exactly what's needed for the question of how somebody defines a concept? Please note: If he is the source of the word or not, is no longer an issue, as the word "coined" is stricken from the text in my proposed quote above. --] (]) 21:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	==Need help with this source==
	does it fulfill the requirements for reliability?--<span style="color:red;font-size:large;;font-family:Bookman's Old Style;">Gniniv</span> (]) 08:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	The context in which it was used was
	<blockquote>...''pointing to Shem's descendant ] as the direct ancestor of the East.'' reference: </blockquote>
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	It's a self-published, non-peer-reviews web page by a non-scholar on a scholarly subject. The author has no apparent notability and is not quoted by anyone as far as Google Scholar knows. --] (]) 08:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	*Yes there is absolutely no indication that it would be reliable. Gniniv can you please explain why you thought it might be? You should not bring clearly unreliable sources here every time someone questions them just in case. This is disruptive and a waste of time.] (]) 12:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	**Yes, why didn't you go search for an academic source that this was claimed; you would have found ], , with an actual history of the pun. ] <small>]</small> 15:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	== Southern Poverty Law Center Blog Reliability ==
	I wanted to add a sentence to the ] section of the article on the ]. The sentence I wanted to include is: ''The SPLC maintains a blog entitled Hatewatch: Keeping an eye on the radical right.''
	The reasons for inclusion being (1) the blog is notable work by the subject (2) the fact that the blog is directed towards a particular political orientation is notable (3) the blog/newsletter used to be called Klanwatch. The source for the title is the blog for the Southern Law Poverty Center http://www.splcenter.org/blog/ (archived copy here ). The discussion has been that media sources refer to the blog simply as Hatewatch and that the blog is not a reliable source for the subtitle see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Include_mention_of_Hatewatch_blog.. ] (]) 17:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
			2. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/07/11/rostec-nebo-m-radar-is-it-a-scam-or-propaganda/
	''Is the SPLC blog http://www.splcenter.org/blog/ (archived copy here ) a reliable source for making the statement: "The SPLC maintains a blog entitled Hatewatch: Keeping an eye on the radical right." ?'' ] (]) 17:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::: No, because according to the source you posted, that isn't the title, the title is 'Hatewatch'. It says quite clearly and explicitly: "''Hatewatch is written by the staff of the Intelligence Report...''" ] (]) 00:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			3. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/12/28/russian-su-57-will-carry-four-missiles-in-the-internal-weapons-bay/
	:Please stop forum shopping. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 17:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Its dispute resolution. You are saying the blog is not a reliable source for the statement but I disagree with your assessment. There is little ground to discuss after that, so I am seeking another opinion as is the purpose of the RS board. ] (]) 00:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	: I can't discern any ] question. ] (]) 17:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::This is the second appeal to this board on the SPLC article and there is a third one made to the ]. On the OR referral he has already stated here that he intends to make yet another referral to this RS Noticeboard. There are no shortage of editors contributing to the SPLC discussion -- all issues can be resolved there. The last two referrals were made less than 24 hours after he initiated the proposal at the SPLC discussion page.
			4. Radar Horizon. (n.d.). www.ssreng.com. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www.ssreng.com/pdf/Radar_Horizon.pdf
	:::In this case, he misrepresents the issue which is basically one of content. The article already has this sentence, ''In 1981 the Center began its "Klanwatch" (now "Hatewatch") project to monitor and track the activities of the KKK, which has been expanded to include seven other types of hate organizations."'' The term "Hatewatch" , rather than Mrdthree's preferred longer name, is the one used overwhelmingly by reliable sources. The issue is primarily one of (1) interpretation (what is the official name of the blog --it is not clear from the single source that is subject to this referral) and (2) weight (does one source outweigh the vast majority). ] (]) 17:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::Tom, Verbal and I are really the only ones discussing these issues. I would like another opinion. ] (]) 17:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::The discussion is about 48 hours old and your proposal for a vote, which led to this referral, is less than 24 ours old. Actually three other editors have contributed significantly to the section (one of them has even started a new section to propose an alternative) and two others have weighed in to basically say, based on several other POV driven discussions you have started, that there is little point in continuin to respond to you. There is plenty of interest at the SPLC board -- you just need to slow down and take one thing at a time. ] (]) 18:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Can I summarize your position as being that the blog is not a reliable source for the proposed statement? ] (]) 01:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	::I added a statement to cla rify.] (]) 17:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
			5. Butowski 2021, pp. 78–82
	:::As the link dose not work no.] (]) 17:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::It was down for maintenance or something. You can access an archived copy here http://web.archive.org/web/20080822104330/http://www.splcenter.org/blog/ ] (]) 17:50, 13 July 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/
	:::::Again I would point out that as the link is dead you cannot use it to say they maintain a blog called Hatewatch. You might be able to say they used to maintain one, but until they are up and running again that is (at best) all you can say. Especially as this archived page appears to be two years old, hardly up to date. I would say that yes its RS for its title. .] (]) 18:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Its back up.] (]) 00:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	This is not really a ] question, it's more a ] and ] problem. You need reliable secondary sources that discuss this blog
	#to avoid ], as you can't insert claims based on your interpretation of primary sources (the website), and,
	#to avoid ], and to ensure the material is actually notable.
	--]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Please clarify on how its POV or OR. Do you think that I am pushing a point of view by mentioning the text on the blog, or do you think I am doing original research by claiming its a subtitle? Would it be POV/OR to say that it hosts a blog called Hatewatch (formerly Klanwatch) whose motto (headline/subtitle/subheading) is 'Keeping an eye on the radical right' ? ] (]) 16:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::A large part of the SPLC article is sourced to the SPLC website. Does this mean that the article is built on unreliable sources? ] (]) 17:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::As for relevance, no where in the history of the article is it mentioned that Hatewatch is a blog. It mentions that Hatewatch grew from Klanwatch but it does not mention that Hatewatch is currently a blog hosted by SPLC whose motto/headline/subtitle is "Keeping an eye on the radical right". The motto is important because the mission of Hatewatch is much broader than was the mission of Klanwatch. Hence additional information, provided by the subject is illuminating. ] (]) 17:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::If you produce claims based on your analysis of the website's contents, then it's ]. If secondary sources don't discuss the blog, then it's likely not notable, and therefore discussing it would be ] weight. The way to avoid all this is to find reliable sources discussing the blog, and cite what ''they'' say, not your own analysis of the website's contents. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Im not looking to make an analysis of the website. I am trying to state what is published on teh blog by the subject. I want it to speak for itself. I am open to any fair statement that offers such a description. However what appears to be disputed is which description should be given for the text "Keeping an eye on the radical right" is it a subtitle/subheader or headline? Or do you feel that is something that cannot be resolved without introducing POV? ] (]) 03:28, 15 July 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/
	==Preisgenau.de==
			8. When Israel bombs Syria, Russia turns a blind eye. (2022, January 3). thearabweekly.com. Retrieved January 22, 2025, from
	What appears to be a glorified blog (first mention ever on english WP) is being used by an apparently conflicted SPA editor (see user page of http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Playmobilonhishorse) to put a "controversy" on the Amazon.com article. See Talk page of Amazon.com article and recent edits to article. Input please to review. Input please on use of this "source" and whether the editor is taking a personal legal conflict into the article.(http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Amazon.com&action=historysubmit&diff=372974843&oldid=371796532)...... ] (]) 17:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
			https://thearabweekly.com/when-israel-bombs-syria-russia-turns-blind-eye ] (]) 15:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	: You mean http://preisgenau.de ? It does not seem to be a "glorified blog", since it seems to offer comparisons of 2 million products. Not to say that's a sufficient claim of reliability as a news source, but you're weakening your case right in your first sentence. --] (]) 17:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			:Do we use them? ] (]) 15:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The S 400 Misplaced Pages page has 20 citations from them and the su 57 Misplaced Pages page has four. ] (]) 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I agree that they're generally unreliable but I'm not so sure I'd chalk it up to bias rather than incompetence. They seem to be suggesting that the news they publish is a sideline to their core business of international security consulting... But they're spamming the cheapest ads on the internet alongside that content suggests that this is their primary income. To me it looks like a vanity site, I also suspect they are ripping stories off or using generative AI. ] (]) 17:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I will agree with you that they are incompetent But I think you can be incompetent and bias, some mistakes they've made such as having a image of the SU57 that is CGI on the web page and claiming it was a picture taken by Sukhoi I could see that being a result of incompetence but stuff like claiming Turkey accused Russia of Fraud over the S 400 because its range decreased against objects at lower altitude I have a harder time believing is just incompetence specially since the mistakes that they made seemed to always understate Russian equipment’s capabilities I have never been able to see and correct me if I'm wrong any incidents where they have overstated a piece of Russian equipment’s capabilities and yet I have seen dozens of mistakes in the opposite direction which suggests to me it is not random error. but quite frankly if their biassed or not I think is irrelevant even if we somehow conclude that they do have a neutral point of view there is still no way they could be considered a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards as they do not meet the other criteria mainly the one which is in quote ‘Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy’ there is no universe where they pass that one and as a result they cannot be considered a reliable source something which you agree with this alone should be enough to get the website Deprecated irrespective of if their bias or not. ] (]) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I think the one thing that seems to be universally agreed on is that this is not a reliable source. ] (]) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I would agree, that regardless of whether it's bias or incompetence, it all adds up to unreliability. Cheers. ] (]) 23:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Should we trust ] for statistics ==
	== Media Matters yet again ==
			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;
