Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 15:56, 4 November 2013 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,310,634 editsm Archiving 19 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 158) (bot← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 13:01, 22 January 2025 edit undoLegobot (talk \| contribs)Bots1,671,915 edits Adding RFC ID.
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{short description\|Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}}
	<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
			{{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}		\|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = ~~158~~		\|counter = 465
			\|minthreadstoarchivSee = 1
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\|algo = old(5d)		\|algo = old(5d)
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
	}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__ <!--		}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__
			<!--
	------------------------------------------------------------------------------		------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	NEW ENTRIES GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE AS A NEW SECTION		NEW ENTRIES GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE AS A NEW SECTION
Line 12:		Line 15:
	-->		-->

			------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	== Current ] ==

	<!-- ] 08:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC) -->
	===]===
	<!-- ] 08:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC) -->

	===]===
	<!-- ] 08:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC) -->
	===]===
	<!-- ] 08:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC) -->
	===]===
	<!-- ] 08:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC) -->

	== Religious demographic data in ] ==

	In the article ]'s infobox, statistics on religious affiliations in Russia from the CIA World Factbook have twice been replaced by statistics from the following two sources:
	* (the Independent Research Service, a Russian NGO founded in 2011)
	* (a series of maps, their legends all in Russian, published on the web site of a Russian newspaper)
	I make no claim that the new figures aren't accurate, but I am not persuaded that their reliability has been adequately assessed. Note that the new figures are significantly different from the previous ones. I opened a discussion ] but the user reinserting the content has not replied thus far. Additional opinions would be much appreciated. ] (]) 05:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

	:It hardly matters. Religious demographic data is notoriously unreliable at the best of times. Even the CIA fact book has to use local, widely differing sources, depending on self identification in response to wildly differing census or other questions the book has no control over. ] (]) 06:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

	::I'm sure you're right. However, I think it does matter. Just because the best sources on a particular topic are flawed doesn't mean we might as well throw up our hands in despair and use any old sources. Using the most reliable sources available to us goes some way towards safeguarding articles from insertion of content based not only on misinformation but also on ''dis''information. (Not that the CIA is above peddling the latter, but that's rather beyond the scope of this thread.) ] (]) 06:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

	::Would anyone else care to offer an opinion? Pretty please? ] (]) 03:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

	:::I see no reason to take the CIA World Factbook as any more reliable than the other sources cited. As HiLo48 says, they don't do research on such things, they merely cite whatever they can find. If we don't have reliable sources, we should tell the reader so, rather than citing questionable ones. ] (]) 03:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::All right, then. The only way I can think of to "tell the reader so" is by way of inline maintenance tags, which I have now added (and noted on the talk page). My sense about it was that the CIA source, warts and all, is at least a known quantity, whereas sreda.org is very new, which makes it hard to tell where they're coming from. I hope the tags will inspire someone with bilingual skills and a knack for checking foreign-language sources to look into this more closely someday. Thanks much to both Andy and HiLo for their input. ] (]) 20:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::My opinion was asked by the person who added the new sources, and I'll repeat the pertinent part of it here as well. Personally, I don't have a problem with the sources being added—they both are reliable in the ] sense. ''Kommersant'' in particular is a well-known publisher of various regional stats. I do, nevertheless, lean to using the CIA Factbook figures, since that's what's used most often in the articles about other countries, making it possible to directly compare the stats across different articles. As HiLo48 said, the religious demographic stats often vary wildly from one source to another, so the least we can do for our readers is to use the same source consistently.—] • (]); October 22, 2013; 20:59 (UTC)
	::::::Good point. However, without making some major changes to the section, which I won't undertake at present, I don't see any way to put the Factbook figures back in. ] (]) 05:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::: There is the main ] article, but there is also a subsidiary article with the focus on religion. It has a breakdown of the smerda-dataset, in a table all by itself. Suggest adding a table with the CIA dataset, for comparison purposes... or if possible, a combined table, which shows the CIA/smerda/kommmersat percentages, or even better, 1980/1990/2000/2010 triplets. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a repository for <s>huge tracts of land</s> vast statistical tabulations, but when the sources conflict, we should describe the conflict in a way that mirrors the sources, not pick winners and losers.
	:::::::    Agree that the prose sections cannot easily be repaired... but note that the pie-chart (which is in both the top-level ] as well as the subsidiary article) '''can''' be tweaked to advertise the conflicting-source-problem. For example, in the big purple 'orthodox' section, there is enough room to say "30% to 49%" or whatever the real numbers are, and then hyperlink that line-of-text to the separate-tables-or-combo-table down in the subsidiary article. Readers (and editors) that really care about the answer, will at least realize that the 'answer' you get is highly dependent on who is doing the answering, and will not have to hunt up the raw numbers themselves. HTH ] (]) 12:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	# '''Source.''' {{cite web\|url=http://www.volokh.com/posts/1199828622.shtml\|title=More Trouble for Ron Paul\|publisher=]\|date=January 8, 2008\|first=David\|last=Bernstein}}.
	# '''Article.''' ].
	# '''Content.''' The source is used to describe the views of ] Professor (and libertarian) David Bernstein regarding the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Specifically, the source is used to note that Bernstein believes the Institute is associated ("plays footsie") with racists, anti-semites, and conspiracy theorists. No particular person, living or dead, is mentioned, and these views are specifically attributed to Bernstein.

	The basic question is: ''Is the Volokh Conspiracy a reliable source to establish that Bernstein made the statement attributed to him above?''

	I ask that editors involved in the Mises Institute page offer their views as to whether it is an RS on a separate thread below. With so many problems and allegations of bias/edit warring on the Mises pages, we need the input of uninvolved editors. ] (]) 17:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

	;Clarification question:
	Are asking about:
	#With respect to establish the statement being made, or to
	#establish (per the RS-based wp:npov requirements) that rs's have covered it in relation to the article topic for inclusion in that particular article?
	<font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 18:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

	: North, thank you for asking for this clarification. It has compelled me to form the question in a more specific and made way. However, I ask that you delete this post (or move it down to the "involved users" thread) because it is cluttering the thread.{{unsigned\|Steeletrap}}

	::The clarification moves it a step towards resolution which is to show that it is now somewhat self-conflicting because you are still referring to presence in the Ludwig von Mises Institute article which is a different (higher) standard than how you have framed the question. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 18:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

	===Uninvolved editors===

	The source is certainly reliable for his own statements, but a throwaway comment like this is unsuitable for use in an article in my opinion. The post is about Ron Paul, and only mentions LVMI in passing. Certainly this is too weak to be used on any individual BLP page, where you would be causing a ]/] to link the statement to that person, where they are obviously not mentioned in the source. Additionally, as a ], the statement would be a brightline BLP violation for any BLP article. In the context of the LVMI article itself, it is less objectionable, but still so, because of the throwaway nature of the statement, and there is no evidence that Bernstein's opinion on LMVI is notable (is he known for writing about them? no.), and selection of this quote out of context, creates a ] ] issue. Why is this quote selected, out of the thousands or millions of other possible quotes about the LMVI? and is still a ] which should be used exceedingly sparingly. ] (]) 18:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

	: ('''reply to uninvolved editor by OP''') Concerns about notability of the source are off-topic as far as the reliability of a source goes. I do strongly disagree with your view in that regard, however. That a major libertarian legal scholar refuses to publish with the Institute bc of its association with racists/anti-semites seems very notable, even if Bernstein's mention of this was cursory in an article about Ron Paul. ] (]) 20:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

	The source may be reliable, but after reading what the source actually says and the way it is (was) used in the article is a clear BLP violations. The sentence included says ".view that the Institute "play footsie" with racists, anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists." This goes beyond what Bernstein said and is a BLP violation. Bernstein did not directly associate LVM with any specific group other than general conspiracy theories. He listed a number of conspiracy theories along with racists and anti-Semites, but did not make a direct connection. Also he said "Mainstream libertarian groups like Cato and Reason have nothing to do with the latter types, but other self-proclaimed libertarian groups, like the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, play footsie with them." A direct reading of "latter types" per his previous paragraph would be "to newer racist theories; to novel conspiracy theories about 9/11, the pharmaceutical industry, etc." but even that is Original Research. The question of RS is really moot because the source, as was used, was a clear violation of BLP via Synthesis of Material. I have removed it as a BLP violation. ] (]) 01:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Unreliable and a BLP violation'''. This appears to be a self-published source. You can't use an SPS as a third-party source about living people. Period. See ]. ] (]) 17:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
	*The Volokh Conspiracy is not a reliable source for this topic. It is a self-published source, and they can only "be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." So it might well be permissible to use a post by ] on US evidence law or US constitutional history, which are areas in which he is an academic expert, but he is not a published expert on the Ludwig von Mises Institute and therefore this cannot be used. ] (]) 03:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
	*This may be a valid source if it is accurately described, but it is not accurate to say that Bernstein thinks LVMI plays footsie with racists. He said LVMI plays footsie with people who "hold a deep grudge against the federal government based on a range of nutty conspiracy theories". I do not think Bernstein said (or meant) that LVM plays footsie with that entire range (i.e. with every single person or every single viewpoint within that range). Anyway, this does seem to be a BLP issue even though LVMI is a group rather than an individual. LVMI appears to be a ''small'' group, and so BLP applies. According to the BLP, "The institute has a staff of 16 Senior Fellows and about 70 adjunct scholars from the United States and other countries." According to ], "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group." If this does fall under BLP policy, then the Bernstein stuff probably cannot be included in the LVMI article: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject...."] (]) 06:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

	===Involved Editors===
	*I am somewhat involved, having recently edited at the article's talk page but not about this source. The "plays footsie" connection is very weak. I think too much is being made of the Bernstein source—it is thin soup, with no absolute statements made, just implications. ] (]) 18:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Binksternet, the only reason "too much" is being made of this RS citation is because of the unfounded attempt to impeach it, contrary to policy, to deny the associated text. "Played footsie" is quoted in the text, so there's no question the source said it. If the RS said "facilitated" or "enabled" instead of this quirky but clear figure of speech, the meaning would be identical. ]] 23:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
	* Having initiated the BRD at ], I'll briefly restate: The source is a group blog, Bernstein is actually commenting about Ron Paul & the Mises.org comment is incidental, Bernstein is a professor of law and the subject of "Mises.org", its' history or philosophy is ''not'' within his area of expertise. Also, I note that Bernstein "Congrats to the Mises Institute on this project a staggering array of libertarian literature on-line...." – ] (]) 18:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC) ''Added comment'': ] says cited material should "'''directly support''' the information as it is presented". The blog posting fails in this regard. 19:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Srich, you're wikilawyering again but your claims as usual, are tenuous and transparent. Suppose you were a trial attorney and Bernstein were an expert witness in the field of entomology. Suppose he testified that he saw an African killer honeybee sting the plaintiff, your client, in the ass. Do you think you could get the judge to strike the testimony because the entomologist doesn't have academic training in human anatomy? Your argument, which you use to contest source after source here, is specious. ]] 23:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::My client is a strawman, so ] can't harm him. In any case, your analogy to trial practice does not help in this discussion. Testimony from a ] is always admissible evidence if the witness is competent and the evidence is ]. So if the witness saw the bee sting someone, that testimony is admissible. The bee-keeper ] might be competent/qualified to testify about bee behavior, but may not be competent to testify about the effects of bee venom on humans. (As a percipient witness, s/he could say ''s/he saw'' the bee sting someone on the ass.) In this case Bernstein can testify that ''he'' did not accept an invitation to publish with Mises.org, but cannot testify ''as an expert'' that Mises.org had any particular characteristics. His lay ''opinion'' about Mises.org would not be admissible. Along the same lines, his blog comment about turning down an invitation to publish is not encyclopedic even if he gives an opinion on why. – ] (]) 00:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::'''@Srich''' - You managed to completely misrepresent my example and question, which was so brief, to the point, and carefully worded that your evasive reply (I do assume you understood my words) only strengthens the obvious inference that you are wikilawyering and throwing up specious and unfounded theories. Please re-read my message and you will see that your remark above concedes and affirms my rejection of your argument. You have made no credible or even coherent argument for rejecting what is manifestly a Reliable Source for the content on which it's cited. Case closed, as Judge Judy would say. ]] 00:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
	* ('''OP''') It seems to me that Volokh Conspiracy, one of the most widely-viewed websites in the legal world (regularly cited by the NYT, WP, and other mainstream news sources), whose writers are tenured professors at second-tier, first-tier, and elite law schools, is a reliable source for the views of Bernstein (which is the only thing it is used to source in the article). It seems to me that a major libertarian scholar's refusal to publish with the Institute bc of its alleged association with bigots is notable. But concerns regarding notability are off-topic; this thread is about reliability of sources. ] (]) 19:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
	* . . Since the institute is made of individuals, a number of whom are mentioned in the article, I don’t think it should be used to make a blanket accusation of “racists, anti-semites, and conspiracy theorists”. If it's used it should be within the context of being written during the Ron Paul newsletters revelations period (because a lot of people panicked and disassociated selves or were far more critical than today). So, in addition to comments above, another reason not to use it. '''] ''' 20:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
	:: Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Carol. Two points. 1) BLP isn't applicable here because no particular person is mentioned. Broad statements about institutions are not BLP statements. If I say something like "BYU is full of homophobes", "Brooklyn Polytechnic students don't do their homework", or "The Mises Institute is full of racists", I won't be accused of libel even if I provide no evidence (and indeed even if the statements are false), because that's not the same as making those statements about a living (or dead) person. This is an important logical distinction.
	:: 2) Volokh has been used '''203''' times in WP articles. I have never heard the term "a few" applied to such a huge number. ] (]) 21:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Clarified above - uses of the site ''as a reference''. Also note that BLP concerns are expressed as part of RSN notices above. '''BLP implications of this are now under discussion at ]'''. '''] ''' 21:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
	* '''Volokh is RS for this content''' This is a straightforward statement which is directly supported by the source, I see no problem with this one. ]] 23:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

	'''This is fatally flawed''' The question is posed as merely supporting the statement, but but context is a totally different standard. 01:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC) <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 18:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Yes, the setup question – ''The basic question is: "Is the Volokh Conspiracy a reliable source to establish that Bernstein made the statement attributed to him above?"'' – is flawed. It is safe to assume that Bernstein made the statement posted in the blog. (And thus meets requirement #4 in ].) But editors are commenting about the appropriateness of using Bernstein's comment in the context of the article. – ] (]) 01:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

	::Obviously it is rs for what Bernstein said. The real issue is ]. A website that says the moon-landing was faked for example may be rs for what specific writers have said, but that does not mean they should be included in articles about the moon-landing. ] (]) 17:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Hello TFD. If I understand your view, then, the discussion should take place on the article talk page, without further debate as to reliability of the source? Thanks. ]] 17:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::Yes, it never should have come here. The question posed was never an issue at the article, and the question at the article has not been posed here, and someone incorrectly implied that it was. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 18:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks North. I ask the group then, are we ready to close this thread as RS confirmed and discuss the WEIGHT question back at article talk? {{unsigned\|SPECIFICO}}
	::::::First, it's clear that most editors ''do'' agree it's undue weight and on those grounds should be removed. Considering that Volokh Conspiracy only has been used a couple times ''as a reference.'' I think it's reliability for what still looks like a personal blog entry, unedited, negative personal opinion which by implication casts aspersions on dozens of individuals is questionable. I don't see any ref that he's a "libertarian" or anything like that in his bio. And his comment could be motivated by biased factionalism. '''] ''' 13:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Carolmooredc, I think you're getting confused again. The weight issue should be discussed, but this is not the proper place for that. Rather than throw up all your balls in the air at once, you should try to separate your concerns and address them in the proper venues. Once again, nobody has stated that the weight issue is resolved, but the RS question appears to have been resolved. Thanks. ]] 13:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::The group blog is RS only in one respect – we do not dispute that Bernstein said what he said (] #4). But another factor must be considered – ''what is the subject'' of his comment? This is needed because ABOUTSELF #2 restricts comments about third parties and #3 says blog comments may "not involve claims about events not directly related to the source" . Because Bernstein's blog comments involve third parties and because Bernstein goes beyond claims and events not directly related to him, the question of WEIGHT does <u>not</u> come into play. (WEIGHT would be considered in Bernstein's article, not other articles.) The non-involved editors opine that it is not RS ''in this context'' and most of the involved editors opine not RS as well. – ] (]) 15:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::Srich, please. It doesn't say related '''exclusively''' to the source. You are misstating and misapplying policy. What would be related exclusively to the source? "Bernstein said he believes that his arms are too long" ? Many editors here, including myself are prepared to consider the WEIGHT issue on the article talk page, where such discussion belongs. ]] 15:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::SRich makes a good point. To me it's just one more in a long line of self-published negative/hostile opinion pieces some editors want to use in the Austrian Economics articles, which happily is ]. '''] ''' 16:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

	===Closure proposal===
	1) We close the RSN as solved, with Bernstein's Volokh post clearly being a reliable source for Bernstein's views (this would be progress, as many were questioning the RS aspect of this on the talk page, and now are shifting to other concerns). 2) We create an RfC on the LvMI page to address WP:Undue and WEIGHT concerns with the use of Bernstein. 3) We do not re-add Bernstein into the article until a consensus has been developed. ] (]) 00:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	:There are two problems with this proposal: One, it stages the question as if the RS issue on Bernstein is settled "as RS", which is <u>not</u> the case. Two, this closure proposal only serves to prolong a needlessly convoluted discussion. That is, the issue was raised at ] and hashed out quite enough on this page. And it proposes to throw the issue back onto the article talk page. (Reminder, RS is determined in terms of how the source is used a la ].) If enough discussion has ensued, then a ] should be posted. (And I recommend that one be posted.) I am confident that the reviewing (and dauntless) admin can figure out the issues, thereby giving us peace. (And I doubt that an RfC would bring in anything new or useful). – ] (]) 05:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

	:'''Note''' – a ] has been posted. – ] (]) 16:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::A request for closure immediately following a rejection of respected editor Steeletrap's proposal? With no resolution of the disagreement? How could that possibly make sense? I am dumbfounded by this request, Srich. Closing Admins are not here to choose one side or the other, they are here to recognize consensus. Srich, you are premature. Please withdraw. Reinsert at consensus. ]] 17:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	====Survey====

	*'''(OP) Support''' 1) Bernstein's views are clearly accurately described and do not relate to a living person. ] states that statements about organizations (that do not name particular people) are not generally considered BLP statements. There is no compelling argument prevented above that LvMI -- a huge org with by its own account 350 associated scholars () and a multi-million endowment -- should be an exception to this general rule. 2) Weight and undue concerns are legitimate, but should be hashed out on talk page, as it's off-topic for purposes of an RSN (use of a source can be undue even if it's reliable, and vice versa.) 3) Re-adding the material would serve to polarize editors and encourage edit warring. ] (]) 00:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. It is clear from the above discussion that the Bernstein bit is not appropriate for the article. Whether it is reliable for Bernstein's opinion turns out not to be as important as other considerations such as weight, balance, applicability, accuracy, etc. ] (]) 18:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::Our job here is to determine RS for the associated content. Weight, undue, and ] are not what we decide at RSN. Please review the thread -- editors are prepared to discuss your stated concerns on article talk. ]] 19:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

	====Discussion====

	== Three sources on ] article ==

	I’ll make each a subsection. While these are in different stages of debate, we might as well address the repeated use of questionable sources in one thread. (Volokh Conspiracy originally was on the list.) '''] ''' 22:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

	===Gene Callahan personal blog===
	* This sentence: ''In a discussion about alleged racism in the Institute, former Institute Scholar ] noted that the Institute had sought to appeal to racists for years, citing Neo-Confederate causes, but also said that "I think the truly racist time at LVMI had passed by the time ... I got there" in in the early 2000s.''
	**Ref: Gene Callahan’s blog “La Bocca della Verità”, article , January 2, 2012

	*Discussed here:
	#].
	#] discusses this use in more detail.<br>
	<br>

	====Uninvolved editors====
	*'''Unreliable and a BLP violation''' Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. See ] for further information. ] (]) 19:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
	::With all due respect, I read the policy, and that's absolutely not what it says. It says we can't use self-published sources where there is risk of ] violation, but there is no such risk because the LvMI is not a living person, or even a small organization of them.
	::I am forced to conclude that, as your opinion is based on a misunderstanding of policy, it has no bearing on this issue. Please read ] and ] more carefully, and consider them before further involvement. ] (]) 19:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Really? You are forced to conclude? I'm the fifth most frequent contributor to RSN so perhaps my opinion shouldn't be so easily dismissed without reason. But if you think I've missed something in regards to ] and ], then I encourage you to point it out. Unfortunately, you've failed to do so, so I am sticking to my previous opinion. ] (]) 20:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::Since AQFK has quoted directly from ], I'm not sure how MilesMoney can opine "that's absolutely not what it says". Bizarre or what? - ] (]) 20:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::What's bizarre is that you think a rule against BLP violations can apply to reliable sourcing in cases where BLP is impossible. ] (]) 17:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Not reliable''' Again, a self-published source can only "be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." There is no evidence that Callahan is a published expert on the Mises Institute or racism. ] (]) 22:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	::The subject matter is the LvMI, which advocates Austrian economics and provides jobs for people like Callahan. As an economist and former member, he is eminently qualified to speak on this matter. If you'll pardon my skepticism, you seem to be defining the requirements so tightly that absolutely no real person could qualify. In reality, our requirements are intended only to prevent people from talking about things they have no expertise in, which is obviously not the case here. ] (]) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

	====Involved editors====
	:* Originator opines: It's self-published, he's making a throw-a-way comment about his past experience, not a reasoned analysis from specific incidents/statements/etc. from a libertarian "expert" perspective.
	:* '''RS for this content''' It's preposterous to assert that only "a libertarian expert" is able to recognize what, in his opinion, is racist. Anyway, Callahan happens to be one of the foremost living libertarian experts and was a key Mises Institute scholar on site for many years. So it's a no-go double whammy trying to impeach this source. This issue has already been vetted, shredded, sliced and diced on the article talk page. Callahan's blog is RS here. ]] 22:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
	:* '''RS for this content''' This falls under WP:ABOUTSELF as the assertions of Callahan are attributed to him, and not presented as if they were facts (nor are there any statements about people dead or alive). Callahan was one of the Institute's most high-profile scholars, so his criticism of the Institute is particularly notable. ] (]) 22:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
	:* '''Non-RS''' – This is Callahan's personal reflections on what might have occurred before he came to Mises.org. The statement he makes does not '''directly support''' the information presented in accordance with ]. It violates ] #3 because he is commenting on "about events not directly related to the source ". – ] (]) 23:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Srich, that's the sixth different reason you've trotted out to quash Callahan. None have been valid, and the cumulative effect of swinging blindly at the perceived pinata is making it hard for readers even to give each new assertion serious consideration. (Of course we do, but it's difficult. ]] 23:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
	:* '''RS for this content''' It's ] by an expert witness. Callahan is fully qualified to comment on the organization that he was a member of. ] (]) 01:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
	::*Even if he was not a member at the time he refers to? - ] (]) 08:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::Yes. His membership qualifies him to compare the state of the organization during his stay with what he knew about it prior to that. Membership makes him an expert opinion. ] (]) 18:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::: He certainly has expertise on the past of the organization having been a prominent scholar in it. A Catholic Cardinal knows more about Church history than a layperson, even if he "wasn't there".{{unsigned\|Steeletrap}}
	:::::: I'd like to see you verify your analogy regarding cardinals because it seems like pure opinion to me: are members of the Catholic clergy ecclesiastically ranked according to their knowledge of church history? What about church historians who are not members of the clergy and are therefore uninvolved? As for Callahan, he may well struggle to fairly compare something he did not experience with something that he ''did'' experience. I've no idea how much his opinion might be influenced by hearsay, for example. - ] (]) 20:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
	*Not RS, at least not for stuff. Recently got to the article via the drama on ANI, SPS is quite clear on this, Callahan is not being used to cite anything about his expertise (economics), he is being used to cite stuff about racism, neo confederate causes, and all this before he even joined the bloody group. ] (]) 23:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

			==RfC: NewsNation==
	===Bleeding Heart Libertarians web blog===
			<!-- ] 13:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1740574870}}
	{{archivetop\|}}
			{{rfc\|prop\|sci\|rfcid=5F45265}}
	* This sentence: ''In a discussion of the paleolibertarian period of the Mises Institute, Austrian economist ] criticized what he describes as the Institute's "numerous connections with all kinds of unsavory folks: racists, anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers".''
			<!-- ] 02:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1739068436}}
	**Ref: Steven Horwitz, , Bleeding Heart Libertarians website, December 23, 2011.
			What is the reliability of ]?
	{{Resolved\|The allegedly unreliable BHL source has been replaced by an RS from ''Reason'' which republished the BHL Horwitz article.}}{{archivebottom\|}}

			* '''Option 1: ]'''
	* This sentence: ''Horwitz and political scientist Jacob Levy state that Rothbard identified the need to attract social and religious conservatives to establish a libertarian-conservative fusion constituency, distinct from the more socially progressive followers of Cato and the Koch Brothers.''
			* '''Option 2: ]'''
	**Ref: Jacob Levy, Bleeding Heart Libertarians website, December 23, 2011.
			* '''Option 3: ]'''
			* '''Option 4: ]'''
			] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

	*Discussed here: ] but no response on this specific source.<br>
	<br>

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

	===~~=Involved~~ ~~editors=~~===		===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. ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	:* Originator opines: These both are self-published blog entries on an advocacy site, as discussed at the page. "All of us who blog at this site are, broadly speaking, libertarians." Just negative personal self-published opinions that don't belong on Misplaced Pages. '''] ''' 22:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
	:* '''RS for this content''' An author's being "broadly speaking, libertarian" doesn't disqualify the author. If it did, we couldn't use sources involving any of the Mises Fellows, its Founders, or even Mises himself. Horowitz is a distinguished Austrian economist, and this statement is credible RS for the WP content it supports. ]] 22:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
	:* '''RS for this content''' Non-libertarians don't tend to write much about libertarians, especially not at the same level of detail. BHL is a perfectly good source. ] (]) 01:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

			== Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] ==
	=== ]===
			This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] on the multiple issues regarding that article.
	*This paragraph: ''The ] journalist ] responded in the ] to Mises Institute scholars Llewellyn Rockwell and Mises Fellow ]' criticism of his 2010 book "The Church and the Libertarian: A Defense of the Catholic Church's Teaching on Man, Economy, and State". Ferrara criticized the Institute's outreach efforts to Catholics and its attempts to persuade them that anarcho-capitalism is compatible with Catholicism. He wrote that part of the "Institute’s mission is to sell Catholics an outrageously phony bill of goods: that a school of thought dedicated to the legacy of , a radically laissez-faire liberal agnostic who defended the legal right to starve unwanted children to death" and as being compatible with and even congenial to Catholic principles.''
			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>
	**Ref: Christopher Ferrara, , The Remnant, September 4, 2013
			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>
	{{Resolved\|The allegedly unreliable ''Remnant Review'' source has been replaced by an RS from '']'', a mainstream Catholic publication that has been cited by many mainstream authors. Their review of Ferrara's book conveys all the information the original Ferrara source did, so the issue is resolved.}}
			2. {{tq\|1=Yemeni state-controlled media outlets}} wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets")
			Now, Javext has removed all the sources and text that they support from the article and used other sources (some of which I find no problems with using, although they provide little context compared to the other sources) and kept the sources that I've brought when I translated the Portuguese article.
			]: This is the version of the article that has the Arabic sources and is the version that I want to keep and then expand with other sources that both I and Jav has used. <br>
			]: This is the version that Jav wants to keep
			Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand):
			*
			*
			*
			* (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome)
			*
			*
			Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved:
			*
			''']]''' 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in ''The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast'' (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. also seems to be a relevant document. ] (]) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq\|1=There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle}}<br>]?<br>{{tq\|1=citing Portuguese records}}<br>That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above ''']]''' 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. ] (]) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::One example of another secondary source comparing the accounts (after C. F. Buckingham) is Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1997). ''The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama''. pp. 290-291. () ] (]) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--] (]) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?''']]''' 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. ''The Independent'' is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. ] (]) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the ] was a thing according to a Facebook post made by a high school that he attended).{{efn\|Machine translation: Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamusa, a native of Al-Shahr and a graduate of the third class of Al-Mukalla High School for Boys (now Bin Shihab High School for Boys)<br>High School Flags<br>Tuesday, September 17, 2024<br>After years of parting, Abu Bakr Bin Shihab High School for Boys in Mukalla embraced Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamoussa, who graduated on the educational ladder for years and is now at the age of retirement. He visited the high school and in his gaze with passion and love for the past years, he climbed the stairs of the high school to the second floor to the office of the principal Mr. Saeed Ahmed Al-Amari, who welcomed him warmly and said that this visit gave us a boost and moral support, and the visit for Mr. Bamoussa was to ask about the old administrators, services and guards who were who were in the period of the sixties and seventies, but unfortunately the administration could not answer this and invites everyone who has information about them to raise it quickly, as Mr. Bamoussa has been working for years on writing a book about the beginning of education in Hadramawt since the time of the Qaitian Sultanate in the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, and he made a very important statement that the first principal of the high school is Mr. Karama Bammin from Tarim and then came after him Mr. Al-Sudani Al-Taloudi and this was a surprise for us and he confirmed this in his book that will see the light after completion of it.<br>May God prolong his life and give him health and wellness to provide us with important information about the history of education in Hadramawt.<br>The high school administration thanks Mr. Mohammed Bamoussi for this visit and this effort exerted by him for this wonderful work, and wishes the officials in the Ministry of Education, the governorate office and the local authority to adopt such people who raise the slogan of education and the slogan of Hadramawt, the land of science, knowledge and culture.}} He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others . He also published a book about the city of Shihr . He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023 {{pb}}{{talkreflist\|group=lower-alpha}} ''']]''' 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.] (]) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the ] ] and ] sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) ''']]''' 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. ] (]) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. ] (]) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::@] If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in , which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! ] (]) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Hi, @]. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this:
			::::::"Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India , his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." ] (]) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::{{tq\|1=capturing Al-Shihr}}<br>hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? ''']]''' 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder.
			::::::::I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. ] (]) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city ''']]''' 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. ] (]) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{outdent\|8}} {{tq\|1="Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, '''capturing Al-Shihr''',}} (Never happened btw) {{tq\|1= and how important it would be to conquer Diu."}}<br> ''']]''' 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::"Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? ''']]''' 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned ''']]''' 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::capturing a city != sacking it <br>your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here ''']]''' 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. ] (]) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Now show me where in your sources does it say that ''']]''' 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::You were just denying that this happened after I showed you the sources, why are you asking this now? Didn't I just give them above? ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{outdent\|7}} What sources about capturing a city did you show me? Those letters clearly show that the portuguese wanted to capture the city and they failed as we have no proof of them being there after the battle was over. But did they lie to whoever they sent this letter to? ''']]''' 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Look bro, the letter doesn't state they failed, it states the Portuguese captured the city and then sacked it. For the fourth time, this DOES NOT mean they retained control of the city. ] (]) 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:@] so we can finish with and archive this, can we use those sources in anything other than the battle section? like the other sections that I've mentioned being deleted here ] <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">] ] (])</span> 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::In general I think we've established that there is currently no way of including any claim which cannot be directly traced to the 16th-century Portuguese histories or the Hadrami chronicles (which agree). This is because no source cites any other form of evidence, and because it represents the approach of English-language academic books. I have not reviewed the details and I do not know which claims qualify, but you're free to add anything you can find in an appropriate source. ] (]) 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::not even a legacy section like the one you proposed? <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">] ] (])</span> 06:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			== RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu ==
	* Discussed here: ] but no response on this specific source.<br>
			<!-- ] 18:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1740333680}}
	<br>
			{{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) ===
	====Uninvolved editors====
			* A: See "Geni.com" at ].
	*I basically agree with S. Rich. In fact, I would go further and say that the material should be excluded from the article altogether on ] grounds. There should be no shortage of criticism of the Institute to include, but I can't see why we should include a paragraph about an article in an obscure newspaper by an obscure author responding to criticism of his obscure book. We don't just include any old person's opinion at criticism - we look for people with expertise, prominence or influence. ] (]) 23:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
			* B: See ], in particular ], where this RfC for the 3 sources in question was prepared together with @]. The other sources discussed there fall outside the scope of this RfC.
	:: Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I (an involved editor) disagree because the LvMI makes a major point of being -- in contrast to libertarian groups -- an organization sympathetic to religion in general and Catholicism in particular. Ferrara is well-published, in mainstream RS and publishing houses, about religious and theological matters; he is a good RS for purposes of responding to the Mises Institute's attempts to recruit Catholics to its ideology. ] (]) 06:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
			* C: See ] (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	===~~=Involved~~ ~~editors=~~===		=== Preliminaries ===
	:* Originator opines: According to its Misplaced Pages article, ] is an extremist advocacy site which ] calls a hate site; it doesn't call Mises Institute one, FYI. This sort of publication not usually considered WP:RS, even if articles . '''] ''' 22:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

			:Probably need to add the website to the list of unreliable sources. It also uses Misplaced Pages articles which would be ]. --] 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:* One can be hateful while still having solid/reliable scholarly standards (see most famous Western philosophers); do not conflate the two. Ferrara is a well educated guy, attended a top 30 law school (Fordham), has had a fairly prolific career as a journalist, and has published academic works with mainstream publications. He's an RS. ] (]) 23:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
			::AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a ]. But it could be a good follow-up. ] (]) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. ] (]) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. ] (]) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. ] (]) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC? <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:* Reliable source for the opinion, ''but'' placement/emphasis is undue. In an earlier edit I put the Ferrera comments into a footnote . Later on they were restored to the text. A full paragraph for his comments, and a second footnote to his book which does not provide page numbers for criticisms of Mises.org (which may or may not exist), does not further ]. – ] (]) 23:43, 25 October 2013 (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 ===
	:* Publications promoting hate cannot by definition be reliable sources because their objective is to defame (i.e., present false information). Individuals are not reliable sources, it depends on where their writings are published. Barnes for example had articles published in academic journals, which are rs, but his writings on holocaust denial are not. And opinion pieces are not rs for facts. We are supposed to present topics in accordance with how they are presented in reliable sources. Unfortunately, there is no extensive writing about the LvMI and its writers, hence little to report. ] (]) 19:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. ] (]) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	::: Brigham Young University is (arguably) hateful against LGBT people, yet its academic journals are (properly) deemed RS. Aristotle -- a grotesque sexist -- is an RS. I don't think there is a tight logical connection between hatefulness and lack of scholarly rigor. ] (]) 20:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''.<strike>'''Question'''. Isn't it already deprecated?</strike>--] (]) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate''' A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			: '''Unsure'''. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) ] (]) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. Really bad. Needs to go away.—] 00:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			===Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)===
	The Dina Eastwood article needs a source for her middle name. I think that is a better source than and need approval. ] (]) 23:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
			{{re\|ActivelyDisinterested}} my apologies also. To be clear, I respect your concern, and I think I understand it. I think we've conveyed our concerns, and laid out some pros and cons, and background principles. I'm not stressed about that. I think its a point of getting the balance right. In practical reality the three sources should not normally be used, and I see no big disagreements. I just think the difference between the two categories offered is (or should be) meaningful, and I wanted to make that clear. I am not really disagreeing with any other specific point.--] (]) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Although I disagree I can understand you position. It's to easy to get stuck in disagreement spirals are part of RFCs. Let's see if anyone else brings any new ideas. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I previously commented that a seperate warning for generally unreliable sources would be helpful, for ones that are problematicly readded on a regular basis would be useful. That way a warning would appear but wouldn't come with the baggage of deprecation. At the moment deprecation is the only resource available, but it is a somewhat blunt hammer. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] Thanks for restoring the discussion from the archive; it evidently was not yet closed. It would seem that we've got a clear result though. Should I request a third party to formally close it with a conclusion, or how does this go with RfCs? ] (]) 18:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The {{tl\|RFC}} tag was missing, which would have added "DoNotArchiveUntil.." to the header to stop it from being archived. I've add the RFC tag which will list in for every to see (not just those to happen across it on RSN). I suggest waiting and seeing if any more comments come in, as they editors have taken part yet. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			==RfC: Jacobin==
	:My feeling is that either citation is useable, but I may be misinterpreting the guidelines on primary sources. While the separation filing is a primary source, it's being "quoted" (through being printed verbatim) on third-party sites. My one concern is that the ''Daily Mail'' uses it within the context of a news article, while Radar Online — a gossip site not normally a reliable source, but one that does post public documents and does directly interview named sources from time to time — posts it independently, without journalistic comment. My question is, is it still considered a primary source in the Radar case, or is it useable since it does appear on a third-party site, albeit without being part of a journalistic news story?
			<!-- ] 17:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1740070870}}
			{{RfC\|prop\|pol\|media\|rfcid=857ECCA}}
			Which of the following best describes the reliability of '']''?
			* Option 1: ]
			* Option 2: ]
			* Option 3: ]
			* Option 4: ]
			— ] <sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

	:As a side comment, I would note that while the ''Daily Mail'' is a tabloid-format newspaper, like the New York ''Daily News'' or ''Newsday'', It is not a tabloid in the sense of a tabloid magazine such as the ''Weekly World News''. While the ''Daily Mail'' can be sensationalistic and while some celebrity stories use unnamed "anonymous sources", rendering such stories highly dubious, it is still a major, professionally run newspaper in other regards. I believe the editor above in his characterization of it tars with an overly broad brush and gives an inaccurate impression.--] (]) 23:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