	Does improve the article in question? ] is the cited rationale behind it. ] (]) 02:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			"An official YouTube Twitter account, @TeamYouTube wrote that "Please know that third party apps, such as SocialBlade, do not accurately reflect subscriber activity." Social Blade's Twitter account responded to that tweet, commenting "We don't make up data. We get it from the YouTube API. We rely on it for accuracy." Social Blade's community manager Danny Fratella suggested that YouTube content creators may notice subscriber and view count purges more due to a higher accessibility to data-tracking tools like Social Blade."
	:So the question is actually whether the Media Matters for America is a reliable source in this case. It's a column by a partisan organization. I don't know much about MMfA, but I'd be wary about using that as a source in this case. Especially the first citation, which claims Chicago Tribune said something. Well, can't you use Chicago Tribune as a source there? --] (]) 06:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			The question is should we trust it?
	:: I agree that it's better to just cite the source being quoted. My question is basically whether we're better off with the fact tag and no source than with the MM source. It seems like this edit makes the article worse, whereas replacing the MM source with the Tribune or with something else would likely make the article better. ] (]) 21:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			Plus, why do pages about gamers and vloggers place so much emphasis on what appears to be arbitrary, trivial information that is prone to fluctuation?]] 15:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:The article is a BLP. The material is not directly relevant to the person (heck, there are asides about others who are also living persons which are contentious, and for which MMFA is not a reliable source under the new standards). All of which should be excised, and not just questioned. ''Contentious claims require especial care in all BLPs.'' ] (]) 11:01, 14 July 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)
	::If you look at you will note that AP did no such thing. There was one article by Nedra Pickler which took that point of view. I subscribe to Media Matters and find it generally accurate, but this post is a good example of the point of view being expressed which, while not unfounded, creates a false impression. ] is a cooperative, actually much like Misplaced Pages in that there are many reporters and many viewpoints being expressed and little if any central editorial control. Essentially Media Matters for America is an operation with a strong point of view, and inherently unreliable with respect to the conclusions it draws. I think it can be used to locate the articles and positions it talks about, but as it is a media monitoring operation, the media that it monitors will usually be the better source. ] ] 17:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			::It certainly isn't a source that I would trust but it is frequently cited in certain articles to populate value statement parameters such as subscriber count, view count, like count etc in ]. My understanding is that ] sources shouldn't be used to verify value statements? ]] 17:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::: Since the fourth sentence of , by-lined "''by Nedra Pickler The Associated Press''", is "''He's delivered no policy speeches and provided few details about how he would lead the country.''", it's odd that you would assert that the the article does not claim that Obama has "delivered no policy speeches". In other news, black is white, up is down, and freedom is slavery. ] (]) 20:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			:Prior discussions for reference; ], ], ], ]. The general opinion appears to be that it's marginal at best. Personally I doubt how reliable their data is, if it's available from the original source that should be used and if it's not available from the original source I wouldn't trust it. They also have 'rankings', which are worthless for anything other than the opinion of Social Blade. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			== RfC: EurAsian Times ==
	== Steven L. Akins (aka Akins of that Ilk) ==
			<!-- ] 23:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740610876}}
	The article '']'' is about a Scottish and Irish surname. At the beginning of the month, {{User|97.82.45.48}} / {{User|Wyvren}} appeared and replaced the page with a pasted text from his Myspace page of "Clan Akins Association" . The back story is that the concept of the clan originated a couple years ago with Steven L. Akins, who pretends to be the chief. Akins pretends to have a coat of arms, that shows he is a ]. He actually petitioned the ] (the judge of Scotland's heraldic office) to be recognised as chief but was declined. The writer of list of clan genealogists notes: "''In November 2004 I spoke with the Lyon Clerk and Keeper of Records and was told that Akins is not recognized as Clan Chief by the Lyon Court. His application to the Lyon Court contained fraudulent information''". Heraldist and genealogist Sean Murphy, who broke the ] scandal, has shown Akins has faked wills, and suspects he has faked photographs of heraldic-engraved tombstones ; the only verification of these dubious engravings existence are heavily edited photos submitted to websites (like ''findagrave.com'') by Akins himself (see ] for examples of ] using these photos). One of the stones is that of the man in the faked will. There was actually a story published in a Scottish tabloid about Akins attempting to plant a fake tombstone in Scotland . Murphy also shows that Akins is a plagiarist, in his dubious book on druids (Akins claims to have translated a German copy of an ancient Irish manuscript, which supposedly proves the Nazi's Aryan racial views) A review on ''amazon.com'' mentions the plagiarism as well .
			{{rfc|prop|pol|rfcid=11A50DD}}
			The (used to have its own article but it was apparently PRODed) is cited in several hundreds of articles, mostly pertaining to Russian military hardware and South Asian issues, but not exclusively. It was mentioned ] ] ] on this noticeboard but only on a surface level.
	Anyway, Wyvren's Myspace page was, for a time, was made of the exact same text as that from content originating from Steve Akin. I encouraged Wyvren, on ], to add sources throughout the article, and he did! However, in the few sources I've been able to double-check, I've found he constantly adds claims that do not appear in the sources, and cherry-picks what information to include-exclude (ie. that ] states that in Ulster, those of name are of ''English'' and Scottish origin, and that the name itself is derived from the ''English'' name; see ]). I wish I could double-check all the sources he lists, because I have my doubts now. The real issue is Wyvren's illustrated heraldry (Steven Akin's 'chiefly' heraldry). All of it originates from Steven Akins, the only verification of any of it is himself, and the content he has uploaded to, and various ]. I don't see any reason to take Akins seriously, or his heraldry. I'm getting fed up 'debating' with Wyvren. I've only go so much 'Wiki-time', I want to get out this article's talkpage, and actually work building other articles. But he keeps putting in information that can't be verified, all under the guise of real sources. Can someone look into this Steven Akins, and give an opinion on whether you think he is reliable for an encyclopaedia? Or whether photo-shopped ''findagrave'' photos have any bearing on anything?. --] (]) 06:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			In light of all this, how would you rate the EurAsian Times?
	:This doesn't sound like a reliable source issue, it sounds like a fundamental conflict about loads of things at once. Not sure how to handle that best. --] (]) 09:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			* '''Option 1: ]'''
	::A lot of it sounds like primary sources, which are only allowed for straightforward statements about themselves. So a photo of a coat of arms merely shows it "exists", not that it is authorized officially as anyone's coat of arms. &c ] (]) 11:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			* '''Option 2: ]'''
			* '''Option 3: ]'''
			* '''Option 4: ]'''
			Thank you. '''''<span style="color:#503680">] ] ]</span>''''' 22:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) <small>PS: it is the first time I create an RFC, I hope it is not malformed</small>
	:::If you do a search on "house of names" and 'scam' you'll see a lot of criticisms. Commercial sites like House of Names and Celticstudio.com should not be used as sources. I'm busy this morning but will look at this article again later. Findagraves is dubious also. ] (]) 07:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
			===Survey (EurAsian Times)===
	==DVD covers==
	Can't recall if this has been asked but are DVD (or even video, whatever those are) covers RS for what the film is about?] (]) 12:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Yes, it's reliable as a ]. But I'm not sure how much useful information that you would get from a DVD cover. You should probably look for better sources, but it's certainly acceptable. BTW, if the film is a work of fiction, you're allowed to cite the film itself for it's plot as long you don't do any interpretive analysis. See ]. (If the film is not a work of fiction, I'm not sure if ] applies.) ] (]) 15:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Often not, particularly with low-budget/cheapo reissue DVDs, martial arts films in particular. --] (]) 16:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Well, I would say it is reliable. It may not necessarily be ''right'' though. I would use cautiously, especially in the cases Michig cites.--] (]) 16:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Well, I think this is where we need more detail. Which film is it? What does the DVD cover say? What content do you want to support using this source? Which article? ] (]) 16:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	At best it's unlikely to be useful, since it won't tell you anything that cannot be found in secondary sources, and you can't do any analysis based on it. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
			**'''Option 2/Do not enter to RSP''' I’d tend to evaluate depending on what the edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except option2. In this case, I don't see a reason to make any RSP entry -- there doesn't seem to be a lot of RSN discussions to summarize or adjudicate and if it is in use hundreds of times then making a RSP entry at this point seems to be problematic. Cheers ] (]) 02:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	Thge LAst Battle (Luc Besson) and it says its a p;opst apoclayptic film (which is what I intend to use it as a source for). Its a quick and nasty source for now, whilst I look for sources for otehr medi] (]) 12:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC).
			===Discussion (EurAsian Times)===
	:Slatersteven: How about this source? ] (]) 12:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
			* Previous discussions at ] (2024) ] (2023), and ] (2022). It looks like there's already consensus that it's unreliable and an RfC is not necessary. ] (]) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Yes, there is already strong consensus for its general unreliability (with just one dissenting editor in all of those discussions). I guess the only question is whether it should be deprecated, given its quite frequent use ] (]) 10:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I agree that most opinions expressed about it were negative, but it felt a bit like shaky ground to be able to know if it could still be used for some specific things, be treated as generally unreliable, or to actually deprecate. That is why I wanted clarification before potentially going on a hunt. Sorry if an RfC was overkill for this one, but I figured that since it is used quite a lot it could be good to clarify. '''''<span style="color:#503680">] ] ]</span>''''' 10:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			== flightconnections.com ==
	::Thats fine, but this is also a more general question as the list of such films is wholey unsoucrced.] (]) 12:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
			I wonder if flightconnections.com is a reliable source. Examples of it use are on and . In both cases ] asks for {{tq|airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet ]}}. I have doubt if flightconnections qualifies as reliable. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 02:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Covering the race of a victim and her attackers ==
			:I can't find any information about who runs the site or where it gets it's information from. There are quite a few articles promoting it or about how to use it, but that is unsurprising as it operates an affiliate programme. From a Google book search it has some extremely limited USEBYOTHERS (note several of the results are not reliable sources), but not enough to be meaningful. I couldn't get any useful results from Google Scholar. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	It seems over on ] we've got a bit of a debate going about mentioning race in an article about a rape. The reference being used is a piece from the LA Times: Sandy Banks, "", November 07, 2009. There are two questions:
			:I do see it as reliable. They are from one of the large brokers (likely either Cirium or OAG, I wish they said who) and simply providing a wrapper to explore that data, and selling ads and subscriptions to pay for the extremely expensive subscription the brokers charge. ] (]) 19:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	* Is the column by Sandy Banks sufficiently reliable to be used as a source for the race of the victim and her attackers?
			::It can work at least as a starting point. It lists both charter and regularly scheduled flights. You can find the flight number of a given route and then cross-reference it on another source as well. --] (]) 22:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	* Given the context of the discussion in the column, is it reasonable to use it to justify including race in the article?
	I'm not sure that both are really questions for here, although I believe one is. The discussion is pretty much going in circles now, so any input, in any direction, would be welcome. - ] (]) 16:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			== Pegging ==
	'''Comments by involved editors'''
			At this point, after educating people about pegging for the last 14 years, I do indeed qualify as an expert. I am the go-to person for information about pegging in the sex education world.
	For greater clarity: The story ("Richmond Gang Rape Raises Race Issue") referenced below by ], who is an "involved editor", as am I, is '''not''' about race as an issue in the crime itself, but about race as an issue in the authorities' decisions as to how much security to provide to a given school. The headline is misleading, which is no surprise. I have no information about the reliability of "Colorlines.com" as a source. To the best of my knowledge, there is no ] source that concludes race was a factor in the crime. ] (]) 15:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
			perhaps be reviewed? I am the only sex educator I know of who ''specializes'' in pegging. I have taught countless classes since 2012 (in person and over Zoom) for beginners, equipment, and advanced pegging, and written many, many articles about pegging as well. Were they published in magazines or on websites that made me edit the crap out of what I'd written until it lost its meaning? No. Wouldn't play that game because the message was too important to me, and because they wanted free material.
	'''Comments by uninvolved editors'''
	:Are there any other sources to corroborate the races of the victim and her attackers? BTW, the author doesn't really say the racial background of the attackers. Instead, it says "her attackers ''were described to me by students''..." That's a distinction that should not get lost in the article (assuming it should be in the article). Also, for the benefit of those reading this, the author's bio is available . ] (]) 16:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			I am not a person of notoriety like Tristan Taormino or Dan Savage, but that does not mean I don't know what I'm talking about or what I put out into the world about pegging is just my 'opinion'. There have been no 'studies' on pegging and there aren't likely to be anytime soon, for obvious reasons.
	::I would say no, it would be ]. Even when I search specifically for it, the sources generally don't mention it. - ] (]) 17:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			Since when was the only measure of an expert their notoriety? I have gone down the rabbit hole of pegging and remained there. I have held space for all the different expressions of pegging during that time, which are numerous. I have advised hopeful and how to approach their partners, while also educating them about the (intensely) common misconceptions and assumptions about the sexual act, and so many more things that are a part of pegging. Masculinity, role reversal, communication, etc, etc.
	:::Regarding ], race isn't even mentioned until the very end of that source, yet somehow is featured prominently in our article. In the lede, no less. Of course, in order to judge weight, we need to look at all the sources. ] (]) 18:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			I have helped countless couples find the best equipment for them, which is much more complicated and individual than a cheap strap-on and dildo. Educating interested people about pegging has been my mission for the last 14 years. Other sex educators have more surface knowledge about this sexual act - knowledge that can be gleaned from a simple Marie Claire article.
	: Opinion columns in mainstream newspapers are reliable sources for the author's opinion, and should be used with attribution. But they are not generally considered reliable for ''facts'', certainly not in a case where the alleged facts are presented as anonymously sourced hearsay. ] (]) 17:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			My apologies if I sound a little irritated. My intentions are good. Famous people are not the best sources, necessarily. In sex education circles I am widely known as the go-to expert.
	* We can find a better source for this statement than an opinion column where the author has to explicitly rely on hearsay from underage sources. Here, '']''. --] (]) 17:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	::I was about to suggest that one. :) It doesn't mention the race of the victim, though. - ] (]) 17:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			https://peggingparadise.com/ (my original website)
	*I would avoid it. If race was not made an issue, there is no particular reason to mention it here.--] (]) 17:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			https://www.theartofpegging.com/ (my educational and patron platform)
	::The reporter seems to have interviewed witnesses to the rape, as well as having expressed an opinion. So it is typical newspaper reporting of the testimony of witnesses to the event, not hearsay. She says, "In the Richmond gang rape case, I was surprised that so many readers made race the subtext. And they took me to task for not mentioning the race of the victim or her attackers." So there must be an original report by the reporter who wrote the opinion piece which does not mention race. So she, and others made an editorial decision that race was irrelevant, which we can, or not, take as a guide. If there is a fact to be reported it is that many people assume the attack had significant racial elements instead of it being the multicultural event that it was. So, good source, but perhaps not relevant information. ] ] 18:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
			https://pegging101.com/ (pegging with no kink for the vanilla people)
	*Reliable sources don't make race was an issue in this case. And in fact the opinion column source was written in part to explain why this reporter concerned ''didn't'' think it was a useful factor to talk about when reporting on the attack. Ergo, we shouldn't doing what amounts to ] by mentioning something that most reliable sources, one explicitly, have determined to be irrelevant. This is most particularly true in the Lead. --] (]) 00:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
			With Respect For All That You Amazing People Do,
	The reliable sources say the race of the victim (LA Times) and the attackers (LA Times and SF Chron). The source also says that numerous people have written in about the racial dimension. Still not enough? See "Richmond Gang Rape Raises Race Issue" which came right to the top when I googled. Seems like that's an open-and-shut case: race IS an issue in the case and a simple mention of it is not ]. If there were a section labeled "Racial Dimension" that would be taking things a little bit far. I can also tell you, first hand, that the local papers bend over backwards to conceal the race of attackers. Frequently there will be a crime and the attacker will be described by height, weight, clothing, but not race. Being from the area I can also state that the school has only a handful of female white students, which definitely raises eyebrows when one of those are the victim of a vicious gang rape, hard to imagine that its just random chance that one student was chosen without regard to race. Guys, its ugly, but racism happens. ] (]) 06:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
			Ruby Ryder ] (]) 05:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Ms. Ryder,
	:The opinion column is definitely out for statements of fact like this. It's fine for sourcing the reporter's opinion (in this case, her opinion that she was justified in not making race an issue in the actual news article). Also out, obviously, is a Misplaced Pages editor's personal opinion that it's "hard to imagine" race wasn't an issue. Of course there may be some other sources that do discuss/mention/make a big deal about race; how to deal with that is an editorial decision that should be made at the article at hand. It looks like the discussion is progressing.--] ]/] 13:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
			:What would help here is if you could point us to either reliable, independent sources citing your work, or of you writing for publications that you don't publish yourself.... something that helps us see that, as you say, "in sex educations widely known as a go-to expert." I fully believe that you are.
			:The problem with someone using your sources as a reference has to do with Misplaced Pages's rules on using self-published sources, which your websites, videos, etc, count as. We can use such sources as reference (if within some limits), but only if we can see that the creator is a ''recognized'' expert in the field... and by recognized, that means either cited by or hired to write on the topic by reliable sources. I know that it seems like your voluminous experience and the visible quality of your materials should count for something here, but alas it does not. I don't think we'd be expecting, say, the New York Times or the Journal of the American Medical Association in this case, just some recognizable source that takes such sexual matters seriously. It doesn't even have to be material that is online (although that would help.) Articles that quote you or recommend your sites or training services would really help. Can you point us to such citations? -- ] (]) 06:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I appreciate the work that you do. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages editors cannot use their own judgement to assess the expertise of someone. There are people who research topics and work in a field their entire lives who become experts in those fields and publish their work on their own websites. But there are also pseudo-experts who do the same thing. Editors on Misplaced Pages are not allowed to use their own judgement to discern the difference between the two, but must rely on a third party to establish their expertise. If you have ever given an interview on pegging for a newspaper or a magazine, or had your website cited by a sexologist or another recognizable sex expert as a good resource on pegging, for instance, then that would allow us to recognize the reliability of your site for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Could you comment on and notify the article talk page you want to edit? We really cannot help without context around what changes you want to include.
			:that conversation from 2017 is old. I have no clue if that is what Misplaced Pages editors believe today, nor the state of the article you want to change. ] (]) 19:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I am highly confident that ] is the main article on the topic. ] (]) 19:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I would concur. ] (]) 19:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Their comment wasn't asking which page the 2017 discussion was on (which is linked to), but was asking RubyRyder to leave a comment on the talk page of that article. ] (]) 20:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::* Is the only reason we want to include this information because its from RubyRyder and it would be good publicity? or is there a specific bit of info that they want to include that is missing?
			::::* have they tried including it and seeing what happens? (see ]) Are regulars who wrote and watch the pegging article notified that this debate is happening?
			::::* This post seems mostly like rehashing and trying to start up an argument from 2017 for the sake of a debate. would like info on what we are doing here, exactly, and what the debate is?
			::::] (]) 20:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{Moved discussion from|Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_23_January_2025|2=Thank you for your response. I understand the reasoning. I was asked for other sources, and below I am listing well-known sexologists and people with letters after their name who have interviewed me on their podcasts.