			===Survey: ''Jacobin''===
	:: There was a similar problem with the birthyear of a BLP, where few sources claim anything exact, and the sources that do make claims, require use of ] to backtrack from "here she is in 2000 as an 18-year-old frosh" to the contrasting "here she is at 27 for her 2013 birthday party". The article ends up with the infoboxen explicitly saying both: "date of birth: ~1982 or ~1986 (sources differ)". This was based on the ] article, which has a similar problem with 1969/1970 as the birthyear. Misplaced Pages should mirror the sources, not pick winners and losers: when they conflict, describe the conflict. "Dina Anne or Betty Eastwood...." Hope this helps. p.s. In the birthyear example, one source must be correct and one incorrect, but in the middle-name example, that is not necessarily true, since people like ] with multiple middle names do exist, and names can legally change over time, unlike birthdays. Thanks for improving wikipedia. ] (]) 17:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' I am opposed to the use of ] and think that no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2. With that being said, I would list New York Times or the CBC in precisely the same way and I don't believe that any of the complainants have demonstrated in any way that Jacobin is less reliable, per Misplaced Pages's standards, than any other American news media outlet. I am deeply concerned that many of the complaints are about "bias" when reliability does not include a political compass test. This is not grounds to treat a source as unreliable. ] (]) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2/3''', bias is one thing, getting things down right incorrect is another. As was demonstrated in the pre-discussion, the notion around the housing stock was truly an egregious error. This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts. When that happens, "Generally unreliable" or at minimum, "Additional considerations" makes sense as the guidance when using this source. I do not think further deprecation is warranted though since the reporters seem to be of a mixed quality, some are more diligent than others and the bias merging into wanton disregard for facts varies there too. The problem is, we rate sources, not just individual writers, and therefore as far as a source rating goes, "Option 2" or "Option 3" then makes the most logical sense. ] (]) 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It was corrected. Your entire case is based on a single incident where a single writer made a single mistake. ''And it was fixed.'' There is absolutely no grounds for "Generally unreliable" on the basis of presented evidence. ] (]) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::It was corrected only after significant outside pressure and even then the correction was weak and inaccurate. The guy who wrote the article was explicitly mocking the people who pointed out his error and accusing them of something along the lines of being corporate shills. It also wasn’t a single incident as they publish nonsense regarding Russia and Ukraine, including and up to outright conspiracy theories, pretty regularly. It simply is not a reliable source, however much one agrees with their editorial stance.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::So you agree with Iljhgtn's conspiracy theory that this was the purposeful result of pushing bias not an error? ] (]) 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			**::::I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including ] and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:::::You misquote the editor (to your benefit), for someone so interested in errors supposedly motivated by bias that seems odd... In context its clearly stronger than that "This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." when nothing suggests that this was the result of narrative pushing (thats how you push a narrative either, as you've pointed out although lingusitically similar its an embarrassing and obvious error). ] (]) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***::::::You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***:::::::You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) ] (]) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***::::::::No , I’m not. I’m simply asking you to refrain from trying to falsely characterize other people’s comments as “conspiracy theories” in a cheap attempt to delegitimize them since they’re clear nothing of the sort. Not everything you disagree with is a “conspiracy theory”. In this particular case, the article clearly had false info in it. No one has ever said that “information was changed” (as if on purpose) so please stop pretending otherwise. What was said was that “bias creeped in” which I think is a fair characterization. So please quit it with the strawman’ing.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***:::::::::I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we ]. I believe @] is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. ] (]) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***::::::::::Its you who needs to provide a source to substantiate your allegations against a living person. ""This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." is a BLP violation unless a source is provided or the author drops dead. ] (]) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:And what is your source for that? Nobody else is saying that this was the result of bias, the sources say that "third largest corporate owner of housing" became "owns a third of housing" which is a very understandable mistake. You appear to have constructed your own conspiracy theory around this incident. ] (]) 17:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Im sorry but “third largest owner” turning into “owns one third of all housing stock” is NOT an “understandable mistake”. It misstates the actual fact by a factor of 500. Maybe if this was like a student in some freshmen class using AI to write a paper that would be “understandable” (and still get an F) but this is supposed to be a professional, who’s job it is to get this stuff right and this is supposed to be a serious organization that has an editorial board that does fact checking. Which they obviously didn’t do.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) ] (]) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Whats “not math”? The difference between .0006 and .33? You sure? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::And let’s see these “every major and minor publications” that make these kinds of error.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::I note the failure to provide the requested source. ] (]) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:::::Right back at you.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			**::::::, your turn and no stonewalling now provide the source or go away. ] (]) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***::::::Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***:::::::Your source that this was "exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative" and not simply an error is what? ] (]) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I have to say I question your judgment in supporting option 3 "generally unreliable" over ''Jacobin'' publishing and then retracting a single erroneous sentence, and for having a bias/narrative/agenda, when you also !voted option 1 "generally reliable" for ] which routinely publishes fabricated information without retraction. Could you kindly articulate how an admittedly biased outlet with a team of fact checkers is apparently significantly worse than a think tank that churns out misinformation and disinformation ()? <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 20:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' A screenshot of a tweet documenting an already corrected error is insufficient to depreciate a reliable source. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --] (]) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. ] <small>(])</small> 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{ping\|Gamaliel}} Mostly ] and at ]. Kind regards,
			:::::Thank you for the links. I will repost once I've read through those discussions. ] <small>(])</small> 18:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2 at the very least, change current assessment'''. It might be easier to comment if editors agree or not to change the current category. My position is based on coverage that mixes opinion with facts and its use of unreliable sources, some of which have been deprecated by this noticeboard (like The Grayzone). I went into more detail about this at ] and at ]. --] (]) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' (intext attribution) ] and ] cover most of the points here. Jacobin publishes opinions peice that should have intext attribution. This is how they are used in the large amount of ] that Jacobin also has. I may not like Jacobin very much but bias, opinion, or minor mistakes do not make a source unreliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' ]: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." The example given was a mistake in a book review, cubsequently corrected, about how much housing stock Blackstone owned. No reasonable editor would use this review as a source for an article on housing or Blackstone and more than one would use a reliable source on U.S. housing for an article about 19th century French poetry. ] (]) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1-ish''' Jacobin are clearly a biased source but they are also clearly as reliable for facts as any other major ]. When they make mistakes, they correct themselves, and that ''improves'' their reliability, it doesn't hurt it. ] (]) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2: additional considerations/bad RFC''' - based on the discussion above, evidently there's some kind of social media uproar about some thing that Jacobin published and later corrected. It's poor timing to hold an RFC on reliability both when emotions are high and when it's in response to an isolated incident, both of which are true here. But ignoring that, it seems (again from the discussion above) that ''Jacobin'' published something that was egregiously incorrect, then retracted or corrected it. That's pretty much the standard we expect of reliable publications: errors are compatible with reliability, it's how the publication responds to and corrects errors that determines reliability in this context. gives ''Jacobin'' a "high" reliability score of 1.9 (out of 10, lower scores are better), which is in the ballpark of the ''New York Times'' (1.4) and ''Washington Post'' (2.1). However, they also give it a "left bias" rating of -7 (a 20-point scale with 0 as completely unbiased), which is on the edge of their extreme ratings. Editors should consider attribution, and/or balancing this source's POV against publications more to the right. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			:It's not a matter of some particular instance about mistakes regarding mixing up "third largest" with "a third of" or whatever. Heck everybody does stuff like that. The ''NYTimes'' has has published more (unintentionally) misleading or plain-wrong charts than I've had hot meals. I mean, ''Nature'' finding that "among the 348 documents that we found to include the ] 'fact' that 80% of the world's biodiversity is found in the territories of indigenous peoples] are 186 peer-reviewed journal articles, including some in ], ], and ], and 19 news articles targeted at a specialist audience." Imagine that. I would guess that that's largely because "puts indigenous peoples in a good light" trumps "is true" in the ''emotional hind-brain'' of the leather-elbow-patch set. It's not a lefty thing in particular, right-wingers are just as bad I'm sure.
	Hello,

			: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.
	Here's an issue related to linguistics: On the articles ] <small>(])</small> and ] <small>(])</small>, a user insists on using as the sole source to classify these dialects as "Zenata dialects" (by opposition to "Atlas dialects") ; The point is that the author (Blench himself) says clearly on its first paragraph that it is "a preliminary list" and that "there are still many problems".

			: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)
	On the other hand, the same user persists on deleting three sources claiming they're not RS ; The following sources classify these languages as "Atlas dialects" (see respective talk pages for more details):
			::{{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)
	* (for both articles) ;
			:::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.
	* (for the Senhaja article) ;
	* (for the Ghomara article).
	<small>Note that recent (highly creditable) sources link ethnic Ghomara and Senhaja to ethnic Atlas Berbers, but without discussing linguistics.</small>

			:::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)
	Thus, the main problem is that Blenche's classification is contradicted by the three last sources.
			::::I think the thing is our due weight policy says that due weight (noteworthiness) is apportioned based on the amount of attention given in reliable sources. I take that to mean opinion in generally reliable sources is worth reporting; opinion in generally unreliable sources isn’t. ] (]) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The Daily Mail is not reliable for its own contents, having doctored its archives. ] (]) 00:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' The author's attitude certainly leaves much to be desired... but I don't think a single mistake that was quickly fixed – in a blog piece, which generally wouldn't even be cited except in very limited circumstances and with attribution per ] – is a good enough reason to downgrade their reliability. ] (]) 07:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			* '''Option 3''' or '''Option 2''', long overdue for the reasons already set out in this thread. And frankly, the idea that a magazine whose name is derived from the people who instituted the ] was ever acceptable w/o issue is offputting by itself. ] (]) 23:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	Regards,<br/>--] (]) 05:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
			*:For the record, the that in naming the magazine, he was thinking of '']'', a book about the ], not the French. ] (] \| ] \| ]) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:The Blench listing is reliable, but you should say in the text that it is a draft list. Hannouche is reliable, even though it is only a masters thesis; you should say tht it is a masters thesis. The older texts are no use any more. Are these the only sources available? ] (]) 13:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
			*::Not that that is relevant anyway when assessing reliability. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Unfortunately these are the only ] academic sources available. --] (]) 14:39, 28 October 2013 (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)
	::Edit1: Just found that describes ] as "non-Zenati" . However she gives no-statement about ]. --] (]) 14:46, 28 October 2013 (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)
	::Edit2: non-] sources include 's describing Senhaja language as "not Zenati, but rather Atlas". --] (]) 15:50, 28 October 2013 (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)
	::Edit3: About El Hannouche's work on the ] (MA thesis), note that even (& ) implicitely acknowledge that this work is highly valuable () and take it as a basis for their . --] (]) 16:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
			*:::::That is arguing semantics. ] (]) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Souag and Lafkioui seem both to be reputable scholars, and even their comments in non-reliable sources might be usable, with the big IF that we mustn't imply that any classification of these languages is settled. It is clearly a matter for exploration and debate. ] (]) 21:57, 28 October 2013 (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)
	::::My take is only very slightly different from the excellent advice given by {{u\|Itsmejudith}} above:
	::::*Both views should be presented, with relative sources
	::::*The older sources would be reliable for describing a change in academic opinion if there has been one ("it used to be thought that ..., but recently ...")
	::::*The ethnic connection could be mentioned, with due care to avoid drawing unsupported conclusions from it.
	::::] (]) 22:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks for these answers. --] (]) 01:11, 30 October 2013 (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)
	I've accepted the change to Senhaja, since Omar was eventually able to provide a RS that supported it. I don't think there's any problem now with that article. However, AFAICT, he has no RS contradicting Blench for Ghomara, so we can only report what Blench says. — ] (]) 02:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:El Hannouche says explicitely in his thesis (a thesis that Stroomer acknowledge as a valuable work) that Ghomara language has its origin in South Morocco. Unless you can give us a RS saying that there are Zenati languages in South Morocco (per ]), El Hannouche thus links explicitely the Ghomara dialect to Atlas languages. --] (]) 04:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Btw, I agree with ]'s opinion: <u>both</u> views should be presented as long as there's no consensual opinion among scholars. --] (]) 05:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::In a couple of years' time the scholars will probably have reached agreement. :-) ] (]) 20:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

			'''Option 1''' Jacobin is a biased source, something that should obviously be considered by anyone thinking of sourcing them for anything contentious, but their reporting has never been an issue in terms of establishing basic factual information about a situation. One writer for a book review making a dumb statement that was corrected by the source doesn't change that. ] (]) 04:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	*A question remains: is a ], despite the fact that the author himself claims that it is "a preliminary list" and that "there are still many problems"? --] (]) 17:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1:''' Nothing of substance has been presented to suggest that this source is not GREL. Most of the reasons being presented for MREL appear to be about bias, but that is not of direct relevance to reliability unless it can be shown that any bias directly impinges somehow on its reliability. That it provides a perspective from a rarefied position on the political spectrum is a moot point in terms of reliability. Arguably it is good to have sources from all different positions on the political spectrum for the purposes of balance, but that is, again, irrelevant to its reliability. ] (]) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1/2''': generally reliable, they have a correction policy. Bias for opinion pieces and essays should be taken into account, attribute accordingly. ] (]) 00:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Bad RfC''' As on . ] (]) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' I previously commented in the 2021 RfC based on ]. In particular I found persuasive. Most recently cites a ''Jacobin'' article from November 2024 positively. A major trade publication in the field of journalism still seems to find ''Jacobin'' worth citing as "demonstrat convincingly" how Harris lost the pro-labor vote in the 2024 election. Why should we not follow ''CJR''s lead? The arguments seem to be (1) ''Jacobin'' recently issued a major retraction and (2) ''Jacobin'' has a left-wing bias. I could buy into (1) if they constantly issued retractions, but no one has shown that that is the case. (2) is contrary to ]. Altogether, I don't see why we should treat ''Jacobin'' differently from reliable but right-of-center-biased publications like '']'' or '']''. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]</span> 07:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2 or Option 3''': Not only is Jacobin an extremely biased, ideologically charged source, but their reporting has been called into question multiple times. At the very least, additional considerations do apply. ] (]) 13:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2'''. This is not a ]. Its stated purpose is . Compare to the missions of the NYT: ; or the BBC: . The NYT and the BBC are both biased (every source is biased), but they do at least aim to deliver ''reporting''. Jacobin, on the other hand, is an advocacy organisation. That doesn't make it automatically unreliable, nor does that make it solely a source of opinions, but that does makes it qualitatively different from the newspapers that others have compared it to - and that is an important additional consideration worth noting. For the record, I disagree that one incident of inaccuracy is enough to downgrade a source, particularly one that was corrected. ] (]) 13:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			===Discussion: ''Jacobin''===
	::The answer above was "yes".
			*Seeing as there's substantial disagreement in the pre-RfC section above, I've gone ahead and launched this RfC. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Hannouche does not say anything about classification, so we can't use him as a ref for classification. We can use him as a ref for where the language came from. The two are not necessarily related: English is not an American Indian language just because most native speakers are in North America. — ] (]) 20:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
			*:Pings to {{yo\|Feminist\|The wub\|Thebiguglyalien\|Super Goku V\|Simonm223\|FortunateSons\|Oort1\|Burrobert\|ActivelyDisinterested\|Hydrangeans\|Vanilla Wizard\|Iljhgtn\|Selfstudier\|Horse Eye's Back\|NoonIcarus\|Harizotoh9\|Springee}} who commented above. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Hello,
			*:Additional pings to {{yo\|WMrapids\|David Gerard\|Bobfrombrockley\|Shibbolethink\|Crossroads\|Herostratus\|Dumuzid\|Aquillion\|Gamaliel\|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d\|BSMRD\|Wugapodes\|Ip says\|King of Hearts\|Chetsford\|Tayi Arajakate\|MPants at work\|Jlevi\|The Four Deuces\|Grnrchst\|Szmenderowiecki\|Dlthewave\|Jr8825\|Thenightaway\|Nvtuil\|Peter Gulutzan\|FormalDude\|Volunteer Marek\|FOARP\|Sea Ane\|3Kingdoms\|Bilorv\|blindlynx\|Jurisdicta\|TheTechnician27\|MarioGom\|Novemberjazz\|Volteer1}} who commented in the ]. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I made a draft on ]. I would like to have your opinions regarding that. :)
			*::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)
	:::--] (]) 03:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
			*:I've tried to ping everyone from the prior RfC and from the discussion above. This was done manually: I excluded 1 vanished account and I tried to ping people by their current usernames if they have changed names since then. If I missed someone, please feel free to notify them. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::It's still a bit complicated, as it often is when the scholarship isn't settled. I know I said that the older sources are no longer reliable, and that's still the case, but assuming that we think Camps & Vignet-Zunz is reliable, and it does seem so, then their comments on Colin are also reliable. Kwami, I do think that in this case "where the people came from" and "where the language came from" are related questions. By way or an analogy: the southern and northern Cheyenne are separated by hundreds of miles, and the reason for that is a matter of recorded history, so linguists automatically classify varieties of Cheyenne as varieties rather than separate languages. It is also a bit like the link between Finnish and Hungarian, which aren't very close at all today, but as it seems with these Berber languages, were spoken more widely in the past. I'm sure we all understand that language and ethnic identity aren't necessarily tied together, but sometimes they are, or at least ethnic identity can be a clue to language and vice-versa. ] (]) 06:47, 2 November 2013 (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.
	== http://desktoplinuxreviews.com and http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk ==

			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.
	http://desktoplinuxreviews.com is a one-person blog (although the author has
	professional writing experience - http://desktoplinuxreviews.com/about/) with
	no hits in Google Scholar or Google books; in a quick Google web search I did
	not recognize reliable sources citing the website:
	# http://www.google.com/search?q=desktoplinuxreviews.com
	# http://www.google.com/search?q=link%3Adesktoplinuxreviews.com

			Our time would be better spent ensuring that RS policy is adhered to.
	The author claims to have been published by sources such as ZDNET, Forbes,
	MSNBC, Salon but I could not find it:
	# https://www.google.com.br/search?q=jim+lynch+linux+site%3Azdnet.com,
	# http://www.google.com/search?q=jim+lynch+linux+site%3Aforbes.com
	# http://www.google.com/search?q=jim+lynch+linux+site%3Amsnbc.com
	# http://www.google.com/search?q=jim+lynch+linux+site%3Asalon.com
	I did found him on extremetech and PCMag:
	# http://www.extremetech.com/author/jlynch
	# http://www.pcmag.com.br/us/article2/0,2817,10414,00.asp

			] (]) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	http://desktoplinuxreviews.com is used in ]
	as one of the sources for the claim "Its design and deployment has been
	controversial with some software reviewers finding fault with its
	implementation and limitations". I actually agree with this claim, but would
	like to remove this particular source. Editor ] disagrees and wants
	to keep the source.

			*'''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)
	The other questionable source is http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk. It is used all
			*: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)
	over ] and ] to back
			*::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.
	several facts and opinions. -- ] (]) 01:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
			*::That editor is now blocked (because of their conduct on this noticeboard I think?) but they used the green flag at RSP to justify their edits. ] (]) 10:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*: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)
	Lynch appears to be a regular contributer to ITWolrd.com] (]) 01:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
			*:They issued a correction. This is what we expect of reliable outlets. Your personal characterization of the correction as "weaselly" is your personal opinion on tone and has nothing to do with any Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 19:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Did this correction at least state what the correct % was? Like, the correction itself tries to make it seem like a minor overstatement rather than, you know, a completely wild exaggeration that tried to take advantage of general innumeracy. “I’m a billionaire!”. “No you’re not”. “Ok that was an overstatement”. Come on. It’s quite disappointing to see how many people are fine with misinformation, weak sourcing and “alternative facts” as long as it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. Whats even more disappointing is when these are people who are claiming to be building a factual encyclopedia. Facts are facts and garbage is garbage, regardless of whether it come from the left or right.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes facts are facts and garbage is garbage but as long as we allow garbage like ''New York "Iraq has WMDs" Times'' to be treated as a reliable source I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently. Jacobin is compliant with Misplaced Pages's requirements. If you want to talk about tightening those requirements I'd be open to the discussion at ]. ] (]) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Was the weapons of mass destruction bit ever retracted by New York Times? As far as I'm aware it wasn't. Perhaps we should be wasting community time and having a discussion about them? '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Yeah my point is just that a lot of editors are establishing a double standard where Jacobin is being held to a higher standard than what Misplaced Pages generally expects from news organizations. I would like it to be measured against the same standard as anyone else. ] (]) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Agreed. I'm not the biggest fan of them because there's so much oped stuff but we've never thought that reason to downgrade ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Exactly. And that is kind of what I was getting at when I suggested the right venue for what {{noping\|Volunteer Marek}} was concerned about was ]. If we allow these kinds of sources then we allow these kinds of sources. I would be happy to restrict these kinds of sources more than we do but it has to be handled at a policy level rather than via exceptions to present policy. ] (]) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:This does not appear to be an outlet generally characterized as producing click bait. ] (]) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It is not the case that a book review can ''only'' be used in an article about that specific book. For example, they are frequently cited in biographies of authors, in order to demonstrate that those authors meet ]. And an article about the pedagogy of some subject could cite reviews of textbooks about that subject. ] (]) 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			== The Heritage Foundation ==
	* As noted Lynch has been widely published in third party publications and so meets ] "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". OMG Ubuntu is an independent third party publication covering Ubuntu and related topics with editorial oversight and so meets ]. - ] (]) 11:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 16:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1739462471}}
	* I wouldn't source anything to Lynch's blog under ]. Not accountable to anyone for what he writes there. I especially would not rely on such a source for ''anything'' controversial. With respect to omgubuntu, I don't see a single article that they ever issued a correction for. I wouldn't rely on it, it is just another SPS with some guest posts. ] (]) 20:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
			{{Moved discussion to\|WP:Requests for comment/The Heritage Foundation\|2=Due to how large the discussion has become, and size constraints on the noticeboard, this discussion has been moved to it's own page. <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}

			== Sources for Chapel Hart ==
	==Times of India==
	Is this source by journalist Munna Mishra in the '']'' reliable for citing that ] is "amongst the few female writers from Bihar writing in English fiction"? -- ] (]) 06:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:See my comment . Green Cardamom is mis-stating the issues somewhat. They are not merely related to whether this might be a puff piece but also to linking to a copyright violation, incomplete citation and seemingly inaccurate representation. I've been trying to find the original story online so that the entire thing can be evaluated, especially given that there is a history of misrepresenting sources in the article and an outstanding ]. - ] (]) 07:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	::In my judgment:
	::* TOI's main "news" section would generally qualify as a reliable source. Of course, it has occasional problems with accuracy, POV, publication of lightly edited press releases etc... but these problems are not dramatically greater in TOI than its competitors amongst Indian newspapers and can be handled by cross-checking with other sources and using common sense.
	::* On the other hand, TOI's Metro and some other supplements are no better than tabloids. Mainly filled with gossip, puff pieces, and (local) celebrity profiles and interviews, they show <s>little</s> no sign of fact checking. These should be used with great care/ not be used. (And if someone believes that I am being unduly harsh, is how the publishers themselves describe the metro supplements).
	:: So in order to judge the whether the article is reliable for the claim, we will need to see more than an extract and also determine which part of the newspaper it was published in. If you know the date for the article, I can look it up on Proquest. ] (]) 08:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::The image linked to says that the thing was "in conversation with ''TN''". The citation said that the source was ''ToI'' & Green Cardamom seems not to have picked up the discrepancy. Is ''TN'' a ''ToI'' supplement or stablemate? The ''ToI'' often regurgitates PR puff pieces - some people call it the "Toiletpaper of India" (!) It is already evident that there has been much PR puffery surrounding the subject of the article. - ] (]) 11:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

			Hi, I am currently reviewing a GA nomination for ]. I've never heard of the following sources currently being used nor can I find past discussions on them. As such, I would others' opinions on them.
	New information has come to light, ''TN'' apparently stands for ''Times Neighborhood'' published by ''Times of India'', an example cover. According to a previous AfD they are "built on a platform of citizen journalism where the content is uploaded on social media". Obviously not a reliable source if true, and confirmed with ''TN'' Facebook and Twitter pages. -- ] (]) 17:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
			*https://texasborderbusiness.com/chapel-hart-music-video-for-new-single-i-will-follow-premiered-by-cmt-on-friday-february-5th/
	:That is useful to know.
			*https://drgnews.com/2022/09/19/darius-rucker-set-to-release-new-song-featuring-chapel-hart/
	:I guess the rule of thumb is: The more local ''Times of India'' gets (National->Metro->Neighbourhood), the less reliable it becomes. ] (]) 17:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
			*https://www.southernliving.com/chapel-hart-danica-vocal-cord-surgery-6825847
	*One hilarious example I've come across of appalling reporting by Times of India is this. In October 2009, Faking News, a parody and satire sub-site (which I love reading) posted on a made up guy called Vaibhav Bedi, claiming he sued Unilever as the Axe deo he bought failed to act in the same way as it was shown in the advertisements. Guess what Delhi Times, a city supplement of Times of India, does in May 2011. They fall for the faking news and . In other words, what Abecedare says above is more or less true.] ] 17:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
			] (]) 22:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

			:The Texas Border Business link (now dead but available from the Wayback Machine) is a press release, you can find the exact same wording elsewhere. So it would be reliable in a primary way, as it's from the band about the band.<br>Southern Living appears to be an established magazine, I don't see why it wouldn't be reliable.<br>The drgnews.com article appears to be another press release, as the wording is found in many other sites. Oddly though I can't access any of them, as I get blocked by cloudflare for some reason. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	== chinaag.org ==
			::Thank you, I'll take this into consideration for my review. ] (]) 23:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Southern Living tends toward puffery, and I would avoid using them for controversial claims (although they mostly avoid making controversial claims anyway). I would accept an article by them as supporting notability. ] (]) 01:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::My assessment:
			::* The https://texasborderbusiness.com/ source isn't labeled as a press release. Overall, the site looks like a low-quality ] that lightly repackages any information they receive that they think would interest their readers (i.e., their advertising targets). Other sites label it a press release, and I'm sure these other sites are correct. That said, even if we treat it like a press release, press releases can be reliable for the sort of simple fact this one is being used to support.
			::* The DRG News source is labeled as being from '']'', which appears to be a media outlet/country music magazine. They ''might'' be part of https://www.cumulusmedia.com
			::* ] is a reliable source.
			::] (]) 20:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			== RfC: TheGamer ==
	For your consideration:
			{{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: ]
	Website:
			* Option 2: ]
			* Option 3: ]
			* Option 4: ]

			]</s>
	{{cquote\|All production source data is collected and organized from China's National Bureau of Statistics (http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/). All trade data originates from the United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database, which gets its data directly from China's Customs Agency. All raw data is referenced and embedded for download on ChinaAg.org. Any user is free to verify its veracity.

			<span style="font-family:Kurale; color:#ff0000;">]]</span> 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	Although http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/ is base data source, I had to research and verify with secondary sources (news articles, USDA databases/publications, journals, and trade associations) that the data presented was indeed accurate. Much in the same way as a journalist verifies information by interview multiple sources. As you are probably aware, Chinese statistic agencies, particularly those dealing with farming and aquaculture industries, have been known to either over/under report figures. Since I have put in the effort to extract, organize, verify, as well as include the appropriate links and raw data within ChinaAg.org, I believe I met the burden necessary to reference the website.\|20px\|20px\|Author: ], source: ]}}
			* '''Bad RfC'''. While begun in good faith, this RfC is malformed. The opening statement is not {{tq\|neutrally worded and brief}} as our ]. I would also ask why the ] about ''TheGamer'' available at the list maintained by ] isn't considered sufficient. If this is at root a page-specific concern about ], as the opening statement causes it to appear to be, the matter can surely be handled better at ]. ] (] \| ] \| ]) 02:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			Nevermind then. I'll delete the info on the Flowey page that provides no encyclopedic value. The reason I proposed this originally was because TheGamer's content has gotten worse and more sloppy since 2020.<span style="font-family:Kurale; color:#ff0000;">]]</span> 04:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abottom}}

			== GBNews can be reliable for group based child sex exploitation==
	] (]) 02:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	: Hello Anna -- I'm going to let somebody else give their better-researched-commentary here... but what it basically sounds like is, there is a[REDACTED] editor User:ChinaAg32, who self-publishes a blog at www.ChinaAg.org, in which they have synthesized some original research by combining the not-very-trustworthy figures of stats.gov.cn with some cross-referenced data-sources like the USDA, USA Today, trade rags, and so on. This is, pure and simple, WP:OR. However, there is an important exception, that might apply here.
	:     In real life, is User:ChinaAg32 somebody with Notable expertise in the field? For instance, if you are a stanford professor of economics, and you publish a position-paper in your official professor-blog, then in some cases that can be treated as ] on your position, and because you are a Notable expert in economics, can be exact-quoted in an article. There is no peer-review of the blog-entry, necessarily, but there is peer-review of you as an expert.
	:     So, there are two ways that the direct contents of ChinaAg.org can be used directly as a Reliable Source. The first way, is if some 'normal' reliable source, such as a newspaper or a peer-reviewed journal or the blog of a Notable expert in USA-Chinese trade relations, re-publishes the material under their stamp. The second way, is if User:ChinaAg32 (or to be more precise -- the acknowledged author of the content at www.ChinaAg.org -- I'm just presuming they are the same humanoid), is in fact themselves such a Notable expert on USA-Chinese trade relations, with a PhD in economics and/or international relations, and such.
	:     Failing those, it sounds like ChinaAg is a blog, by a non-Notable-in-the-wikipedia-sense human, with no editorial-and-fact-checking-staff in the background. Of course, there is always the possibility to use the '''secondary''' sources, which were collected for the ChinaAg analysis-papers, to offset the 'official' information from stats.gov.cn -- but citing ChinaAg as a reliable source when it is not, or alternatively synthesizing/editorializing within the pages of wikipedia, is Not Good. When you have a USDA report that claims X, and a CNBS report that claims Y,[REDACTED] should mirror the sources, and give both numbers, not pick winners and losers. HTH. p.s. If you cannot use the dataset from ChinaAg, you might be able to put it into the External Links section... not as a source/ref/citation, but as a Unique External Resource, kinda like the "one major fansite" exception to the ] policy. That situation would be a different question entirely, of course. ] (]) 17:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

			Hello everyone, I am making the argument that whilst GBNews is generally speaking not a great source, it has some of the most stellar investigative reporters on group based child sex exploitation, aka rape gangs.
	::Thank you for the very intelligent and thoughtful reply. I fully agree. ] (]) 00:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

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

			I'd genuinely argue he is even as or if not more reliable on this topic than most trusted sources. If you want an insight into why I believe that, without going into just arguing over facts and analysis which I can do in the comments below this thread, read this anecdote from him being the only reporter who bothered to show up to one of the most prolific child sex abuse cases in British history for most of the hearing https://thecritic.co.uk/why-was-i-the-only-reporter/
	Hello. I would like some opinions on the following site, . I was hoping to use this to source voice actors in video games, specifically for the '']'' page. Currently, as the in game credits are not formatted like that of a film's (actor name with a character attachted to it), myself and others on the page are currently forced to try to search an actor's personal Twitter feed, in hopes of a confirmation, or hoping that a reliable new agency's review mentions some of the characters and their actors. This site would be a tremendous helping in allowing info to be added to the page that we currently cannot, because no RS can be found to support it.

			Yes, GBNews is genuinely quite a sloppy publication, I'm not here to make an argument that it is not even remotely, but I think the summary ought to be changed from the first to the second.
	I believe this source to be reliable, and unlike a site like IMDb, because of the following:

			<blockquote><p>There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable.</p></blockquote>
	* - While it does allow people to register and participate on the site, in regards to their database, outside users can ''suggest'' updates, not actually contribute to updates themselves.
	* - This leads me to believe that a name is only attached to a role once it has been verified by the site, reliably. Since I found the site a day or two ago, before starting the discussion here, the game's page did not have Khary Payton's name attached to Warden Joseph or Killer Croc - both since confirmed by Payton himself on his Twitter and .
	* I don't see much difference in this site than , which is considered a RS. - BVA.com utilizes a green "check" next to an actor when they are confirmed, and I do not see this as any difference than the system I believe VoiceChasers uses as I noted in the bullet above this.

			<blockquote><p>There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable. It is reliable for specifically group based child sex exploitation.</p></blockquote>
	Just as an FYI, this site was asked about on the RSN in February 2012, ], with the commenting editor saying that "it looked like a blog" with "no evidence on whether they check their information for accuracy," both of which I'm not inclined to agree with by my looking at the site and would like others opinions. Thanks. - ] (]) 06:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	: Hello again Favre1fan , I've done a bit of looking at both sites. At first I thought BTVA was not suitable to be a reliable source: "unofficial site.. for fans, run by fans in their spare time..." The key reason why BehindTheVoiceActors aka BTVA is used as a reliable source is because they have a verification process. "...any green checkmarks those are confirmed credits. Click the greencheck mark to see the source... official voice actor websites, voice actor resumes, DVD/Blu-ray ending credits and from conversations with the voice actors & voice directors..." Especially valuable is this bit: "Sometimes multiple sources conflict... leads to additional work on our part to find out the truth." They are definitely a fan-site, but they have an editorial-slash-fact-checking process. The process is flawed, of course, since a green checkmark might just be 'sourced' to some blog or twit of a pretend-actor that claims credit for roles they did not actually perform; cf ]. It might not even be a blog -- BTVA trusts private email from actors, saying "I was the voice of so-and-so" which might never be corrected. Still, pretty reliable, at least on the level of the politics section of a daily newspaper in a mid-size city, right? Right.
	:    You are asking whether VoiceChasersDotCom aka VCDC is also good enough. They have a similar approach, where fans post in forums, and then the VCDC staff puts the information into the database. What's the editorial-and-fact-checking-process? They do not say, neither giving details, nor even whether they have any fact-checking. "Our large, comprehensive database... over 120k voice credits..." Notice the focus on quantity of info, not quality of info; they say comprehensive first, accurate as an afterthought, and they give a total count only, never giving a total-count-and-a-verified-true-count. "... meant for research, education, and entertainment purposes only." It is also run by a dedicated group of volunteers, like BTVA... but although VCDC claims to be an "accurate resource for professionals" they give no evidence, in the we-commit-our-reputation-to-the-following-written-process sense, to back that claim up. At the end of the day, they sound more like IMDB than like BTVA.
	:    That does not mean all is lost. Maybe VCDC does have a strong verification-process, maybe even stronger than BTVA, and have just not documented it in the FAQ. Maybe email them this link, and see if they'll commit to publishing their verification procedures, and adding something like the green-check-means-verified-click-here-to-see-cited-source. Another workaround would be, look up the info you need to verify with a reliable source (e.g. Warden == Khary Payton), and post the info at BTVA. Once they give Warden==Khary the green checkmark, you can put it into the[REDACTED] article. Anyways, at the end of the day, I have the same bad news as the 2012 person: "no evidence on whether they check". Your experience of watching the evolution of the Batman listings is evidence, of course... but it is anecdotal evidence. Maybe you were just lucky. Maybe they sometimes verify, but not always. Maybe some VCDC contributors verify, but with others anything goes. Maybe they verify batman, but not Bill Murray. The key is, they do not '''commit''' to verifying, they do not document '''how''' they verify. That is the substantive difference. HTH. Ping my talkpage if you have any question or concerns, I rarely check this noticeboard. Thanks for improving wikipedia. ] (]) 17:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
	::Thanks for looking into the site. - ] (]) 23:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