			Cam Fraser - the Power and Pleasure of Pegging with Ruby Ryder: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0naA7WaumMhL1t5wE2vaj5?si=IFqLYzGzT_aQomGXWKvSww&nd=1&dlsi=3c896a210a7d4408
	== ==
			Great American Sex Podcast with Sunny Megatron - Pegging with Ruby Ryder:https://sunnymegatron.com/ruby-ryder-pegging-paradise/
	The above website is used ''extensively'' in Wikipeidia. It is used in literally hundreds of articles on US buildings to cite the fact that the building is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places (NRHP) ... it is one of the core citations used by the NRHP project (and in many of their articles it is the ''only'' citation given in the article). The website is supposedly the front page of a NRHP database. I say "supposedly" because, unfortunately, it does not work. It may have given access to a database at one time in the past... but if so, it no longer does this. It is essentially an unsupported dead link. So can it be called a reliable source for saying that a specific building is listed by the NRHP? ] (]) 19:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Is the discussion of help to you?--] (]) 19:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Yes, please continue at ] (the discussion Wehwalt links to), instead. Yawn...about the repeated attempts to drum up contention... --] (]) 19:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::It appears that the NRHP Project is aware of the problem, which is good... but that does not answer my initial question... Is the www.nr.nps.gov site reliable or not?
	::::The site is broken (in that the search function no longer works), but it has a link to the current official site, where search does work. I would say it meets the minimum standards of reliability. ] ''']''' 20:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Thanks for the reply... so shouldn't we cite the "official site" instead? and shouldn't we go further an cite the actual page that talks about the building? To give an example... for our article on ]... rather than citing ... or even ... shouldn't we require citation to ? ] (]) 20:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::For years, this has been the oficial site. As the "here" link from Wehwalt will tell you, we're trying to decide how to transition from the old official site to the new official site. It's impossible to link to individual pages on individual properties; your "the actual page on the building" link produces a message of "HTTP Status 404 - /internal/internal.jsp". FYI, the most important part of nr.nps.gov still works — our citations depend on the complete database, which can be downloaded from the Download Center that appears on that page. Finally, the old official site is quite reliable; there's no less reason to trust it than there is to trust factfinder.census.gov for official US Census Bureau data. Linkrot isn't a reason not to trust data from a website — that's why all the style guides require an access date, since information may change from day to day. ] (]) 22:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::FYI, the links to actual pages (or at least skipping everything except the final click) ''can'' be generated. to Crane Hill Masonic Lodge. I explained the link at ], but Doncram and I haven't been on the best of terms lately.--] (]) 01:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
			Great American Sex Podcast with Sunny Megatron - Butt Stuff 201: Pegging & Vagus Nerve w/ Ruby Ryder: https://sunnymegatron.com/vagus-nerve-pegging/
	:::::Dudemanfellabra, sorry I didn't comment specifically about your suggestion at ] to use type of specific NPS Focus link instead of linking to the NRIS database. Honestly, in the context of what has seemed like undue negativity and personal tone in your comments about me, and given that you emphasized your own comments were driveby in nature (that you wouldn't watch the page any longer), I thot it was probably best not to respond directly. Sorry if my not commenting caused you further confusion.
			Smart Sex, Smart Love with Dr Joe Kort - Ruby Ryder on Pegging - https://joekort.com/ruby-ryder-on-pegging/
	:::::But, I wouldn't recommend the specific type of NPS Focus link you suggest, to replace NRIS references generally and in that specific case. NPS Focus links like your example for Crane Hill Masonic Building might serve to document merely the fact of NRHP listing, but cannot serve to document architecture type, acreage of listing, and many other fields that we routinely get from NRIS, which are simply not available at the NPS Focus link. In the List of Masonic buildings article, NRIS (via the Elkman interface) was my source for architecture, year of construction, and other factoids supported by references to NRIS; NPS Focus was not my source and does not provide that info. And the NPS Focus link would surely frustrate readers and editors even more: it is a slow link, and it suggests that NRHP nomination documents and corresponding photosets will be available in PDF files, which is unfortunately false in most cases. In your Crane Hill example, the link gives URLs to click with false promise. Clicking only yields new reports that the files have not been digitized. Even that is false! They are digitized but just not available via the NPS Focus system; I know you know that because you have collected electronic copies. The NPS Focus site is pretty awful, frankly, and linking to it seems to me to be more unfriendly to readers than linking to NRIS. --] (]) 09:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
			Please let me know if you have further questions or if I can help in any way - and if there is a better way to respond to this conversation.
	::::::The Focus website '''does''' list many facts found in the NRIS database. Granted more may appear in the database, but Focus clearly shows architect and year built, as well as listing date and location. Focus even tells you what the site is notable for (in Crane Hill's case, it is "Social History" and "Event"). No, it's not as great as the NRIS database, but as the site says, it will "soon" be taken down. Also, instead of making users search through a database, this performs the search already (thus the slightly longer load time) and puts the user one click away from reading information (if we use reference numbers instead of names). I'm not saying it's better than the NRIS.. just more user-friendly and more updated. Yes, it gives false links to pdfs, but over time they will be uploaded. Right now the site is lacking, but over time, I see these links as the way to go. For all we know the NRIS database could be taken down tomorrow, and we'd be screwed. It's time to look for a long-term solution and update our references. --] (]) 10:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
			With respect,
	The search page of the website is not a reliable source for anything, and never was; you can't link people to a search box and say "look it up yourself", that's not a proper citation. Individual pages on the website are reliable sources for whatever they document. To document something from the site you need to use the individual pages; for example, and are reliable sources showing properties that were listed, the NRHP listing numbers, and the date of listings. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
			Ruby Ryder ] (]) 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:Many featured articles use the {{tl|GR}} series of templates, even though they're rather similar to the link we're discussing. If featured articles permit links to the search page, there's no reason that this link should be in question. The issue with the nr.nps.gov site is that it can't produce links to more direct pages, so this is the only way to use it as a reference. Both MLA and Chicago permit links of this sort when more direct links aren't viable, and if it's good enough for academia, it's good enough for us. ] (]) 02:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::The website actually ''can'' produce links to more direct pages, as I showed in my previous comment, and regardless of what MLA and Chicago allow, it doesn't meet our ] requirements. To repeat, you can't link people to a search box and say "look it up yourself", that's not a citation that complies with Misplaced Pages's requirements. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::That seems to be an untenable and unrealistic position, Jayjg. Of course we should always require direct links when pat all possible but I'm sure that there are some reliable sources where that is impossible. Saying that a particular database is unreliable or unusable just because it has a shitty interface seems over the top. (I think this a bit analogous to citing books. We don't force people to cite page numbers which, in essence, is telling the reader to "go look it up." I would love for us to require book citations to include page numbers but that's as untenable as your stance.) ] (]) 06:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::Correct me if I'm wrong, but GA and FA articles, for the most part, do cite page numbers, and if they don't, they usually have a page range or a chapter cited for easy reference. Blueboar and Jay's concerns have been raised for years now (and I've raised them myself in the past with no satisfactory answer forthcoming) and nothing has been done by the NRHP project to alleviate the problem. It's time for the project to find a better solution. ] (]) 09:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::A proper citation to "hard copy" certainly does include page numbers... and we have a template for situations where they are not given. ] (]) 14:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
			:I will quickly note that Sunny Megatron is an XBIZ Sexpert of the Year award according to our ] page, and is used as a reference elsewhere. ] is clinical director of The Center for Relationship and Sexual Health. So these aren't random peoplecasts. That does not establish, of course, what information you are to be cited for... and as others have, I suggest that you take the issue back to ] for fresh discussion. -- ] (]) 22:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	===A second issue===
			::agreed. I think RubyRyder seems useful as an expert. their information could be used, if correctly attributed. ] (]) 23:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Doncram's comments here and at ] raise another (related) issue... from what I understand, a lot of the time when information is cited to the NRHP database, what was actually relied upon was ]'s ... which is used as an intermediary to query the NRHP database. This means that the editor adding the citation did not actually look at the NRHP database being cited, but at the results of Elkman's program.
			:Thank you. These look like good sources. Ultimately the reliability of a source is dependent on the specific article text that it is being used to support, so your site still wouldn't be reliable to support a ], for instance, but it should be reliable to support general statements about pegging. ] (]) 01:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Now, Elkman's program seems to do an accurate job of finding information on the NRHP database, and I would trust it to give accurate results, so I don't have a problem with editors using it as an intermediary program to query the database (despite it being hosted on a personal website) ... but I ''do'' have a problem with not including any reference to this intermediary program in the citations. I think some reference to its use should be included per ]. ] (]) 14:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
	== Kavkazcenter ! ==		== NationalWorld.com ==
			What do we think about being used for ]'s month of birth? Courtesy ping to {{yo|Diademchild}}.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 19:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	Hi, I know that on Wiki we should also use other sources also from another point of view BUT this is in that case ridiculous.
	Just read this part of an article.
	::''About a 500 strong Mujahideen unit is fighting in different front lines and Mujahideen reinforcements are on their way to the battle zone.
	::Report further added, that about 38 American invaders so far have been killed or wounded, with some of enemy tanks have been destroyed, while five Mujahideen embraced martyrdom ::with another four wounded. It is to be mentioned that NATO and US have never confirm Taliban's summary of casualties of the occupation soldiers. The occupation command keeps their ::count of casualties which are several times lower than the numbers reported by the Taliban.
	http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2010/06/28/12257.shtml
			:Based on ], not necessarily crap. ] (]) 21:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	I am for banning this source forever. It's not another point of view it's a Terrorist site without any connection to the reality.
			:Remember that ] says full names or birth dates should be widely published by reliable sources and that the standard for inclusion isn't just verification. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	Bullshit - Islamic propaganda.
	:No, it's not a reliable source, per ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 02:41, 24 January 2025

Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context

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

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

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

Additional notes:

Shortcuts

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

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

Start a new discussion

---

RfC: NewsNation

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Misplaced Pages proposals Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

What is the reliability of NewsNation?

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

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

Survey (NewsNation)

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

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

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

Discussion (NewsNation)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

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

They should be:

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

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

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

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

Preliminaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey A: Geni.com

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

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

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

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

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

Invalid RFC/No change - giving only options here that are highly negative is not a neutral stance. And there is no specific evidences shown or reason why this is even coming up or needs that all previous RSP should be declared invalid. (See discussions RSP discussions here ). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:45, 24 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)

• No Change - no entry to RSP needed and seems has been accepted. This just is not something that often comes up for question and seems has not been hard to figure out the nature of so it also does not need a RSP entry. Yet as can be seen by this search, it is used and that seems evidence that common view *is* de facto RS by usage. Really seems like just declaring all those edits wrong is not a useful thing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:03, 24 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)

• No change to either of these - seems this is referring to two different sources, both of which are somewhat widely used in WP and neither of which seems suitable for an RSP entry. Just not seeing sufficient case or benefit from any entry either. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:13, 24 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)

• I don't see the point to this. I can see there being concerns about quality of niche sources, but do not see a reason why a RSP entry should be made or benefit for trying it. Why should the source choice of hundreds or thousands of editors at thousands of entries be disregarded ? How can they all be effectively replaced ? I'm thinking that their de facto opinion has to be given great weight and that all those cites would either stay or that holes would be made in the affected articles -- so any RSP entry seems just pointless or causing lots of trouble rather than making any improvement. Am I missing some magic wand or an urgent concern worth the trauma ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Jacobin

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Misplaced Pages proposals Politics, government, and law Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