			I hope I have formatted this correctly, thank you. ] ] 19:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	1. '''Source'''. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Board of Directors (2012). Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers The first line of the report reads: <blockquote>"Foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques, the AAAS Board of Directors has concluded."</blockquote>
			:Sorry but it is the source we judge, not the writer, his work say in the Telegraph can be cited, not his work for GB news. ] (]) 19:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	2. '''Article'''. ]<br />
			::Just to be clear here, I am not saying Peters is the only good reporter. GBNews has some good reporters and they're specifically concentrated on this. I think GBNews is generally slop but I just wanted to cite a specific reporter as an example. I think GBNews' work and information on this very narrow subject is worth considering. ] ] 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	3. '''Content'''. From the wiki article: "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food."<br />
			:This seems backwards, ] claims require exceptional sources, not exceptions for terrible ones. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	4. '''Discussion'''. We would like some advice on the use of this source, and I do not want to sway any neutral parties, so I won't offer my own view or any other info about our previous discussion until we hear from some new faces. I would urge my friends from the gm food pages to do the same. Thanks everyone --] (]) 19:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
			:GB News is persistently and relentlessly unreliable. We cannot make exceptions for a single reporter (and I say that as someone who believes Peters to be one of the better GB News reporters, though admittedly that's a very low bar). If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that ''weren't'' run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear. ] 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:] is respected scientific organization, yes, they are a ]. But I'm not sure I would word the content the way it is above. The article doesn't really say that there is broad scientific consensus, although one could certainly ]. Instead, the article lists specific organizations. I suggest we do something similar. Also, the source article doesn't quite say "conventional food". Instead, it uses the phrase "conventional plant improvement techniques" which may or may not be the same thing as "conventional food". So, I think the AAAS is an excellent source for the article, but we should try to stay closer to what it says. ] (]) 19:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
			::I don't think more sensationalist reporting is going to make that page better. Let's leave GB News off it. ] (]) 19:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Quest, thank you for pointing out that AAAS is a reliable source here. Speaking as an involved editor, I want to address your concern about "broad scientific consensus". The source also says: "Moreover, the AAAS Board said, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and “every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”" I think that is tantamount to "broad scientific consensus", and that the AAAS is reliable as a source to make that assessment. I'll also point out that the community very recently made a careful examination of the question raised here, at ], and the consensus there was that the language on the page is reliably sourced. --] (]) 00:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
			:::Again, I'm being clear here I'm only talking about one narrow subject. ] ] 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I was also being very specific to that one page as well. ] (]) 20:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::So you're saying that, specifically on child rape, they're sensationalists. I agree with you that their titles would do better without the incessant capitalisations but their reporting on this isn't errant in any way. ] ] 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::So you're basically just saying Peters is a racist and if I can prove he isn't racist you'll be convinced? Here he is covering a white rapist. https://www.gbnews.com/news/two-rotherham-child-abuse-victims-accidentally-left-out-court-rapist-sentencing-office-error ] ] 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: I absolutely did ''not'' say that Peters was racist, so don't do that again please. I was pointing out that GB News inevitably covers Asian grooming gangs, but almost never white ones. If Peters broke that mould I ''would'' be convinced. ] 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::: Oh, I've just seen your userpage. That explains it. ] 19:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::> '''Sources (some are invalid and blatantly biased for[REDACTED] standards but summarise info well. i'll find a proper source for them.'''
			:::::Not all the sources in my user page are valid at all, I've just added them to look deeper in later on to verify myself.
			:::::If you're accusing me of being a right wing grifter so be it, I literally just added an article by Bindle to my user page smearing the right as racist grifters before I read this, I edited McMurdock's article and wrote how he kicked a woman four times, I try my best to be fair. I am not interested in just saying "Pakistani men rape and whites don't", that's absurd. The state has routinely failed children of rape. I'm arguing that GBNews on this topic is good. ] ] 20:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::: I suppose even Bindel can be right occasionally. That's not the point though, I followed a few of your links and saw the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page - that's not good on a BLP, whether you are a right-wing grifter or not (I have no idea if that's the case). But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop. It would be ''incredibly'' problematic if we had to define sources as reliable or not depending on which journos were producing the material, especially as their material is routinely filtered through an editorial process which we have defined as unreliable in the first place. ] 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I understand. I regret making my initial point on Peters specifically because you're right that specific journalists do not save a publication. I've been trying to change the position to accomadate this, and say something more so on the lines of "Generally speaking, their covering of child sex abuse is good, can we make an exception for this topic". Is your argument here from the context of me originally saying Peters was good or is your argument here that no matter how good the journalism is on child sex abuse, the rest of the publication is too sloppy to make an exception? " But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop"
			:::::::> the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page
			:::::::Is this on the word 'despite'? This was talked about on the talk page, I agreed it was a mistake. ] ] 21:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Again, GBNews is generally slop, we can agree on that. I believe they have good journalists focusing on child rape. ] ] 20:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::: We can't separate the two, that's the issue. The ''Daily Mail'' has good journalists as well, the problem in using them is the venue they publish their work in. ] 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I agree the Daily Mail is total slop as well, but if they had excellent journalism on one specific topic that would warrant an exception. That's what I'm arguing here. ] ] 20:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I'm not going to repeat that as you have made clear that was not your intent, but I'm not trying to strawman you. I've misinterpreted what you're saying here as you calling Peters / GBNews / their audience racist (though that is not what you are saying), I am confused on what you exactly are you trying to say with the below. May you please elaborate?
			::::"If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that weren't run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear." ] ] 20:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::: GB News is a right-wing channel (and, to be fair, it is transparently so); it tells its viewers what they want to hear. Much of the right-wing audience believes that child abuse is mostly committed by Asian gangs, because that's what right-wing narratives have told them, even if it's false. GB News doesn't actually ''say'' that is true, but it reinforces those ideas by focusing on such cases. ] 20:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I'm not accusing you of calling them 'racist', but what exactly would you call the behaviour your describing, if not racist.
			::::::Yes, GBNews is obviously a right wing channel. I believe you can criticise nearly all political journalistic publications that aren't state funded of pandering to their audience. CNN, the Telegraph, the Guardian, Fox, etc. I find it all a bit obnoxious.
			::::::I do however have qualms with the idea that GBNews is, how do I put this, 'filtering out or downplaying' rape gangs when they are not Pakistani / Bangladeshi? You say the majority of these perpetrators are white, I believe that is true of CSAM online but I amn't sure that's true at least on a per capita basis for rape gangs though I have collated a lot of sources which I intend to read when I have the time, as you've noted on my talk page, so I'll be better informed to answer this in the future.
			::::::In essence, your hesitance or better put refusal to add an exception to GBNews on rape gangs isn't derived from a sense that they're journalistically or factually incorrect outright but rather they have underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. If I'm understanding what you are saying correctly which I'll need confirmation on as I do not wish to strawman you. ] ] 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::: Yes, that's exactly what GB News does (though I would not go as far as saying it is "factually correct" ''all'' the time). It is, however, understandably more careful with its narratives with this subject than it is with others (although it does publish nonsense like , notably not by Peters). ] 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::That's an opinion piece that more falls under geopolitics. That wouldn't fall into what I, or the other user, is arguing to include.
			::::::::If we can agree that at least ''nearly all'' the time they are factually correct on this very specific subject, and the wealth of information is enormous, we can just put a warning that GBNews has something along the lines of "accusations of underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias" in a general sense (but is better on this subject (and thus the exception being made) as you noted and I agree), but that if possible, should be substantiated with another source, but is still acceptable on this very specific subject, even independently, especially if there are no other sources available. That's reasonable, I believe. Thoughts? ] ] 22:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::: I'm not convinced, I have to admit, and I wouldn't vote in favour of it. Though I ask, could it be any worse that allowing the ''Telegraph'', a paper which posts rabidly transphobic opinion pieces, to be used on trans-related topics (as was allowed in a recent RfC)? It's unlikely. ] 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::As long as what is written is factually true, the agenda behind it just has to be made known to the editor beforehand to caution them. We shouldn't restrain facts and deprive people of them because we deem the authors morally repugnant. ] ] 23:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Comment''' Whilst I agree that GB News should be approached with caution (and I wouldn't touch their climate change reporting with a barge pole), I think Charlie Peters is an exceptional reporter. I would generally trust what he has to say before, for example, ''The Guardian'' or ''The Times''. I think that by barring his reporting on GB News we are probably barring the country's most pre-eminent authority on gang-related CSE. IT's worth bearing in mind that coverage of this topic has now become highly-politicised, but Charie probbaly brings the most balanced and fact-based perspective to the coverage of the issue. We could treat his reporting on GB News on this particular issue as an instance of expert ]. If other sources are reporting the same thing then fine, bit I honestly believe we would be devaluing Misplaced Pages's coverage by excluding him. The fact remains he is not interchangeable with other journalists at other news outlets, because he brings a wealth of research and statistics to the table, and has probably interacted with grooming gang victims more then any other journalist. ] (]) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I know this sounds silly but it is refreshing hearing more knowlegable Wikipedians explain what I'm trying to articulate so eloquently. I do want to be clear however that I think GBNews' coverage on gang CSE is excellent, not just Peters. The main contention seems not to be on if it is factual, no one here seems to be disputing this, but rather if it has underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. You can read my last comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269267836 as I try to ] what another user is saying to the best of ability. ] ] 21:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Are there any third-party sources that validate the claim that GB News and Peters are the best sources on this topic? ] (] • ]) 05:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::{{ping\|Tryptofish}} Have you tried finding a source that says what you want it to say? If you don't mind using the popular press, here's a source that says what you want it to say almost word for word. ] (]) 19:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
			::What do you mean? How would that work? Are you asking if reputable sources cite GBNews regularly on this topic? If so, yes I've read many articles, especially the Telegraph, mentioning them if I recall correctly. ] ] 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::{{tq\|There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from genetically modified crops pose no greater risk than conventional food. However, advocacy groups argue the risks of GMO food have not been adequately identified.}} ] (]) 20:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
			:::Well, according to ],{{tq\|If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims.}} That seems to be one way it works. Normal editorial processes are that we use secondary sources to evaluate the significant views among published reliable sources, and UBO is in most cases relatively weak validation for other claims. ] (] • ]) 07:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::Thanks for that! I'll bring it up at the article talk page. On the plus side, that source uses language that is just about word-for-word what the page says. On the minus side, they are popular press as you say, and I wonder if they mirrored the language from Misplaced Pages! Of course, the AAAS source is a reliable expert source, and I don't think there is the slightest bit of OR in going from the passage I quoted to the language we cite to it. --] (]) 00:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
			::: If you're going to start an RfC on this topic (which would be required to carve out an exception for GB News), it would be far better to present such evidence as opposed to a simple opinion of "I think it's reliable". ] 08:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'm not sure there are any sources out there that flat out stipulate that Charlie Peters is the best source for this topic, but he is increasingly becoming the "go to" source in this area. report how he "broke" the latest story about the Government declining the national inquiry into CSE in Oldham, and other news outlets have approached him to co-author their articles, presumably for his insight, such as and . ''Deadline'' profile him —it is worth bearing in mind he was a specialist in this area before working for GB News, having made a documentary about the Rotherham cover-up. Maggie Oliver—a former police detective who blew the whistle on the cover-up in Greater Manchester and now works with survivors—holds his journalism in . In reality, as NotQualified has noted, other news outlets have re-used facts first reported by Peters in their own stories, so there is no way to really avoid his core reporting. Part of the reason for this is because , so they are dependent on those that have. For the record, I do think there is a difference between the core facts as reported by Peters and the framing of these stories by GB News in its broadcasts. ] (]) 10:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::If other sources have reported on the details, then they should be used. That way editors waste less time arguing about the source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::You get less depth and less nuance from news outlets which repackage his work, usually for sensationalist reasons. Peters has interviewed the survivors and their families extensively. He attended the trials and the sentencing. If other news outlets are happy to re-use his material I don't see why it should be any issue here. ] (]) 12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Any other source is going to be less sensationalist and so less controversial. The issue is doing the simple option so as to avoid wasting time arguing over which source to use rather than something more useful. GBNews is by it's nature always going to be controversial, so using a different source for the same information is the best option. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That is an ad hoc approach which only works for one news story at a time. Simply put, what if other sources don't. This is why it is important the exception is carved out. ] ] 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::If a single news source is the only source that picks up a detail, that probably goes to show that detail shouldn't be included (] / ]). That other news sources decide not to include certain details may well be because they do not believe the details are important, or that they are presented properly. I would say it goes to shows why there shouldn't be a exception given. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@] this statement can be applied to any source in any discussion... ]<sub>]</sub> 21:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Yes, choosing the least contentious source to support a detail is always a good idea (regardless of the article). Arguing other a contentious source when others are available isn't a good use of editors time. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The New York Times says {{tq\|No British media outlet has revived the grooming scandal with the zeal of GB News, a hard-right cable news channel that went on the air in 2021, a decade after The Times’s investigation into grooming gangs.}} which does not exactly sound like a ringing endorsement. It instead sounds rather more like exactly the sort of {{tq\|unduly represent contentious or minority claims}} we're supposed to take care to avoid. If a primary source has been published in multiple places, I see no compelling reason why the reliability of GB News even needs to be discussed, and it seems like nobody wants to use the secondary parts. ] (] • ]) 11:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Surely that's a ] issue to be determined in the context of what is being written, rather than a ] issue. ] (]) 12:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Even if it isn't a "ringing endorsement", it does sound like NYT agrees it has the largest wealth of knowledge on this issue, which is one of the reasons I'd argue it's critical to allow. If that knowledge was erroneous, I'd obviously agree it shouldn't be included, but that knowledge as discussed on this talk discussion seems to be virtually always correct.
			::::> If a primary source has been published in multiple places,
			::::And what if it isn't. Misplaced Pages as a whole suffers. ] ] 17:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{tqbm\|And what if it isn't.}}
			:::::] and ], even were it to be considered reliable. ] (] • ]) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Other sources are reporting on Peters “breaking” the story in that he revived a myth that was taken up by Elon Musk who then intervened in uk politics and got far right grifters competing with each other for his attention, making Peters’ “reporting” noteworthy, but not reliable. ] (]) 15:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::post sources ] ] 15:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::A few examples:
			:::::*FT: “How a handful of X accounts took Elon Musk ‘down the rabbit hole’ on UK politics… In the past week, Musk has also amplified posts on the grooming scandal by former prime minister Liz Truss, former Labour MP Kate Hoey, former Reform politician Ben Habib and people linked to broadcaster GB News.”
			:::::*Yahoo News: “News of Philips's rejection letter was then reported by GB News on 1 January, sparking an intense debate about whether such an inquiry was needed. This was picked up by Elon Musk who began posting prolifically about the issue, levelling harsh criticism at the government and at one point calling for Philips to be jailed for rejecting the request.”
			:::::*BBC: ”Debate around grooming gangs was reignited this week after it was reported that Phillips rejected Oldham Council's request for a government-led inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation in the town, in favour of a locally-led investigation. The decision was taken in October, but first reported by GB News on 1 January.”
			:::::*BBC Verify: “In one post, Mr Musk alleged that "Gordon Brown committed an unforgivable crime against the British people" and shared a video clip from campaigner Maggie Oliver appearing on GB News. In the clip, Ms Oliver alleged: "Gordon Brown sent out a circular to all the police forces in the UK saying 'do not prosecute these rape gangs, these children are making a lifestyle choice'."… But BBC Verify has carried out extensive searches of Home Office circulars issued across that period and found no evidence that any document containing this advice exists.”
			:::::*New Yorker: “The onslaught began on January 1st, when Musk responded to a report by GB News, a right-wing cable-news channel, which said that the country’s Labour government had rejected a national inquiry into non-recent sexual abuse in Oldham, a town just outside Manchester, in northern England. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the actual story is more complicated than that.”
			:::::*NYT: “No British media outlet has revived the grooming scandal with the zeal of GB News, a hard-right cable news channel that went on the air in 2021, a decade after The Times’s investigation into grooming gangs… Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform U.K., an anti-immigrant party, has praised Mr. Peters, saying he had “really reignited this story” and demonstrated that “these barbarities have taken place in at least 50 towns.”… The cumulative effect of Mr. Musk’s inflammatory posts has been to energize Britain’s populist right.”
			:::::] (]) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I’m just here to say that a source being ''generally'' unreliable doesn’t mean they can’t be reliable in specific circumstances. That is, if you want to make a case that a specific subset of GB News output is reliable enough to support statements in a specific article, you can make that argument on the Talk page of the article and it doesn’t need to be carved out as a formalised exception on ]. ] (]) 17:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Absolutely agree with this, both "''generally'' reliable" and "''generally'' unreliable" are not absolutes. Either way you may be required to convince other editors (on the articles talk page) that a specific source should, or shouldn't, be used. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Considering that there is quite a lot of academic material on this subject that isn't currently being used in these articles I'm somewhat reticent to start making exceptions for generally unreliable news media organizations out of some sort of belief we are missing sources. ] (]) 17:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The specifics would be a discussion for the articles talk page, but in general I'd agree. Less news and opinion sources, and more academic sources would be an improvement for many articles. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			If other sources do not follow though with a story, there may well be reason why, and one of those is they can't confirm them. This is what they are RS, they do try to fact-check before publication. So if a reputable publication does not report it I have to ask the question why is the only source reporting this an iffy one? ] (]) 17:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Thanks for this comment, this was also my interpretation when reading the thread, and surprised no-one else referenced the obvious here: If Charlie Peters is such a respectable journalist (let's assume he is for the sake of argument), then why is his work not published in respectable and reliable sources such as The Telegraph that he previously worked for? While trying to avoid a discussion on this journalist career path and choices in life, it does seem remarkably odd that there aren't reliable sources reporting his coverage indepth. This makes me suspect that it's because it's much easier to publish for GB News than it is other news orgs that do fact-checking and thorough reviews. Baring in mind, its not just WP that considers GB News as generally unreliable, there is rough consensus among UK journalism that it is a trashy tabloid-like source. So why is such a respectable journalist writing such great contributions for a trash can? Without intending to speculate much further than I already have, it could be because what he writes for GB News isn't as reliable as what he has written elsewhere. Generally if there were topics that I would say GB News was specifically unreliable for, it'd be along the lines of Reform Party coverage (it's a quasi-primary source at this point), and contentious topics such as the far-right riots, Tommy Robinson, and grooming gangs. Feel free to accuse me of a broad stroke, but I'd otherwise consider GB to be generally reliable for entertainment and culture topics (similar to NYP). ] (]) 00:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:'''Comment from an involved party''': The content that this source is used to support (which is narrowly focused on the relative safety of food from currently marketed GMOs), and the many sources used to support that content, went through an RfC not too long ago - see ]. The conclusion was that the statement and sources are fine. More recently, Gerald wanted to remove this particular source; he is not currently challenging the content. Gerald failed to gain consensus for removing the source on Talk, so I recommended he bring the source here. I will leave it to him, to make his own arguments. I have argued that under MEDRS, specifically the section on ], that this source is acceptable. It is not the kind of peer-reviewed secondary source that we generally rely on for sourcing (of which we have several already) but it is really valuable to have a statement by such a reputable major scientific body to support the content (which is in a controversial area, where the scientific consensus is clear but the public is very emotional). The only legit grounds I could see to exclude this source (given the paragraph in MEDRS) is that the AAAS is not a "reputable major scientific body". I don't see how that argument could be made, so the source should stay. ] (]) 20:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
			::Just to be clear here, it isn't just Peters, I'm arguing that generally their coverage on group based child sex exploitation is good. Peters has written under multiple papers. I do not know why he works for GBNews particularly right now but he brings spectacular journalism to it. ] ] 00:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::My concern was that the source doesn't back up their own claims with cited info. Honestly, I'm not sure why they referred to the 2 cited sources at all. They could have easily backed up the report by citing more heavily or just left them out completely. Maybe aaas is suggesting that those are the two ''best'' sources available. I'm not really sure what to make of it. I would appreciate other thoughts on this type of source in general. When is it appropriate, when not and why this over something more closely linked to the science. With all of the public confusion over the scientific consensus, I understand why the aaas would want to put the issue right, but I didn't think it was wikipedia's job to address that same public confusion, but instead to report the facts. Jyt and Tryp have the right of it, this is not about the statement itself, just about the use of this source to support it. I would appreciate some comments from RS folks on the lack of peer-review and limited citations of the report. Thanks ] (]) 20:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
			*'''Nah.''' If there's news that doesn't suck it'll show up elsewhere. Per {{u\|CommunityNotesContributor}}, that it ''isn't'' showing up elsewhere raises an eyebrow - ] (]) 10:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Why you continue to ignore the specific authorization of this kind of source in MEDRS is beyond me. For you to be solidly grounded in policy and guideline, that paragraph would have to not-exist. But it does exist. You just have a preference that we not use the source, but you are not arguing that way. ] (]) 14:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
			*Strong disagree with OP. In fact, i’d say that the fact that the Telegraph has taken up Peters’/GBNews’ reporting might lead us to the rule that the Telegraph, is not reliable on this highly contentious topic. Example: here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/04/grooming-gangs-scandal-cover-up-oldham-telford-rotherham/ Peters and a co-author claim to catalogue the “cover up” of the grooming scandal “to preserve the image of a successful multicultural society” — yet every single factual claim in their article is taken from a pre-existing primary source (a 2010 W Midlands police report, a 2013 sentencing report, the 2014 Rotherham Jay inquiry, the 2015 Rotherham Casey report, the 2019 Manchester police report, the 2022 Telford Inquiry and the 2022 national independent review) that to my mind prove that far from a cover up this has been extensively investigated and publicly addressed for well over a decade. There is no actual investigation here; they rely on the investigation done by others and use it to spin an inflammatory conspiracy theory. I think it might be time to downgrade the Telegraph not upgrade GBNews. ] (]) 15:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::I understand the paragraph and recognize that it permits use of sources like this. The questions I'm raising are more for my own education. Seems like there ought to be circumstances that drive which types of source to use. Does that exist somewhere? (I'm curious when one should cite an organization's statement and what makes it preferential.) ] (]) 15:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
			*:Regarding this article, is it usual for reliable sources to correct the content of articles without referencing a change? This was first published on , and modified by with attribution to GB News added (can verify with ):
	:::::This is a much more reasonable position than the one you have taken thus far. But I think your efforts on the Talk page went beyond raising questions to strenuously making claims and arguments that this source should be cut. In any case, wanting to learn is always a good thing. My sense (but I too am happy to be taught) is that Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines specify what types of sources are most preferred, which are less preferred, and which are not acceptable, both generally and for health-related content in particular. With respect to choosing among acceptable sources, there is no guidance other than a) use the most preferred kind of source whenever possible, and of course, b) the fifth pillar (there are no rules, use common sense). In this case, as was stated several times on the Talk page, the AAAS source is both acceptable and is extremely useful for supporting the given content (the board of one of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the US, issued a statement clarifying what the scientific consensus is. (Rhetorical question - who would know the scientific consensus better than the board of such an organization?). ] (]) 13:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
			: {{tq\|"In Jess Phillips’s letter to the council, '''revealed by GB News''', she said she understood the strength of feeling in the town, but thought it best for another local review to take place.}}
			: {{tq\|"The state must leave no stone unturned in its efforts to root out this evil. As one victim, '''told GB News''', "..."}}
			*:It's good they corrected the article with necessary attribution for unverified claims, however it took 4 days to do so, and they failed to reference such changes in the article, including the original date. Not a good look imo. ] (]) 15:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer ==
	:I saw this on stating:

			Is this sigcov , reliable for ]? ] (]) 09:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::{{tq\|A recent paper by independent Italian scientists noted there have been 1783 studies on safety and health issues related to GMOs over the last ten years alone, including many publicly funded studies, confirming the safety of GMOs. The literal avalanche of GMO safety studies, short term and long, have prompted more than 100 of the world’s independent science bodies to conclude that foods made from genetically modified crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic varieties.}}
			:The first link goes to a summary of a detailed software review by Friedrich Blase, the “Innovator-in-Residence” of the Ontario Bar Association. It looks like Dr. Blase, whose references writings on legal technology, might qualify as a subject matter expert, so I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. The second link goes to a blog, which would not be a reliable source. ] (]) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Ok, thank you very much. ] (]) 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Did Howard Dean get paid to give speeches promoting the MEK? ==
	:So, Forbes is stating in no uncertain terms that there is scientific consensus that GMO foods are safe (well, as safe as non GMO)] (]) 20:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	::No comment on the substance, but the Forbes article is an op-ed by a named contributor, and hence only representative for the opinion of that particular author, not Forbes itself. --] (]) 20:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::My mistake. I didn't see that oped part. The link to the research is inside for those that care.] (]) 20:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

			{{u\|Hogo-2020}} and I have bit of a dispute : can we list that Howard Dean as among the American officials who received either cash payments or some other form of compensation for making speeches promoting the ]?
	Policies (e.g. wp:ver and wp:nor) establish sourcing/source/sourcability requirements for the presence of ''material''. There is no policy requirement for the presence of a ''source''. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 21:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
			Sources:
	:Unsure what you are saying. ] and ] are policy and guideline, respectively, on acceptable sourcing. Please elaborate! ] (]) 21:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
			*A telephone interview with ] that was published on a newsblog on ]. Smith writes that Dean "said that while he's given paid speeches for the group, his advocacy is pro bono."
	::I believe that North8000 does not understand why there is an argument about whether a reference is worth removing, and is pointing out that most[REDACTED] policies talk about sentences sometimes needing to be removed. Basically, they are asking what the point of this whole discussion is. Methinks the answer is ], because here is what Geraldatyrrell said: "...this is not about the statement itself, just about the use of this source to support it." In this case, the AAAS report is signed by 'board members' and gives a general-sounding statement, which is in agreement with similar statements made by other folks, but does not cite very many of the other folks. In a nutshell, the AAAS report almost sounds like a communal blog, where the board writes up their opinions, rather than a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
			*An editorial by ] in '']''.
	:::(added later) in hindsight, I realize that I misunderstood an argument that was being made; and that my comment a couple posts back is not relevant to this discussion. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 23:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
			**The editorial links to a '']'' article, which writes "Mr. Dean confirmed to the Monitor that he received payment for his appearances, but said the focus on high pay was “a diversion inspired by those with a different view.”"
	::::thanks!] (]) 13:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
			*An article in '']'' which says "Dean himself has acknowledged being paid but has not disclosed specific sums". Dean's advocate responded to that article, according to Salon, saying "On the issue of the MEK, he is not a paid advocate. He was paid for a handful of speeches, but has not been paid for his advocacy."
	::     Since the sentence in question does not depend solely on the AAAS report, and since the AAAS report was somewhat weak-seeming (in terms of academic formalisms) when you follow it a little deeper, Geraldatyrrell was trying to get a better feel for how valid using such a source might be... in a hypothetical situation where it was the sole supporting ] for some sentence. My take is that the 'board members' of the AAAS, and their newsletter, are best seen as a journalistic body, rather than a scientific publication. The board members act as the editorial and fact-checking department, in practice very much like a science-oriented magazine such as Technology Review functions. They don't cite deeply-and-broadly, because the are reporting on existing conclusions, not generating any new ones. HTH. ] (]) 04:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::This is just a quibble with what you said, and I think that you are largely making a very reasonable point. But I'm going to quibble with your characterization of the AAAS Board as acting in an editorial/fact-checking capacity. Although they are indeed expressing an editorial view after reviewing available factual material, they differ from typical editorial offices (including the staff of the editorial office of their major publication, '']'') in that most Board members are highly distinguished scientists, selected somewhat like the ]. They are a governance board, as opposed to office staff. --] (]) 19:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

			''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 13:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	==Is this a reliable source?==

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

			== Is REAL, Journal of Almería Studies an rs for ] ==
	It's a paper that's obviously passed muster at university level, but it is by an undergraduate. I've been keeping this source on ice for a while, because I'm not sure if it meets all the criteria, but the information it imparts is gold, and reliable sources on this topic are, as you can imagine, rare. <b>]]<font color="#00b">]</font></b> 14:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
	: Please see ], the PhD thesis and Masters thesis paragraph. The key phrase is "shown to have had significant scholarly influence" which basically means, lots of other academics have cited it, in lots of other thesis papers, peer-reviewed journal papers, and similar. I'm guessing that is not the case. Did anybody publish the work, as part of Proceeding of the 7th Annual Such And Such Conference, or the equivalent? If neither a bunch of cites, nor a non-COI-publication, then prolly not usable as ]. The paper itself might be suitable as an external link, though, specifying pretty clearly that this is an undergrad student paper published by the student on the university wiki (or whatever the actual detailed explanation is). Hope this helps. There was actually just a rewrite of that section of ], which is why I remembered that sentence about Masters thesis stuff. If you want the explanatory details, ping my user-talkpage. Thanks for improving wikipedia, sorry my news is likely not what you were wanting to hear. ] (]) 04:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

			See. The link doesn't go to the source cited and I can't find that aource. ] ] 16:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	==]==
	I'm a non-participant in ongoing edits/talk. This looks to me to be a POV noticeboard problem so I have posted at POV noticeboard, but might be worth someone looking at the problem from the RS perspective too. ] (]) 15:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

			:Found a Spanish Misplaced Pages article on the explorer. ] ] 16:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Talking Points Memo as RS for documenting a Senator's vote ==
			::I found a link to the pdf but which I don't read well. ] (]) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] @] My Spanish is at a passable level, from a first glance I’m not seeing anything outlandish/indicative of unreliability but I can take a deeper look a bit later. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 01:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			:The journal isn't peer-reviewed, so it's not a top quality source, but it is a serious journal, in the sense it is something we would usually accept as reliable in general. The writers seem reasonable-ish. However, it's not a good enough journal that an outlandish article would become reliable. I'm reading the article now, and a couple of things strike me as a bit off, but maybe it's just because I've been drawn to it here. Will give a bit more info later today.] (]) 07:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	] claims that ] is not a reliable source for documenting a Senator's vote. The content will be easily sourced from elsewhere, being a US Senator's vote, but I don't like editors attempting to move the ] by making false claims. Please advise. — ] 16:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
			::OK, the article appears to be claiming Lorenzo Ferrer Maldonado completed a crossing of the ] in 1588. Between February and March. This is an extraordinary claim, I don't think the source is good enough to state that in the article.] (]) 07:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:In my opinion, neither or are reliable sources. They are both pushing an agenda. A similar argument has been made ] regarding . If TPM and Policymic are reliable, then I would argue that Breitbart would be as well.] (]) 17:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
			:::And if I'd checked, I'd have found out that he made up the story although it was taken seriously 200 years later. ] ] 09:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::::::No experience or opinion with TPM/Breitbart ... but last I remember, PolicyMic '''is not at all''' a reliable source, it is like examiner.com , anybody can write for it, no fact-checking. ] (]) 03:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
			::::The article is really odd, it is drifting towards the genre of ''x was actually Spanish/Catalan/Indian/Hungarian'' and ''the Masons hid the evidence of how they built pyramids so they could continue Akenhaton's religion''. They use a photoshop reconstruction of how a woodcut of Ferrer might have looked and suggest a Spanish conspiracy to hide the fact they had discovered the Northwest passage, so the English and Dutch couldn't use it. They also claim that "Anglosaxon scholars" now accept Ferrer's claims, but fail to cite them. Valeriano Sánchez Ramos seems to be a quite decent local historian of eastern Andalucia, whereas Alfonso Viciana Martínez-Lage is more of a general writer but has published some academic stuff. I can't quite make my mind up if this is a sort of ''folie à deux'', or whether they are publishing an academic joke.] (]) 17:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::What exactly are you claiming here? You think that Kirk didn't vote the way that these journalists say that he voted? Or are you just using RS as a weapon to remove content that you don't like? — ] 18:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
			:::::They managed to get published in Boletín de la Real Sociedad Geográfica (Tomo CLX (2023), p. 115). But still I wouldn't give it much weight unless there are other scholars that concur with them. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::It's not clear that the vote referenced in the content you're trying to add to the article is significant. Mention of it in a reliable secondary source would indicate whether it is significant. I don't believe the sources mentioned above would be considered reliable.] (]) 19:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
			::::::I'm really surprised at that, I would have to say this is covered by ]. It is hard to understand how the editorial team might have accepted for publication an article which suggests an ice-free passage existed in the winter of 1588. You need specialist ships, and often icebreakers, to do it in summer today.] (]) 07:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Now you are making a different argument. Whether the content is appropriate is a different question than whether the source is reliable. Your first argument was that the source is unrelisble. Are you discarding that argument for a new one? — ] 19:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
			:::::::That someone was able to navigate the northwest passage at that time is definitely bthe type of exception claim that ] talks of. This would require multiple high quality sources, so this source alone would not be reliable for the claim. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			==''Pirate Wires''?==
	::Oh, I see, it's a ]. Breitbart is an obviously unreliable source, so you are attempting to impeach other sources which you know are reliable. That makes sense. — ] 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
			'']'' as an "American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." It doesn't shout "reliable source" to me (feels more like a group blog), but could somebody else take a look at this and help me determine if (a) its articles, or (b) its claims about itself should be cited in articles or BLPs, ? — '''] \| ] \|''' 20:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Breitbart seems very comparable to these 2 sources to me (although obviously from different political perspectives).] (]) 19:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
			:Wouldn’t this be an aboutself citation anyway? I would be more concerned about primary/OR here in that case.
	Talking Points Memo is certainly reliable in this instance. ] (]) 18:55, 31 October 2013 (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)
	:What's your rationale?] (]) 19:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
			:: So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of {{talk quote inline\|as of January 2025, his profile at the online publisher '']'' lists him as a senior editor\|q=yes}}? I just wanted to make sure ''PW'' was something worth mentioning at all, or if it was more akin to 'he's the senior editor this super-serious blog' and name-dropping a site that bore no mention. — '''] \| ] \|''' 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::While partisan, this is a legitimate news operation with professional editors and reporters, who has credentials that can be verified. I'm not saying this ''should'' be used in the manner suggested, but as towards the claim it makes it seems utterly reliable,] (]) 22:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
			:::I’m not sure, but think being descriptive is fine for “articles about Misplaced Pages” and stuff, “critical“ is probably better coming from a specific source, even if it’s obvious. With everything else, it’s probably a question of DUE, not RS. ] (]) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::: I'd eschew calling out any of his particular articles over others, since there's... no reason to, right? Without reliable third-party sourcing, they're no more notable or inclusion-worthy than his others. — '''] \| ] \|''' 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I think this is a case for ], but it seems like a reasonable option ] (]) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			: Pirate Wires has a strong right wing "libertarian tech bro" bent to its coverage, unsurprising given its links to Peter Thiel. The way it frames events is often strongly slanted, sometimes to the point of being misleading. Take for instance the recent story claiming that the WMF had been taken over by "Soros-backed operatives" . I would argue that this framing is conspiratorial and hyperbolic. I think it might sometimes be usable with caution for uncontroversial facts, but more objective sources should be preferred. ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: Here's a Business Insider story on Pirate Wires that gives a good sense of its ethos . ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Invoking ] to attack an organization is not a good start for Pirate Wires, a new publication that does not have much of a reputation at this point. Definitely not ], and I would avoid using this publication for ]. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I wouldn't call it a "group blog", it just has a niche audience in the tech industry. It is certainly more factually based than Fox News. The article you linked is using it problematically though. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 14:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			] (]) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

	* It ~~seems~~ to me ~~that~~ if ~~Kirk's~~ ~~vote~~ ~~was~~ ~~any~~ ~~more~~ ~~notable~~ ~~than~~ ~~any~~ ~~other~~ ~~vote~~ ~~he's~~ ~~had,~~ it ~~would~~ be ~~commented~~ on in an ~~established~~ ~~] and~~ ~~not~~ ~~some~~ ~~partisan~~ ~~rag~~. ] (]) 19:52, 31 ~~October~~ ~~2013~~ (UTC)		:Solana is the founder and operator of Pirate Wires, so maybe it's wise to consider his pieces in particular self-published. No idea the level of editorial rigour other contributors are under though. ] (]) 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			* ''Pirate Wires'' should be considered Generally reliable. The information that they publish, though perhaps from a libertarian or right wing political slant, is generally truthful/accurate and therefore should be considered ] unless someone is able to provide substantial evidence and examples that disprove this. ] (]) 16:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It's Mike Solana's blog. ] (]) 17:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Do you have an evidentiary basis for your claim? I ask because I was recently described in a Pirate Wires article as a member of a powerful pro-Hamas group, and while this was entertaining in its foolishness, the important point for RSN is that it was a factual error. The article contained many inaccuracies about various things, and it was clear that no attempt had been made to avoid errors and erroneous conclusions. So, using it for BLPs might be unwise, and the notion that it is "generally truthful/accurate" seem highly questionable. Of course, I only have one data point, so it could be an outlier, but I doubt it. ] (]) 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Yeah. I was not happy about Pirate Wires being used for that whole fiasco. But as for the evidence look above at the link {{U\|Selfstudier}} provided in which Mike Solana says, "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever." ] (]) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously ''his personal thing.'' ] (]) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. ] (]) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. ] (]) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::What "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" are you referring to? Can you cite specific examples please and quote from the source directly? Also, are there other reliable sources which then criticize PW for "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" or is that ] and/or your own conclusion being reached? ] (]) 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Considering that comment and the fact that founder ] is the chief marketing officer of ], Pirate Wires has a major ] with all of the individuals and organizations associated with Founders Fund, and is a non-] source with respect to all related topics. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 03:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Pirate Wires is trashy far-right culture wars content. It is at best a group blog - ] (]) 10:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Need context before coming to RSN ===
			At this point, the source is used in only 7 articles in mainspace. . in general, RSN really shouldn't be used to approve sources ahead of time, editors exercise their own discretion, debate merits of source in the talk page of article, and come here if the same source is debated over and over again, or if reliability is still at issue. ] (]) 16:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Per <s>{{U\|Slatersteven}}</s> its founder describes it as a ] - it should be treated accordingly. ] (]) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Not me. ] (]) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Oh dear did I misread? OOPS should be per {{U\|Selfstudier}} apologies. I will strike above. ] (]) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It is not ] and its founder merely said things along the lines of "I am not bought and paid for nor a mouthpiece for any billionaire" etc. Now I do not know the veracity of that statement for sure, but I do not see that Mike Solana declared Pirate Wires to be SPS or a blog. It has numerous other independent journalists and appears to run as a full-fledged journalistic organization like any other, with their own right leaning or right-libertarian bias of course. But bias is not a reason for a source to otherwise be deprecated or considered SPS or anything else, it is just the nature of nearly every source that some bias to one direction or another is to be expected. ] (]) 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::But they don't have any indication of editorial controls, or a fact-checking process, or any of the things that an ] would have; neither is there any reason to think they have a particular {{tq\|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}. A statement like "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever" makes it pretty clear that it's not structured the way we'd expect a RS to be structured. I'm with the editors above who describe it as a blog - there's just nothing here that even has the ''shape'' of an RS. The fact that the person who runs it sometimes also includes guest posts by other people doesn't change the fact that there's no editorial board, no source of fact-checking, and most of all no reputation. Like... what makes you think that it's a ], according to the criteria we use? Where do you feel its reliability comes from? --] (]) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			=== Usage in ] ===
	* I've never heard of this source before, but they appear to be a professional news organization with editorial oversight. In absence of other contradicting information, I would lean towards it being reliable. ] (]) 16:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
			Is the Pirate Wires piece by ] a reliable source of claims for the ] article? Rindsberg has published other content about Misplaced Pages on Pirate Wires, including . — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 04:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			:It's at best, usable for the attributed opinion of Rindsberg only, but even then, it's obviously polemical and partisan. There's lots of right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages that I personally find disingenuous, but inevitably an article on "Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages" is going to have to include some partisan sourcing, but not framing it as fact is essential. I am unsure whether Pirate Wires is prominent enough a publication that it would be due to mention in any capacity. ] (]) 04:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	*TPM is a liberal/progressive opinion source. Much like ]. They are reliable for their own views, but information from TPM is going to be liberally biased. There opinion about others should take this into consideration. Generally speaking, if something is that notable it will be covered as such by less biased sources than thses. Additionally, the manner it which it was being used in this instance is clearly pushing a liberal POV, which makes the edit a NPOV. ] (]) 17:22, 2 November 2013 (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)
	::The reference in question is not an opinion piece. We should accept it as reliable. Whether or not its usage here is warranted per NPOV is a different question altogether.] (]) 18:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
			:It is more or less a group
	::: Arzel, just because the source is a biased one, does not mean coverage in that source is not reliable. It sounds like folks here are pretty well agreed that TPM in this case counts as a reliable source, and if a reliable source gives something significant coverage, then that something is almost certainly ], though not necessarily ] enough for a dedicated[REDACTED] article or anything. There is a separate question, which is how ] applies... maybe the stuff the reliable source is discussing, are worth a tiny mention in the mainspace article, or even no mention if the editors reach consensus that the stuff is just not necessary to the article, per ]. But usually,[REDACTED] should mirror the sources, and maintain NPOV tone by saying that "avowed liberals at TPM said '...' in October 2013...." for instance. HTH. ] (]) 03:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
			:blog that mostly publishes opinion, including eg antisemitic Soros conspiracy theories. Any Misplaced Pages editor reading their coverage of this project will immediately spot multiple falsehoods and errors, and also personal attacks on names editors based on these inaccuracies. At best on a par with Quillette. In short, not reliable for this topic, and if this topic is a guide to how robust its general reporting is it’s probably not reliable for anything. ] (]) 16:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Both unreliable and ]. Rindsberg's views on any topic are quite irrelevant to anything. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 06:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Agree fully. Unreliable and undue. ] (]) 14:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:almost certainly no. the article attacking[REDACTED] has falsehoods and even ignoring that and arguing its an opinion piece we could use with attribution , it goes at it from a very marginal POV … there are more useful opinion pieces from more reliable outlets out there.] (]) 07:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:How is it used by others or is it even used by others? If sources have cited their work then I think we can as well. However, I would be very cautious about using it as an independent reference. Very cautious to the point where I would generally say no. Perhaps in a case where it's spot on topic (ideological bias of Misplaced Pages) but then only with attribution. Speaking generally, these sort of sources are always difficult as they may provide very good information but other than editors reading the text and using their own common sense, OR, etc, we don't have a good way to judge the quality of the output. BTW, this is also why I think "use with caution" may not be specific enough. Some sources are more like "use with caution but probably OK" while others are more like "use with extreme caution but there is probably a case where it provides more than about self content". ] (]) 14:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Pirate Wires itself is notable as it's had coverage in other notable outlets but its viewpoint about Misplaced Pages per se might not have been documented in RS yet. But I'm confused -- Why are some of these other media outlets' self-published viewpoints ] without them necessarily being considered RS themselves? ] (]) 13:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The term '']'' refers to sources without adequate editorial oversight, which includes most ]. ] are not self-published sources. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 14:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Imo Having Misplaced Pages articles that discuss whether Misplaced Pages is reliable, biased, antisemitic, etc is silly. We're all too inherently conflicted as Misplaced Pages editors to give a sober assessment of these topics and what is/isn't due to include. These topics are best left to scholars. That said, Pirate Wires is a lot less established than these other publications you mention. ] (]) 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			== CEIC data ==
	* I agree with AQFK's argument for why it's a reliable source. ] (]) 17:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	:OK. Then presumably Breitbart would be considered a reliable source as well.] (]) 05:46, 3 November 2013 (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)
	== Sourcing at ] ==