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

Survey: Jacobin

• Option 2 I am opposed to the use of WP:GREL and think that no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2. With that being said, I would list New York Times or the CBC in precisely the same way and I don't believe that any of the complainants have demonstrated in any way that Jacobin is less reliable, per Misplaced Pages's standards, than any other American news media outlet. I am deeply concerned that many of the complaints are about "bias" when reliability does not include a political compass test. This is not grounds to treat a source as unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2/3, bias is one thing, getting things down right incorrect is another. As was demonstrated in the pre-discussion, the notion around the housing stock was truly an egregious error. This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts. When that happens, "Generally unreliable" or at minimum, "Additional considerations" makes sense as the guidance when using this source. I do not think further deprecation is warranted though since the reporters seem to be of a mixed quality, some are more diligent than others and the bias merging into wanton disregard for facts varies there too. The problem is, we rate sources, not just individual writers, and therefore as far as a source rating goes, "Option 2" or "Option 3" then makes the most logical sense. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  It was corrected. Your entire case is based on a single incident where a single writer made a single mistake. And it was fixed. There is absolutely no grounds for "Generally unreliable" on the basis of presented evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  It was corrected only after significant outside pressure and even then the correction was weak and inaccurate. The guy who wrote the article was explicitly mocking the people who pointed out his error and accusing them of something along the lines of being corporate shills. It also wasn’t a single incident as they publish nonsense regarding Russia and Ukraine, including and up to outright conspiracy theories, pretty regularly. It simply is not a reliable source, however much one agrees with their editorial stance. Volunteer Marek 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  So you agree with Iljhgtn's conspiracy theory that this was the purposeful result of pushing bias not an error? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  • I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including User:Iljhgtn and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? Volunteer Marek 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    You misquote the editor (to your benefit), for someone so interested in errors supposedly motivated by bias that seems odd... In context its clearly stronger than that "This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." when nothing suggests that this was the result of narrative pushing (thats how you push a narrative either, as you've pointed out although lingusitically similar its an embarrassing and obvious error). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    • You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome. Volunteer Marek 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

      You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

      No , I’m not. I’m simply asking you to refrain from trying to falsely characterize other people’s comments as “conspiracy theories” in a cheap attempt to delegitimize them since they’re clear nothing of the sort. Not everything you disagree with is a “conspiracy theory”. In this particular case, the article clearly had false info in it. No one has ever said that “information was changed” (as if on purpose) so please stop pretending otherwise. What was said was that “bias creeped in” which I think is a fair characterization. So please quit it with the strawman’ing. Volunteer Marek 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

      I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we WP:FOC. I believe @Horse Eye's Back is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

      Its you who needs to provide a source to substantiate your allegations against a living person. ""This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." is a BLP violation unless a source is provided or the author drops dead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  And what is your source for that? Nobody else is saying that this was the result of bias, the sources say that "third largest corporate owner of housing" became "owns a third of housing" which is a very understandable mistake. You appear to have constructed your own conspiracy theory around this incident. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Im sorry but “third largest owner” turning into “owns one third of all housing stock” is NOT an “understandable mistake”. It misstates the actual fact by a factor of 500. Maybe if this was like a student in some freshmen class using AI to write a paper that would be “understandable” (and still get an F) but this is supposed to be a professional, who’s job it is to get this stuff right and this is supposed to be a serious organization that has an editorial board that does fact checking. Which they obviously didn’t do. Volunteer Marek 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Whats “not math”? The difference between .0006 and .33? You sure? Volunteer Marek 01:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  And let’s see these “every major and minor publications” that make these kinds of error. Volunteer Marek 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I note the failure to provide the requested source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Right back at you. Volunteer Marek 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    , your turn and no stonewalling now provide the source or go away. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that. Volunteer Marek 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

      Your source that this was "exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative" and not simply an error is what? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have to say I question your judgment in supporting option 3 "generally unreliable" over Jacobin publishing and then retracting a single erroneous sentence, and for having a bias/narrative/agenda, when you also !voted option 1 "generally reliable" for The Heritage Foundation which routinely publishes fabricated information without retraction. Could you kindly articulate how an admittedly biased outlet with a team of fact checkers is apparently significantly worse than a think tank that churns out misinformation and disinformation (and has a team of paid staff working around the clock to target, dox, and threaten Misplaced Pages editors)?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 A screenshot of a tweet documenting an already corrected error is insufficient to depreciate a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs) 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• (Summoned by ping in this thread) Bad RFC / No listing just as in 2021. Or Option 2, it is a liberal analysis magazine, to be considered frequently as WP:RSOPINION. See you at the next 1-day social media hysteria. MarioGom (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but Jacobin is not remotely liberal. It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. MarioGom (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I find it really funny when Americans see somebody holding mainstream social democratic politics and start calling them extreme. Simonm223 (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1. Correcting a mistake is a sign of reliability. The normal caveats about bias/opinion and attribution apply, but not seeing enough to move it down to 2. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 The current summary at WP:RS/P acknowledges that Jacobin is biased and that editors should take care when using it, which is exactly how it should be. Bias and adherence to factual accuracy are two different things; neutrality is not objectivity and vice versa. We do not need to demote it purely for being biased. Agree with others that an RfC being started based on a Reddit thread of a screenshot of a tweet of an editor who made a mistake which was ultimately corrected is a bit silly.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 as per the analysis by Selfstudier, XOR, and Tayi. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 WP:GREL already has certain considerations and it doesn't mean that 100% of what is published can make it to WP. Editors are expected to use their judgement. The article in question is a WP:NEWSBLOG. I don't see any reason for downgrading them based on a reddit thread. Lf8u2 (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 This entire RfC appears to be politically motivated and is predicated on a correction of a sentence that mixed up "third largest" with "a third of". Many other mainline newspapers have made similar, if not worse, errors before. The question is whether corrections were made when such errors were pointed out. And the correction was made here, meeting requirements of reliability. This is likely also about an opinion article, which makes this even more pointless. Silverseren 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Weapons of mass destruction from the New York Times? Was that ever retracted? TarnishedPath 11:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• 3. If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than Jacobin to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 3 or 2 - Right-wing outlets that mix opinions in their articles, selectively choose facts to promote a political agenda, or sloppily misrepresent the truth have rightly been marked as unreliable ages ago. There is no reason to have a different standard for other political positions. And regardless of that, outlets that do that cannot be relied on (i.e. are unreliable) to present an accurate picture of the facts on a given topic, nor are their writers' opinions noteworthy in our articles. Op-eds from even mainstream papers like NYT, WaPo, etc. are routinely removed as sources; outlets like Jacobin that consist entirely of such articles should likewise not be used (and we have already done this for right-wing opinion outlets like Quillette). The green checkmark at RSP misleads editors into thinking opinions and claims published in Jacobin are more noteworthy than they really are. Crossroads 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Jacobin's raison d'etre is to promote socialism, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting. However, it may be used with caution for topics within its area of expertise (such as the theory and history of socialism, labor movements, and socialist cultural commentary), provided proper attribution and corroboration from neutral sources are applied. 2601:340:8200:800:30C1:6FF8:F57B:FCF8 (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  This is no more a good argument than it would be to state that the raison d'etre of X publication is to promote capitalism and the geo-political interests of the United States, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting.

  I could apply that faulty argument to shitloads of mainstream US publications that are currently considered to be generally reliable. TarnishedPath 05:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1. Folks have said it well already so I won't belabor the point. I can't really imagine an occasion when I would cite Jacobin, but I consider them roughly a left-wing equivalent of The Economist or Reason (also publications I'd be unlikely to cite –– all three of these are usually rather predictable and tend to offer shallow analysis). I wasn't sure how we list those other two so I checked RSP just now and saw that they're 1s. Yes, OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument, but I was more interested in getting a baseline on where the community draws the line between 1 and 2. With respect, I object to Crossroads' comparison to Quillette, which leans heavily into platforming fringe ideas and displays little editorial oversight. (Interestingly, here's some solid reporting by Jacobin on a hoax published in Quillette, revealing the latter's abysmal editorial practices, courtesy of this past RSN discussion.) Generalrelative (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  Personally I don’t see Reason and Economist as equivalent, and was surprised to see Reason green flagged for the same reason that I don’t think Jacobin should be. That is, whereas Economist is mostly reporting and some opinion, both Reason and Jacobin are mostly opinion and some reporting. The Jacobin piece on the Quillette hoax looks good to me, but everything else they’ve published by that author wouldn’t be usable for facts as they’re pure op eds. I’d put the Spectator and National Review in the category as Jacobin and Reason. (Whereas Spiked and American Conservative are worse, red flag territory rather than amber.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Additional considerations apply. As I indicated in the discussion above which I started, the mere fact that Jacobin thought it appropriate to publish a statement that Blackstone Inc. "owns a third of US housing stock" indicates that they do not do adequate fact-checking before publishing articles. Therefore, one should attempt to corroborate any facts they publish with more reliable sources before relying on Jacobin to support any factual statements in articles. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1. Our guideline on reliable sources is explicit that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. I may not personally love the political perspective of Jacobin, but they don't go out of their way to platform disinformation that flatly contradicts academic consensus about reality. Regarding Jacobin as unreliable on the grounds of its bias would require evidence that said bias leads it to regularly publish misinformation and untruths. I haven't seen this established.Moreover, the error brought up that somehow has sparked this RFC was both A) corrected in a timely manner, which is what we expect from a reliable source; and B) a case where context matters, as the original source was a book review of several books written by Mark Fisher. If cited, it should be cited to warrant information about Fisher or his books or the genre he wrote in, etc. The Blackstone number was Information provided in passing, and we already know that such info occasionally may not be reliable, and so we use our best judgment as editors, citing and reading a wide variety of sources and going to the best sources. For a topic like Mark Fisher, looks like Jacobin is a good resource. For Blackstone and housing, try an article from the journal Urban Studies. Not every source is perfect at every subject, but when a source has a known editorial staff, issues corrections to publications, and is grounded in reality, it's reliable, even if I wouldn't personally enjoy talking politics with the editor.Finally, when a piece published in Jacobin is an opinion piece, we can just treat it as such, per our guideline about opinion pieces in reliable sources. The Economist and The Wall Street Journal publish a lot of opinion pieces too, yet GREL they've remained. As the perennial list says of The Economist, editors should use their judgement to discern factual content—which can be generally relied upon—from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3 or Option 2, long overdue for the reasons already set out in this thread. And frankly, the idea that a magazine whose name is derived from the people who instituted the Reign of Terror was ever acceptable w/o issue is offputting by itself. Just10A (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  For the record, the founder has said that in naming the magazine, he was thinking of The Black Jacobins, a book about the Haitian Revolution, not the French. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Not that that is relevant anyway when assessing reliability. TarnishedPath 01:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  The Black Jacobins is named so because the author analogizes the actions of the Haitians to that of the French Jacobins. It's just adding an extra step (not to mention that the word has a known meaning on it's face, so it's mostly irrelevant.). Regardless, it's clearly derived, and it's frankly silly to even argue semantics. Just10A (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Just to be clear your argument about the name being relevant to reliability is literally arguing semantics. Your objection doesn't make any sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  I was referring to the semantics of what counts as "derived from." And no, while the name clearly doesn't inherently reflect relevance. If a source called "The KGB Times" came up on the noticeboard for reliability, it's perfectly reasonable for a person to point out "Hey, I don't think it's reliable for reasons x,y, and z, andddd the name also doesn't exactly inspire confidence." That's all I'm saying. Don't twist my statement into something it's not. Just10A (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  That is arguing semantics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  If that's your benchmark, then practically everything is arguing semantics, including this whole thread. "Jacobin publishes words -> what are the meaning of those words? (semantics) -> can we qualify those meanings as 'reliable?'" Clearly distinguishing factors, and I'm not interested in arguing semantics about the word "semantics" with you like a 12 year old. My vote's been explained, get over it. Just10A (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Bias has plenty to do with reliability, or can. It's a worthwhile thing to take into consideration. Herostratus (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3/4: An encyclopedia should focus on high-quality, fact-driven sources. Not on ones that report the news with heavy political agendas, at least not without qualifying it. Using a highly politically charged source (of whatever political persuasion) inevitably leads to

1. Bias and lack of objectivity: Sources with extreme political leanings present information very selectively and often distort facts to support an ideological agenda. This can lead to biased or one-sided entries that undermine neutrality. It can also lead to including content that is not encyclopedic. See Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not.
2. Erosion of credibility: Misplaced Pages is expected to provide balanced, factual, and well-researched content. Reliance on politically extreme sources can damage its reputation as a reliable and neutral reference.
3. Misinformation and inaccuracy: Sources like Jacobin often contain errors, conspiracy theories, or exaggerated claims that, when included in encyclopedia entries, could mislead readers and spread misinformation.
4. Cherry-picking evidence: Extreme political sources may omit contrary evidence or fail to represent the full range of perspectives. This results in incomplete or skewed coverage. Critical context is lacking.
5. Harm to reputation of the field: Normalizing unreliable content can set a dangerous precedent here. Per Misplaced Pages policy, a fact worthy of entry in an encyclopedia would be covered by multiple reliable sources. It would be difficult to "counter" each instance of citing Jacobin with another source of equal repute but on the opposite political extreme covering the same story.

Further, Jacobin is mostly an opinion source. While it is not the worst source in the world, it hardly ranks among reliable sources. According to Ad Fontes Media, which monitors news value and reliability, "Ad Fontes Media rates Jacobin in the Hyper-Partisan Left category of bias and as Mixed Reliability/Opinion OR Other Issues in terms of reliability."

The goal of Misplaced Pages, which prioritizes reliable secondary sources, is to present information with a sense of detachment. There is no shortage of such sources, and those are the ones to use. --Precision123 (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Well said. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Iljhgtn:. I'd also like to add that @Herostratus: put it nicely above: "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." --Precision123 (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

That is also a good point. I imagine that is why as a standalone source it likely should not be relied upon for reliable reporting on the facts, but that maybe it could work to bolster a claim made already by another reliable source. Option 2 of "Additional considerations" is where I am leaning. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The OP @Feminist also spoke to this. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

1. All sources are biased, it's a natural part of human nature. This is covered by WP:RSBIAS, if that bias effects accuracy and fact checking then that needs to be shown by examples. Biased sources are not unreliable simply because of their bias.
2. People's opinions of Misplaced Pages are not a criteria for determining a reliable source.
3. Instances of errors or misinformation should be shown, saying they might exist isn't evidence that they do exist.
4. This is again covered by WP:RSBIAS.
5. This point relates to NPOV not reliability. Editors should take WP:DUE, WP:BALASP, and WP:FALSEBALANCE into account, but ultimately whether a source should be used is not the same as if a source is reliable.

-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Detachment is specifically not required of sources per RSBIAS "... reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Precision123: did you employ ChatGPT or other LLM to compose this response? The structure is suspiciously similar to ChatGPT's writing style and your response is primarily platitudes with no specific examples or references to the specific policies undergirding RSP. Your sentence Sources like Jacobin often contain errors, conspiracy theories, or exaggerated claims that, when included in encyclopedia entries, could mislead readers and spread misinformation is especially LLM-like and makes the spurious claim that sources like Jacobin may use conspiracy theories which hasn't been brought up anywhere here. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2. They are an analysis/opinion magazine rather than a strait news source, so their pervasive bias has to be carefully considered when assessing its use as a source. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:48, 24 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)

RfC: TheGamer

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

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

---

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

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

Link to previous discussion

Kaynsu1 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Nevermind then. I'll delete the info on the Flowey page that provides no encyclopedic value. The reason I proposed this originally was because TheGamer's content has gotten worse and more sloppy since 2020.Kaynsu1 04:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

Pirate Wires?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  It's Mike Solana's blog. Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need context before coming to RSN

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

• Per Slatersteven its founder describes it as a WP:SPS - it should be treated accordingly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Not me. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Oh dear did I misread? OOPS should be per Selfstudier apologies. I will strike above. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Usage in Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages

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

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

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

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

It is more or less a group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectful comment: This discussion would be more helpful if we focused on how reliable sources treat a specific startup news organization and less on original research and personal opinion. --Precision123 (talk) 21:55, 23 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)

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)

The difference between Hawar and TRT seems to be how they are treated by independent academics and subject experts; as far as I know, TRT has been repeatedly accused of spreading outright falsehoods (such as here), whereas Hawar is seemingly deemed to be mostly reliable despite its connections to the PYD and SDF. Applodion (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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

RfC: LionhearTV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 3It's a blog. That means WP:SPS applies. This means it might be contextually reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF or under WP:EXPERTSPS (with the usual condition that SPSEXPERT prohibits any use of SPS for BLPs) and so I don't see any pressing need for deprecation, but this is very clearly a source that is not generally one we should use. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  FWIW, the person behind this blog is not a subject matter expert. Like, we don't even know who this is. (One subject matter expert in Philippine showbusiness that I know of that runs a similar blog is Fashion Pulis, and I event won't even use the blind items as sources there lol) As explained above, once this gets to be used as a source, it won't be challenged and people just accept it as is. This is a low quality source that has to be blacklisted. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah that's fine. I was just saying that, in general, those are the only two avenues to use someone's blog. Simonm223 (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 4 Their reportings are obviously flawed and a per example above copypasting is a not a good look nor a good indication for "reliability" and it is often used in BLP, yikes. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hatebase.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LaserDisc Database?

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

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

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

Usage of AirPlay Direct for music articles

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

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

Global Defense Corp

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Butowski 2021, pp. 78–82

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should we trust Social Blade for statistics

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

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

The question is should we trust it?

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

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

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

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

RfC: EurAsian Times

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Misplaced Pages proposals Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

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

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

Survey (EurAsian Times)

• • Option 2/Do not enter to RSP I’d tend to evaluate depending on what the edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except option2. In this case, I don't see a reason to make any RSP entry -- there doesn't seem to be a lot of RSN discussions to summarize or adjudicate and if it is in use hundreds of times then making a RSP entry at this point seems to be problematic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (EurAsian Times)

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

  Yes, there is already strong consensus for its general unreliability (with just one dissenting editor in all of those discussions). I guess the only question is whether it should be deprecated, given its quite frequent use BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that most opinions expressed about it were negative, but it felt a bit like shaky ground to be able to know if it could still be used for some specific things, be treated as generally unreliable, or to actually deprecate. That is why I wanted clarification before potentially going on a hunt. Sorry if an RfC was overkill for this one, but I figured that since it is used quite a lot it could be good to clarify. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 10:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

flightconnections.com

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

I can't find any information about who runs the site or where it gets it's information from. There are quite a few articles promoting it or about how to use it, but that is unsurprising as it operates an affiliate programme. From a Google book search it has some extremely limited USEBYOTHERS (note several of the results are not reliable sources), but not enough to be meaningful. I couldn't get any useful results from Google Scholar. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I do see it as reliable. They are buying the data from one of the large brokers (likely either Cirium or OAG, I wish they said who) and simply providing a wrapper to explore that data, and selling ads and subscriptions to pay for the extremely expensive subscription the brokers charge. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

It can work at least as a starting point. It lists both charter and regularly scheduled flights. You can find the flight number of a given route and then cross-reference it on another source as well. --Precision123 (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Pegging

At this point, after educating people about pegging for the last 14 years, I do indeed qualify as an expert. I am the go-to person for information about pegging in the sex education world.

Could this conversation about the veracity of my 'opinions' in 2017 perhaps be reviewed? I am the only sex educator I know of who specializes in pegging. I have taught countless classes since 2012 (in person and over Zoom) for beginners, equipment, and advanced pegging, and written many, many articles about pegging as well. Were they published in magazines or on websites that made me edit the crap out of what I'd written until it lost its meaning? No. Wouldn't play that game because the message was too important to me, and because they wanted free material.

I am not a person of notoriety like Tristan Taormino or Dan Savage, but that does not mean I don't know what I'm talking about or what I put out into the world about pegging is just my 'opinion'. There have been no 'studies' on pegging and there aren't likely to be anytime soon, for obvious reasons.

Since when was the only measure of an expert their notoriety? I have gone down the rabbit hole of pegging and remained there. I have held space for all the different expressions of pegging during that time, which are numerous. I have advised hopeful givers and receivers how to approach their partners, while also educating them about the (intensely) common misconceptions and assumptions about the sexual act, and so many more things that are a part of pegging. Masculinity, role reversal, communication, etc, etc.

I have helped countless couples find the best equipment for them, which is much more complicated and individual than a cheap strap-on and dildo. Educating interested people about pegging has been my mission for the last 14 years. Other sex educators have more surface knowledge about this sexual act - knowledge that can be gleaned from a simple Marie Claire article.

My apologies if I sound a little irritated. My intentions are good. Famous people are not the best sources, necessarily. In sex education circles I am widely known as the go-to expert.

https://peggingparadise.com/ (my original website)

https://www.theartofpegging.com/ (my educational and patron platform)

https://pegging101.com/ (pegging with no kink for the vanilla people)

With Respect For All That You Amazing People Do, Ruby Ryder RubyRyder (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Ms. Ryder,

What would help here is if you could point us to either reliable, independent sources citing your work, or of you writing for publications that you don't publish yourself.... something that helps us see that, as you say, "in sex educations widely known as a go-to expert." I fully believe that you are.

The problem with someone using your sources as a reference has to do with Misplaced Pages's rules on using self-published sources, which your websites, videos, etc, count as. We can use such sources as reference (if within some limits), but only if we can see that the creator is a recognized expert in the field... and by recognized, that means either cited by or hired to write on the topic by reliable sources. I know that it seems like your voluminous experience and the visible quality of your materials should count for something here, but alas it does not. I don't think we'd be expecting, say, the New York Times or the Journal of the American Medical Association in this case, just some recognizable source that takes such sexual matters seriously. It doesn't even have to be material that is online (although that would help.) Articles that quote you or recommend your sites or training services would really help. Can you point us to such citations? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the work that you do. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages editors cannot use their own judgement to assess the expertise of someone. There are people who research topics and work in a field their entire lives who become experts in those fields and publish their work on their own websites. But there are also pseudo-experts who do the same thing. Editors on Misplaced Pages are not allowed to use their own judgement to discern the difference between the two, but must rely on a third party to establish their expertise. If you have ever given an interview on pegging for a newspaper or a magazine, or had your website cited by a sexologist or another recognizable sex expert as a good resource on pegging, for instance, then that would allow us to recognize the reliability of your site for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. Photos of Japan (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you comment on and notify the article talk page you want to edit? We really cannot help without context around what changes you want to include.

that conversation from 2017 is old. I have no clue if that is what Misplaced Pages editors believe today, nor the state of the article you want to change. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I am highly confident that Pegging (sexual practice) is the main article on the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I would concur. Simonm223 (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Their comment wasn't asking which page the 2017 discussion was on (which is linked to), but was asking RubyRyder to leave a comment on the talk page of that article. Photos of Japan (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Is the only reason we want to include this information because its from RubyRyder and it would be good publicity? or is there a specific bit of info that they want to include that is missing?
• have they tried including it and seeing what happens? (see WP:BRD) Are regulars who wrote and watch the pegging article notified that this debate is happening?
• This post seems mostly like rehashing and trying to start up an argument from 2017 for the sake of a debate. would like info on what we are doing here, exactly, and what the debate is?

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2025 – Thank you for your response. I understand the reasoning. I was asked for other sources, and below I am listing well-known sexologists and people with letters after their name who have interviewed me on their podcasts.

Cam Fraser - the Power and Pleasure of Pegging with Ruby Ryder: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0naA7WaumMhL1t5wE2vaj5?si=IFqLYzGzT_aQomGXWKvSww&nd=1&dlsi=3c896a210a7d4408

Great American Sex Podcast with Sunny Megatron - Pegging with Ruby Ryder:https://sunnymegatron.com/ruby-ryder-pegging-paradise/

Great American Sex Podcast with Sunny Megatron - Butt Stuff 201: Pegging & Vagus Nerve w/ Ruby Ryder: https://sunnymegatron.com/vagus-nerve-pegging/

Smart Sex, Smart Love with Dr Joe Kort - Ruby Ryder on Pegging - https://joekort.com/ruby-ryder-on-pegging/

Please let me know if you have further questions or if I can help in any way - and if there is a better way to respond to this conversation.

With respect,

Ruby Ryder RubyRyder (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I will quickly note that Sunny Megatron is an XBIZ Sexpert of the Year award according to our XBIZ Awards page, and is used as a reference elsewhere. Joe Kort is clinical director of The Center for Relationship and Sexual Health. So these aren't random peoplecasts. That does not establish, of course, what information you are to be cited for... and as others have, I suggest that you take the issue back to Talk:Pegging (sexual practice) for fresh discussion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

agreed. I think RubyRyder seems useful as an expert. their information could be used, if correctly attributed. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. These look like good sources. Ultimately the reliability of a source is dependent on the specific article text that it is being used to support, so your site still wouldn't be reliable to support a medical claim, for instance, but it should be reliable to support general statements about pegging. Photos of Japan (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

NationalWorld.com

What do we think about NationalWorld.com being used for a living porn star's month of birth? Courtesy ping to @Diademchild:.--Launchballer 19:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on National World, not necessarily crap. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Remember that WP:DOB says full names or birth dates should be widely published by reliable sources and that the standard for inclusion isn't just verification. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories:

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