			:It looks like just a big database. I would trust the first party sources for raw data more. ] (]) 10:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	<s>Over at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Acupuncture</s> there is an ongoing discussion concerning the sources used to support claims about the effectiveness of acupuncture. This could really use another set of eyes looking at it. --] (]) 18:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
			::If in question use secondary sources.] (]) 02:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Fantasy Literature ==
	:This is being discussed at ] --] (]) 16:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

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

			: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)
	After seeing a ] between ] and ], evidenced by , and , over whether or not Forbes.com is a ], I decided to bring the matter here. Notice what NorthBySouthBaranof links to in the first diff-link. I always thought that Forbes.com counted as a WP:Reliable source for celebrity/public figure information; it's certainly widely used on Misplaced Pages with regard to who is richest and/or most influential, though it's often being used to source itself in such cases. I haven't checked this noticeboard's archives to see if, or how many times, ''Forbes''/Forbes.com has been discussed here, so forgive me if this thread is redundant.
			::This is the terms its staff work under:
			::Basically they're unpaid volunteers who become voting members of the staff. They are expected to review an unspecified but regular number of books in order to maintain their membership. It isn't clear that there's much in the way of editorial oversight beyond a pledge not to plagiarize review material. Considering their concentration on volume of reviews and appearance of loose editorial standards I'd be hesitant to use this group to establish the notability of a book. ] (]) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::So just for notability purposes it is unusable or is it something that should not be included on pages that are notable? ] (]) 22:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I'd say unusable for notability purposes. I'd likely leave it off other pages unless it had something significant to say that better sources didn't. ] (]) 14:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Not an RS. ] (]) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			== NASASpaceFlight.com ==
	It is also worth noting that Atotalstranger's approach to sourcing is currently at ]. ] (]) 00:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

			Looking to see if we can come to some consensus on 's use as a reliable source in articles related to ], specifically in its use in ] and ].
	:Forbes ''should'' be considered reliable, despite North's claim otherwise. It's an elementary exercise to prove this, so I won't. However the link in question is an op-ed, so it's an ''opinion'' piece.] (]) 00:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::Thanks, Two kinds of pork. ] (]) 02:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::This is wrong. The Romenesko article I posted specifically points out that '''Forbes.com''' ''bloggers'' are NOT regularly fact-checked or edited. This means that they are no more than personal blogs with a fancy name. Fact-checking and editing are at the heart of our reliable sourcing policy because we rely on those external sources being true. Absent internal controls at the publisher level, there is no guarantee that what is posted in that blog is true because it has NEVER been examined by a fact-checker or professional editor. This does not apply to material published in the dead-tree magazine, which the material in question is not. ] (]) 03:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::Also see that ] added to the Forbes Misplaced Pages article; NorthBySouthBaranof has a valid point on this matter. ] (]) 03:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::Wasn't the source in question an op-ed? I don't think anyone is going to contaminate the entirety of Forbes.com over this.] (]) 04:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::Any of the blogs hosted by Forbes.com are un-edited, non-factchecked, self-published posts. See from the ]: '''"There is no traditional editing of contributors’ copy, at least not prior to publishing. If a story gets hot or makes the homepage, a producer will “check it more carefully,” DVorkin said.''' This flies in the face of what we demand in a ]. It doesn't matter what the name is, or what we "contaminate" - the contamination to be worried about is the contamination of Misplaced Pages content with material that hasn't been vetted by a traditional system of editing and fact-checking.
	::::''At the very least,'' this makes any Forbes.com blog an unacceptable source for contentious material about living persons. ] (]) 07:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Blogs hosted by generally RS Websites (such as Forbes.com) can be treated as analogous to columns in RS newspapers, which also are not generally fact-checked and often given no more than very rudimentary editing. Fine as a source for the writer's opinions, and in practice fine for non-contentious statements of fact if there's no other source available (especially where the writer is an expert), but not good sources for contentious factual suggestions, especially where BLPs are concerned. ] (]) 08:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::::I think that's a good way of putting it. ] (]) 09:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Newsblogs (which Forbes blogs count as) are opinion or editorials and can not be used to source any facts. All opinion from them must be accompanied by attributing the source in the text like: "John Smith of Forbes.com believes..." with the inline citation to the blog.--] (]) 20:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::I'm not sure about "can not be used to source any facts," but Mark Miller is referring to what the ] policy outlines. ] (]) 21:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::Let me rephrase that. Rarely used to source facts. Per: ] ''"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."'' Although I have yet to see when an editorial has ever been used to source a fact reliably.--] (]) 21:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Some analysis articles are very serious and are excellent sources. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to find objective criteria to distinguish them from filler pieces. ] (]) 22:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Well the point isn't about something as ill-defined as a "filler piece". What is at issue is whether an opinion piece (or editorial) is appropriate to use to source a fact. The answer is simply, "very seldom, if ever".--] (]) 02:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

			] mentions the site as a reliable source but the only criteria they give for its inclusion are that the source <br>
	The third reference in the article appears to be a copy of this wiki article.Even the language is exactly the same.Am I correct in my judgement in the fact that this is not a reliable source?The one objection that can be raised against the points I have made is this:It is hosted on the official website of the department of health of the West Bengal government,which oversees the functioning of Medical Colleges(as medical schools are known in India.)
			{{tq\|1="should already have a Misplaced Pages page (notable enough to be created) and have reliable sources covering them (notable enough to be mentioned)."}} which I think we can all agree is not valid signal of reliability. ] (]) 03:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			:] calls for {{tq\|"a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"}}. A Google books search appears to show ], and even use by NASA. They appear to have some editorial staff, but there's no editorial guideline I could find. Obviously the forum section wouldn't be reliable per ].<br>Given how often they are used by other sources I would think they should probably considered generally reliable. Is there any specific instances that are of concern? After all generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	The section I am referrng to is this:
			::{{tq\|1=Is there any specific instances that are of concern? After all generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable.}} Nothing in particular, mostly just looking to see if coverage of events from this source would constitute sigcov in reliable sources for the purposes of ]. ] (]) 15:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	<blockquote>
			:::This is probably a reliable source, but ] isn't just matter of reliability. Notability is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	Sagore Dutta Charitable Hospital and Dispensary initially started as a philanthropic organization with an objective of all round health care of the poor peasants and industrial workers of Kamarhati and adjoining areas. Its immense service to fulfill the objectives was recognized when the then Medical Secretary, Dr. Anderson, on his India tour, visited ‘a rural hospital and dispensary situated outside Calcutta, the Sogore Dutt Charitable Hospital and Dispensary’ in January, 1937.The Sagore Dutt Hospital Act, 1958 (Act 14 of 1958) was enforced with effect from the 1st March 1959, vide notification No. Medl./852/14-84/58, dated 30/01/1959, published in the Calcutta Gazette of 1959, Part 1, page 662. The Act provided for the taking over of Sagore Dutt Hospital at Kamarhati in the district of 24 Parganas together with the charitable dispensary attached thereto, by the State Government with a view to the promotion of public health.</blockquote>] (]) 17:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
			::::{{tq\|1=WP:SIGCOV isn't just matter of reliability.}} no, but coverage in an unreliable source does not count for ]. That's why I'm seeking opinions on whether this source in particular is reliable. ] (]) 15:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I've found their written news reporting to be generally reliable however their coverage of SpaceX in particular often comes off as promotional (you very rarely see the controversies or criticisms found in other sources reflected in their work) but that may be more self-censorship to maintain their inside access to SpaceX than objective promotion. I would not touch their forum or youtube channel with a 10 foot stick but thats surely besides the point of this discussion. ] (]) 21:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{tq\|1=I would not touch their forum or youtube channel with a 10 foot stick but thats surely besides the point of this discussion.}} well, maybe not exactly besides the point. There are several citations to their YouTube channel in the articles I've mentioned (and similar articles). What in particular about their YouTube channel do you believe is less reliable than their website? ] (]) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::In general I find the stuff on their Youtube channel to be much more speculative and clickbaity as well as of a generally low quality. Often its just one of their people flipping between a bunch of pictures from the day before and speculating live about what they might mean. It also doesn't appear to be subject to the same standard of editorial review, its not the same standard of writing and analysis (much of it appears unscripted and I haven't seen them make corrections after the fact). ] (]) 21:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			== How restrictive is the TRT World „Turkish Government conflict of interest“ unreliability? ==
	:This appears to be the official Government of West Bengal's Health & Family Welfare Department website. If the language is the same, most likely we (Misplaced Pages) ripped off the wording from them, not the other way around, but anything is possible. If you think this is a case of ], you can try to figure out which was published first. But taking a quick look at the article history, it appears that the offending text was added very recently, about a month ago on September 29, 2013 with this diff. That would make most likely our article a copyright violation. You can contact someone at the ] for assistance on how to fix copyright problems. ] (]) 18:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
	::Well spotted, {{u\|Guru-45}}! There were copyvios from a number of sources. I think I got them all, but if you think I missed any, please say so. ] (]) 20:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

			How broad should this restriction be interpreted? For example, does it include topics such as ], ] and the current conflict in Syria? ] (]) 12:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	== RfC: ] article regarding the use of word "Jewish" of a character ==

			:I would have thought it applies very strongly for Kurdistan and Syria, as Turkey is in open conflict in those areas. Israel might depend on the context, Turkey obviously isn't a uninterested party but it's not Iran. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	There is a RfC regarding the use of the word "Jewish" to describe a conman character in several 1980 ] commercials. There is a heated discussion regarding the sources to support the content.
			::To be clear it would be reliable for statements of the Turkish governments official views in all cases. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Of course, I‘m just asking about reliability for facts, because I saw some less than great statements, particularly in the I/P area. Thank you! ] (]) 14:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Basically agree with ActivelyDis. I think TRT World is pretty good on non-domestic issues on the whole, but not for anything Kurdish. Israel is fine. Probably not good for Syria as Turkey is a belligerent party there, although I’ve never seen it actually publish anything questionable on Syria apart from Kurdish-related stuff. ] (]) 16:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Is “Zannettou, Savvas "A Quantitative Approach to Understanding Online Antisemitism". a reliable source for ] ==
	Discussion at ]. --] (]) 21:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

			I can’t find evidence it’s been published. ] ] 19:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Worldsfinestonline.com ==

			: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)
	I cannot tell if this is an actual media arm of Toonzone or is a wikia. I am trying to determine whether the site is RS or not. - ] (]) 02:08, 2 November 2013 (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? ] (] \| ] \| ]) 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] I'm a bit confused by the question - did you look at the article? It's cited several times there and as I can't find evidence that it's been reliably published I don't think it should be used. ] ] 08:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Sorry; that's my bad. I was running on low sleep and shouldn't have been on Misplaced Pages, and I read your prose where you don't include a link but glazed past the header text where you did include a link. ] (] \| ] \| ]) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:See https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/7343/7197 ] (]) 15:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			Apologies, I missed another one, also apparently never published."Zannettou, Savvas, Tristan Caulfield, Jeremy Blackburn, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Michael Sirivianos, Gianluca Stringhini, and Guillermo Suarez-Tangil. "On the Origins of Memes by Fringe Web Communities." arXiv.org, September 22, 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.12512." ] ] 08:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			:I provided a link to the published version of that one in my second comment above. The citation is Zannettou, S., Caulfield, T., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Sirivianos, M., Stringhini, G., & Suarez-Tangil, G. (2018, October). On the origins of memes by means of fringe web communities. In ''Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018'' (pp. 188-202). There's an alternate citation at the top right of the copy where it says "ACM Reference Format." ] (]) 13:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	: '''Comment.''' This request for WP:RS assessment is a spin-off-question, from a discussion of whether or not fansite-wiki-URLs are permissible in the external links section (not as '''sources''' per se, but as Unique Resources that might be of further interest to wikipedians). See the exception about 'one major fansite' under ]. All of which, obviously, has nothing to do with the specific question here on RS/N, which is whether or not WorldsFinestOnline is an official slash reliable source about the various shows/characters/etc it covers, in the sense of being useful for inline-citations of statements in[REDACTED] articles. But although my comment is off-topic, I figured I'd give the context here, in case people follow the backtrail, and wonder what the heck we're talking about on EL/N and the article-talkpage. HTH. — ] (]) 16:08, 2 November 2013 (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)
	::74Anon is correct; I wasn't asking about the use of fansites as external sources. As I understand it, so long as it isn't a banned site and doesn't create a landing strip for all sorts of fansites, the major one is usually allowed.
			:::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)
	::The question here pertains to the use of WF as a reliable source, as some users were seeking to use it as such to add material to the article. I am almost certain that YoungJustice Wikia isn't a RS, so I dodn't even bother to ask. WF could do with some extra eyes, though. - ] (]) 16:36, 2 November 2013 (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)
	:::The policy is very clear guys:''" most fansites, '''except those written by a recognized authority'''"'' are unacceptable. For example...all fan run sites are excluded, but the official fansite, owned, operated or approved by the studio of the film or series etc. is acceptable. Wikis are not that.--] (]) 20:22, 2 November 2013 (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)
	:::: Hello Mark, nice to see you again. So, right, and when you look at WorldsFinestOnline, the creator/maintainer has a toonZone.net email address, and at the bottom of the contact-page it says 'hosted by toonZone' ... yet it also seems to permit at least some kind of fan-edited-content, though not much. So I guess the question is, if the fansite is '''"hosted-and-partially-written"''' by a recognized authority (ToonZone in this case), does that make it acceptable for use-as-a-reference, since we presume that ToonZone personnel are exercising some ''editorial oversight''? Or, on the other hand, does that make it unacceptable for use-as-a-reference, since we alternatively presume ''anything goes''? We can try emailing the maintainer, and asking them what the oversight policy is, I suppose, and whether they are a 'fan' with a courtesy webmail account, or an official employee. But maybe the "fansite... operated... by " part applies here. Thanks ] (]) 03:05, 3 November 2013 (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)

			== ] ==
	:::::Hey, how's it going? First, I don't see that the sites that Toonzone represent have any official status from the actual copyright holders and, in fact, their "About us" content states: ''"Toonzone is an animation news and information web site run by a group of devoted animation fans."'' This is not a news agency or publishing company that appears to be RS to our standards. It does actually appear to be a very elaborate and popular fan run site. Then, when I search for the founder, it appears they are using a username: Brian Cruz ] which seems to be a fictitious character. I may be incorrect about the founder, but it does appear they are not using their real name.--] (]) 03:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 19:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1751745462}}
	::::::Further looking finds this: ''"Staff - Over the site's almost seven years of history, the editorial, news, and moderator staff have changed significantly, but all are unpaid volunteers. Most take nicknames, often based on the names of cartoon characters."''--] (]) 04:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
			Should we be using articles from the Hawar News Agency, especially in relation to the (geo)political side of Rojava? This also includes articles in the scope of the Syrian civil war. It has ties to the SDF, which means there is a significant conflict of interest here; <s>I should also add that the YPG/YPD/SDF , which raises concern over its reliability.</s> I want to get community consensus before I do anything, especially because the article in question (]) is related to a CTOP. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 19:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::I somewhat suspected as much. Thanks for a definitive answer on the subject. - ] (]) 04:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
			:(Copying this response from the talk page of the ]:) Of course we have to use Hawar, simply because it is one the most prominent news sites from Syria. It ''shouldn't'' be used as the sole source for contentious issues (unless it cites claims), but for basic facts such as local election results, regional policy decisions, etc. it is one of the only sources available. It is also used as a source by academic researchers such as in ''The Kurds in the Middle East: Enduring Problems and New Dynamics'', ''The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts'', ''Soldiers of End-Times. Assessing the Military Effectiveness of the Islamic State'', and ''Statelet of Survivors. The Making of a Semi-Autonomous Region in Northeast Syria''.<br>(The following part is new, written for RSN:) These are books written by experts on Syria, released by reputable publishers such as ‎ Oxford University Press, and they have seemingly deemed Hawar to be a partisan, but useable source. Speaking from experience as an editor who has been active in editing articles on the Syrian civil war for ten years, I would also note that Hawar was previously discussed by editors and similarily assessed, as it is fairly reliable though should be used with caution in especially problematic fields such as casualty numbers (where partisanship becomes a major problem). ] (]) 20:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Having read through the article you linked it doesn't show that media is heavily censored. A relevant sentence would appear to be: <br>{{tq\|"In the current situation, the journalists we interviewed usually stress that, on the one hand, they enjoy relative freedom of expression. The PYD did not forcefully close those it considers as antagonistic media. Reporters can move freely in the region and cover a wide array of issues. Additionally, journalists from international or regional media are also generally allowed to operate freely. However, they also say that there is always a tension with the authorities in power and there are red lines that cannot be crossed."}}<br>As well as:<br>{{tq\|"Gradually, they seem to have adopted an editorial line that is less critical, if not supportive, of the political system in Rojava. This support, according to some local journalists, is not due so much to direct imposition from the authorities, but rather to their own convictions and, even more important, to the feeling that doing otherwise would be very unpopular in a conflict-ridden context."}}<br>So it doesn't sound like they have the most freedom of media, but it appears a long way from heavily censored. Restrictions on reporting matters that could effect security are common in areas of conflict (and even outside of them).<br>Hawar News Agency has some ] and would probably be covered by ]. Issues of bias (]) and opinion (]) don't immediately make a source unreliable. In general I would agree with Applodion, reliable but caution should be taken for issue where it's bias or censorship of security matters may effect it's reporting. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Agree with above, helpful to understand its bias, but this means to use with caution and understanding rather than preventing use. ] (]) 00:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Agree with the above. If we are citing it for contentious claims, then it's better we provide attribution. Unless OP or someone else can come up with credible sources that ] the reliability of ''Hawar'', I don't see any reason to worry about its inclusion. Looking over the article, it seems most of the citations to it are for easily verifiable facts (i.e. changes in AANES leadership, recognition by the Catalan parliament, etc.), rather than anything contentious. --] (]) 10:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:If we consider TRT sub-optimum in relation to Rojava and the Syrian war because of its affiliation to the Erdogan government (see above on this noticeboard), the same should apply to Hawar. It’s fine for reporting the statements by AANES/PYD/SDF or uncontentious facts, but it should always be attributed and triangulated for anything at all contentious. I’d rate it above Al-Masdar and below the SOHR for reporting facts about eg battles in the Syrian war, but like them is a weak source. ] (]) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Is there anything to show that Hawar is not independent of the SDF? I couldn't find anything making an explicit link. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{ping\|ActivelyDisinterested}} from the ]: "On Thursday, the group held funerals for 17 of its fighters in the border town of Tal al-Abyad, the '''SDF-linked''' Hawar news agency said...". 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 22:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That would indicate a need for caution. Whether to the level of TRT I couldn't day. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 01:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Being censored is a ] issue and a reason to use a source with caution (with attribution for anything remotely contentious), but it doesn't automatically render them completely unreliable. The big question is whether they're yielding to pressure to publish things that are actually inaccurate rather than just one-sided. If not, they can still be used with caution - we'd want to cite better sources when possible and avoid giving ] weight to a source with a clear bias, but there's some advantage to having sources that are close to conflicts. And a major problem with removing sources simply for being subject to censorship is that it could produce systematic bias by removing every source from a particular region; I'm not familiar with the Syrian press specifically, but in other regions with similar censorship, there's still a difference between sources that carefully report as much as they can get away with and as accurately as they can within the restrictions of government censors, and sources that full-throatedly broadcast misinformation to support the party line. --] (]) 15:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			== RfC: LionhearTV ==
	== I have added a source ( a newspaper) to other existing sources. It was deleted. am I wrong? ==
			{{Moved discussion from\|Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Sources#RfC: LionhearTV\|2= Royiswariii, 19 January 2025 00:55 (UTC)}}<!-- ] 11:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1740135721}}

			I want your comments about the reliability of LionhearTV, I can't determine whether it is reliable or not, on ], the Lionheartv is in the unreliable section, but, despite of that some editors still using this source in all Philippine Articles. So let's make a vote:
	*Source. --ref name="ahram1">{{cite web\|url=http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/848/sc1.htm \|title=The road to Naksa \|publisher=Cairo , AL-AHRAM \|date=7 - 13 June 2007 \|accessdate=7 - 13 June 2013}}</ref>
	*Article. ]
	*Content."''Mohamed Fawzi (general) left for Syria for one day tour, verified that the Soviet report is false and reported that there are no Israeli armed forces near the Syrian border''". ]

			* '''Option 1: ]'''
	I have added a source ( an Egyptian newspaper on line) to other existing sources. (The article was not modified). The reason is that some Pro Arab readers do not believe that Israel did not planned the war in advance, and would suspect the bias of Israeli / Western history books who claim otherwise. Hence it is better to add a well known Egyptian newspaper (on line, English). Unfortunately, it was deleted since "''nor al-Ahram ... are WP:RS sources for history articles''" Am I wrong? ] (]) 21:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
			* '''Option 2: ]'''
			* '''Option 3: ]'''
			* '''Option 4: ]'''

			] ] 10:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Can you clarify which passage from the source is being cited to support the text in our article? Unless I've missed something, the only mention of Fawzi in the article you cite concerns him ordering a book to be withdrawn. ] (]) 21:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

			:'''Deprecate'''. The Philippines has plenty of ] to choose from. If you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find refs for something or someone and have to use this, I'd say consider against and don't add it to the article. ] (]) 13:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	::The relevant source sentences are:"''In April 1967, Russia told Egypt that Israel was amassing troops on the Syrian borders. Israel had no strategic or tactical motive to do such a thing. And an emissary sent by Nasser to Syria reported back that the information was false. Still, Nasser declared full mobilisation in Egypt as of 14 May 1967, citing the joint defence agreement with Syria.''". According to other sources, the emissary was Fawzi. In my opinion the important aspect is the last quote words:''"reported back that the information was false. Still, Nasser declared full mobilisation in Egypt as of 14 May 1967, citing the joint defence agreement with Syria.''" (In retrospect, the article words should have been slightly modified.) ] (]) 05:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
			* '''Comment''': For better understanding and context, especially for editors unfamiliar of this topic's origin:
			::LionhearTV is a blog site, as described on its "About Me" page, established in 2008 and functioning primarily as a celebrity and entertainment blog. The site is operated by eMVP Digital, which also manages similar blog sites, such as and .
			::In addition to these blogs, LionhearTV organizes the , which recognize achievements in the entertainment industry. This accolade has been acknowledged by major industry players, including ] and ]. Like other awards, the RAWR Awards present physical trophies to honorees.
			::A discussion about LionhearTV’s reliability as a source took place on the ] talk page in September 2024 (see ]). The issue was subsequently raised on the Tambayan Philippines talk page (]) and the ] (]). However, these discussions did not yield a constructive consensus on whether LionhearTV can be considered a reliable source. The discussion at Tambayan deviated into a debate about ], which was unrelated to the original subject. Meanwhile, the sole respondent at the RSN inquiry commented, {{tq\|It may come down to how it's used, it maybe unreliable for contentious statement or comments about living people, but reliable for basic details.\|quotes=yes}}
			::At this moment, LionhearTV is listed as '''unreliable''' on ] as result of the no consensus discussion at RSN.
			:<span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 13:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Lionheartv is one person operation. How can there be editorial discretion on that case? ] (]) 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I'm more surprised on how a single person actively manages three blog sites and one accolade, with the accolade even giving out physical trophies to its winners. Like, how is he/she funding and doing all of these? <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 14:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::It's immaterial on how we determine ]. What could be very important that other ] missed out on that only this blog carries? If it's only this blog that carries articles about something, it's not very important. This blog is the very definition of ]. I'm surprised we're having this conversation. A blacklist is needed. ] (]) 02:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Option 3'''. There's something about its reporting and organizational structure that is off compared to the regular newspapers. ] (]) 14:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Though, I find it strange and concerning that reputable sources copypasted some of LionhearTV's articles:
			::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts/ (December 8, 2024)<br/>Sunstar: https://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts (December 10, 2024)
			::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2025/01/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 11, 2025)<br/>Manila Republic: https://www.manilarepublic.com/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 14, 2025)
			::These are two instances I found so far where other sources copypasted from LionhearTV. But I saw other instances where LionhearTV is the one who copypasted from other sources, such examples include:
			::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-im-okay-to-cinemas/ (December 30, 2024)<br/>Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/showbiz/music/2024/12/29/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-i-m-okay-to-cinemas-0948 (December 29, 2024)
			::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/06/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game/ (June 27, 2024) <br/>Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/starmagic/articles-news/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game-22637 (June 24, 2024)
			::I honestly don't know about these editors, they just copying each other's works. Probably cases of ]. <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Option 3''' - As much as possible, LionhearTV and its sibling sites under the eMVP Digital should not be used as sources when more reliable outlets have coverage for a certain event, show, actor and so on. Even if a certain news item is exclusive to or first published in a eMVP Digital site, other journalists will eventually publish similar reports in their respective platforms (refer to some examples posted by AstrooKai). -] @ 15:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::What I fear in these kinds of low quality sources is that people will find something very specific about someone, e.g. "This person was seen in a separate engagement vs. the others in their group," and this low quality source is the only source that carried this fact, and since this it is not blacklisted, this does get in as a source, and most of the time, that's all that's needed. We don't need articles on showbiz personalities tracking their every movement as if it's important. Blacklist this. ] (]) 01:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{hat\|Discussion about moving RFC to RSN}}
			:::@], @], @], if you don't mind we can move this discussion to ] to get more opinions and votes on other experienced editors. ] ] 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::'''Support'''. ] (]) 16:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::'''Support'''. Though, I suggest finishing or closing this discussion so that we don't have two running discussions that tackles the same thing. If we want to construct a consensus, we better do it in one place. Alternatively, we first seek consensus from the local level first (by finishing this discussion) before moving one level up (the RSN). <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 16:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{hab}}
			*'''Option 3'''It's a blog. That means ] applies. This means it might be contextually reliable for ] or under ] (with the usual condition that SPSEXPERT prohibits any use of SPS for BLPs) and so I don't see any pressing need for deprecation, but this is very clearly a source that is not generally one we should use. ] (]) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:FWIW, the person behind this blog is not a subject matter expert. Like, we don't even know who this is. (One subject matter expert in Philippine showbusiness that I know of that runs a similar blog is , and I event won't even use the blind items as sources there lol) As explained above, once this gets to be used as a source, it won't be challenged and people just accept it as is. This is a low quality source that has to be blacklisted. ] (]) 01:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Hatebase.org ==
	:::It looks like a WP:OR from your side.
	:::And al-Ahram is a newspaper. This articles is an historcial event more than 40 years old. Scholarly sources exist for this matter. ] (]) 09:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::It looks like a ignorence from your side. The article stay the same, which means that there is no WP:OR. ] (]) 09:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

	:~~::::You~~ ~~cannot cite~~ a source ~~for something it doesn't say.~~ ] (]) 15:07, 4 ~~November~~ ~~2013~~ (UTC)		Is a reliable source? ] (]) 19:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			== LaserDisc Database? ==
	I'm currently ] the ] article. Quite a few sources call it the oldest church in the world and that claim is obviously debatable, so I added "{{underline\|often called}} the oldest church in the world."

			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)
	Two of the six sources are published by ], which is "a self-publishing company." Since self-published sources are not considered reliable should I keep them? Also, please consider that I used a wording (i.e. "often called") which makes it clear that it is not a fact, but the ''opinion'' of some authors anyway, so does it really matter if its self-published or not?

			: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)
	{{Collapse top\|the two sources}}
			::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)
	*{{cite book\|last=Benedict\|first=C. T.\|title=One God in One Man\|year=2007\|publisher=AuthorHouse\|isbn=9781434301062\|page=121\|quote=The Holy Etchmiadzin cathedral, dates back to the fourth century, and is thought to be the oldest Christian cathedral in the world.}}
	*{{cite book\|last=Greer\|first=Charles Douglas\|title=Religions of Man: Facts, Fibs, Fears and Fables\|year=2008\|publisher=AuthorHouse\|isbn=9781467840835\|page=47\|quote=The rest of the Armenian Church and its catholicos who live at Echmiadzin monastery near Yerevan Armenia, said to be the oldest monastery in Christiandom.}}
	{{Collapse bottom}}

			== Usage of AirPlay Direct for music articles ==
	--] ] 01:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

			Is reliable for use in articles about music (such as songs, albums, artists, etc.) ] (]) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:] are not usually considered reliable. There is an exception that might apply in your case: If the author of one these books is an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, then it would be acceptable. If not, then no, you should not keep them. If you have four books from reliable publishing houses, then you're off to a good start. I hope this helps. ] (]) 01:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
	::I agree. Four sources are enough to get the point across. And these authors don't seem to be authoritative. --] ] 02:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::Are the four sources reliable sources also using weasel words, like the two you show here? 'said to be' / 'thought to be' / 'often called' ... not very inspiring in terms of reliability. :-)     As for the two sources mentioned here, yes, they should be left out of mainspace -- suggest you leave a copy of the refs on the article talkpage, in a section called 'mine these for research-pointers', since even selfpub sources sometimes have bibliographies or pointers that can later be tracked down in reliable sources for verifiable mainspace facts. There are only a couple big ] exceptions: one pointed out by Yerevanci, which is if the person is a Notable expert, e.g. the official blog of some Stanford professor of economics can be ]. The second exception is opinions about themselves, ]. This does not stretch like taffy: we cannot say that "Charles Greer has stated the fact that he holds the opinion that Echmiadzin monastery is said to be the oldest Christian monastery"... too much indirection! We can only go one step deep, and say something very straightforward involving no other objects-of-discussion, and no controversy, such as "Charles Greer states he is a Christian" (example sentence only -- no clue about the real Greer). HTH. ] (]) 03:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::: 1) "''generally regarded'' as the oldest in the world" 2) "is thus the oldest Christian monastery" 3) "the oldest cathedral in Christendom" 4) "the world's oldest cathedral"
	::::As you can see, only one of the four sources uses a weasel word. But my point is that it is '''always''' going to be disputed whether Etchmiadzin is the oldest church in the world or not, because there are several criteria that can be taken into considered, so we ''have to'' use vague-ish words here. --] ] 04:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:01, 22 January 2025

Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context

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

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

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

Additional notes:

Shortcuts

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

Start a new discussion

RfC: NewsNation

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

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

Misplaced Pages proposals
Maths, science, and technology

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

What is the reliability of NewsNation?

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

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

Survey (NewsNation)

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

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

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

Discussion (NewsNation)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

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

History and geography
Biographies

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

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

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

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

They should be:

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

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

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

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

Preliminaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey A: Geni.com

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

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

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

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

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

Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Jacobin

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

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

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

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

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

Survey: Jacobin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option 1* Jacobin is a biased source, something that should obviously be considered by anyone thinking of sourcing them for anything contentious, but their reporting has never been an issue in terms of establishing basic factual information about a situation. One writer for a book review making a dumb statement that was corrected by the source doesn't change that. BSMRD (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1: Nothing of substance has been presented to suggest that this source is not GREL. Most of the reasons being presented for MREL appear to be about bias, but that is not of direct relevance to reliability unless it can be shown that any bias directly impinges somehow on its reliability. That it provides a perspective from a rarefied position on the political spectrum is a moot point in terms of reliability. Arguably it is good to have sources from all different positions on the political spectrum for the purposes of balance, but that is, again, irrelevant to its reliability. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1/2: generally reliable, they have a correction policy. Bias for opinion pieces and essays should be taken into account, attribute accordingly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Bad RfC As on 25 July 2021. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 I previously commented in the 2021 RfC based on our guideline for use of biased sources. In particular I found this 2019 assessment by the Columbia Journalism Review persuasive. Most recently this January 4, 2025 article from the Columbia Journalism Review cites a Jacobin article from November 2024 positively. A major trade publication in the field of journalism still seems to find Jacobin worth citing as "demonstrat convincingly" how Harris lost the pro-labor vote in the 2024 election. Why should we not follow CJRs lead? The arguments seem to be (1) Jacobin recently issued a major retraction and (2) Jacobin has a left-wing bias. I could buy into (1) if they constantly issued retractions, but no one has shown that that is the case. (2) is contrary to WP:BIASED. Altogether, I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently from reliable but right-of-center-biased publications like The New Criterion or The Atlantic Monthly. — Wug·a·po·des 07:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 2 or Option 3: Not only is Jacobin an extremely biased, ideologically charged source, but their reporting has been called into question multiple times. At the very least, additional considerations do apply. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 2. This is not a WP:NEWSORG. Its stated purpose is "to foster class consciousness and build the institutions that can tame and eventually overcome capital". Compare to the missions of the NYT: "We seek the truth and help people understand the world."; or the BBC: "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain". The NYT and the BBC are both biased (every source is biased), but they do at least aim to deliver reporting. Jacobin, on the other hand, is an advocacy organisation. That doesn't make it automatically unreliable, nor does that make it solely a source of opinions, but that does makes it qualitatively different from the newspapers that others have compared it to - and that is an important additional consideration worth noting. For the record, I disagree that one incident of inaccuracy is enough to downgrade a source, particularly one that was corrected. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion: Jacobin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Heritage Foundation

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

Sources for Chapel Hart

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

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

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

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

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

My assessment:

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

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

RfC: TheGamer

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

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

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

Option 1: Generally reliable

Option 2: Additional considerations

Option 3: Generally unreliable

Option 4: Deprecate?

~~Link to previous discussion~~

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

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

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

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

GBNews can be reliable for group based child sex exploitation

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

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

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

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

There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what if it isn't.

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

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

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

A few examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pirate Wires?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need context before coming to RSN

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

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

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

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

Usage in Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages

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

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

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

It is more or less a group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CEIC data

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

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

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

Fantasy Literature

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

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

This is the terms its staff work under:

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

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

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

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

NASASpaceFlight.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hawar News Agency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: LionhearTV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion about moving RFC to RSN

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

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

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

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

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

Hatebase.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LaserDisc Database?

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

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

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

Usage of AirPlay Direct for music articles

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

Categories: