| Revision as of 09:51, 29 October 2019 editDaybeers (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,910 edits →http://utahrails.net and http://rrpicturearchives.net: not reliable← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:01, 23 January 2025 edit undoMiminity (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,655 edits →RfC: LionhearTV: !vote | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{short description|Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}} | {{short description|Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|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 | ||
| --- |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ||
| --> | --> | ||
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | |||
| == RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs == | |||
| *Should we agree to halt the use of RFCs containing four options for "general (un)reliability" of a source, particularly when said RFC contains no specific instances of claims or citations? | |||
| *While it may be useful to ], the corollary is not true: Misplaced Pages is unable to promote a source to "reliable for any assertion about any topic whatsoever"; ]. | |||
| *With these parameters in mind, is it futile for us to continually open RFCs here on ] if an outcome of "generally reliable for everything" is counter-productive and misleading? | |||
| **Sub-question: should such RFCs be permitted as long as they include at least one concrete example of an assertion of fact, such as one which is currently in dispute on an article's talk page? | |||
| ] (]) 00:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ==RfC: NewsNation== | |||
| === Survey (moratorium) === | |||
| <!-- ] 13:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740574870}} | |||
| <div class="boilerplate archived" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">{{Quote box | |||
| {{rfc|prop|sci|rfcid=5F45265}} | |||
| | title = | |||
| <!-- ] 02:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739068436}} | |||
| | title_bg = #C3C3C3 | |||
| What is the reliability of ]? | |||
| | title_fnt = #000 | |||
| | quote = Arguments on both sides varied subtly, but to me it's clear that there is no consensus to halt RfCs at this time. Prominent support votes included concerns that A) RFCs on reliability assessments of particular sources have been mass-produced without prior informal discussions occurring beforehand as advised in ], and B) that "deprecation" is used too excessively. While both arguments are valid to certain extents, in the end the oppose votes are more well-formulated. The vast majority of voters opposing such a measure ({{U|Newslinger}} being the most prominent) present arguments that all basically boil down to ], as well as concerns that such a measure would, at best, undermine the very purpose of RfCs. Nonetheless, given that even a relative majority in the opposition sympathized with the support on the two aforementioned key supportive arguments, overall I'd say that there while there ''is'' '''a somewhat strong consensus for discouraging RfCs for any source whose reliability has not been previously discussed on RSN or elsewhere as per ]''' as well as '''considerable consensus for exercising caution when nominating a source for deprecation (applying ] where necessary)''', there is '''absolutely no reasonable consensus to implement a moratorium at this time'''. ] (]) 22:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| | width = 30%|halign=left}} | |||
| :''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive top--> | |||
| ---- | |||
| *{{ping|Elizium23}} Could you provide a couple of examples of the types of RfCs you think should be halted? 01:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | |||
| *:Sure: ], ], ]. I didn't even have to visit our archives for them. I am not sure where this template originated, but it has rapidly become the ''de facto'' method for opening discussions here on RSN, and I do not like it, no sir, not one bit. ] (]) 01:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * {{comment}} This RfC is related to the RfC at {{slink|WT:RSN|RfC: Header text}}, which affects the header text of this noticeboard. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 01:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose halting RfCs'''. By '']'', we're referring to sources that have a strong reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. They usually have a reputable editorial team, and tend to be endorsed or ] for factual information. ], and the consensus shown in some discussions on this noticeboard restrict the scope of what a source is generally reliable for (e.g. {{rsnl|247|RfC about the reliability of The Verge as a source for use in articles relating to tech, science, culture, and cars|''The Verge'' RfC}}).<p>Note that the word ''generally'' means "usually" in this context, not "always". The ] is only the starting point for evaluating reliability, and specific uses of a source can always be brought to this noticeboard for a more targeted review. If a source frequently publishes articles outside of its ], like in ], then the source should not be considered generally reliable. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 01:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)</p> | |||
| *:Then perhaps the question we should be asking is: {{xt|Is there evidence that have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight?}} If a source meets these criteria, and independence from the topic, etc., then per ] we may deem it to be {{xt|generally reliable for statements of fact}}. But I do not think it is useful to whip up boiler-plate RFCs '''directly asking''' whether is 'generally reliable' (and it's interesting that the qualification {{xt|for statements of fact}} is, here on RSN, often missing from this question. ] (]) 01:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *::<s>For what it's worth,</s> The 3 RfCs you have linked ('']'', '']'', '']'') do include the {{tq|"for factual reporting"}} qualifier after {{tq|"Generally reliable"}}. If this is not descriptive enough, then I agree that it would be helpful to provide more detailed definitions of each option in RfCs of this type. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 01:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *:::For what it's worth? Zilch. Newslinger opposed directly quoting or pointing to the RfCs, . ] (]) 23:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *::::<small>Your reference and link to a discussion on ] have nothing to do with ] sources. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 03:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *:{{reply-to|newslinger}} If "generally reliable" is supposed to mean "usually" it should be worded differently, because "generally" sounds like it means in the broadest sense. "In general" is not equivalent to saying "in the cases where this source is applicable as a potential RS". If ] is "generally reliable" then it would be reliable for politics too. ] (]) 23:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{bcc|DIYeditor}}Thanks for bringing this up. I've started a discussion at {{slink|WT:RSP|"Generally"}} in search of a less ambiguous word than ''generally''. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 23:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *:::As a result of the above discussion, {{tq|"]"}} has been changed to {{tq|"] in its ]"}} in {{slink|WP:RSP|Legend}}. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 14:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *: I am neutral on the restriction ({{tq|"include at least one concrete example of an assertion of fact"}}) suggested in the sub-question. While we should encourage editors to provide examples of how a source is being used, a question on the general reliability of a source shouldn't be unduly focused on one specific use of that source. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 01:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose halting RfCs'''. What's wrong with seeking a consensus as to the reliability of a source? I thought we were aiming to have high quality reliable sources? If an outlet is unreliable, it is unreliable WP:SPADE. I personally think it's a very useful means to ensure quality citations and avoid myriad edit wars and content disputes before they happen. ] (]) 07:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' Isn't the whole purpose of this noticeboard to ask questions regarding reliable sources? ] (]) 07:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Shouldn't this discussion be held somewhere else? This is the reliable source noticeboard, isn't it? Perhaps the talk page would be more appropriate? ] (]) 08:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose halting RfCs'''. It's appropriate to have one big discussion about a source's reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction since this doesn't usually change from article to article. This doesn't prevent us from discussing its appropriateness in a specific instance where things like attributed quotes or scientific/medical claims come into play. –] ] 12:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose, though there are a tad too many of these lately'''. Generally a RfC here on the general use should be preceded by a discussion on a particular use (here), and also demonstrating that we have a general problem (e.g. We use source X in 100 articles, despite source X being described as Y....). Lately - there have been some RfCs here that jumped the gun on proper pre-RfC discussions. However, we definitely shouldn't have a moratorium on RfCs of these type generally - as discussions sources is exactly what this board is for. ] (]) 13:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Be more careful''' Don't reach straight for the RfC unless ]. --] 🌹 (]) 14:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. RfCs should only be used in order to cleanly remove/"deprecate" currently in-use sources. For sources where no formal action is envisaged, start with a standard discussion. ] (]) 14:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as there ahave been far too many in a short period so that the discussion is often truncated, undetailed, lacking participation and depth of investigation, regards ] (]) 16:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. The four-way question is deceptive and not consistent with WP:RS. It misleads by claiming to be a "deprecation" so people who know will think it's about "disapproval" but in fact the intent (not necessarily implemented) is that an edit filter will result in a message that references are . It misleads by claiming to be "as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail" but in fact the Daily Mail closers didn't say "deprecating", said the prohibition is of use <i>as a reference</i>, and said opinion pieces are okay. It misleads by causing links to essay-status pages as if they have some sort of authority, when the real authority is WP:RS policy (the one that says to always take context into account). is an example of misuse -- an editor included the question about treating like The Daily Mail, not with evidence that serious people might think that but it's in the four-way question. ] (]) 20:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Excuse me, sir, but "misuse"? I felt ''The Herald'' belongs on ]. What is the process if not posting here and getting consensus? It was my first time at this noticeboard. I saw the "four option" query being used here as if it was a template or standard format, so I followed suit. Other contributors even thanked me for the submission or said they thought ''The Herald'' was already on the list of perennial sources. And since this is policy currently being voted on, I don't think I was wrong, so I thank you not to characterize my submission as misuse or abuse of the noticeboard. --''''']'''''] 20:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|SVTCobra}} Indeed, all this talk of misuse and dishonesty is way out of line, what happened to the assumption of good faith? I too saw that NEWSLINGER had used that format and I thought it was a clear and efficiant way to get feedback, I never asked for anything to be depreciated. Isn't this notice board precisely for asking about the reliability of sources? I've seen very little reasoning used here, just claims that too many people are asking questions or that those who ask are being dishonest. Should probably get rid of this noticeboard then, why have it if you aren't allowed to ask too much or your going to be accused of dishonesty. ] (]) 22:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: Neither of the '']'' {{rspe|Daily Mail}} RfCs ({{rsnl|220|Daily Mail RfC|2017}} nor {{rsnl|255|2nd RfC: The Daily Mail|2019}}) concluded that {{tq|"opinion pieces are okay"}}. See ] for what ''reference'' means.<p>Even ] qualify for the ] exception, which allows their use for uncontroversial self-descriptions in the rare case that they are ] and covered by reliable sources. The ] is being honored in all of these RfCs, because ] in each of the four options. (The only exception is the ], and I opposed the proposal in that RfC's statement because this criterion was not met.) ] defers to ] and explicitly states, {{tq|"] always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others"}}. If there is any confusion about what ''deprecation'' means, a link to ] will clarify.</p><p>When an editor asks about a low-quality source, we should be able to say that it is ], and that it generally shouldn't be used on Misplaced Pages. Repeatedly debating the inclusion of poor sources that have earned abysmal reputations for repeatedly publishing false or fabricated information, ], or ] is a waste of the community's time. RfCs of this type allow us to make decisive evaluations resulting in consensus that endures until there is evidence that the source's reputation has changed. ] is a policy. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 21:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)</p> | |||
| ::::I said "misuse" correctly but should have emphasized it was innocent misuse, which is obvious. I said "and said opinion pieces are okay" because despite Newslinger's irrelevancies it is a fact, see and look for the words "Attributed opinions of the author were not considered in the RFC, and a reasonable exception from the ban appears correct here." Nobody said anything against "we should be able to say that it is questionable" because that's not the topic. Consensus is not a policy that allows overriding WP:RS because ]. ] (]) 23:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::At {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 65|Daily Mail}}, the full statement from {{np|Tazerdadog}} (one of the {{rsnl|220|Daily Mail RfC|2017 ''Daily Mail'' RfC}} closers) was: | |||
| {{bi|em=8|{{tq2|Attributed opinions of people '''other than the author''' were considered in the RFC and were included in the ban (IAR notwithstanding). Attributed opinions '''of the author''' were not considered in the RFC, and a reasonable exception from the ban appears correct here.)}}}} | |||
| :::::The attributed opinions of any article's author are covered under ], which applies to all questionable (and deprecated) sources, although ] should also be considered. If you don't like the results of the two ''Daily Mail'' RfCs, you can try to convince the community that {{tq|"{{rsnl|220|Daily Mail RfC|its use as a reference}}"}} should not be {{tq|"{{rsnl|220|Daily Mail RfC|generally prohibited}}"}}. Overturning the current consensus would require a third RfC on the ''Daily Mail'', which is not advisable right now because it's highly unlikely to succeed.<p>Nobody is suggesting that ] should be overridden; the type of RfC being discussed here uses ] and ] to identify ] for what they are: {{tq|"{{rsnl|220|Daily Mail RfC|generally unreliable}}"}}. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 08:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::WP:ABOUTSELF is "about self", an honest title that has nothing whatever to do with Newslinger's assertion. But that doesn't matter since now there's no dispute that the closers said attributed opinions are okay, which is one of the reasons the question is misleading. I said nothing in this thread about overturning ], perhaps Newslinger mixes that up with my remarks that one shouldn't say something is like The Daily Mail and its RfC when it's not. ] (]) 14:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Please re-read ]. Using the example from ], the article that ] published in the ''Daily Mail'' qualifies under ] as an uncontroversial representation of what Hopkins's own opinions are. However, this is only ] in the article on ] (and if it were more prominent, it would be due in the '']'' article). It is not due anywhere else. Claiming that {{tq|"the closers said attributed opinions are okay"}} is extremely misleading, since it conflates ] (which the ''Daily Mail'' does not qualify for, because it's not considered a reliable source) with ] (which is a restrictive exemption granted to all ] and ]). — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 20:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The closer remarks that I pointed to made no mention of WP:ABOUTSELF, Newslinger while claiming to quote "the full statement from Tazerdadog" quoted only one full statement, another was "However, the DM does not have a reputation for altering the words of the author of the piece, so this can be taken as one of the exceptions we tried to write into the close.", the point at issue wasn't secretly WP:ABOUTSELF unless one believes that when Katie Hopkins wrote the word Britain was a synonym for Katie Hopkins. ] (]) 22:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::That is covered under ], because the claim is that Hopkins wrote the statement in the ''Daily Mail'', not that the statement is true. It is used in the ] article as a ] equivalent, but is not ] anywhere else. Since ] covers this situation entirely, no additional exceptions were made for the ''Daily Mail'' beyond what is normally allotted for ]. The 2017 ''Daily Mail'' RfC does not support the use of the ''Daily Mail'' for all {{tq|"opinion pieces"}}, but the ones eligible for ] {{tq|"were not considered in the RFC"}}. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 00:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I asked a closer, ]. The reply is . ] (]) 19:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Thanks for clarifying with Primefac. The Katie Hopkins case was not the ideal example, since it falls under ] in the ] article. I will defer to Primefac's explanation for attributed opinions of ''Daily Mail'' authors in articles other than the article of the author, although ] still applies. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 21:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: If the term ''deprecation'' is an issue, anyone can submit a ] from ] to ] or some other name. The name makes no difference to me. However, I get the impression that you're not objecting to the name, but to the adoption of ] and other mechanisms that discourage the use of highly ]. There is consensus that ] are the preferred process for determining whether these mechanisms should be implemented. You can verify this through ], and you can also read this paragraph from the closing statement of the {{rsnl|255|2nd RfC: The Daily Mail|2019 ''Daily Mail RfC''}}: | |||
| {{bi|em=3.2|{{tq2|Finally, a number of editors argued that other publications were similarly, or more, unreliable than the Daily Mail. We note that the unreliability of a different source is a reason to remove that source, and is irrelevant here; regardless, these other publications are outside the scope of this RfC, and if there are lingering concerns about other tabloids or tabloids in general, a separate RfC is necessary to assess current consensus about them.}}}} | |||
| ::— ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 08:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::There was absolutely zero "lingering concern" that something like The Herald (Glasgow) is a tabloid meriting removal, but there is concern here about the misuse of a misleading 4-way question that was never suggested in WP:DAILYMAIL closing remarks. As for "identifying questionable sources" -- great idea, because it's normal behaviour following instructions at the top of this WP:RSN page, i.e. it's not an RfC with four fixed questions. ] (]) 14:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As of right now, nobody in ] has claimed that it is a {{tq|"tabloid meriting removal"}}. ] lists a number of accepted uses for an RfC: {{tq|"Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content."}} The type of RfC under debate solicits input on whether a source generally meets the requirements of ] (a policy) and ] (a guideline). Outside of the instructions in ], declaring whether an RfC format is or isn't {{tq|"normal behaviour"}} for other editors is excessively bureaucratic, and ]. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 20:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You brought up "lingering concerns about tabloids", I observed there was no lingering concern, so the excuse that you brought up doesn't hold. You brought up how good identifying questionable sources was, I said that's normal and in keeping with WP:RSN, I don't think I need to excuse that. ] (]) 22:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::], some of which you participated in, show ample {{tq|"lingering concerns"}} regarding a wide variety of sources, including tabloids. One of the goals of these RfCs are to identify low-quality sources like '']'' <small>({{rsnl|247|RfC on reliability of InfoWars|RfC}})</small>, ] <small>({{rsnl|248|RfC: Breitbart|RfC}})</small> (which you defended), and ] <small>({{rsnl|249|RfC: Occupy Democrats|RfC}})</small> as sources that should be discouraged from use. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 00:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I assume the closer of this RfC will be capable of noticing that Newslinger changed the subject instead of addressing the point. ] (]) 19:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You're ignoring ] that showed consensus for deprecating the source (including two tabloids, '']'' <small>({{rsnl|254|RfC: The Sun|RfC}})</small> and the '']'' <small>({{rsnl|261|RfC: National Enquirer|RfC}})</small>) and ] one RfC that doesn't. I've addressed your point. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 21:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong oppose''' as per dlthewave. ] (]) 20:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - ] (]) 21:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' also per Dlthewave. ] (]) 21:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - those kind of RfCs are appropriate for sketchy sources which are '''widely used'''. Like Daily Mail or Fox News kind of stuff. They are not appropriate for more narrow topics or sources.] (]) 21:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Newslinger and others, with the added notes that 1) this should probably take place on the talk page for this board and 2) there's already a discussion under way there on an overlapping topic. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Let's have a moratorium on RfCs about RfCs.''' ] (]) 03:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hahaha! My thoughts exactly, thanks for the chuckle. | |||
| *'''Oppose''' but I agree with Icewhiz about the need to first establish that a source has specific reliability issues before going for a general RfC. ] (]) 08:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per my comment above: These RFCs are useful to get a very rough barometer for how a source is seen by the community and how specific questions about it are likely to be evaluated. Unless an RFC is worded as an outright ban (which is very rare, and generally invoked as a last resort), I don't think any outcome is taken to mean "always reliable, can never be questioned" or "always unreliable, remove on sight"; rather, they provide editors with a quick reference point so they know where they're starting from and the mood of the room if they want to argue for or against using a particular source in a particular context. Additionally, while it's accurate to say that we should judge each case individually, the reality is that we can't reliably get enough ''people'' to weigh in on each of them to ensure consistent assessment of sources; going entirely case-by-case with no broader RFCs would result in inconsistent and sometimes random responses based on who happened to weigh in. In particular, one of the requirements of ] is that a source have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", often the most difficult thing to assess - and one that usually doesn't vary much from use to use (or, if it does, it does so in a consistent expected way that can be noted during the RFC.) These RFCs can't predict or account for all possible uses of a source, but they're absolutely useful in terms of giving us a consistent, reasonably well-grounded definition of "does this source, on the whole, have the baseline reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that ] requires?" --] (]) 08:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::The problem is that a source may have a “baseline reputation for fact checking and accuracy” in one area, and not have one in another area. This was pointed out in the several Daily Mail RFCs... the DM is accurate when reporting on sports... not when reporting on politics and celebrities. This is why I am not a fan of these RFCs. They don’t examine context. ] (]) 11:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::So, several things. First, and most importantly, the Daily Mail RFC was one of those "last resort" things I mentioned - it's different from most of the RFCs we use here. Because a few people kept trying to use the Daily Mail as if it were a top-tier New York Times-quality source despite a very clear informal consensus that it was generally not reliable (and even though it kept coming back to ] and getting basically laughed off the page), we took the unusual step of formalizing that consensus into a general banned-by-default RFC. Those are and should be ''extremely'' rare, reserved only for when people keep insisting on trying to use a source in clearly unworkable ways over and over (ie. when a source both rarely passes ] and is ''extremely popular'' for controversial topics where it clearly fails ].) It wasn't a gauge-the-general-room-temperature-for-the-Daily-Mail RFC, it was a we're-at-wits-end-and-need-this-to-stop RFC. Those are a separate thing, but I think they're justifiable ''occasionally''; even in sports, I don't feel there much we would want in Misplaced Pages uniquely sourceable to the Daily Mail that can't be found elsewhere. But for the more common sorts of "what does the community think of X?" RFCs, things like this can be noted in the RFC, if it's true. We're not limited to binary yes / no options - the purpose of those RFCs is to collect a general measure of the community's consensus on a source in one place; if you look at the RFCs above, they're generally cautiously worded and lead to fairly cautiously worded entries in ] to provide guidance to editors, not strict bans or the like. Also, you are ''more'' likely to have someone contribute who knows those details in a large month-long RFC with a lot of people contributing than to have it come up in a tiny brief discussion with only a few people - what makes you think that if you come here saying "I want to use the Daily Mail as a source for Joe Sportsman", you'll get anything but "hahaha the Daily Mail? No." from the vast majority of responses? In this sense the RFCs are useful because they're more likely to turn up someone who says "wait, source X is actually usable in situation Y!", which (if they convince people in the RFC) can then be noted down on ] as something that came up and will then be available to editors who wouldn't otherwise have known it (and may not have discovered it, if they just poked ] and got a response from a handful of random people for their exact issue, which seems to be what the support voters here want us to go back to.) --] (]) 16:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' It is what is says on the box: an RfC about ''general'' reliability. ANY website is reliable for the material it says about itself, but we try not to use / should be very careful with the use of those (primary) sources in the first place. It is a good thing that we establish as a community that a certain source is generally reliable, sometimes/often reliable or generally unreliable. The ones that the community decides that they are generally unreliable should be removed for non-primary sources, and the use as primary source should be scrutinized and may need removal. The use of such unreliable sources should be strongly discouraged and sometimes plainly be made 'impossible' (i.e. only be possible ''after'' a consensus discussion). --] <sup>] ]</sup> 12:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Alternate proposal''' - define and restrict General Reliability RFCs to cases where they actually make sense: | |||
| ** A General Reliability RFC is useful for adding a source to the ]. | |||
| ** A General Reliability RFC is only appropriate if there have been at least 3 previous RSN discussions on the same source, each linked in the General RFC. This establishes that there is a genuine purpose for a generalized discussion, and it ensures at least previous three disputed cases for examination as well as that previous ground work of research and analysis. A general RFC on a source no one ever heard of, which no one will ever bring up again, and with no substantial evidentiary basis, is a bad use of other people's time. | |||
| ** The instructions and documentation should prominently state that that the outcome of a General Reliability RFC does not resolve any open dispute about any particular usage at any particular article. RSN already lays out separate instructions and requirements for that. ] (]) 13:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * At least in as much as it applies, I have long said that we should not be having RfCs or even dedicated threads purely for the purpose of listing a source (one way or the other) on ]. See also ]. ]] 14:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' strongly. If someone cares about looking into a sources reliability and answering questions about it they can go here. RfCs for sources which have not been brought here before just bludgeon the process and waste everybody involved's times. Sources should only be brought to RfC if there was no consensus or the consensus was not wide enough. ] (]) 16:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' While some publications are more reliable than others, it's not as if some sources are gospel truth while others are heretical. Above, we are spending time on the ''American Conservative'' which publishes conservative opinion. Policy is however clear. Opinion pieces are rarely reliable unless written by experts. What point is there in having an argument about what people think about these opinions? ] (]) 17:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' The whole idea of a broad brush for a source is badly flawed. First every source varies in reliability. Second, reliability varies with respect to the text which supports it. Britney Spear's sister's book might be reliable as a cite for a "Britney's favorite color is.." statement, but not for a statement on particle physics. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 17:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Honestly all the RFCs without having discussion first is disruptive and not very helpful in general. A RFC should be a last resort and not a first try. It also ignores the general ideas of what we consider a RS. ] (]) 22:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per PackMecEng. The number of frivolous RfCs on this noticeboard discourages widespread participation, which undermines the possibility of them being authoritative answers, and encourages users to start an RfC every time they have a question about a source, or a gripe with one. Further, the wording of "generally reliable" which I take to mean "in general" conflicts with the primary meanings of "general" and may be misleading. Only an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source anyway, would be "generally reliable". The RfCs are stamping a "general" seal of approval on sources that may have only narrow applicability. ] (]) 23:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - These "Is X a terrible source which should be banned from Wiki" RFCs have been like a rash on this page since the DM ban, which was the original instance of banning something just because the power existed to do it. There is no reason to classify every single potential source here, and by doing so we store up potential problems for the future (bad decisions made without any context, which when applied to an actual case are clearly wrong in the context of that case). Just apply ]. ] (]) 09:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| :PS - I also think a good argument can be made that these general discussions of source-reliability are against ]. Unless there is a concrete issue related to article content being discussed, then ultimately these are just forum-type discussions about media in general. ] (]) 09:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| ::These discussions don't violate ], since they affect article content. They also affect how editor conduct is evaluated in areas subject to ]. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 01:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| ::::Only in the sense that a contextless discussion on what countries, politicians, or political parties are "bad" might do - and I'd hope that we would be able to identify that as as a ] discussion. ] (]) 07:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| :::::The context is all of the articles the source is cited in, which can be found through ] or ]. And this entire noticeboard focuses on evaluating whether sources have adequate reputations for ]. We're not determining whether various entities are "bad", but whether sources meet Misplaced Pages's standards. If these discussions were just ] that didn't impact article content, there would be no incentive for you to ] in all of the other RfCs on this page. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 08:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, folks, stating that something is a ''Bad RFC'' means it must be a ''good RFC''. My incentive cannot possibly be to point out that they are bad RFCs - I must be doing it because they are good ones! | |||
| ::::::Similarly, discursive, context-free discussions about sources that frequently reference the imagined political bias of the source and rarely cite meaningful evidence of ''general'' unreliability are not actually a determination of the source being "bad" in any sense - other than having the potential effect that they cannot be used. ] (]) 12:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - Some sources are plainly unreliable for any factual information, and we shouldn't have to make a request for each and every article in which they are used. --] (]) 04:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose if prior discussion''' - I don't see why a full-blown RfC is needed if there hasn't been a prior general RSN discussion on it. However, if there has, why not seek out consensus? ] (]) 10:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose halting RfCs''': such discussions and ] heuristics (which marks many sources as "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise") are exceptionally helpful to newer users and those less experienced in determining if a source is reliable. Saying "reliability is always assessed based on the nature of the claims being made" tells a new user nothing. It's a rule for experienced users to bear in mind in edge cases, but not helpful to someone who wants to know whether they should go to ''The Register'' (yes) or ''Forbes'' (yes unless it's /sites/) or ''Breitbart'' (no) when they need a reliable source for something. <span class="nowrap">— ''']''' (he/him) <sub>]</sub></span> 17:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: /sites/ is now used for staff articles too not just contributors. . --] (]) 21:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ooh, good to know. <span class="nowrap">— ''']''' (he/him) <sub>]</sub></span> 12:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as a general concept. Actually, I wonder whether we should stop declaring sources to be generally unreliable, and instead start pointing out the specific ways in which certain common sources fail the guideline. The Daily Mail, for example, is generally unreliable because it's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is poor, not because we don't like it. Declaring sources to be generally unreliable (beyond saying things like "''DM'' doesn't meet the WP:RS guideline's definition of a reliable source – specifically, it fails point #1 in ]") overlooks the importance of ] and usually is more of a question about ] weight anyway. (Yes, that website/fringe news site/politician actually did say that . But so what? There's no need to put any of that in this article in the first place.) In several cases, I think that these "GUNREL" declarations have actually been "tiny minority" declarations, and muddling the two concepts is a bad idea for anyone who wants to be able to think clearly and logically about content policies. {{pb}}Specifically, while I think we should stop having these RFCs, I am willing to perhaps consider the occasional RFC in <em>contentious</em> cases that have <em>repeatedly</em> appeared here at RSN <strong>and</strong> where RSN has had difficulty in resolving those discussions. (RSN regulars are perfectly capable of repeating "No, you can't use that anonymous HIV denial website to support a claim that HIV doesn't exist" as many times as necessary, without anyone starting an RFC.) As a practical matter, I also think we should stop having these "banned sources" RFCs on this page (use a subpage if you need to). Any of the alternatives that sound approximately like "Stop the RFCs unless you genuinely can't get resolve your content dispute any other way" would work for me. ] (]) 18:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose this proposal as too rigid, but favor some minimal threshold.''' I would favor, as a general rule, that an editor starting a "general reliability" RfC would need to provide diffs showing (1) that the source was cited at least 5-10 times in article space (either presently, or in the recent past) and that there has been some of sort actual dispute about the reliability of the source. (I would not, as some suggest, require 3 different noticeboard discussions or anything like that—but I would require some sort of actual evidence, via reversion, talk page discussion, or noticeboard discussion, that the reliability of a source has actually been disputed.). ]<sup>]</sup> 01:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' – sources should be evaluated in connection with a specific claim in a specific article, and not generally. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– ]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">]</span></span> 01:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose'''. There is obvious utility in maintaining the list of generally unreliable sources. Obviously some people do not like the fact that some sources are generally unreliable. That is largely the point. Case by case review of Breitbart would be a titanic waste of time, and we'd need a <nowiki>{{still no}}</nowiki> template as well. Equally, a source that is a legitimate review case by case, is probably not right for deprecation. There should not be many deprecated sources but there absolutely should be deprecated sources, and managing this through RFC is the only obviously practical way of doing it. Not every new user can be expected to be familiar with our arcana, so the edit filters minimise bite, and again, we have to have some way of managing that. You could make a case for triaging, and putting those which meet the threshold for a proper debate at ], but we have to have the RFCs. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''- Although I can see the arguments for dialing back the RfCs a little, I worry that forbidding all discussion is just going to make every mendacious propaganda site decreed reliable by default while preventing anyone from doing anything about it. ] <sub>]</sub> 10:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' the main question. I do agree that they're mainly for unreliable sources, though, rather than setting rules for what ''is'' reliable . — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 02:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' ] (]) 18:59, 3 August 2019 | |||
| (UTC) | |||
| *<small>Just a quick count of votes to date: 19 OPPOSE and 11 SUPPORT</small> ] (]) 02:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' moratorium, while supporting the inclusion of several specific examples whenever raising a general question about a particular source. — ] <sup>]</sup> 19:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' the opinions of North8000 and FOARP appear to be persuasive. The use of a source should be on a case by case basis, per article. Looking back on some of these RfCs a case of IDONTLIKEIT appear to have created consensus to ensure that sources are no longer utilized, which leads to due to the reduction of available resources, some content taking on the weight of views of the remaining sources, while excluding the views of other sources thus leading to, ] but, non-neutral content. Thus as others have suggested CONTEXTMATTERS.--] (]) 11:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ===Survey (NewsNation)=== | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Per the many reasons already noted. Having a more structured discussion seems useful. I’ve been in a few roundabouts where the core issues are ignored and productive movement is derailed , on purpose or not, to the detriment of getting consensus.<br> I also find it very useful to know if given a choice of multiple sources to use, which ones are more reliable. Presumably we should be getting sources that will last and not be just good enough for the moment. ] (]) 22:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light). | |||
| *<s>'''Support'''</s> <sup>Second thoughts 10:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)</sup> - sources are used for verifiability so it depends on what needs to be verified - see WP:V {{xt|To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult the reliable sources noticeboard, which seeks to apply this policy to particular cases.}} It is a core content policy to which we should adhere. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 02:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| **NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism. | |||
| :<small>As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for ] at {{slink|WP:RFCL|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs}}. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 17:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ***In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the ], Coulthart said {{xt|"... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"!}} . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including ] and ], all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects. | |||
| ***Writing in ''The Skeptic'', Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: {{xt|"Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."}} | |||
| ***He wrote a UFO book titled ''Plain Sight'' which ] described as a {{xT|"conspiracy narrative"}} and a {{xt|"slipshod summary"}}. | |||
| ***The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for {{Xt|“espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”}} | |||
| ***The ] did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking {{xt|"Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary?}} while strongly implying the former. | |||
| ***The '']'' has described him as a {{Xt|"UFO truther"}} with {{xt|"little appetite for scrutiny"}}. | |||
| ***Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked ] investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians. | |||
| **Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs: | |||
| ***In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the ''Washington Post'': ), the channel {{xt|"was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health"}}. | |||
| ***In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said {{xt|"... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing"}}. The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to ]'s analysis, a Boeing 737 . | |||
| :] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage ] (]) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. ] (]) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' per Chetsford. – ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative.] (]) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. Compare ]. ] (]) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' why are we putting ''any'' stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “]” syndrome. ] (]) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. - ] (]) 00:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' I would go with Option 2 but their UFO coverage makes me consider Option 3. I think for anything outside of UFO-related topics they are generally reliable. Other sources should be cited. ] (]) 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for non-UFO coverage, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. ]@] 00:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (NewsNation)=== | |||
| *'''Oppose but''' deprecation should be used with care, and it should be emphasized that even deprecation is not an absolute blacklist. --] (]) 11:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *For purposes of clarification, the reliability of NewsNation has previously come up in two different RSN discussions and two different article Talk page discussions. Beyond that, however, it's repeatedly invoked to source UFO articles to the point that constant re-litigation of its reliability via edit summaries is becoming a massive time sink. ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| : ''The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from ] --></div><div style="clear:both;"></div> | |||
| == Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] == | |||
| === Workshop === | |||
| This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] on the multiple issues regarding that article. | |||
| Some editors have suggested restrictions on when an RfC on the general reliability of a source would be appropriate, as well as changes to the commonly used 4-option RfC format. For more coordinated discussion, please list your suggestion in a new subheading under this "Workshop" section, so other editors can comment on them individually. {{bcc|Elizium23|Icewhiz|Feminist|Volunteer Marek|Peacemaker67|Alsee|GreenMeansGo|Emir of Misplaced Pages}}— ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 21:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:<br> | |||
| 1. The academic backgrounds of the writers of those sources are unknown (keeping in mind that they were written by Yemenis who have limited internet access), and<br> | |||
| 2. {{tq|1=Yemeni state-controlled media outlets}} wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets") | |||
| Now, Javext has removed all the sources and text that they support from the article and used other sources (some of which I find no problems with using, although they provide little context compared to the other sources) and kept the sources that I've brought when I translated the Portuguese article. | |||
| ]: This is the version of the article that has the Arabic sources and is the version that I want to keep and then expand with other sources that both I and Jav has used. <br> | |||
| ]: This is the version that Jav wants to keep | |||
| Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand): | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved: | |||
| * | |||
| ''']]''' 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in ''The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast'' (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. also seems to be a relevant document. ] (]) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|1=There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle}}<br>]?<br>{{tq|1=citing Portuguese records}}<br>That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above ''']]''' 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. ] (]) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::One example of another secondary source comparing the accounts (after C. F. Buckingham) is Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1997). ''The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama''. pp. 290-291. () ] (]) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--] (]) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?''']]''' 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. ''The Independent'' is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. ] (]) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the ] was a thing according to a Facebook post made by a high school that he attended).{{efn|Machine translation: Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamusa, a native of Al-Shahr and a graduate of the third class of Al-Mukalla High School for Boys (now Bin Shihab High School for Boys)<br>High School Flags<br>Tuesday, September 17, 2024<br>After years of parting, Abu Bakr Bin Shihab High School for Boys in Mukalla embraced Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamoussa, who graduated on the educational ladder for years and is now at the age of retirement. He visited the high school and in his gaze with passion and love for the past years, he climbed the stairs of the high school to the second floor to the office of the principal Mr. Saeed Ahmed Al-Amari, who welcomed him warmly and said that this visit gave us a boost and moral support, and the visit for Mr. Bamoussa was to ask about the old administrators, services and guards who were who were in the period of the sixties and seventies, but unfortunately the administration could not answer this and invites everyone who has information about them to raise it quickly, as Mr. Bamoussa has been working for years on writing a book about the beginning of education in Hadramawt since the time of the Qaitian Sultanate in the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, and he made a very important statement that the first principal of the high school is Mr. Karama Bammin from Tarim and then came after him Mr. Al-Sudani Al-Taloudi and this was a surprise for us and he confirmed this in his book that will see the light after completion of it.<br>May God prolong his life and give him health and wellness to provide us with important information about the history of education in Hadramawt.<br>The high school administration thanks Mr. Mohammed Bamoussi for this visit and this effort exerted by him for this wonderful work, and wishes the officials in the Ministry of Education, the governorate office and the local authority to adopt such people who raise the slogan of education and the slogan of Hadramawt, the land of science, knowledge and culture.}} He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others . He also published a book about the city of Shihr . He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023 {{pb}}{{talkreflist|group=lower-alpha}} ''']]''' 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.] (]) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the ] ] and ] sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) ''']]''' 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. ] (]) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. ] (]) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in , which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! ] (]) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hi, @]. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this: | |||
| ::::::"Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India , his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." ] (]) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{tq|1=capturing Al-Shihr}}<br>hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? ''']]''' 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder. | |||
| ::::::::I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. ] (]) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city ''']]''' 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. ] (]) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{outdent|8}} {{tq|1="Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, '''capturing Al-Shihr''',}} (Never happened btw) {{tq|1= and how important it would be to conquer Diu."}}<br> ''']]''' 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? ''']]''' 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned ''']]''' 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::capturing a city != sacking it <br>your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here ''']]''' 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. ] (]) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Now show me where in your sources does it say that ''']]''' 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You were just denying that this happened after I showed you the sources, why are you asking this now? Didn't I just give them above? ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{outdent|7}} What sources about capturing a city did you show me? Those letters clearly show that the portuguese wanted to capture the city and they failed as we have no proof of them being there after the battle was over. But did they lie to whoever they sent this letter to? ''']]''' 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Look bro, the letter doesn't state they failed, it states the Portuguese captured the city and then sacked it. For the fourth time, this DOES NOT mean they retained control of the city. ] (]) 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@] so we can finish with and archive this, can we use those sources in anything other than the battle section? like the other sections that I've mentioned being deleted here ] <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">] ] (])</span> 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::In general I think we've established that there is currently no way of including any claim which cannot be directly traced to the 16th-century Portuguese histories or the Hadrami chronicles (which agree). This is because no source cites any other form of evidence, and because it represents the approach of English-language academic books. I have not reviewed the details and I do not know which claims qualify, but you're free to add anything you can find in an appropriate source. ] (]) 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::not even a legacy section like the one you proposed? <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">] ] (])</span> 06:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu == | |||
| ==== Emir of Misplaced Pages's proposal ==== | |||
| <!-- ] 18:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740333680}} | |||
| {{rfc|hist|bio|rfcid=5DC5768}} | |||
| The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (B and C): | |||
| * '''A: Geni.com''' | |||
| * '''B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley''' | |||
| * '''C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav''' | |||
| :Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles. | |||
| :They should be: | |||
| * '''Option 1: listed as ]''' (change nothing to A; add B and C at ] as such) | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' (list them as such at ]) | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2) | |||
| ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu) === | |||
| I still oppose option 4 of the "commonly used" format. In my view an RfC on reliability is only appropriate if there has not been a discussion here which generated clear consensus, or if there has been discussion scattered around Misplaced Pages which needs centralising in an easily referable place. --] (]) 21:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * A: See "Geni.com" at ]. | |||
| * B: See ], in particular ], where this RfC for the 3 sources in question was prepared together with @]. The other sources discussed there fall outside the scope of this RfC. | |||
| * C: See ] (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Preliminaries === | |||
| :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) | |||
| '''Alternate proposal''' - define and restrict General Reliability RFCs to cases where they actually make sense: | |||
| ::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) | |||
| * A General Reliability RFC is useful for adding a source to the ]. | |||
| :::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) | |||
| * A General Reliability RFC is only appropriate if there have been at least 3 previous RSN discussions on the same source, each linked in the General RFC. This establishes that there is a genuine purpose for a generalized discussion, and it ensures at least previous three disputed cases for examination as well as that previous ground work of research and analysis. A general RFC on a source no one ever heard of, which no one will ever bring up again, and with no substantial evidentiary basis, is a bad use of other people's time. | |||
| ::::PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. ] (]) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * The instructions and documentation should prominently state that that the outcome of a General Reliability RFC does not resolve any open dispute about any particular usage at any particular article. RSN already lays out separate instructions and requirements for that. | |||
| ] (]) |
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) | |||
| *'''Support''' some combination of this with GMG's proposal below being added to instructions at top of this noticeboard. ] (]) 00:06, 18 July 2019 (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) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Alsee's proposal ensures that general reliability RfCs are decided on at least four rounds of examination (three previous discussions plus the RfC itself), and directs attention to sources that need the most input from editors. It delineates the difference between the general case and specific cases, and does not place undue weight on any single use of a source. RfCs are most useful for reducing the volume of discussions on sources that are discussed too often. This proposal is likely to make the greatest reduction on editor workload by ensuring that there are not too many RfCs nor too many discussions on this noticeboard. <s>(A requirement of 4–5 discussions instead of 3 also sounds reasonable to me.)</s> — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 00:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Read Background: B. ] (]) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', too ]-y. An essay to this effect might make sense, but these discussions are useful to gauge the general temperature of the community's views on a particular source, which helps people decide whether to open specific discussions and how to word them if they do (eg. letting people know the starting point and whether they need to argue a particular usage is an exception to the general community opinion on a source in one way or another.) More specific RSN discussions are useful but not sufficient for our purposes on their own, since they usually have very little participation and can therefore produce extremely swingy results between similar sources based on who happens to weigh in. --] (]) 18:58, 18 July 2019 (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) | |||
| **Fair enough, maybe best left for an essay (or some mildly worded friendly advice at the top of this page). I think that formal RfCs exacerbate the problem of these swingy results because if there are 10 active RfCs on here all the time, people watching for RfCs may just start to ignore them. So while it being an RfC may give the impression of being authoritative or representing general consensus, the flood of them may make that not true. Or is that off base? ] (]) 19:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. ] (]) 18:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support if original proposal not passed''' - This is a good alternative since it would still address the problem of people simply treating this page as a ] for discussing which sources are, in their view, "bad" in some contextless sense. ] (]) 07:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Supt.-2nd Choice''' if "GreenMeansGo's proposal" below does not pass, see my reasoning there. ] (]) 14:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - The list of perennial sources should have its own inclusion criteria based on past RfCs. Assuming that were based on multiple past discussions, it's unclear what this proposal would allow for in the case of general reliability RfCs. I generally support the idea that we shouldn't jump to one of those RfCs without previous discussions of a source, but I'm reluctant to suggest codifying that rule or, as I've already implied, the necessary involvement of RSP, which should remain a meta resource rather than play a role in the consensus process. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 02:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey A: Geni.com === | |||
| ====GreenMeansGo's proposal==== | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. ] (]) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| You shouldn't open threads about a source unless there is a specific content dispute. You shouldn't open a thread about the universal reliability of a source unless there is a preponderance of threads dealing with specific content disputes where they have decided the source is unreliable. ]] 23:07, 15 July 2019 (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) | |||
| : Yes - though I'd loosen this somewhat. I think it is OK to discuss a widely used source prior to article level discussions (however that shouldn't be a RfC - but a request for input - and should have specific examples - e.g. source W is used for X, Y, and Z. I have concerns because of A, B, C. In any case not universal). A blanket deprecation RfC should only be opened if there is an indication of a problem on Misplaced Pages (e.g. ''Daily Mail'' - was widely used). ] (]) 05:28, 16 July 2019 (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) | |||
| * '''Support''' --] (]) 19:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. Really bad. Needs to go away.—] 00:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' – This should become policy. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– ]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">]</span></span> 02:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' ] (]) 03:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' adding to instructions at top of noticeboard. ] (]) 23:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''', too ]-y. Perhaps as a general suggestion, but not as a rule - as discussed above, it is useful for editors to gauge the general "temperature" of opinion on a particular source, and I don't think we should have any hard restrictions on them doing so. --] (]) 18:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ** Full disclosure, I didn't add the header above and keep getting surprised when I see this section pop up on my watchlist. But I'm not sure I at all understand the reference to CRUFT, which you seem to have made twice now. ]] 19:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ***Oops, I meant ]y, not ]y. --] (]) 19:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' per Aquillion. And honestly there are sources out there that people try to use that are beyond the pale in basically any circumstance. So while no source is ''always reliable,'' being able to find out if a source is ''always unreliable'' is useful. ] (]) 18:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ** A more specific issue, which came up for the Newsweek RFC below, is that the precise wording of this suggestion would bar people from making general RFCs when a source is frequently discussed and frequently found ''reliable''. (It would also bar RFCs when a source is frequently discussed with no consensus, which is utterly absurd, since those are the situation that most desperately requires a broader high-participation RFC that might reach some sort of consensus.) Having a broad RFC to settle perennial discussions of all sorts is general policy. I'm not sure we even ''can'' bar future RFCs of that nature per ] and ]. The whole idea of "let's have an RFC to set the rules under which people can make future RFCs" seems both ]-y and sketchy. --] (]) 19:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *** 100% on the issue of perennial discussion and general policy. ] (]) 19:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *** That makes sense, we cannot change the rules for RfCs without an RfC advertised as doing such. I was thinking more along the lines of "advice" at the top of this page. Something to the effect that starting a formal RfC for every question about a source may overload the RfC process and limit participation. ] (]) 19:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| **The problem is... no source is ever “always unreliable”... if nothing else, every source will be reliable for citing a quote from that source (and is, in fact, the MOST reliable source for that purpose). ] (]) 19:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::I disagree with the exception for quotes and opinion statements that is often trotted out. If a quote hasn't been repeated by reliable sources, it fails W:WEIGHT; if it has, why not just cite the reliable source? –] ] 17:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::: If we're at a point where we're discussing whether a source is "always unreliable" or just "mostly unreliable", then we shouldn't use that source. ] (]) 19:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::*This is incorrect on two points. First, there are, in fact, "always unusable" sources, ones that can never be cited in any context; in particular, ] sources can never be cited, fullstop - no context exists under which it is ever appropriate to cite one. But more generally, most of these RFCs and discussions are asking about whether a source can be used for anything ''except'' the opinion of its author. There are a huge number of sources that are clearly not usable outside that extremely specific context. Context matters for ''some'' aspects of ], but not all of them - there are ways to fall RS severely enough to render a source totally unusable in any situation. --] (]) 02:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Strong oppose''' for the following reasons: | |||
| :# There's value in discussing the general reliability of a source - be it a writer, a publisher, or a specific creation - which may or may not have a reputation for reliability among experts. Do musicologists often cite ]? No (though not for lack of talent), and the current rules allow me to reflect that with an RfC if the question arises. | |||
| :# The proposal assumes general RfCs are wasteful in terms of editors' time and effort, but the fact of the matter is that one general RfC is much less wasteful than a whole bunch of specific ones. If one is only allowed to bring fourth a general RfC after a "preponderance" of specific threads have been opened, then how much time would we have we wasted on those threads? And this is assuming good faith. | |||
| :## BTW, how much is "a preponderance"? Is ''five'' a preponderance? ''Ten''? Do you really want an editor to be "legally" able to open five threads on a bogus source in five different articles before someone is able to bring them here? | |||
| :# The purpose of RfCs is to resolve disputes, but by requiring that previous threads "have decided the source is unreliable" we'd be preventing disputes from ever reaching the RfC stage. After all, what's the point of an RfC if we already have a consensus? Just ban RfCs altogether. | |||
| : Bottom line: if you really believe there's a problem with too many general RfCs being brought in, then there's a much better proposal on the table by Alsee. ] (]) 19:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' It's the closest thing that approaches the purposes of ] judging in context, and it would tend to avoid the ] stuff these open ended queries get. ] (]) 22:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Seems to not only be about RFCs; too bureaucratic for a noticeboard. —]] – 01:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' The note at the top of this noticeboard clearly says that discussions should be about whether sources are reliable for specific purposes. Also, ] and other sourcing policies clearly state that reliability can only be judged in context. I don't think these general RFC should be completely banned, but people are opening them on sources that have never been discussed on the noticeboard, or for sources that are essentially never used in articles anyways. That just clutters up the noticeboard with useless junk. ] (]) 01:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Prefer Alsee's proposal, which applies the same treatment to the entire reliability spectrum. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 01:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose "preponderance"''' - some level of prior consideration might be worthwhile, but the phrasing indicates that a more significant number is needed, perhaps unnecessarily restrictive ] (]) | |||
| *'''Mixed (<small>mostly support Icewhiz's modification</small>)''': I agree that opening an RFC in the absence of any indication that anyone has ever attempted to use a source is kind of waste of time, but asking editors to open multiple ] discussions about an ''obviously'' unreliable source before finally having an RFC would be an even bigger waste of time. If I have a dispute over a source ] that reaches a point where it's necessary to open a noticeboard discussion, then why not just go ahead and deprecate to save everyone the trouble of revisiting a clearly terrible source in the future? Specific content disputes should be the starting point, but maybe we should make allowances for editors (emphasis on the plural) to agree to broaden a discussion if a particular source looks like it warrants it.]<sup> ]</sup> | |||
| *'''Support''' - absolutely! It's in our PAGs. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 02:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley === | |||
| ====Aquillion's proposal==== | |||
| :'''Deprecate''', per background discussion. ] (]) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I suggest discouraging any repetitive objections to such general-purpose discussions and RFCs that aren't clearly backed up by whatever outcome we reach here. If there's no consensus to remove them, or if we've agreed to allow them under certain circumstances, then posting near-identical comments to several of them at once objecting to them in identical terms, like is ]y. (Not to call that one set of edits out - it's the most recent example, but others have done similar things in the past.) The reality is that such discussions have been accepted practice for a long time, and absent an actual RFC against them or some other indication that that practice has changed, trying to shout them down by responding to all of them at once with identical objections isn't constructive. The appropriate way to halt a common practice you find objectionable is to first try and establish a centralized consensus against it, not to try and force through an objection that lacks such clear consensus through disruptively repeating your interpretation as fact even when after it's failed to reach consensus. Posting identical "bad RFC!" messages on a whole bunch of discussions at once isn't the way to move forwards, especially if there isn't really a clear consensus backing that objection up. Merely having a strong opposition to particular sorts of discussions, or strongly believing that they're against some policy, isn't sufficient justification for disrupting them like that if there's no clear consensus backing you up. Obviously this would just be a general guideline - people could still object to individual ones they feel are particularly unhelpful, but mass-copy-pasting an otherwise off-topic objection to every single RFC of a particular type that you think we shouldn't be having ought to require at least ''some'' consensus to back you up. --] (]) 01:09, 23 July 2019 (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) | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer. The whole point of this centralized discussion is to settle this in a clean fashion so it doesn't constantly spill out and disrupt other discussions with meta-arguments. --] (]) 01:09, 23 July 2019 (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) | |||
| *'''Support'''. The constant ] caused by these objections, written into multiple unrelated discussions without consideration of the sources being discussed, is indeed ]. The results of this RfC should settle this matter definitively. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 01:40, 23 July 2019 (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) | |||
| *'''Bad question'''. You refer to use of the words "bad RfC" (in this case by ] but I have done it more often). You are alleging that saying that is "disruptive" and that someone has tried to "shout down" others. These are conduct accusations. Replying "oppose" to a conduct accusation is (I believe) an error, since it implies acceptance that the proposal is legitimate in this context. ] (]) 01:54, 23 July 2019 (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. | |||
| *'''Bad Proposal''' If the outcome of this RfC is that we shouldn't have those types of RfCs, then that objection is the correct objection to make. It doesn't matter if you're objecting to 1 bad RfC or 10 - they would all be bad RfCs. If the outcome of that RfC is that we should have those types of RfCs, then that objection shouldn't be made even once. ] (]) 02:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :*Right, but what happens if (as seems extremely likely at this point) this RFC is closed with no consensus? Those discussions keep happening, and the same few people keep posting the same few identical objections on all of them? I don't think that that's a reasonable way to proceed. --] (]) 04:22, 23 July 2019 (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) | |||
| ::::And ends with {{tq|...that aren't clearly backed up by whatever outcome we reach here.}} Most of the proposals above would allow them under ''certain'' circumstances, so I worded it broadly in the sense of ie. obviously comments reminding people of a clear outcome here would be fine. (And, obviously, you are incorrect about 1 of the 3; there's also the situation where ''none'' of the options reach a clear consensus.) Nonetheless, I'll remove the first bit to avoid confusion. --] (]) 04:29, 23 July 2019 (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) | |||
| :::::Okay I guess I didn't quite understand some of the nuance at first. I still think that this proposal should only be considered once its decided what kind of objections are allowed/disallowed/undecided. Maybe I just think too linearly and don't want to jump ahead to the part where we decide how many objections at a time are okay when we haven't yet decided (or failed-to-decide?) which objections are okay. ] (]) 04:47, 23 July 2019 (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. | |||
| *'''Bad proposal''' - ] is a pretty basic rule on Misplaced Pages, and if people on this page want to repeatedly flout it by engaging in context-free, discursive "Which media sources do you feel are bad?" style discussions, then you betcha I'm going to point that out. It also clearly states what should and should not be RFC'd on this page right at the top, pointing out that an RFC flouts this can be no more wrong than pointing out that an AFD nomination fails ], or that an RFC is wrongly factored (both of which are very common). ] (]) 07:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::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) | |||
| '''Support''' as per proposer. ] (]) 23:00, 27 July 2019 (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)=== | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as ] and the proposal to disallow further RfCs about past RfCs doesn't allow for CCC. --] (]) 11:04, 11 August 2019 (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) | |||
| *:This proposal does not {{!xt|"disallow further RfCs about past RfCs"}}. It discourages {{tq|"repetitive objections to such general-purpose discussions and RFCs"}}. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 11:19, 11 August 2019 (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== | |||
| ==== Adoring Nanny's Concern and proposal==== | |||
| <!-- ] 17:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740070870}} | |||
| <div class="boilerplate archived" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">{{Quote box | |||
| {{RfC|prop|pol|media|rfcid=857ECCA}} | |||
| | title = | |||
| Which of the following best describes the reliability of '']''? | |||
| | title_bg = #C3C3C3 | |||
| * Option 1: ] | |||
| | title_fnt = #000 | |||
| * Option 2: ] | |||
| | quote = Appears to be just a simple yet grave misunderstanding of how ] is applied to arguments. ] (]) 01:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 3: ] | |||
| | width = 30%|halign=left}} | |||
| * Option 4: ] | |||
| :''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive top--> | |||
| — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| The problem I see with blanket rules about what is and is not reliable is that it replaces using one's brain to figure it out. Effectively, ] carries no weight. See this ] where I was in effect told that it was inappropriate to actually examine the evidence in the various sources and come to an evidence-based conclusion, which is exactly what ] implies one should do. Instead, the accepted thing appears to be to blindly follow certain rules about what is and is not reliable. And that makes people cynical about Misplaced Pages. Therefore, I suggest that what needs to happen is that ] needs to become policy that is actually used, rather than merely a "policy" statement that sits there but doesn't carry any weight in a decision about what is reliable and what isn't. ] (]) 01:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * I'm not sure what you're proposing. ], a policy, already states that {{tq|"The appropriateness of any source depends on the context."}} In the same paragraph, it defines the reliability spectrum: {{tq|"The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source."}} ] states, {{tq|"In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."}} Reliability depends on context, but some sources are more reliable in general than others. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 01:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *: <small>{{bcc|Adoring nanny}}Additionally, your application of ] in {{slink|Talk:Daniel Holtzclaw|Undue weight and fringe viewpoints}} (your linked discussion) is incorrect. You said in ], {{!xt|"The soundness of one's conclusions -- the question of whether or not they follow logically from the evidence one is examining -- trump everything."}} That is against policy; we must {{tq|"fairly all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"}} (]). ] is not a trump card that allows us to elevate a fringe opinion that is not ]. If a person is convicted in court, and nearly all reliable sources report that they are guilty, it would be improper to grant a ] to the minority perspective of a news reporter who claims that they are innocent, when that perspective is not corroborated by other reliable sources. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 20:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *Hi Adoring nanny, I just read the discussion you are referring to and I thought "Everyone in prison is innocent", if the court found him guilty and reliable sources report as much, that's the end of the story as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. If he contests the conviction and it is overturned, then he is vindicated, otherwise it's just another in a long line of criminals claiming to be innocent. Any personal assessment of the evidence is original research. ] (]) 22:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, context matters should be applied to sources that are generally unreliable, in that if a source is generally unreliable it should be seen in context as generally unreliable...hope that makes sense? ie: a dishonest source may tell the truth from time to time, but they cannot be trusted because they are generally dishonest. ] (]) 23:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| : ''The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from ] --></div><div style="clear:both;"></div> | |||
| == Liliputing.com blog as a reliable source? == | |||
| It is a blog. Although it lists 4 contributors in addition to "editor" Brad Linder in the about page, in reality Brad Linder is essentially the only author in 2019 (1 exception), and there have been only 2 authors since February 2016. | |||
| ===Survey: ''Jacobin''=== | |||
| I've been recently tempted to use it as a source, a couple times, to change a primary source to a secondary source, like magic; however, this seems wrong. | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| It was suggested to bring it up for discussion: | |||
| *'''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. | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:/e/_(operating_system)&diff=913365830&oldid=913365695 | |||
| :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. ] (]) 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I'd appreciate other views. Below are more details. Thanks. | |||
| ::{{Reply|Herostratus}} not to backseat comment but if "They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine." isn't that a 2? I'm in much the same boat and offered a split 1/2, my understanding is that a 3 shouldn't be used for opinion. ] (]) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Backseat comments are totally fine. I live for them. I'm not sure about the details of our rule, but aren't ''all'' publications are completely reliable ''for their contents''? If the ''News of the World'' says "the moon is made of green cheese" we can certainly say "According to the ''News of the World'', the moon is made of green cheese" if for some reason that was useful. The ref is just so the reader can check that they did indeed print that. Similarly for any opinion or other statement. Since all entities are reliable for their own contents, I assume we are not talking at all about that. Why would we. | |||
| :::What we are talking about is: if entity X says "FBI stats say that African-American violent crime was up 50% in Los Angeles in 2024", can we say that ''in our own words'' because we can be confident that it is true because we know that entity X has a good fact-checking operation? Can we be very very sure that entity X would also point out if violent crime for ''all'' races was also up 50%? Can we be very very sure that this increase is not because the FBI started using a new definition of "violent crime", because entity X would surely point that out? Can we be very very sure that violent crime in the city of Los Angeles is steady and the increase is purely from Los Angeles County (or whatever), because entity X would surely point that out? In other words -- can we be very very sure that entity X would not cherry-pick some facts and leave out others because they are here to make points? We want to be careful about being led by the nose by these people. ] (]) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| It has been used as a source for many articles in Misplaced Pages: | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. I concur with other editors that this RFC should never have been opened. Please be more considerate of your fellow editors' time. ] (]) 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' possibly Option 3. I don't see that the source is any better than it was in 2021. Per {{u|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d}}'s previous comments and references from the 2021 RfC copied below as well as this recent incident. Yes, making a mistake and correcting it is good but when the mistake is so egreious and the author attacks people who note the error how much faith should we put in the source? Last time I also noted that per Adfont's media review (not a RS but still worth a look) this source is more biased than Breitbart! | |||
| ::{{tq| Normally, we put these extremely ideological sources in the Option 2 category (e.g., Salon {{RSP|Salon}}, Townhall {{RSP|Townhall}}). Jacobin obviously doesn't report straight news, so it (i) always needs to be attributed and (ii) check to see if it complies with ]. However, Jacobin has additional issues. Its stated political mission is to: {{tq|centralize and inject energy into the contemporary socialist movement}} . So it is more in line with an advocacy group than a news source. Also, it has pretty fringe views. ] identifies Jacobin as part of the alt-left . It's pretty fringe-y on topics concerning Venezuela , the USSR/Communism , and anti-semitism , . I would avoid using Jacobin for those topics. But if you need a socialist/Marxist opinion on something, then Jacobin is definitely a good source to use. ] (]) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) <u>Based upon Noonlcarus's comment, Jacobin does seem to frequently use deprecated/unreliable sources for facts. Some examples include Alternet {{RSP entry|AlterNet}} , Daily Kos {{RSP entry|Daily Kos}} , Raw Story {{RSP entry|The Raw Story}} , The Canary {{RSP entry|The Canary}} , and the Electronic Intifada {{RSP entry|The Electronic Intifada}} .] (]) 04:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)</u>}} | |||
| :As I mentioned above, when a source is this biased we have to ask if that level of bias is going to have too great an impact on both the weight they give various facts thus leading to questionable conclusion and their ability to verify otherwise factual claims as we saw here. I think that puts the source deep into the use with caution territory ] (]) 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::And yet you rated the Heritage Foundation at 2/3 below and didn't find any problem with their extreme ideological bent, saying in their defense that deprecating the foundation {{tq|would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge}}. This is a group that is regularly equated in academic best sources with fascism such as in: | |||
| ::# ''Neo-fascist trends in education: neo-liberal hybridisation and a new authoritarian order'' Díez-Gutiérrez, Enrique-Javier, Mauro-Rafael Jarquín-Ramírez, and Eva Palomo-Cermeño, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS). Sep2024, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p125-169 | |||
| ::# ''Pandemic abandonment, panoramic displays and fascist propaganda: The month the earth stood still.'' By: McLaren, Peter, Educational Philosophy & Theory, 00131857, Feb 2022, Vol. 54, Issue 2 | |||
| ::# ''THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY THINK TANK.'' By: Stewart, Katherine, New Republic, 00286583, Sep2023, Vol. 254, Issue 9 <small>(note that the think tank that they call "The West Point of American Fascism" in this article is the ] but that they refer to Heritage as participating in Claremont events.)</small> | |||
| ::#''The Road Ahead Fighting for Progress, Freedom, and Democracy,'' Weingarten, Randi, American Educator. Fall2024, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p2-9. 8p. | |||
| ::So I guess my question is one of consistency: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the fascist-adjacent Heritage foundation? If not why do you believe that the Heritage Foundation is more valuable to the "goal of collecting knowledge" than Jacobin? ] (]) 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You are missing a major difference. HF isn't a media source, they are a think tank. Jacobin is a media source, not a think tank. I've argued that all think tanks should be used with great care and in particular we should generally not cite them unless an independent RS points to their work. So the question is can we cite HF when a RS mentions the views/claims/etc of HF with respect to the article topic. In that regard I'm suggesting we treat them more like a primary source vs a RS. Jacobin is different and the relevant question is can we treat them like a regular RS as we do with many other news media sources. If Jacobin publishes a claim about an article subject should we cite them? I argue they should be evaluated by the same standards we use for news media sources. By that standard it's strong bias etc means we should use it's claims and reports with caution and should question if they have weight to justify inclusion. In your post above you provided a list of texts but absent links I can't see what they say nor if their arguments are sound or crap but they don't impact the distinction I've made. ] (]) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The list of texts are available via Misplaced Pages library which is why I provided bibliographical information rather than links as links to material on WP library don't work. With the exception of New Republic all are academic journals. And now please answer my original question: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the Heritage Foundation? ] (]) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you want to cite those sources to support an argument you should tell us what they say or at least why you think they support your position. As for your question, I already answered. It doesn't matter if the HF is more or less compromised because the purpose of each is different. When it comes to topics of automobiles Honda is more compromised than the AP but they also might be a better source if we are asking about stratified charge combustion in automobile engines. ] (]) 21:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::On this charge I will defend Springee. I don't necessarily agree with them but I'm not seeing the dissonance in their arguments, especially as they seem to be going 2/3 on both (there is not formal vote here but that seems to be the upshot of what they're saying). Their slighlty idiosyncratic argument about the purspose of the source being primary is also one which they've been making consistently for years. With all due respect I think you're being too hard on Springee. ] (]) 21:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I take the idea that a publication being openly social democratic is ''too biased to be reliable'' personally offensive. Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. But I will concede that Springee is being consistent. And I actually agreed that think tanks should be treated as primary sources. Frankly, were Springee to be more reasonable on the "political bias" overreach, we might otherwise be agreeing. ] (]) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::We may not be disagreeing at all given we both are giving them a "2". I'm arguing that their bias is too much to make them a 1. The possible 3, the same score I gave them last time, is a concern regarding things like the issue that started the recent discussion. I was about to post something about really disliking the RSP's simplistic bucketing. It's really not a good system as we really should put more effort into asking if a source is appropriate for the claims being supported and when an encyclopedia should be citing strongly biased sources in general. If we need to use such a strongly biased source is the information DUE? ] (]) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::We do agree on disliking the RSP bucketing system. My personal opinion is no news media source should be treated as a blanket "generally reliable" because reliability is contextual. However I do think that Jacobin is, from a global perspective, not in any way ideologically extreme. Social democracy is a normal left-of-center political position. The extreme-right shift of US politics over the last few decades makes them seem like outliers but that's the real bias problem right there. ] (]) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their page states they offer {{tq|socialist perspectives}} and approvingly includes quotes describing them as supporting {{tq|radical politics}} and {{tq|very explicitly on the radical left, and sort of hostile to liberal accommodationism}}. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I would strongly advise against getting too side-tracked by having a conversation about "social democracy" vs "democratic socialism" (same goes for any arguments over distinctions between "left" vs "liberal" in this thread). I can say from experience that these semantics rabbitholes are shockingly deep, and they're not at all necessary or helpful for this RfC. All I'll say is that these terms ''are'' commonly used as synonyms by at least some people, and the "Ideology and reception" section of ] notes {{tq|the political diversity of contributors, incorporating "everyone from social democratic liberals to avowed revolutionaries"}}, so I don't think either you or Simonm223 are wrong on this. Different people are gonna use different terms and apply different meanings to each of them. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 03:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{tq|Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center.}} Where outside the United States are you talking about? The world where ]? Where ]? Is it Japan, where the conservative ] has been in power since 1955? Or China, where a media outlet that is as critical of the ] as Jacobin is of the ] would have long been banned, and their writers arrested? I think we all need a reality check here, especially if we want to represent reality in our articles. ] (]) 03:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::While I can't speak for them, I'm guessing they probably had in mind specifically other western democracies, as it's common for European countries to have a mainstream Socialist Party with an ideology listed as social democracy (to name a few: ], ], ], ], etc). | |||
| ::::::::I'm comfortable speculating this is their argument because it's one that's often repeated in American progressive-left circles. This argument is usually presented as follows: ] is viewed as the furthest left one can go in America, the things his supporters want are not radical to other developed countries (paid time off, universal healthcare, etc), therefore what is far left in America is only moderately left elsewhere. | |||
| ::::::::Not saying I entirely agree or disagree with that argument, either how Simonm223 phrased it or how I interpreted it. Just saying I think they had in mind comparable democracies, not the entire world. | |||
| ::::::::<b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 16:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Yeah. I don't feel the need to put a million qualifiers on a comment on a WP discussion board when all I really need to say is that the United States has an abnormal political compass compared to its peers. But also there used to be lots of socialists, for instance, throughout the Middle East. American allies killed most of them. ] (]) 18:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::This has become a discussion about Overton windows rather than the source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3 or 2''' - Right-wing outlets that mix opinions in their articles, selectively choose facts to promote a political agenda, or sloppily misrepresent the truth have rightly been marked as unreliable ages ago. There is no reason to have a different standard for other political positions. And regardless of that, outlets that do that cannot be ''relied on'' (i.e. are unreliable) to present an accurate picture of the facts on a given topic, nor are their writers' opinions noteworthy in our articles. Op-eds from even mainstream papers like NYT, WaPo, etc. are routinely removed as sources; outlets like ''Jacobin'' that consist entirely of such articles should likewise not be used (and we have already done this for right-wing opinion outlets like ''Quillette''). The green checkmark at RSP misleads editors into thinking opinions and claims published in ''Jacobin'' are more noteworthy than they really are. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Jacobin's ] is to promote socialism, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting. However, it may be used with caution for topics within its area of expertise (such as the theory and history of socialism, labor movements, and socialist cultural commentary), provided proper attribution and corroboration from neutral sources are applied. ] (]) 03:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::This is no more a good argument than it would be to state that the raison d'etre of X publication is to promote capitalism and the geo-political interests of the United States, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting. | |||
| *::I could apply that faulty argument to shitloads of mainstream US publications that are currently considered to be generally reliable. '']''<sup>]</sup> 05:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. Folks have said it well already so I won't belabor the point. I can't really imagine an occasion when I would cite ''Jacobin'', but I consider them roughly a left-wing equivalent of ''The Economist'' or ''Reason'' (also publications I'd be unlikely to cite –– all three of these are usually rather predictable and tend to offer shallow analysis). I wasn't sure how we list those other two so I checked RSP just now and saw that they're 1s. Yes, OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument, but I was more interested in getting a baseline on where the community draws the line between 1 and 2. With respect, I object to Crossroads' comparison to ''Quillette'', which leans heavily into platforming fringe ideas and displays little editorial oversight. (Interestingly, on a hoax published in ''Quillette'', revealing the latter's abysmal editorial practices, courtesy of ]) ] (]) 01:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Personally I don’t see Reason and Economist as equivalent, and was surprised to see Reason green flagged for the same reason that I don’t think Jacobin should be. That is, whereas Economist is mostly reporting and some opinion, both Reason and Jacobin are mostly opinion and some reporting. The Jacobin piece on the Quillette hoax looks good to me, but everything else they’ve published by that author wouldn’t be usable for facts as they’re pure op eds. I’d put the Spectator and National Review in the category as Jacobin and Reason. (Whereas Spiked and American Conservative are worse, red flag territory rather than amber.) ] (]) 15:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Additional considerations apply'''. As I indicated in the ] which I started, the mere fact that Jacobin thought it appropriate to publish a statement that ] "owns a third of US housing stock" indicates that they do not do adequate fact-checking before publishing articles. Therefore, one should attempt to corroborate any facts they publish with more reliable sources before relying on Jacobin to support any factual statements in articles. ] (]) 03:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. Our ] is explicit that {{tq|reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective}}. I may not personally love the political perspective of ''Jacobin'', but they don't go out of their way to platform disinformation that flatly contradicts academic consensus about reality. Regarding ''Jacobin'' as unreliable on the grounds of its bias would require evidence that said bias leads it to regularly publish misinformation and untruths. I haven't seen this established.{{pb}}Moreover, the error brought up that somehow has sparked this RFC was both A) corrected in a timely manner, which is what we ''expect'' from a reliable source; and B) a case where ], as the original source was a book review of several books written by Mark Fisher. If cited, it should be cited to warrant information about Fisher or his books or the genre he wrote in, etc. The Blackstone number was {{tq|Information provided in passing}}, and we already know that such info occasionally {{tq|may not be reliable}}, and so we use our best judgment as editors, citing and reading a wide variety of sources and going to the ]. For a topic like ], looks like ''Jacobin'' is a good resource. For Blackstone and housing, try from the journal '']''. Not every source is perfect at every subject, but when a source has a known editorial staff, issues corrections to publications, and is grounded in reality, it's reliable, even if I wouldn't personally enjoy talking politics with the editor.{{pb}}Finally, when a piece published in ''Jacobin'' is an opinion piece, we can just treat it as such, ]. ''The Economist'' and ''The Wall Street Journal'' publish a lot of opinion pieces too, yet GREL they've remained. As the perennial list says of ''The Economist'', {{tq|editors should use their judgement to discern factual content—which can be generally relied upon—from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources}}. ] (] | ] | ]) 06:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''' or '''Option 2''', long overdue for the reasons already set out in this thread. And frankly, the idea that a magazine whose name is derived from the people who instituted the ] was ever acceptable w/o issue is offputting by itself. ] (]) 23:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?search=liliputing&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1 | |||
| *:For the record, the that in naming the magazine, he was thinking of '']'', a book about the ], not the French. ] (] | ] | ]) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Not that that is relevant anyway when assessing reliability. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::''The Black Jacobins'' is named so because the author analogizes the actions of the Haitians to that of the French Jacobins. It's just adding an extra step (not to mention that the word has a known meaning on it's face, so it's mostly irrelevant.). Regardless, it's clearly derived, and it's frankly silly to even argue semantics. ] (]) 02:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Just to be clear your argument about the name being relevant to reliability is literally arguing ]. Your objection doesn't make any sense. ] (]) 03:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I was referring to the semantics of what counts as "derived from." And no, while the name clearly doesn't ''inherently'' reflect relevance. If a source called "The KGB Times" came up on the noticeboard for reliability, it's perfectly reasonable for a person to point out "Hey, I don't think it's reliable for reasons x,y, and z, andddd the name also doesn't exactly inspire confidence." That's all I'm saying. Don't twist my statement into something it's not. ] (]) 05:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::That is arguing semantics. ] (]) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::If that's your benchmark, then practically everything is arguing semantics, including this whole thread. "Jacobin publishes words -> what are the meaning of those words? (semantics) -> can we qualify those meanings as 'reliable?'" Clearly distinguishing factors, and I'm not interested in ''arguing semantics about the word "semantics"'' with you like a 12 year old. My vote's been explained, ]. ] (]) 17:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1/Keep the current RSPS summary''' I think a few people arguing for additional considerations are misremembering the current RSPS legend. ''Additional'' considerations doesn’t refer to things like weight, or bias, or that you need to attribute opinion pieces because those are all standard considerations that apply to ''all'' sources. The current RSPS summary already says (in part) {{tq|Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'.}} I can't find anything that indicates that's not still a perfectly good summary. ] (]) 01:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| 95 results | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| Sometimes it is called "blog" in Misplaced Pages References, sometimes not. | |||
| *'''Option 1:''' Nothing of substance has been presented to suggest that this source is not GREL. Most of the reasons being presented for MREL appear to be about bias, but that is not of direct relevance to reliability unless it can be shown that any bias directly impinges somehow on its reliability. That it provides a perspective from a rarefied position on the political spectrum is a moot point in terms of reliability. Arguably it is good to have sources from all different positions on the political spectrum for the purposes of balance, but that is, again, irrelevant to its reliability. ] (]) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1/2''': generally reliable, they have a correction policy. Bias for opinion pieces and essays should be taken into account, attribute accordingly. ] (]) 00:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Bad RfC''' As on . ] (]) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' I previously commented in the 2021 RfC based on ]. In particular I found persuasive. Most recently cites a ''Jacobin'' article from November 2024 positively. A major trade publication in the field of journalism still seems to find ''Jacobin'' worth citing as "demonstrat convincingly" how Harris lost the pro-labor vote in the 2024 election. Why should we not follow ''CJR''s lead? The arguments seem to be (1) ''Jacobin'' recently issued a major retraction and (2) ''Jacobin'' has a left-wing bias. I could buy into (1) if they constantly issued retractions, but no one has shown that that is the case. (2) is contrary to ]. Altogether, I don't see why we should treat ''Jacobin'' differently from reliable but right-of-center-biased publications like '']'' or '']''. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]</span> 07:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2 or Option 3''': Not only is Jacobin an extremely biased, ideologically charged source, but their reporting has been called into question multiple times. At the very least, additional considerations do apply. ] (]) 13:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. This is not a ]. Its stated purpose is . Compare to the missions of the NYT: ; or the BBC: . The NYT and the BBC are both biased (every source is biased), but they do at least aim to deliver ''reporting''. Jacobin, on the other hand, is an advocacy organisation. That doesn't make it automatically unreliable, nor does that make it solely a source of opinions, but that does makes it qualitatively different from the newspapers that others have compared it to - and that is an important additional consideration worth noting. For the record, I disagree that one incident of inaccuracy is enough to downgrade a source, particularly one that was corrected. ] (]) 13:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Just because I note that my earlier !vote wasn't posted in to this section, for the avoidance of doubt, whilst I think this is a '''Bad RFC''' because there's no reason for initiating it, I support '''Option 2''' or '''Option 3''' because it is strictly an opinion site and not one that should be relied on for statements of fact about anything but itself. ] (]) 14:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''{{spaced en dash}}''Jacobin'' may be biased, but that has no bearing on reliability. They have many well-respected articles that have been cited by other reliable sources, have transparent editorial controls, and a demonstrated process for retraction and correction. I see a couple complaints above that ''Jacobin'' isn't a news organization; however, this isn't relevant to reliability. Just like ''The Economist'', ''Jacobin'' publishes more retrospective, interpretive articles which for certain subjects can often be ''better'' than using contemporaneous news articles. Overall this is a very '''bad RfC''' given the creator's undisclosed connection to the previous overturned RfC (see comment by {{noping|Tayi Arajakate}}) and a complete lack of any examples of ''actual uses on Misplaced Pages where the reliability is questioned''. This is as far as I can tell a knee-jerk reaction to a single example of an error on an unrelated topic in an offhand remark inside a book review, and which wasn't even used on Misplaced Pages. An absurd reason to open an RfC. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard"><span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 4px lightskyblue, -1px -1px 4px forestgreen;font-weight:bold;">]</span> (] • ])</span> 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per Silver seren and Wugapodes (and thank you for providing actual reported information on their editorial process rather than speculation, heavy irony in this whole discussion). This whole saga is based on one correction? Really? ] (]) 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' bias has nothing to do with reliability. Meanwhile, corrections are a strong signal of reliability. --] (]) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion: ''Jacobin''=== | |||
| *Seeing as there's substantial disagreement in the pre-RfC section above, I've gone ahead and launched this RfC. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Pings to {{yo|Feminist|The wub|Thebiguglyalien|Super Goku V|Simonm223|FortunateSons|Oort1|Burrobert|ActivelyDisinterested|Hydrangeans|Vanilla Wizard|Iljhgtn|Selfstudier|Horse Eye's Back|NoonIcarus|Harizotoh9|Springee}} who commented above. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Additional pings to {{yo|WMrapids|David Gerard|Bobfrombrockley|Shibbolethink|Crossroads|Herostratus|Dumuzid|Aquillion|Gamaliel|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d|BSMRD|Wugapodes|Ip says|King of Hearts|Chetsford|Tayi Arajakate|MPants at work|Jlevi|The Four Deuces|Grnrchst|Szmenderowiecki|Dlthewave|Jr8825|Thenightaway|Nvtuil|Peter Gulutzan|FormalDude|Volunteer Marek|FOARP|Sea Ane|3Kingdoms|Bilorv|blindlynx|Jurisdicta|TheTechnician27|MarioGom|Novemberjazz|Volteer1}} who commented in the ]. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I think you should also disclose that the previous RfC was initially closed by you (back then under the usernames ] and ]) and the discussions that followed at {{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 6#Jacobin (magazine)}} and {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340#Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability}} led to an overturn on grounds of it being heavily flawed and ostensibly a ], followed by a re-close afterwards. Especially considering your statement in the above section questioning that (re)closure now, which also partially forms the basis for this RfC. Those discussions might also answer your question on why it was (re)closed in the manner it was. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 20:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I've tried to ping everyone from the prior RfC and from the discussion above. This was done manually: I excluded 1 vanished account and I tried to ping people by their current usernames if they have changed names since then. If I missed someone, please feel free to notify them. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Per my prior comments about space constraints I've split this to its own section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I've just moved the RFC out of the discussion again. The RFC shouldn't be made a subsection of the prior discussion, due to ongoing issues with overloading on the noticeboard. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Editors should bear in mind that reliability does not mean infallibility. It merely means we can use sources where applicable. In this case, the impeached article is a book review, which combines a description of a book and the reviewer's opinions. The only acceptable use of a book review - whoever wrote it and wherever it is published - is in an article about the book reviewed. | |||
| I believe it mostly re-words and repeats press releases, and blog posts by companies. An example, recently: | |||
| 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. | |||
| https://liliputing.com/2019/09/first-batch-of-purism-librem-5-linux-smartphones-ships-in-late-september.html#comments | |||
| Our time would be better spent ensuring that RS policy is adhered to. | |||
| versus | |||
| ] (]) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| https://puri.sm/posts/librem-5-shipping-announcement/ | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| In the liliputing blog post above, comments seem to confirm this: | |||
| *:Notwithstanding my !vote above I do agree this is a bad RFC because there's not ever been an example presented of Jacobin being used to source anything even remotely questionable during the RFCBefore discussion. ] (]) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Well, there was one example that generated the 2023 discussion which was Jacobin being used to source a description of the 2014 Maidan Revolution as "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests", so that's one occasion of it being used to source something questionable. It was also by the same editor on the 9/11 attack page to source the claim that the CIA facilitated the attacks and intentionally withheld information that could have stopped the attacks. | |||
| *::That editor is now blocked (because of their conduct on this noticeboard I think?) but they used the green flag at RSP to justify their edits. ] (]) 10:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Absolutely a bad RfC, I rolled my eyes when I was pinged about this. Nothing fundamental has changed about Jacobin's editorial line or policy since the last RfC was opened four years ago. I can't believe we're hashing this out again because of a single reddit post. --] (]) 10:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *The Jacobin author who wrote the nonsense claim that Blackstone owns 1/3 of US housing stock literally mocked the people who tried to correct him and the correction - which itself was inaccurate and weaselly - was issued only after social media pressure. This is an outlet that very obviously does not care one bit about fact checking if it gets in the way of producing click bait pieces. It’s exactly the kind of source we should NOT be using, especially as the whole media landscape is shifting that way.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| "Some Guy: | |||
| *: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) | |||
| ...Also, this article seems to have been posted before anything about this is on purism’s website." | |||
| :::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 == | |||
| "Brad Linder: | |||
| <!-- ] 16:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739462471}} | |||
| I guess someone forgot to tell them that the embargo lifted at 11:00AM 🙂" | |||
| {{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 == | |||
| 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. | |||
| "Daily Deals" are almost indistinguishable from "articles." | |||
| *https://texasborderbusiness.com/chapel-hart-music-video-for-new-single-i-will-follow-premiered-by-cmt-on-friday-february-5th/ | |||
| https://liliputing.com/category/deals | |||
| *https://drgnews.com/2022/09/19/darius-rucker-set-to-release-new-song-featuring-chapel-hart/ | |||
| *https://www.southernliving.com/chapel-hart-danica-vocal-cord-surgery-6825847 | |||
| ] (]) 22:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The Texas Border Business link (now dead but available from the Wayback Machine) is a press release, you can find the exact same wording elsewhere. So it would be reliable in a primary way, as it's from the band about the band.<br>Southern Living appears to be an established magazine, I don't see why it wouldn't be reliable.<br>The drgnews.com article appears to be another press release, as the wording is found in many other sites. Oddly though I can't access any of them, as I get blocked by cloudflare for some reason. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| The about page calls Brad Linder editor; however, he is also the primary author, and the ONLY author for the last 8 months, with one exception by Lee Mathews on 8/26/2019. | |||
| {{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: ] | |||
| It says, "Liliputing has been mentioned on hundreds of news, and technology web sites," and gives 11 examples. However, 1 - Computer World is a broken link, most are several years old, and 1 - ], "works by scraping news websites and blogs,..." | |||
| * Option 2: ] | |||
| * Option 3: ] | |||
| * Option 4: ] | |||
| ]</s> | |||
| <span style="font-family:Kurale; color:#ff0000;">]]</span> 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| https://liliputing.com/about | |||
| * '''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== | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?sort=relevance&search=Brad+Linder+liliputing&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1 | |||
| 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. | |||
| 57 results | |||
| 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 | |||
| Lee Mathews | |||
| https://liliputing.com/author/lee | |||
| Last article 08/26/2019, but this is the first since 12/26/2018. | |||
| 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/ | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?sort=relevance&search=Lee+Mathews+liliputing&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1 | |||
| 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. | |||
| 1 result | |||
| <blockquote><p>There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable.</p></blockquote> | |||
| Lory Gil | |||
| https://liliputing.com/author/lory | |||
| Last article 02/05/2016 | |||
| <blockquote><p>There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable. It is reliable for specifically group based child sex exploitation.</p></blockquote> | |||
| K. T. Bradford | |||
| https://liliputing.com/author/ktbradford | |||
| Last article 08/20/2014 | |||
| 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. | |||
| James Diaz | |||
| https://liliputing.com/author/cybergusa | |||
| Last article 09/16/2011 | |||
| I hope I have formatted this correctly, thank you. ] ] 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. ] (]) 19:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just to be clear here, I am not saying Peters is the only good reporter. GBNews has some good reporters and they're specifically concentrated on this. I think GBNews is generally slop but I just wanted to cite a specific reporter as an example. I think GBNews' work and information on this very narrow subject is worth considering. ] ] 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This seems backwards, ] claims require exceptional sources, not exceptions for terrible ones. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :GB News is persistently and relentlessly unreliable. We cannot make exceptions for a single reporter (and I say that as someone who believes Peters to be one of the better GB News reporters, though admittedly that's a very low bar). If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that ''weren't'' run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear. ] 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think more sensationalist reporting is going to make that page better. Let's leave GB News off it. ] (]) 19:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Again, I'm being clear here I'm only talking about one narrow subject. ] ] 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was also being very specific to that one page as well. ] (]) 20:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So you're saying that, specifically on child rape, they're sensationalists. I agree with you that their titles would do better without the incessant capitalisations but their reporting on this isn't errant in any way. ] ] 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::So you're basically just saying Peters is a racist and if I can prove he isn't racist you'll be convinced? Here he is covering a white rapist. https://www.gbnews.com/news/two-rotherham-child-abuse-victims-accidentally-left-out-court-rapist-sentencing-office-error ] ] 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I absolutely did ''not'' say that Peters was racist, so don't do that again please. I was pointing out that GB News inevitably covers Asian grooming gangs, but almost never white ones. If Peters broke that mould I ''would'' be convinced. ] 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Oh, I've just seen your userpage. That explains it. ] 19:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::> '''Sources (some are invalid and blatantly biased for[REDACTED] standards but summarise info well. i'll find a proper source for them.''' | |||
| :::::Not all the sources in my user page are valid at all, I've just added them to look deeper in later on to verify myself. | |||
| :::::If you're accusing me of being a right wing grifter so be it, I literally just added an article by Bindle to my user page smearing the right as racist grifters before I read this, I edited McMurdock's article and wrote how he kicked a woman four times, I try my best to be fair. I am not interested in just saying "Pakistani men rape and whites don't", that's absurd. The state has routinely failed children of rape. I'm arguing that GBNews on this topic is good. ] ] 20:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I suppose even Bindel can be right occasionally. That's not the point though, I followed a few of your links and saw the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page - that's not good on a BLP, whether you are a right-wing grifter or not (I have no idea if that's the case). But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop. It would be ''incredibly'' problematic if we had to define sources as reliable or not depending on which journos were producing the material, especially as their material is routinely filtered through an editorial process which we have defined as unreliable in the first place. ] 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I understand. I regret making my initial point on Peters specifically because you're right that specific journalists do not save a publication. I've been trying to change the position to accomadate this, and say something more so on the lines of "Generally speaking, their covering of child sex abuse is good, can we make an exception for this topic". Is your argument here from the context of me originally saying Peters was good or is your argument here that no matter how good the journalism is on child sex abuse, the rest of the publication is too sloppy to make an exception? " But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop" | |||
| :::::::> the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page | |||
| :::::::Is this on the word 'despite'? This was talked about on the talk page, I agreed it was a mistake. ] ] 21:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Again, GBNews is generally slop, we can agree on that. I believe they have good journalists focusing on child rape. ] ] 20:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: We can't separate the two, that's the issue. The ''Daily Mail'' has good journalists as well, the problem in using them is the venue they publish their work in. ] 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I agree the Daily Mail is total slop as well, but if they had excellent journalism on one specific topic that would warrant an exception. That's what I'm arguing here. ] ] 20:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not going to repeat that as you have made clear that was not your intent, but I'm not trying to strawman you. I've misinterpreted what you're saying here as you calling Peters / GBNews / their audience racist (though that is not what you are saying), I am confused on what you exactly are you trying to say with the below. May you please elaborate? | |||
| ::::"If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that weren't run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear." ] ] 20:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: GB News is a right-wing channel (and, to be fair, it is transparently so); it tells its viewers what they want to hear. Much of the right-wing audience believes that child abuse is mostly committed by Asian gangs, because that's what right-wing narratives have told them, even if it's false. GB News doesn't actually ''say'' that is true, but it reinforces those ideas by focusing on such cases. ] 20:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm not accusing you of calling them 'racist', but what exactly would you call the behaviour your describing, if not racist. | |||
| ::::::Yes, GBNews is obviously a right wing channel. I believe you can criticise nearly all political journalistic publications that aren't state funded of pandering to their audience. CNN, the Telegraph, the Guardian, Fox, etc. I find it all a bit obnoxious. | |||
| ::::::I do however have qualms with the idea that GBNews is, how do I put this, 'filtering out or downplaying' rape gangs when they are not Pakistani / Bangladeshi? You say the majority of these perpetrators are white, I believe that is true of CSAM online but I amn't sure that's true at least on a per capita basis for rape gangs though I have collated a lot of sources which I intend to read when I have the time, as you've noted on my talk page, so I'll be better informed to answer this in the future. | |||
| ::::::In essence, your hesitance or better put refusal to add an exception to GBNews on rape gangs isn't derived from a sense that they're journalistically or factually incorrect outright but rather they have underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. If I'm understanding what you are saying correctly which I'll need confirmation on as I do not wish to strawman you. ] ] 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Yes, that's exactly what GB News does (though I would not go as far as saying it is "factually correct" ''all'' the time). It is, however, understandably more careful with its narratives with this subject than it is with others (although it does publish nonsense like , notably not by Peters). ] 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::That's an opinion piece that more falls under geopolitics. That wouldn't fall into what I, or the other user, is arguing to include. | |||
| ::::::::If we can agree that at least ''nearly all'' the time they are factually correct on this very specific subject, and the wealth of information is enormous, we can just put a warning that GBNews has something along the lines of "accusations of underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias" in a general sense (but is better on this subject (and thus the exception being made) as you noted and I agree), but that if possible, should be substantiated with another source, but is still acceptable on this very specific subject, even independently, especially if there are no other sources available. That's reasonable, I believe. Thoughts? ] ] 22:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: I'm not convinced, I have to admit, and I wouldn't vote in favour of it. Though I ask, could it be any worse that allowing the ''Telegraph'', a paper which posts rabidly transphobic opinion pieces, to be used on trans-related topics (as was allowed in a recent RfC)? It's unlikely. ] 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::As long as what is written is factually true, the agenda behind it just has to be made known to the editor beforehand to caution them. We shouldn't restrain facts and deprive people of them because we deem the authors morally repugnant. ] ] 23:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' Whilst I agree that GB News should be approached with caution (and I wouldn't touch their climate change reporting with a barge pole), I think Charlie Peters is an exceptional reporter. I would generally trust what he has to say before, for example, ''The Guardian'' or ''The Times''. I think that by barring his reporting on GB News we are probably barring the country's most pre-eminent authority on gang-related CSE. IT's worth bearing in mind that coverage of this topic has now become highly-politicised, but Charie probbaly brings the most balanced and fact-based perspective to the coverage of the issue. We could treat his reporting on GB News on this particular issue as an instance of expert ]. If other sources are reporting the same thing then fine, bit I honestly believe we would be devaluing Misplaced Pages's coverage by excluding him. The fact remains he is not interchangeable with other journalists at other news outlets, because he brings a wealth of research and statistics to the table, and has probably interacted with grooming gang victims more then any other journalist. ] (]) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I know this sounds silly but it is refreshing hearing more knowlegable Wikipedians explain what I'm trying to articulate so eloquently. I do want to be clear however that I think GBNews' coverage on gang CSE is excellent, not just Peters. The main contention seems not to be on if it is factual, no one here seems to be disputing this, but rather if it has underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. You can read my last comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269267836 as I try to ] what another user is saying to the best of ability. ] ] 21:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Are there any third-party sources that validate the claim that GB News and Peters are the best sources on this topic? ] (] • ]) 05:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The site warns: "Disclosure: Some links on this page are monetized by Skimlinks and Amazon's and eBay's affiliate programs." | |||
| ::What do you mean? How would that work? Are you asking if reputable sources cite GBNews regularly on this topic? If so, yes I've read many articles, especially the Telegraph, mentioning them if I recall correctly. ] ] 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, according to ],{{tq|If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims.}} That seems to be one way it works. Normal editorial processes are that we use secondary sources to evaluate the significant views among published reliable sources, and UBO is in most cases relatively weak validation for other claims. ] (] • ]) 07:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: If you're going to start an RfC on this topic (which would be required to carve out an exception for GB News), it would be far better to present such evidence as opposed to a simple opinion of "I think it's reliable". ] 08:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not sure there are any sources out there that flat out stipulate that Charlie Peters is the best source for this topic, but he is increasingly becoming the "go to" source in this area. report how he "broke" the latest story about the Government declining the national inquiry into CSE in Oldham, and other news outlets have approached him to co-author their articles, presumably for his insight, such as and . ''Deadline'' profile him —it is worth bearing in mind he was a specialist in this area before working for GB News, having made a documentary about the Rotherham cover-up. Maggie Oliver—a former police detective who blew the whistle on the cover-up in Greater Manchester and now works with survivors—holds his journalism in . In reality, as NotQualified has noted, other news outlets have re-used facts first reported by Peters in their own stories, so there is no way to really avoid his core reporting. Part of the reason for this is because , so they are dependent on those that have. For the record, I do think there is a difference between the core facts as reported by Peters and the framing of these stories by GB News in its broadcasts. ] (]) 10:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::If other sources have reported on the details, then they should be used. That way editors waste less time arguing about the source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You get less depth and less nuance from news outlets which repackage his work, usually for sensationalist reasons. Peters has interviewed the survivors and their families extensively. He attended the trials and the sentencing. If other news outlets are happy to re-use his material I don't see why it should be any issue here. ] (]) 12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Any other source is going to be less sensationalist and so less controversial. The issue is doing the simple option so as to avoid wasting time arguing over which source to use rather than something more useful. GBNews is by it's nature always going to be controversial, so using a different source for the same information is the best option. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That is an ad hoc approach which only works for one news story at a time. Simply put, what if other sources don't. This is why it is important the exception is carved out. ] ] 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If a single news source is the only source that picks up a detail, that probably goes to show that detail shouldn't be included (] / ]). That other news sources decide not to include certain details may well be because they do not believe the details are important, or that they are presented properly. I would say it goes to shows why there shouldn't be a exception given. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] this statement can be applied to any source in any discussion... ]<sub>]</sub> 21:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, choosing the least contentious source to support a detail is always a good idea (regardless of the article). Arguing other a contentious source when others are available isn't a good use of editors time. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The New York Times says {{tq|No British media outlet has revived the grooming scandal with the zeal of GB News, a hard-right cable news channel that went on the air in 2021, a decade after The Times’s investigation into grooming gangs.}} which does not exactly sound like a ringing endorsement. It instead sounds rather more like exactly the sort of {{tq|unduly represent contentious or minority claims}} we're supposed to take care to avoid. If a primary source has been published in multiple places, I see no compelling reason why the reliability of GB News even needs to be discussed, and it seems like nobody wants to use the secondary parts. ] (] • ]) 11:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Surely that's a ] issue to be determined in the context of what is being written, rather than a ] issue. ] (]) 12:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Even if it isn't a "ringing endorsement", it does sound like NYT agrees it has the largest wealth of knowledge on this issue, which is one of the reasons I'd argue it's critical to allow. If that knowledge was erroneous, I'd obviously agree it shouldn't be included, but that knowledge as discussed on this talk discussion seems to be virtually always correct. | |||
| ::::> If a primary source has been published in multiple places, | |||
| ::::And what if it isn't. Misplaced Pages as a whole suffers. ] ] 17:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tqbm|And what if it isn't.}} | |||
| :::::] and ], even were it to be considered reliable. ] (] • ]) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Other sources are reporting on Peters “breaking” the story in that he revived a myth that was taken up by Elon Musk who then intervened in uk politics and got far right grifters competing with each other for his attention, making Peters’ “reporting” noteworthy, but not reliable. ] (]) 15:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::post sources ] ] 15:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::A few examples: | |||
| :::::*FT: “How a handful of X accounts took Elon Musk ‘down the rabbit hole’ on UK politics… In the past week, Musk has also amplified posts on the grooming scandal by former prime minister Liz Truss, former Labour MP Kate Hoey, former Reform politician Ben Habib and people linked to broadcaster GB News.” | |||
| :::::*Yahoo News: “News of Philips's rejection letter was then reported by GB News on 1 January, sparking an intense debate about whether such an inquiry was needed. This was picked up by Elon Musk who began posting prolifically about the issue, levelling harsh criticism at the government and at one point calling for Philips to be jailed for rejecting the request.” | |||
| :::::*BBC: ”Debate around grooming gangs was reignited this week after it was reported that Phillips rejected Oldham Council's request for a government-led inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation in the town, in favour of a locally-led investigation. The decision was taken in October, but first reported by GB News on 1 January.” | |||
| :::::*BBC Verify: “In one post, Mr Musk alleged that "Gordon Brown committed an unforgivable crime against the British people" and shared a video clip from campaigner Maggie Oliver appearing on GB News. In the clip, Ms Oliver alleged: "Gordon Brown sent out a circular to all the police forces in the UK saying 'do not prosecute these rape gangs, these children are making a lifestyle choice'."… But BBC Verify has carried out extensive searches of Home Office circulars issued across that period and found no evidence that any document containing this advice exists.” | |||
| :::::*New Yorker: “The onslaught began on January 1st, when Musk responded to a report by GB News, a right-wing cable-news channel, which said that the country’s Labour government had rejected a national inquiry into non-recent sexual abuse in Oldham, a town just outside Manchester, in northern England. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the actual story is more complicated than that.” | |||
| :::::*NYT: “No British media outlet has revived the grooming scandal with the zeal of GB News, a hard-right cable news channel that went on the air in 2021, a decade after The Times’s investigation into grooming gangs… Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform U.K., an anti-immigrant party, has praised Mr. Peters, saying he had “really reignited this story” and demonstrated that “these barbarities have taken place in at least 50 towns.”… The cumulative effect of Mr. Musk’s inflammatory posts has been to energize Britain’s populist right.” | |||
| :::::] (]) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I’m just here to say that a source being ''generally'' unreliable doesn’t mean they can’t be reliable in specific circumstances. That is, if you want to make a case that a specific subset of GB News output is reliable enough to support statements in a specific article, you can make that argument on the Talk page of the article and it doesn’t need to be carved out as a formalised exception on ]. ] (]) 17:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Absolutely agree with this, both "''generally'' reliable" and "''generally'' unreliable" are not absolutes. Either way you may be required to convince other editors (on the articles talk page) that a specific source should, or shouldn't, be used. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Considering that there is quite a lot of academic material on this subject that isn't currently being used in these articles I'm somewhat reticent to start making exceptions for generally unreliable news media organizations out of some sort of belief we are missing sources. ] (]) 17:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The specifics would be a discussion for the articles talk page, but in general I'd agree. Less news and opinion sources, and more academic sources would be an improvement for many articles. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| If other sources do not follow though with a story, there may well be reason why, and one of those is they can't confirm them. This is what they are RS, they do try to fact-check before publication. So if a reputable publication does not report it I have to ask the question why is the only source reporting this an iffy one? ] (]) 17:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for this comment, this was also my interpretation when reading the thread, and surprised no-one else referenced the obvious here: If Charlie Peters is such a respectable journalist (let's assume he is for the sake of argument), then why is his work not published in respectable and reliable sources such as The Telegraph that he previously worked for? While trying to avoid a discussion on this journalist career path and choices in life, it does seem remarkably odd that there aren't reliable sources reporting his coverage indepth. This makes me suspect that it's because it's much easier to publish for GB News than it is other news orgs that do fact-checking and thorough reviews. Baring in mind, its not just WP that considers GB News as generally unreliable, there is rough consensus among UK journalism that it is a trashy tabloid-like source. So why is such a respectable journalist writing such great contributions for a trash can? Without intending to speculate much further than I already have, it could be because what he writes for GB News isn't as reliable as what he has written elsewhere. Generally if there were topics that I would say GB News was specifically unreliable for, it'd be along the lines of Reform Party coverage (it's a quasi-primary source at this point), and contentious topics such as the far-right riots, Tommy Robinson, and grooming gangs. Feel free to accuse me of a broad stroke, but I'd otherwise consider GB to be generally reliable for entertainment and culture topics (similar to NYP). ] (]) 00:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| It is heavily loaded with affiliate javascript from MANY different sources, as seen with noscript, etc. | |||
| ::Just to be clear here, it isn't just Peters, I'm arguing that generally their coverage on group based child sex exploitation is good. Peters has written under multiple papers. I do not know why he works for GBNews particularly right now but he brings spectacular journalism to it. ] ] 00:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Nah.''' If there's news that doesn't suck it'll show up elsewhere. Per {{u|CommunityNotesContributor}}, that it ''isn't'' showing up elsewhere raises an eyebrow - ] (]) 10:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Strong disagree with OP. In fact, i’d say that the fact that the Telegraph has taken up Peters’/GBNews’ reporting might lead us to the rule that the Telegraph, is not reliable on this highly contentious topic. Example: here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/04/grooming-gangs-scandal-cover-up-oldham-telford-rotherham/ Peters and a co-author claim to catalogue the “cover up” of the grooming scandal “to preserve the image of a successful multicultural society” — yet every single factual claim in their article is taken from a pre-existing primary source (a 2010 W Midlands police report, a 2013 sentencing report, the 2014 Rotherham Jay inquiry, the 2015 Rotherham Casey report, the 2019 Manchester police report, the 2022 Telford Inquiry and the 2022 national independent review) that to my mind prove that far from a cover up this has been extensively investigated and publicly addressed for well over a decade. There is no actual investigation here; they rely on the investigation done by others and use it to spin an inflammatory conspiracy theory. I think it might be time to downgrade the Telegraph not upgrade GBNews. ] (]) 15:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Regarding this article, is it usual for reliable sources to correct the content of articles without referencing a change? This was first published on , and modified by with attribution to GB News added (can verify with ): | |||
| *:* {{tq|"In Jess Phillips’s letter to the council, '''revealed by GB News''', she said she understood the strength of feeling in the town, but thought it best for another local review to take place.}} | |||
| *:* {{tq|"The state must leave no stone unturned in its efforts to root out this evil. As one victim, '''told GB News''', "..."}} | |||
| *:It's good they corrected the article with necessary attribution for unverified claims, however it took 4 days to do so, and they failed to reference such changes in the article, including the original date. Not a good look imo. ] (]) 15:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer == | |||
| -- ] (]) 18:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * Ugh. That site is basically a collection of advertisements. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * ''']'''. Liliputing a ]. Its lists 5 staff members and ] in more reliable sources, which makes it a bit better than other group blogs of this size. However, the blog posts on this site tend to be short and promotionally toned, nowhere near the editorial quality of established blogs like ] {{rspe|Engadget}}. I don't think Liliputing is a good source for technology topics, and I definitely wouldn't count its articles toward a subject's ]. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Is this sigcov , reliable for ]? ] (]) 09:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Example of editing by readers: | |||
| :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) | |||
| Victor C: Brad, just letting you know, the WIN is mono. They had to remove the left speaker for the fan...</p><p>Brad Linder: Whoops! Fixing that now.</p><p>https://liliputing.com/2016/10/gpd-win-handheld-gaming-pc-quick-review.html , Reference 14 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/GPD_Win -- ] (]) 16:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok, thank you very much. ] (]) 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Did Howard Dean get paid to give speeches promoting the MEK? == | |||
| : While it's SPAMmy, It can certainly be used in a limited capacity. For instance on the ] article, https://liliputing.com/2013/05/xbmc-running-in-linux-on-a-tv-box-with-an-amlogic-am8726-mx-chip-video.html is used to support that the software supports the AMLogic VPU chip. This is not an unreasonable use. Good to see that they make corrections to articles, which is good editorial oversight. It should not be used for anything other that plain, factual coverage. ] (]) 14:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: Making corrections after initially publishing inaccurate information, after readers point out the mistakes, is not "editorial oversight." Editorial oversight is having an editor, independent of the author, who catches mistakes before publishing. At this ''blog'', the author is the editor, or vice versa. -- ] (]) 15:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Blogs do not generally update their posts. If there is the ability and will to recognize errors and omissions, that implies that there is some editorial oversight. ] (]) 15:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I understand where you're coming from. I wanted to use infosec-handbook.eu (blog) as a source too, but couldn't because it doesn't meet the criteria. BTW, it also updates based on reader feedback (and has more active authors). If we use liliputing for that video, then we could use any blog with a fancy appearance and tons of advertisements as a way of including youtube videos. -- ] (]) 15:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: What you were restricted in using that other website's content for is not up for discussion here. | |||
| ::::: We're not using the video itself, in the case I quoted, it's a specific discussion that is being used to support one fact. It is not generally reliable, as is the case with most other blogs. However, even blogs may be used under some circumstances. This is not a binary use vs. do not use situation, it's a large scale and judgment must be used to determine whether an entry can be used to support a fact. | |||
| ::::: Also, as stated above, it cannot be used to help determine if a topic meets ]. ] (]) 15:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: The point was other blogs also '''do''' make corrections based on reader feeback, contrary to your claim. | |||
| :::::: Go down the list; Liliputing breaks most criteria: NO editorial oversight (aside from readers), self-published, blog, examples of making mistakes, sponsored content or primary purpose of showing you ads and getting you to click affiliate links. As I understand the process, if two of these discussions conclude it's a non-reliable source, then it goes on the "binary" list as such. | |||
| {{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 ]? | |||
| Sources: | |||
| *A telephone interview with ] that was published on a newsblog on ]. Smith writes that Dean "said that while he's given paid speeches for the group, his advocacy is pro bono." | |||
| *An editorial by ] in '']''. | |||
| **The editorial links to a '']'' article, which writes "Mr. Dean confirmed to the Monitor that he received payment for his appearances, but said the focus on high pay was “a diversion inspired by those with a different view.”" | |||
| *An article in '']'' which says "Dean himself has acknowledged being paid but has not disclosed specific sums". Dean's advocate responded to that article, according to Salon, saying "On the issue of the MEK, he is not a paid advocate. He was paid for a handful of speeches, but has not been paid for his advocacy." | |||
| ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 13:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_and_self-published_sources | |||
| :::::: If that "one fact" is really worthy of being included, you should be able to find a reliable source for it. -- ] (]) 16:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I don’t think the reliability of any of these sources would be in question by most editors - this seems a bit more of a content dispute on the surface. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 01:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === RfC: Liliputing === | |||
| ::@], 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) | |||
| <!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- ] 03:38, 4 October 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1885779501}}<!-- END PIN --> | |||
| :::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) | |||
| {{anchor|rfc_1F16146}}{{Rfc|media|sci|rfcid=EA3D22E}} | |||
| * 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) | |||
| Is Liliputing () a ] for technology-related topics, or should it be considered a ] ]? — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 20:35, 3 October 2019 (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 ] == | |||
| ==== Survey (Liliputing) ==== | |||
| * ''']'''. I'll repeat what I originally wrote on 10 September: Liliputing a ]. Its lists 5 staff members and ] in more reliable sources, which makes it a bit better than other group blogs of this size. However, the blog posts on this site tend to be short and promotionally toned, nowhere near the editorial quality of established blogs like ] {{rspe|Engadget}}. I don't think Liliputing is a good source for technology topics, and I definitely wouldn't count its articles toward a subject's ]. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Not reliable'''. Advert-infested clickbait of no real merit and no evident quality assurance, much better sources exist. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Generally Unreliable''' Anything but a factual statement is not reliable. Cannot be used for GNG or other reliability criteria. ] (]) 23:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Not reliable'''. Should not be used as a source. -- ] (]) 02:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not reliable'''. (bot brought me here) Not anywhere close to the level of ], ], or even krebsonsecurity(]).---''']]''' 05:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not reliable'''. . For Christmas' sake, I can blog that I am God, if anyone built a church for me, I'd instantly be an atheist. No verifiable facts, no studies, no external review, just a claim. Secondary sources are used for a reason, hopefully review and verification. I suggest either filing this in the circular file, file 86 or file 13, aka the bit bucket.] (]) 04:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| See. The link doesn't go to the source cited and I can't find that aource. ] ] 16:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Discussion (Liliputing) ==== | |||
| * I've created a new subsection for the RfC to meet the {{tq|"brief and neutral"}} requirement for ]. {{u|Yae4}} originally created the RfC in ], but the RfC statement was too long to be transcluded into the ]. Discussion on Liliputing originally started at ], then sprawled to other pages including ]. According to {{np|Yae4}}, Liliputing was used in 95 articles on 9 September, but this count has since declined to {{duses|liliputing.com|12 articles}} after removals. Pinging previous commenters {{u|JzG}} and {{u|Walter Görlitz}} as a courtesy. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{block indent|em=1.6|<small>Notified: ], ], ], ], ] — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 20:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified --> | |||
| :Found a Spanish Misplaced Pages article on the explorer. ] ] 16:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ''The Epoch Times'', once again == | |||
| ::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) | |||
| '']'' is currently listed as a questionable source on ] and usually described as a "falun-gong mouthpiece" in ]. They have recently come under scrutiny for being a Trumpian partisan outlet as well, to the point where . At the moment they still have those same video ads running on YouTube, with a guy snapping his fingers to changing headlines, using alt-right bingo buzzwords like "mainstream media", "hidden agendas", or "Russia hoax" that could've just as well come from a Trump campaign spokesperson. I think it is time to reclassify this website in the same category as the '']'' and the '']''. --] (]) 23:58, 6 October 2019 (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) | |||
| * '']'' {{rspe|The Epoch Times}} is currently classified under "]", but we haven't had any noticeboard discussions since the August ] report . ] ''The Epoch Times'' would require consensus in a formal ], which this discussion could easily be converted into. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:47, 7 October 2019 (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) | |||
| :Bias does not make it not RS as such, usable with attribution.] (]) 08:16, 7 October 2019 (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) | |||
| :<s>Exactly. This is a typical "biased source" and as such can be used per policy with appropriate attribution. ] (]) 15:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| ::The Epoch Times isn't a matter of bias. It's a matter that it deliberately and calculatedly publishes misinformation. It should be '''deprecated.''' ] (]) 15:32, 7 October 2019 (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) | |||
| :*Bias doesn't make a source unusable, but ''intentionally'' misleading its readers does. The Facebook ban was for that sort of misinformation, which I feel is a decent reason to consider them unreliable - Facebook doesn't ban ads from news sources lightly (after all, doing so costs them money.) NBC News' coverage describes them as about Trump's political enemies, and the says the same thing, which would at the very least make them a ] source, not one we can really use for very much. --] (]) 17:09, 7 October 2019 (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) | |||
| :*Yeah this isn't just bias. In addition to more or less openly campaigning for Trump, they've got and , as well as , and . Reporting from , make it pretty clear that they're pushing false or misleading viral content related to contemporary politics. This is exactly the sort of content that has no place on Misplaced Pages. ]<sup> ]</sup> 17:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::That does not look good at all... ] (]) 18:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Blacklist ASAP'''. How has this propaganda machine not been blacklisted yet? It's really remarkable—it couldn't be clearer that under no circumstance is ''The Epoch Times'' a reliable source, IMO. ] (]) 18:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support RFC''' I'm not sure if this came up the previous discussion, but the also reported on some issues with Misplaced Pages's use of the Epoch Times at the entry for ]. This search of turns up a number of cases where they're cited for pseudo-science ( at ], and heavy use of at ]), and it is still cited on a number of BLPs and on stories related to Trump-Russia (], ]). It's even cited ]. The site is ubiquitous on social media, and it looks just presentable enough that users might sometimes mistake it for a reliable source. Based on this, I think its worth establishing a general consensus. ]<sup> ]</sup> 19:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == |
==''Pirate Wires''?== | ||
| '']'' 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) | |||
| <!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- ] 19:13, 4 October 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1885835638}}<!-- END PIN --> | |||
| :Wouldn’t this be an aboutself citation anyway? I would be more concerned about primary/OR here in that case. | |||
| {{rfc|media|pol|reli|prop|rfcid=F730273}} | |||
| :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) | |||
| Which of the following best describes the ] of '']'' {{rspe|The Epoch Times}}? | |||
| :: 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) | |||
| *'''Option 1:''' ] ] for news | |||
| :::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) | |||
| *'''Option 2:''' ] | |||
| :::: 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) | |||
| *'''Option 3:''' ] ] for news | |||
| :::::I think this is a case for ], but it seems like a reasonable option ] (]) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4:''' Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be ] as in the ] of the '']'' {{rspe|Daily Mail}} | |||
| : 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) | |||
| — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 19:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: Here's a Business Insider story on Pirate Wires that gives a good sense of its ethos . ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Invoking ] to attack an organization is not a good start for Pirate Wires, a new publication that does not have much of a reputation at this point. Definitely not ], and I would avoid using this publication for ]. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I wouldn't call it a "group blog", it just has a niche audience in the tech industry. It is certainly more factually based than Fox News. The article you linked is using it problematically though. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 14:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Solana is the founder and operator of Pirate Wires, so maybe it's wise to consider his pieces in particular self-published. No idea the level of editorial rigour other contributors are under though. ] (]) 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] Please indicate if you have different opinions on different aspects of ''The Epoch Times''{{'}}s news coverage, such as edition (the English edition at {{duses|theepochtimes.com}} and the Chinese edition at {{duses|epochtimes.com}}), topic (e.g. Chinese politics, American politics, international politics, and ]-related topics), and year of publication. The closer is advised to evaluate whether there are separate consensuses for different aspects of the publication. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 19:13, 7 October 2019 (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) | |||
| :Marginally reliable, there seems to be a pretty wide spread quality wise because they seem to allow their writer a loose leash. This means that some articles are very good and some are very bad. Personally I've found them solidly reliable for the more wonkish techy stuff but have a lot of issues when they start to cover politics or culture/society in general. Crypto seems to be the only blindspot within their otherwise area of expertise, their crypto coverage is just awful and should be avoided like the plague. When used I would attribute and I would strongly advise against any use for BLP not covered by ABOUTSELF. I agree that pieces by Solana should be treated as self published and that coverage by Pirate Wire is not to be considered independent of the Founders Fund. ] (]) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Need context before coming to RSN === | |||
| 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) | |||
| *'''Deprecate ASAP'''. Under no circumstance should this Falun Gong propaganda machine be considered a reliable source. The links provided by other users above make the source's utter unreliability crystal clear. For those new to the topic, , think ''Russia Today''—as the ''New Republic'' article puts it: "The Times has built a global propaganda machine, similar to Russia’s Sputnik or RT, that pushes a mix of alternative facts and conspiracy theories that has won it far-right acolytes around the world." ] (]) 19:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * Per <s>{{U|Slatersteven}}</s> its founder describes it as a ] - it should be treated accordingly. ] (]) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''2 or 3''' This isn't a good source, but judging by its complete usage, I don't see a reason for general prohibition on its use. The domains (English version) and (Chinese version - is this RfC about both?) are used 1,348 times in Misplaced Pages. Most that I glimpsed through were rather uncontroversial, especially from the Chinese domain. The discussion ] was rather insincere in my view. The was due to circumventing Facebook's political advertisement rules, ''not'' its news coverage. A is being cited in support of deprecating it, but all I see in that story is reporting what the QAnon is, ''not'' advocating for it. Yeah, they also have more trashy stuff like the vaccine story as a "VIEWPOINTS" article, but ] many other lower-end sources like The Huffington Post. As for being pro-Trump: ] applies and it should not be used for controversial statements. It's not feasible to deprecate all lower-end sources from the right-wing of the political spectrum. --] (]) 20:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *:Not me. ] (]) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::According to the ''Epoch Times'', they are unaware of why they were blocked from Facebook (). Whether that's true or not is unclear, as the source is itself not unreliable, but what ''is'' clear is that the ''Epoch Times'' is a propaganda outlet for ]—it's about reliable and journalistic as '']''. ] (]) 20:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *::Oh dear did I misread? OOPS should be per {{U|Selfstudier}} apologies. I will strike above. ] (]) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{tq|If the Q posts are real, they may indicate that the Trump administration has established an alternate channel to speak to supporters, bypassing news outlets and social media altogether for something more direct.}} They're clearly pushing this as a plausible idea. Also: they were banned by Facebook because they created sockpuppet domains so that they could continue to run conspiracy themed ads that failed to meet Facebook's absurdly lax standards. This isn't just a low quality source. ]<sup> ]</sup> 16:14, 8 October 2019 (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) | |||
| *'''Deprecate'''. "Context matters" is not an appropriate approach for a source that just makes stuff up while claiming not to - ] (]) 22:41, 7 October 2019 (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) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. I'd say close to RT or Global Times for Chinese politics and controversial statements, close to CS Monitor or Deseret News for general topics. Epoch Times is a publication associated with a new religious movement suppressed by China. It's obviously biased against China and its ruling party (thus WP:PARTISAN applies), but it runs both ways: Global Times is unlikely to be much better of a source for Epoch Times than vice versa. ] (]) 02:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah by that criteria this is a SPS, one guys blog is still one guys blog even if they let their friends post. ] (]) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate'''. ''The Epoch Times'' peddles unconfirmed rumours, conspiracy theories such as QAnon, and antivax propaganda, causing itself to be banned by Facebook. See , , and . According to , its European sites are even worse, and have become the mouthpiece of the far right fringe. -] (]) 05:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate''' As per sources on the Epoch Times page they "peddle conspiracy theories about the 'Deep State,' and criticize 'fake news' media" and "its network of news sites and YouTube channels has made it a powerful conduit for the internet’s fringier conspiracy theories, including anti-vaccination propaganda and QAnon, to reach the mainstream." ] (]) 05:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''2''' As I said bias is not a criteria for exclusion. We can use it if we attribute it.] (]) 08:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate''' - per Zanhe above and MarioGom below. ''']] (])''' 08:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''4 (Deprecate) or 3''' Some news pieces are just fine, but usually a more realiable source exists for the same events. On the other hand, they insist on pushing for ] theories, they use news pieces as a hook for conspiracies (see my comment in the discussion) and you cannot just single them out by excluding opinion pieces. This undermines the reliability of ''The Epoch Times'' as a whole. Their magazines include a lot of ] commentary of notable wingnuts and charlatans, which may be useful for attributed quotes of these subjects' views when they are ]. --] (]) 08:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate''' - per Zanhe--] (]) 10:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Generally unreliable''', would need a very strong reason to include this as a source for anything. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate''' - The Epoch Times was founded as a propaganda outlet for a new religious movement and has, over time, gotten less reliable rather than more. While it was previously a relatively trashy outlet that was generally untrustworthy for anything controversial but might serve for routine, non-controversial information, it has transformed into a platform for pseudoscience, conspiracism and misinformation. The veneer of respectability and the ubiquity of Epoch Times newspapers in major urban centers makes it a substantial risk as a source of RS-looking misinformation on Misplaced Pages. We need to eliminate this source once and for all. ] (]) 13:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate''' both versions. A source that merely has a perspective (even a strong perspective) is usable, but a biased source that ''also'' spreads conspiracy theories or fringe theories in the service of their bias is not; it's clear that this source lacks the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that ] requires. Since both versions are under the same management and seem intended to serve the same purpose, neither seems like a usable source. --] (]) 15:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate''' This does not seem reliable, especially given its history of consipracy theories and support of what elsewhere could be considered Fake news. --- ] (]) 02:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate''' seems appropriate here because they publish conspiracy theories and hoaxes, and . From what I can tell, the overwhelming majority of the content is unattributed aggregations of other news stories. The writers for the site are doing dozens of stories per day. , none of those stories appear to involve any original reporting, and there are plenty of other sources for all of them. The content that is "original" to the site is garbage. They've repeatedly , , and their is rife with quackery. Stories like appear to be unmarked advertising, and they've given coverage of the ]. None of that coverage discloses that the performing group is a project of the Falun Gong. Obviously there are worse sources out there, but this one seems to pose a high risk of causing a problem here because they have the look of a credible website ]<sup> ]</sup> 16:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Deprecate'''. No reason for an encyclopedia to use such a low-quality publication. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''- per feminist and Slatersteven. --] (]) 19:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' (first choice) or "2" (second choice). Looks similar to Fox news or RT (Russia). ] (]) 20:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate/Option 4''' Too unreliable. If they have reliable articles, it will be covered by other news outlets too. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 21:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' I dislike the trend towards deprecating sources willy-nilly. I think it should be reserved for extreme cases. I looked at some of the examples of allegedly "fake" reporting listed here, and my impression was that the Epoch Times was writing a story about something that didn't need a story written about it, but I didn't see anything that was obviously false. That said, I couldn't find a corrections page on their site, so I'd go with option 3. ] (]) 00:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * 1, 2, or 3 - depends on the context I think, and not a broad category. Cheers ] (]) 03:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' or possibly 3, per Nblund. If a person with a Misplaced Pages article wrote an opinion piece that appeared on Epoch Times, I'd first ask myself why they couldn't get it published elsewhere, and potentially use it with direct attribution, but never for regular news reporting. I don't think they'd tamper with other people's opinion pieces but that's a low bar. Anything Epoch Times can provide reliable coverage for should have reliable coverage elsewhere.-<b style="background:#00ffff">'']''</b> <span style="font-size: 87%">(])</span> 21:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' per Zanhe and others above. ] (]) 06:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' - Epoch Times is an unreliable source, publishing alarmist "news" stories that are often fringe theories or conspiracy theories. Definitely not up to the standards of Misplaced Pages for a reliable source. ] (]) 12:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate''' - Epoch Times has always been unreliable for Chinese political news, but it seems to have been moving toward fringe conspiracy theories on a host of other issues, as others have highlighted. I don't think it meets our standards for general usage.--] (]) 00:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4 / Deprecate:''' There's been weak to no support in this discussion for ET's journalistic integrity. Per :bloodofox: and Nblund: while the patently partisan bias alone isn't enough to justify its deprecation, there's been much ado about how far their writers will alter their stories to sway readers towards their own views. → <b>]</b> → ] → 10:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2 or 3''': They cover conspiracy theories ''as conspiracy theories''. They're not trying to say any of that nonsense is true, just that it's a notable part of the discourse. And the "mouthpiece" argument makes no sense given that 99% of their article are not about that. Are newspapers started by Christians automatically mouthpieces for Christianity? ] (]) 17:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' - Generally unreliable but not completely useless as a source in all contexts. ] (]) 22:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| === Usage in ] === | |||
| ==== Discussion (''The Epoch Times'') ==== | |||
| 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) | |||
| **{{re|Newslinger}} please clarify whether this would deprecate the Chinese edition () in addition to the English version ()? --] (]) 20:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ***{{bcc|Pudeo}}That's a good question. The options are just suggestions and it's up to individual editors to specify which editions of ''The Epoch Times'' their classifications apply to. If there are two separate consensuses for the English edition and the Chinese edition, we would create a split entry on the ], e.g. ] and ], and the editions would be treated differently. An opinion without a qualifier would apply to all aspects of ''The Epoch Times'' (including edition, topic, and time period) as a whole. I'll clarify this below the RfC statement. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 20:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{block indent|em=1.6|<small>Notified: ], ], ], ], ], ], ] — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 04:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified --> | |||
| * ''The Epoch Times'' pushes for all kinds of ] theories, not just QAnon and antivax as others mentioned. They have a lot of articles promoting the ] (, ). Note that this is not confined to opinion sections, they also use news pieces as coatrack for it. Let's take . If we wanted to use that story, we could just use the original from ] (), since ''The Epoch Times'' just uses the Sky News report as a hook to promote theories about communists promoting homosexuality to undermine the family and so on. --] (]) 07:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * Note also the push for pseudoscientific theories on medicine such as ], promotion of bogus claims on cancer treatment by ], etc. It seems related items have been used as a source in Misplaced Pages: --] (]) 08:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{block indent|em=1.6|<small>Notified: ] ] (]) 08:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified --> | |||
| * Why are we even having this discussion? Did someone blank ] without telling me? Does the FAQ at WT:V which has said {{xt|"The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support"}} for years, suddenly disappear? This source, like every other source, can only be judged to be reliable in context. It's not "reliable" or "not reliable". As a general rule, this source is going to be "reliable for certain narrowly written and carefully contextualized statements". It may be best to use it with ] attribution. It may not be the best possible source for general information. But reliability is not a yes-or-no situation. The whole concept behind this RFC (also: an RFC on a high-traffic noticeboard? What's going on with that?) is flawed. ] (]) 15:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ** We're having this conversation because the argument has been made that this outlet has equivalent reliability to sources like ] and ] while still being used as a source in multiple articles. As it is actively anti-reliable as a source, site-wide action is necessary. ] (]) 15:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *** Was there a series of real dispute that editors had difficulty resolving? I'm not seeing evidence of that. ] (]) 20:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| **{{u|WhatamIdoing}}: Sources can be used in certain contexts even if they are ]. You may have to argue with someone who thinks that deprecated means completely blacklisted, but it should be ok otherwise if it is justified. Do you see any problem with this specific RfC? Or you are against the source deprecation process itself, or maybe the perennial sources list? --] (]) 19:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *** I'm against anything that indicates to other editors that the rest of us think don't think they can figure out how to write a decent article without the rest of us telling them to follow some more rules first. People with a classical education might be thinking about the ] here, and I admit that it's not far from my mind. {{pb}}], I see your account is just two and a half years old, so you probably don't remember when ] was taken seriously as a policy, when ], and when "You may have to argue with someone" to be permitted to do what was right by an article meant that a policy or process was fundamentally broken. If RS/P results in editors having to argue with mindless rule-followers about whether it's okay to improve an article, and if it's putting the emphasis on what's "allowed" instead of what's best for the article, then I'll be against it. If it provides practical help to editors writing articles, then I'll be all for it. Perhaps you can tell me which category you think it's most likely to fall into. So far, all I see is that the list grows endlessly, and it is largely populated by people who aren't creating much content, and largely used by people who aren't genuinely trying to figure out whether a source is desirable in a particular article. ] (]) 20:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| **** The way I look at it (certainly others may feel differently) is that, given the (absolutely appropriate) emphasis on Reliable Sourcing, the RS/P is an incredibly useful tool, especially for new editors who may not have a firm grasp on what constitutes a reliable source or know how to dig through the RSN archives. I know it certainly was for me. I also believe that its usefulness is directly connected to its accuracy, and these discussions help to improve that accuracy by giving an accurate measure of a source's basic credibility. Even RSCONTEXT says "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Discussions like this help us assign a rough reliability, according to this exact metric, to sources. Yes, context is still important, but that doesn't mean that the New York Times and the National Enquirer should be treated the same, as if they each require the same amount of scrutiny to determine whether a given article in either is acceptable to cite for an article here. ] (]) 21:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *****], could you explain that bit about RSCONTEXT better? I'm not sure how it relates. That sentence, in plain English, means "''The New York Times'', which has more than four thousand employees, is usually more reliable than little tiny newspapers like '']'', whose sole employee has to do everything from selling subscriptions to writing articles to sweeping the floor". I don't see how any discussion on Misplaced Pages could realistically "help to improve that accuracy", because "according to this exact metric", the only way for a source to become more reliable is to hire more journalists. The number of Wikipedians involved in these RFCs is irrelevant "according to this exact metric". "This exact metric" is about what they do, not about what we do. ] (]) 22:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ******] Certainly. My reading on that sentence is slightly different than yours. I don't see it as being the same as "More employees = more reliable" because not all publications utilize their employees the same way. It is about how many people are actually engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing. More employees does not necessarily mean that they have more people doing those things. A large paper could employ thousands of people and still not commit any sizable number of them to fact checking, and a small paper could have relatively few employees but still conduct robust and thorough fact checking on what material they publish. It is what they do with their employees, and how well they do it, that matters. Yes, this metric is about what they do, but our part in it is elucidating what it is that they are doing. Our part is figuring out how robust their reputation for fact checking is, how strong their editorial oversight is, how readily they retract and correct errors. Publications that knowingly publish false claims, or unknowingly publish easily disprovable ones, clearly show a lack of such robustness. We can improve the RS/P by accurately assessing how well a given publication commonly meets these criteria. There is value in having a list that accurately represents the general quality of various sources according to the established criteria of what constitutes reliability, but to do that we must determine how well a given source meets those criteria. I believe that is something we can do, and I believe that discussions like this aid in achieving that goal. Treating every source as though they are all equally likely to produce reliable reporting seems shortsighted to me. Yes, reliability is about what they do. Our discussions do not make a publication reliable or unreliable. But our discussions do help accurately assess whether they are doing the things that are considered indicative of general reliability (Robust fact checking, editorial oversight, etc.), or whether they are engaged in behavior that is indicative of pervasive unreliability (Intentionally publishing false or misleading claims, pushing fringe conspiracy theories, etc.) ] (]) 07:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| **** {{u|WhatamIdoing}}: So if I understand correctly, you are against the deprecation of sources itself or this kind of RfC, but you have no particular concern about this specific RfC. I can understand that. It has certainly been problematic for me in the past. For example, when spotting an inaccurate story published at a sourced marked as generally reliable on perennial sources. But that's beyond the scope here, I guess. --] (]) 21:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *****That's the issue as I see it, and not beyond consideration here, that commentary must be distinguished from credible news, even in articles that are reporting some news. A neutral point of view doesn't sell many books or newspapers. ] (]) 07:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ******Frankly I think the use of newsmedia is generally inappropriate for an encyclopedia and leads to many of our woes surrounding ], ] and ] across the site. When a newsmedia source compounds this problematic character by straight-up fabricating news to push a POV, well, if I think we shouldn't be leaning so hard on the NYT you can imagine what I think about such tabloids. And the Epoch Times, which was founded with the intent of being used as a propaganda outlet is one of the worst of a bad bunch. I'm sure an ] case might exist where deprecation might prove a challenge, but honestly I don't see it. And avoiding a 99% improvement to avoid a 1% chance of future impediments seems like weak cost-benefit analysis. ] (]) 12:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ******^agreed. The consensus on deprecation can always change, but I have spent some time browsing the site, and I really haven't found a single story that appears reliable and not covered by a more reputable source. that the majority of the staffers are mostly part-time/volunteers rather than journalists, so it seems pretty unlikely that you're going to see any real reporting coming from them. ]<sup> ]</sup> 17:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *******I agree with ]'s point. That's why we avoid {{tl|one source}} articles. Librarians make a distinction between having "a balanced book" and "a balanced library": while there's a place in the world for a balanced book (history textbooks for schoolchildren spring to mind as an example), it's usually better to have multiple books (e.g., a book about a war that argues persuasively that it was all economics, a book that promotes the diplomatic aspects, a book that that focuses on the ], etc., so that you end up with a balanced view). But you have to read multiple sources to figure out where the sources differ from each other. {{pb}}], it's always good to find an idealist on the English Misplaced Pages. <code>;-)</code> {{pb}}], I believe that's true. However, the definition of "reliable" isn't "the most reputable source we could use for this statement". "Barely reliable" is still reliable. (IMO this source is probably "reliable enough" for some claims. You won't see me seeking it out, however.) ] (]) 17:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ******Just a warning even about high school history books. It's reliably reported that conservative groups attend trustees meetings as in Texas and New York, and any '''trustee''' who approves of a book that criticizes capitalism or American democracy is '''"history"'''. The few publishers don't take a chance with such books. To get a more objective course in American history one needs to use a college textbook. ] (]) 17:46, 9 October 2019 (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) | |||
| == ]: ] == | |||
| ::I don't even think its usable for that... Can't find anything that suggests that Rindsberg is a subject matter expert. ] (]) 18:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- ] 03:38, 4 October 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1885779534}}<!-- END PIN --> | |||
| :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) | |||
| {{rfc|media|soc|rfcid=3D2100E}} | |||
| :It is more or less a group | |||
| Other than sales data, what would best describe the reliability of VGChartz '''as a whole'''? (More detailed query below.) ] (]) 03:20, 7 October 2019 (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) | |||
| :Outright rejecting ] because it's "right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages" and has "a very marginal POV" is the issue with ] that the piece is trying to critique. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 13:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::But it does affect ] weight (which requires balance between sources, and which is the real concern for something that, as a ] or a website with no reputation, would obviously be opinion at best.) The article already contains a large number of right-wing sources with a similar perspective; does this piece add anything to them? My feeling is that articles like this are subject to problems where editors try to do this nose-counting thing where they add dozens of opinionated or biased sources saying the same thing because they feel it's a ''really important'' perspective - but that's not how opinion is really meant to be used. If we have twelve sources that are fundimentially similar saying the same thing, they ought to be condensed down to a single sentence or so saying "a bunch of sources said X" (unless some of them are individually noteworthy on their own merits somehow, eg. if they're an opinion from a significant expert, but that obviously isn't the case here.) --] (]) 14:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] makes a perfectly valid point. ] (]) 14:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's being rejected because it's a random tech guy's blog - not because it's right wing. ] (]) 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::One thing @] said I half-agree with. The question of Misplaced Pages bias is one best answered by academics - which we should document appropriately and neutrally - the opinion of Ashley Rindberg on a blog with no editorial board is not a notable opinion, again, not because of its left-right bent but because <s>s</s>he's just some person with a megaphone. ] (]) 14:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It is your opinion that it is a blog. That itself would need evidence and probably an RfC. ] (]) 14:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Also, ] is a man. ] (]) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Evidence has already been provided. In this thread. The founder brags about having no editorial board on twitter dot com. ] (]) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Getting neither the gender {{tq|"she's"}} nor the spelling {{tq|"Ashley Rindberg"}} correct shows me you may not have looked into this very much. ] (]) 14:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Oh do stop. That's an awful lot to take from a bloody typo. ] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Here's a freebee for all the people looking to say Misplaced Pages has a left-wing bias. This is what a reliable source accusing Misplaced Pages of a left-wing bias looks like: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.2020.1793846 ] (]) 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Two can play that game. https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased ] (]) 14:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The Manhattan Institute is a think-tank with no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it is obviously not a ]. --] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::This too, in addition to my comment below. Frankly I'm finding this interaction very strange. ] (]) 14:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I should add that the Manhattan Institute was discussed previously ]; the discussion was never closed or added to ] but by a quick nose-count the total unreliable + deprecate opinions outnumbered the "unclear" opinions almost two-to-one (and there were almost no people saying it was GREL.) --] (]) 14:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::What game? I literally provided a source accusing Misplaced Pages both of left-wing bias and of bias against women at the same time. ] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*We don't actually require an RFC for every individual dispute; and sources certainly do not ''automatically default'' to reliable. Just doing a quick nose-count in this discussion suggests that it's extremely unlikely that an RFC on Pirate Wires' reliability would support your contention that it is reliable - numerous issues have been raised, especially regarding its lack of editorial controls and its lack of the {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}} that RS requires. We can pull it through an entire RFC if you really think it's necessary but I think your time would be better-spent looking for more clearly reliable secondary sources covering this, if you want it in the article. This would also turn things back to the more fundamental ] problem I mentioned above - this looks identical to dozens of similar pieces posted by people with similar opinions; given that it's published in what's ''at least'' a low-quality source compared to the ones already in the article, what makes this one significant enough to highlight? --] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :For disclosure, I originally wrote the ] article. I think the answer is ''no'' to this question specifically, and similar questions generally.<Br/>Pirate Wires is an advocacy media outlet. Its writing is in a punchy tone -- a tech-ish form of ] -- that blends opinion with explanatory reporting. They don't do spot news. So there's just no utility in using it for encyclopedia-writing.<br/>That's not to say it's either good or bad, merely that it doesn't serve the limited purposes for which we use sources here. (It ran a widely cited interview with ] and I don't think anyone believes they made-up the interview. But if we need to cite that interview in an article it can be referenced to any of the numerous RS that, themselves, cited it through précis', versus Pirate Wires directly.) In any case, anything it publishes that ''is'' encyclopedic will be covered in a second, more conventional RS and we should reference the second source. Anything not referenced in a pass-through outlet is probably undue. ] (]) 18:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == CEIC data == | |||
| It's already been informally established that ] is unreliable for everything pertaining to sales data. One excerpt from a ] of a ] even summed up the following ]: | |||
| :{{tq|Due to its popularity and being the most immediately visible source when researching sales data, it's hard not to address VGChartz.}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| :{{tq|Much<ref>Carless, Simon. (June 23, 2009). . ''Gamasutra''. Retrieved November 7, 2013.</ref><ref>Kohler, Chris. (June 23, 2008). . ''Wired''. Retrieved November 7, 2013.</ref> has been written about the reliability of VGChartz. As explained , it has access to data from an undefined sampling of "retail partners", filling in the rest by guessing based on various trends (while the aforementioned trackers do not have access to every retail chain and do some number of "filling in the blanks", they are proven to track a substantial amount of retailers, unlike VGChartz). The fact that VGChartz numbers have frequently been contradicted by more official channels and other anomalies (In one instance, the site reported the game '']'' as a best-seller for June 2010 despite the game not being released until the end of July<ref>zeldofreako. (July 4, 2010). . ''GameFAQs''. Retrieved November 7, 2013.</ref>) have led to several sites banning it as a source. As far as the wiki is concerned, '''VGChartz is not reliable and should not be used as a reference for sales data'''.}} | |||
| {{reftalk}} | |||
| However, I have repeatedly seen VGChartz ; most of it is to cite release dates and companies behind certain games, with some relevant news articles as well. Moreover, most of the criticism towards the site is usually limited to just the site's methodology in obtaining sales data. And so as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, what options would best describe VGChartz's reliability? | |||
| #Generally reliable | |||
| #Generally reliable, with the exception of sales data (recommend better source) | |||
| #Generally reliable, with the exception of sales data (require better source) | |||
| #Generally unreliable | |||
| :It looks like just a big database. I would trust the first party sources for raw data more. ] (]) 10:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::If in question use secondary sources.] (]) 02:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Fantasy Literature == | |||
| *'''Option 4''' per above. I also '''strongly oppose option 1'''. After some digging around, I learned that most of the articles on the site are ], while the news coverage could use better sources. ] (]) 02:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' - there’s already a pretty solid consensus on this amongst anyone who understands how Misplaced Pages defines an RS, and nothing has changed. ] ] 03:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * It has been listed at ] for who knows how long. Why are we having an RFC about it? --] (]) 03:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{ping|Izno}} This is about addressing the reliability of other parts of the site (articles, news, previews, etc), not necessarily their sales data. ] (]) 03:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' - there have been multiple discussions on VGChartz that show it is unreliable. What makes this discussion any different? ]] <sup>]</span></sup> 03:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' Ive yet to see data sourced to VGChartz that cannot be sourced to better quality sources. --] (]) 03:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' Seems it has a reputation for non accuracy.] (]) 08:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' It's pretty clear that it can't be trusted. I've never seen it be viewed as reliable before, and we shouldn't start now. ] (]) 21:38, 8 October 2019 (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) | |||
| === Discussion (VGChartz) === | |||
| {{block indent|em=1.6|<small>Notified: ], ], ] — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified --> | |||
| {{ping|Sergecross73|Namcokid47}} In case this wasn't already clear to either of you, I'm addressing the entire VGChartz website, not necessarily their sales data (which has already been proven unreliable). ] (]) 03:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :I am fully aware of that, and I am still opposing it. Nearly all of the content on there is user-generated, and lots of the articles are not in the best of quality. I still consider them unreliable. ]] <sup>]</span></sup> 03:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay, thanks for the clarification. ] (]) 03:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :It has the appearance of a blog. It has a sort-of staff:. I'd be hesitant to use it for ] purposes. ] (]) 09:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: ''"]"'' (October) == | |||
| ::This is the terms its staff work under: | |||
| <!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- ] 08:50, 18 October 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1887007837}}<!-- END PIN --> | |||
| ::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) | |||
| {{rfc|media|pol|prop|rfcid=C5A925C}} | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| Should '']'' be deprecated? ] Or listed as ]? ] Or something else? | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| See {{duses|thegatewaypundit.com}}; and for earlier {{URL|https://www.thegatewaypundit.com|thegatewaypundit.com}} discussion see earlier ]; along with other previous mentions at: ], ], ], and ]. ] (]) 00:13, 15 October 2019 (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. | |||
| ===Survey (''The Gateway Pundit'')=== | |||
| * '''Unacceptable as a source'''. It's a batshit insane far-right conspiracy blog. I don't know the difference between "depreciation" and "generally unreliable", but I support whatever ensures that this rubbish doesn't get cited here. ] (]) 00:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not reliable''' for just about anything outside of their opinion, with in-line citations, in rare situations where their opinion is directly relevant; they're a blog with no particular reputation for fact-checking or accuracy (obviously.) That said, see my comment below - they're only that I can see. As far as I can tell nobody is arguing that they ''are'' reliable anywhere for stuff outside that. We don't need to hold RFCs for things that are already universally-accepted; there are far too many unreliable sources in existence to enumerate them all. --] (]) 01:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unreliable''' for statements of fact, and opinion wouldn't/shouldn't carry much weight in most cases, but as Aquillion says, it's not exactly a frequent problem. Certainly '''not opposed to deprecating''' if there's evidence it would save a nontrivial amount of effort. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 16:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *In the very least '''unreliable'''. ] (]) 17:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unreliable''' for anything beyond their own opinion. ] (]) 17:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not reliable''' for ... anything. Given that it's a hoax/fake news site I wouldn't even use them for their own "opinion" since those could just as well be trolling.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate''' this fake news website known for partisan hackery and hoax articles. This is never an acceptable source. '''] ]''' 17:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not reliable, do not deprecate''' Clearly not a reliable site. No reason to deprecate as it clearly isn't being treated as reliable. We need to stop the deprecation game even with sites like this. ] (]) 18:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not reliable''' in the slightest. '''Depreciate''' – ] (]) 18:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Deprecate'''. ] (]) 19:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Deprecate''' I'm not sure this is necessary, because it seems like they are essentially already ] since they're a of fake news. I don't see any problem with formalizing that classification, though. ]<sup> ]</sup> 21:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unreliable''' and '''OK with deprecating''' - ] (]) 13:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate''' The fewer of these blatant misinformation sites we entertain, the better the whole project will be. They have a tendency toward supporting conspiracy theories, don't fact check much at all and exist as a propaganda tool. An encyclopedia should not be depending on such outlets. ] (]) 13:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''In the very least unreliable'''. I agree with {{u|Simonm223}} and most others, '''deprecate''' is appropriate. This ] as noted by various contributors, particularly highlighted by {{u|Aquillion}}'s . It will be useful to point novices, contrarians, etc to the ] citation of discussion if it gets a place on the table (hopefully). I don't understand {{u|Springee}}'s "deprecation game" comment. How is it a "game"? ] (]) 00:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate''' {{u|X1\}} and {{u|Simonm223}} make excellent points. The source regularly reports on conspiracy theories under the guise of news, which immediately calls into question whether any of their genuine news coverage is tainted with the desire to drive readers towards their own partisan views. Their SEO is structured so anyone looking to affirm a personal bias could easily search for say, "Badger Party planning frisbee ban", and get something resembling a WP:RS that could be injected into an article and left standing as authoritative information until another editor eventually susses it out. → <b>]</b> → ] → 05:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unreliable''' not "Deprecate" Deprecation is an extreme option over-used but not consistently used (leftist sources are usually spared the measure of deprecation). We have good, workable guidelines in ] which allow editors to use their judgment with sources like the one we're talking about. Deprecation when there's no signifcant pattern of a given source being used to prop POV up in our articles is itself deprecated in ]. --] (]) 06:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :*Leftist sources rarely engage in conspiracy theories treated as reportage. Those that do should be deprecated too. ] (]) 16:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :*I agree with {{u|Simonm223}}'s {{tq|Those that do should be deprecated too.}} For useful list of ] (collected by {{u|BullRangifer}}). ] (]) 19:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I don't see any appropriate sources on that list. Though I wouldn't call any of them extreme left so much as extreme anti-Republican with poor or non-existent standards for fact checking. Thx X1.] (]) 11:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate''' I'm a latecomer to this but can't see a good rationale not to. Given the 3 posts above I'll add that this treatment should be even, any source that reports conspiracy theories as fact should be deprecated whatever their politics. ] ] 16:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :* Bingo! ] there is another thread here about Fox News talk show hosts (not the News division). "Any source that reports conspiracy theories as fact should be deprecated whatever their politics." The same applies to them, and they should be deprecated. -- ] (]) 20:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :* ] I support the sentiment, but the application is lacking. This is particularly noticeable in the area of criminal justice. Freddie Gray was hurt before he was put in the van, not while he was in it. Daniel Holtzclaw's conviction is laden with red flags strongly suggesting that he didn't do any of it. And the Duke Lacrosse case was proven BS long before the NYT, WaPo, etc. said so. Each of the above has been documented in voluminous detail on sites that often remain relatively obscure and/or are treated as "unreliable" by WikiConsensus, while media that push "mainstream" narratives that fly in the face of demonstrable facts escape WikiPunishment. ] (]) 02:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::*{{re|Adoring nanny}} provide RSs for your claims. ] (]) 22:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I can do that in the Duke case. In the Freddy Gray case, I have a source that is likely ] via ], namely , but even there, there are ] issues, as the conclusion is obvious from listening to the whole thing, but I'm not sure if it's stated explicitly. In the Holtzclaw case, there appears to be consensus that the sources are not ], and that's the problem. When it is determinable that the non-RS have the story right and the RS have it wrong, yet we continue to keep our definitions of what is and is not reliable, then exactly what kind of world are we living in. ] (]) 02:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::A YouTube video by Michelle Malkin is your purported source? The same ] who , , and ? Alrighty then. (And your first link is to a website self-published by a member of Holtzclaw's legal defense team.) | |||
| ::::Your apparent personal belief {{tq|that the non-RS have the story right and the RS have it wrong}} about Holtzclaw is ] and can have nothing whatsoever to do with article content. ] (]) 02:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not reliable''' ] (]) 17:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Deprecate'''. It's far too '''unreliable'''. They regularly push conspiracy theories and lies, often from the Trump administration, passing them off as truth. "Any source that reports conspiracy theories as fact should be deprecated whatever their politics." (Doug Weller). -- ] (]) 20:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate''' - I see it as misleading, sensationalist clickbait. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 01:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unreliable'''. No corrections page for example, and definitely no reputation for accuracy. ] (]) 01:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate'''. Unreliable source that peddles conspiracy theories. ] (]) 01:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ] mentions the site as a reliable source but the only criteria they give for its inclusion are that the source <br> | |||
| ===Discussion (''The Gateway Pundit'')=== | |||
| {{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) | |||
| * Is it actually being cited anywhere? A finds only five uses in article space. Most of those should be replaced, but it's not exactly something pressing enough to require an RFC (with such a small number of cites, all of which look easy-to-replace, you can just replace them and open a discussion leading to an RFC if someone objects and you can't hash it out.) I'm not sure we need to bother with RFCs when it seems like virtually everyone agrees the source is unusable already (and are not using it.) --] (]) 01:21, 15 October 2019 (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) | |||
| :*I'd say the important question is not how often is it used at this very moment, but the more difficult to answer, "How often do people try to use it inappropriately and how much time is wasted discussing it?" Deprecating a source can be a huge time saver, assuming there is consensus that the source is bad enough to be worth deprecating, ''and'' there is actually time to be saved. ] (]) 01:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|1=Is there any specific instances that are of concern? After all generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable.}} Nothing in particular, mostly just looking to see if coverage of events from this source would constitute sigcov in reliable sources for the purposes of ]. ] (]) 15:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Hrm. A search for rather than just article content does turn up 86 uses (mostly talk.) Even then, though, it seems to be mostly new / inexperienced users bringing it up, and it's pretty clear that every time it comes up people are just like "no, you can't use that as a source." Most of the time they didn't seem to know ] is a thing, so that conversation would still have to happen. --] (]) 15:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is probably a reliable source, but ] isn't just matter of reliability. Notability is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*There were some attempts to use it in 2016/17 before and after the election. Not so much now. It's possible these attempts could renew as we get closer to 2020.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:53, 15 October 2019 (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) | |||
| ::::*Deprecating a source because it might be abused in the future is political censorship. It seeks to usurp editors' judgment generally to apply the ] guidelines because a given source might be abused - but no significant amount of such abuse is evident. Using the RFC process to censor future edits to the encyclopedia by ] needs to be examined in the light of ]. --] (]) 06:38, 24 October 2019 (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) | |||
| :::::*{{re|Vfrickey}} the only prediction we have is by using past evidence, so we go by a sources' "track record", and for this one it is not good. ] (]) 19:45, 24 October 2019 (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? == | |||
| == RfC: ''"]"'' (October) == | |||
| <!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- ] 08:50, 18 October 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1887007837}}<!-- END PIN --> | |||
| {{rfc|media|pol|rfcid=6A3A2C5}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| <s>Should '']'' be listed as a generally reliable for news coverage? ] Or something else?</s> | |||
| :I see the issue; Should '']'' be listed as a generally reliable in its areas of expertise? ] Or something else? ] (]) 19:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| See {{duses|propublica.org}} and ; and for earlier {{URL|https://www.propublica.org|ProPublica.org}} discussion mentions see wp:RSN Archives: ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. ] (]) 19:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :I would have thought it applies very strongly for Kurdistan and Syria, as Turkey is in open conflict in those areas. Israel might depend on the context, Turkey obviously isn't a uninterested party but it's not Iran. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Updated lede sentence per feedback. ] (]) 19:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::To be clear it would be reliable for statements of the Turkish governments official views in all cases. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::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 ] == | |||
| ===Survey (''ProPublica'')=== | |||
| * '''Generally reliable in its areas of expertise''' <s>'''Generally reliable for news coverage'''</s>. ] (]) 22:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :*Updated my "vote" due to a couple of comments. ] (]) 00:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Not news coverage''' - umm, they can't be a RS for news because they don't DO news of the day. They don't cover what is happening with Kurds or Brexit this week, Canadian election results, the woes of Man Utd, or natural disasters and such. They do investigative pieces from a progressive POV, with a data analysis approach. ProPublica is respectably known and usually has a factual data-driven content, but they do have a bias that they're open about, and do not present a balanced picture which they also are open about. It's going to be about telling you a way to see something Wrong from a progressive view point and nothing much else. Very well done, but limited in scope and POV. Cheers ] (]) 23:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :* umm, {{u|Markbassett}}, are you attempting a joke? If so, this is not the time or place. ] (]) 19:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::* ] ??? No, it's no joke, don't see why you would think it was -- they really are not news coverage. Which I thought your later !vote-change edit indicated accepting. The being limited in scope and POV - well, again don't see how you could read that as a joke, it's basically said on their website and mission declarations. Cheers ] (]) 04:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::*{{re|Markbassett}} so you believe ProPublica {{tq|can't be a RS}} for anything? ] (]) 19:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* ] the question asked was if “generally reliable for news coverage”, and my answer was no, because they don’t do that. Still don’t see how you felt that was a joke. I see there’s now a revised question “generally reliable in its areas of expertise”, which I haven’t responded to. As to whether they’re a RS for anything, that isn’t the topic and I’d prefer to just deal with the revised topic if anything. Cheers ] (]) 20:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* {{u|Markbassett}}, Cheers ] (]) 20:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Generally reliable in its areas of expertise''' When ProPublica does analysis, their number-crunching is reliable. But before they get to crunching numbers, ProPublica designs their studies to test what is generally a partisan hypothesis. They've done good work with the ''New Yorker'' in exposing ethical abuses surrounding commercial "storefront" stem cell therapy and their work's been deemed reliable by third party commenters such as medicinal chemist Derek Lowe in his "In The Pipeline" blog. They are useful and reliable on some stories, especially on the technical arguments surrounding contentious issues such as net neutrality (where they would be a good part of a balanced survey of informed opinion on such subjects). As with any openly partisan secondary source, editors ought to review the guidance in ] before and while citing ProPublica. --] (]) 22:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{re|Vfrickey}} could you provide RSs for the {{tq|openly partisan}} claim? ] (]) 19:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Generally reliable for all purposes''' - Five Pulitzer Prizes in 12 years of operation. Widespread recognition and republication in other sources. Zero evidence of any problems with their reporting. ] (]) 04:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Generally reliable for all purposes''' - The arguments presented by MarkBassett are mind-blowingly bad. Just one reason of many why editing in American politics is dysfunctional. ProPublica is top-tier journalism. ] (]) 13:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not reliable''' I took a glance at their site and saw this article about "the climate apocalypse to come", which gives me considerable pause. There is no concrete information about this "apocalypse" other than a statement that planned power blackouts are apparently a taste of it. I find the lack of a concrete definition concerning. They don't say what is going to happen or when. The fact that there are predictions of global warming and its consequences does not help them. If an "apocalypse" is coming, they should say what they mean by that. I am therefore going to have to say they are not reliable. Furthermore, their site is obviously ]. ] (]) 23:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{re|Adoring nanny}} please provide RSs for the claim of {{tq|obviously WP:PARTISAN}}. Your {{tq|glance}} appears rather unfounded, as I see nothing not RS in the ] article on ] you apparently gave as evidence. Using a hyperbolic term in a title has been all-too-common in recent years; not evidence of non-RS. Provide evidence of your {{tq|Not reliable}} claim. ] (]) 22:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{re|Adoring nanny}} see within the link you provided high quality RSs such as ], ]; the article was co-published with '']''. ] (]) 22:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{re|Adoring nanny}} presumably, you understand ] is not the same as {{tq|Not reliable}}. ] (]) 22:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Generally reliable for all purposes''' - In 2019 alone, so far, this decade-old organization of more than 75 journalists has won , including a . Anyone who calls an organization for investigative journalism, much honored for its factual accuracy, as "obviously partisan" is betraying their own political bias — like those who dismiss such factual science as evolution as somehow "liberal." I don't even know how this isn't a ] discussion.--] (]) 00:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: Please strike per ]. ] (]) 01:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's not a personal attack, it's ''ad hominem'', yes but still nothing that needs be struck out. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">] (] <span style="color:#fac">桜</span> ])</span> 13:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Direct quote from ] -- "'''Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream'''" | |||
| *'''Generally reliable''' per their Pulitzer Prize and otherwise incredible work. – ] (]) 00:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Generally reliable''' ProPublica is used extensively by news sources, it makes no sense to think PP itself to be ''just'' reliable in areas of expertise. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">] (] <span style="color:#fac">桜</span> ])</span> 13:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| I can’t find evidence it’s been published. ] ] 19:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (''ProPublica'')=== | |||
| *] is rather impressive. --] (]) 21:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *Context? Has this been challenged somewhere? What was it being used for? I've not seen treating PP as a source be controversial in the past. If it's been unclear, it would be helpful to link past discussions (plaintext mentions of archives doesn't do much more than a search bar would). If past threads have been clear, we can just add it to RSP. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 00:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :*Specifically, the RfC was spawned by , but I have seen other surprising comments during semi-random general browsing. I have generally thought of ProPublica as well-respected ] RS, and with impressive detail at that. But I don't generally follow them, and only recently for the first time looked at their homepage. Maybe I have only seen the best quality works, may be it is on an author by author basis? So I wanted other comments. If some consensus-ish discussion is reached here, then I can point other editors it for reference. ] (]) 19:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Yeah, that's ridiculous. The nature of ProPublica's work is the journalism itself, not the publishing. Its reporting is highly visible not because people visit its website but because publications like pick up the stories. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 22:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::*It looks like their concern is ], not ] (although they're somewhat related.) There are publications whose reputation is so weighty that when they give significant attention to a subject it is almost automatically ]; then there are ones that lack that automatic weight but which still clearly pass ]. Without regard to the question of which one ProPublica falls into (it's usually a much harder and more context-sensitive question to answer than whether a publication passes ]), I don't think they're suggesting it's ''unreliable'', so there's not much for ] to say. That sort of question usually goes to ] (and generally doesn't get an easy answer, because, again, it's tricky.) --] (]) 23:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::* Yes, the concern was DUE -- whether ProPublica alone was enough WEIGHT to get an article into ]. It was posted to the TALK within hours of going online. (I generally suggest NOT just doing a copy-paste of whatever was in your monings feed, and a 48 hour waiting period for WEIGHT and more information to show up.) Since then a couple major venues seconded it, but of circa 25 major venues that's all so far. It also has some issues of being an esoteric statistic and being phrased as a comparison to Obama rather than an absolute metric or across longer time period, but mostly it just hasn't hit DUE for consideration yet. Cheers ] (]) 23:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{re|Rhododendrites}} for the Archives; | |||
| :132 = {{tq|a ] investigation, coupled with ProPublica, a journal for journalists, published by people who came from the ] and the ].}} = i.e. among high-quality RSs. | |||
| :178 = ProPublica used as an RS. | |||
| :213 = {{tq|News organizations using a third-party fact checking service}} = ProPublica listed with other high-quality RSs. | |||
| :246 = {{tq|], which is a (high-quality) non-profit, investigative journalism outfit that prouces such investivative pieces but instead/in-addition to publishing on its own niche website, offers them to its affiliated partners that have a broader reach. See ProPublica, which follows the same model at a national scale.}} = ProPublica listed with other high-quality RSs. | |||
| :251 = {{tq|from other reliable sources such as Propublica or ]}} = ProPublica listed with other high-quality RSs. | |||
| :263 = {{tq|ProPublica has an expressed interest in fighting corruption "through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing."}} = strong journalism quality, strong RS. | |||
| :268 = ProPublica used as an RS. | |||
| :] (]) 19:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::* ] - again, nobody is saying they do not do some quality work, we're just saying by their own statements (such as this 'interest in fighting corruption "through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing."') they're whole goal and methods are crusading for Progressive topics by showing wrongdoing, so ... only going to show the numbers that advantage Progressive topics, and actually only show numbers in a way that makes things appear Wrong doing. They don't do balanced views or get responses or seek alternative explanations or show something going right even on the Progressive side, they just seek for the expose. For any external writer guest piece, I couldn't say it's the same quality of editorial control but would say it's still going to fit to the model of limited scope and POV. Cheers ] (]) 04:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Interesting criteria, but none of it is relevant to the source's reliability, while seeming POV-violating as well.--] (]) 16:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::*So, {{u|Markbassett}} you believe {{tq|spotlighting of wrongdoing}} is only ]? I strongly disagree. Can you provide RSs to back the claims you are making? ] (]) 19:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::* ], you beat me to it! {{;)}} It's a sad day when even defenders of the GOP and Trump recognize that an 'interest in fighting corruption "through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing"' is a "Progressive topic", rather than a conservative topic. It didn't used to be this way. It used to be (back in Eisenhower's day) that the GOP prided itself on exposing corruption, rather than covering it up. -- ] (]) 00:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Yes, exactly! I love how "fighting corruption" is somehow "Progressive." ''All'' investigative journalism fights corruption and criminality by shining a spotlight on it. Unless one is suggesting that allowing corruption is "Conservative," then one can't suggest that fighting corruption is "Progressive." --] (]) 00:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not up for reading it right now, but it's been published, and the correct citation is: Zannettou, S., Finkelstein, J., Bradlyn, B., & Blackburn, J. (2020, May). A quantitative approach to understanding online antisemitism. In ''Proceedings of the International AAAI conference on Web and Social Media'' (Vol. 14, pp. 786-797). Google Scholar shows where it can be accessed. If it's kept, the references to it in the Notes section should change "Savvas" to something like "Zannettou et al." ] (]) 21:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == International Journal of Applied Sciences (IJAS) == | |||
| ::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) | |||
| Does look reliable? ]] 10:38, 20 October 2019 (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) | |||
| :{{u|Winged Blades of Godric}}, it claims to be peer reviewed and I didn't find it on a couple lists of predatory journals. However, it's very new and I would exercise some caution until it builds up a reputation. <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 10:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not sure that I'm following. Both papers were published in conference proceedings. FWIW, even preprints are ] in WP's sense of this term, which is only "a source that is made available to the public in some form." Even if there are no conference proceedings, it's possible to use a conference paper that was presented, as long as the presenter has made it publicly available (e.g., via something like arxiv.org). But all of this only establishes that the paper is published and therefore verifiable, not that it's a RS for the content in question. ] (]) 14:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The publisher, CSC Journals (Computer Science Journals) ''is'' on Beall's list, though. ] (]) 18:57, 20 October 2019 (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) | |||
| :::Got a link for the version of Beall's list (which Beall is no longer updating according to some reports) you found CSC Journals on? I ask because only lists "Computer Science ''Journal''", probably a predatory journal based in Pakistan. Predatory scientific publishers frequently adopt names similar to reputable scientific publishers. "]", an infamously predatory publisher, is easily confusable with '']'', the journal of the ]. Are you sure you saw CSC Journals and not Computer Science Jouirnal on your version of Beall's list? Just curious. --] (]) 23:30, 24 October 2019 (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) | |||
| :::: is supposed to start with Beall's original list right before he took it down. It contains "Computer Science Journals" and lists their website as cscjournals.org, which is the one this new journal belongs to. Honestly as I look it it, it does seem to have certain red flags indicative of a predatory publisher, although admittedly I cannot find anyone to directly accuse them with an explanation. But anyway, it's weird to me that their journals mostly list American and European editors, but the corporate side and founder are located in Malaysia, with absolutely no information on their website that I can find even discussing the nature of the company behind the publications. And even their oldest journal, published for over 12 years, does not seem to be listed any high quality indexes that I recognize. As far as I can tell these journals are only indexed by services that are aiming for exhaustiveness, not quality. ] (]) 02:38, 25 October 2019 (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) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Litmus test for source reliability in the AmPol2 area == | |||
| <!-- ] 19:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1751745462}} | |||
| Should we be using articles from the Hawar News Agency, especially in relation to the (geo)political side of Rojava? This also includes articles in the scope of the Syrian civil war. It has ties to the SDF, which means there is a significant conflict of interest here; <s>I should also add that the YPG/YPD/SDF , which raises concern over its reliability.</s> I want to get community consensus before I do anything, especially because the article in question (]) is related to a CTOP. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 19:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :(Copying this response from the talk page of the ]:) Of course we have to use Hawar, simply because it is one the most prominent news sites from Syria. It ''shouldn't'' be used as the sole source for contentious issues (unless it cites claims), but for basic facts such as local election results, regional policy decisions, etc. it is one of the only sources available. It is also used as a source by academic researchers such as in ''The Kurds in the Middle East: Enduring Problems and New Dynamics'', ''The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts'', ''Soldiers of End-Times. Assessing the Military Effectiveness of the Islamic State'', and ''Statelet of Survivors. The Making of a Semi-Autonomous Region in Northeast Syria''.<br>(The following part is new, written for RSN:) These are books written by experts on Syria, released by reputable publishers such as Oxford University Press, and they have seemingly deemed Hawar to be a partisan, but useable source. Speaking from experience as an editor who has been active in editing articles on the Syrian civil war for ten years, I would also note that Hawar was previously discussed by editors and similarily assessed, as it is fairly reliable though should be used with caution in especially problematic fields such as casualty numbers (where partisanship becomes a major problem). ] (]) 20:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Having read through the article you linked it doesn't show that media is heavily censored. A relevant sentence would appear to be: <br>{{tq|"In the current situation, the journalists we interviewed usually stress that, on the one hand, they enjoy relative freedom of expression. The PYD did not forcefully close those it considers as antagonistic media. Reporters can move freely in the region and cover a wide array of issues. Additionally, journalists from international or regional media are also generally allowed to operate freely. However, they also say that there is always a tension with the authorities in power and there are red lines that cannot be crossed."}}<br>As well as:<br>{{tq|"Gradually, they seem to have adopted an editorial line that is less critical, if not supportive, of the political system in Rojava. This support, according to some local journalists, is not due so much to direct imposition from the authorities, but rather to their own convictions and, even more important, to the feeling that doing otherwise would be very unpopular in a conflict-ridden context."}}<br>So it doesn't sound like they have the most freedom of media, but it appears a long way from heavily censored. Restrictions on reporting matters that could effect security are common in areas of conflict (and even outside of them).<br>Hawar News Agency has some ] and would probably be covered by ]. Issues of bias (]) and opinion (]) don't immediately make a source unreliable. In general I would agree with Applodion, reliable but caution should be taken for issue where it's bias or censorship of security matters may effect it's reporting. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Agree with above, helpful to understand its bias, but this means to use with caution and understanding rather than preventing use. ] (]) 00:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Agree with the above. If we are citing it for contentious claims, then it's better we provide attribution. Unless OP or someone else can come up with credible sources that ] the reliability of ''Hawar'', I don't see any reason to worry about its inclusion. Looking over the article, it seems most of the citations to it are for easily verifiable facts (i.e. changes in AANES leadership, recognition by the Catalan parliament, etc.), rather than anything contentious. --] (]) 10:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :If we consider TRT sub-optimum in relation to Rojava and the Syrian war because of its affiliation to the Erdogan government (see above on this noticeboard), the same should apply to Hawar. It’s fine for reporting the statements by AANES/PYD/SDF or uncontentious facts, but it should always be attributed and triangulated for anything at all contentious. I’d rate it above Al-Masdar and below the SOHR for reporting facts about eg battles in the Syrian war, but like them is a weak source. ] (]) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is there anything to show that Hawar is not independent of the SDF? I couldn't find anything making an explicit link. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}} from the ]: "On Thursday, the group held funerals for 17 of its fighters in the border town of Tal al-Abyad, the '''SDF-linked''' Hawar news agency said...". 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 22:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That would indicate a need for caution. Whether to the level of TRT I couldn't day. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 01:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Being censored is a ] issue and a reason to use a source with caution (with attribution for anything remotely contentious), but it doesn't automatically render them completely unreliable. The big question is whether they're yielding to pressure to publish things that are actually inaccurate rather than just one-sided. If not, they can still be used with caution - we'd want to cite better sources when possible and avoid giving ] weight to a source with a clear bias, but there's some advantage to having sources that are close to conflicts. And a major problem with removing sources simply for being subject to censorship is that it could produce systematic bias by removing every source from a particular region; I'm not familiar with the Syrian press specifically, but in other regions with similar censorship, there's still a difference between sources that carefully report as much as they can get away with and as accurately as they can within the restrictions of government censors, and sources that full-throatedly broadcast misinformation to support the party line. --] (]) 15:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: LionhearTV == | |||
| ]s are a handy method for settling controversial issues. They have been used in ], ], and Misplaced Pages needs to use a good litmus test to help us determine the reliability of sources for certain topics. | |||
| {{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: | |||
| * '''Proposition''': | |||
| : That we adopt a litmus test for judging source reliability in the ] area and will let the best ] make the judgments, not partisan editors. RS must be our ]. Partisan editors do not trump RS and fact checkers. | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| This litmus test may be modified for use beyond politics, but for now, let us focus on those political topics because extremely partisan reporting tends to affect politics more than other mundane factual matters (and we can use generally RS for such matters). We know that ] exists and that it is now more extreme than ever. The fringes of both left- and right-wing sources distort the facts, and those sources are thus unreliable for use here. | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| ] ] 10:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Source bias alone is not sufficient for answering these questions, because ] and ] bias, when closer to the center, doesn't have to distort or ignore the facts, but when one gets further from the center, that bias begins to distort the facts, often to the point of pushing deceptive ]s, labeling lies as truth, advancing ], and even ] ("]"). Such ] feed their audiences ] so they end up in an isolating ] of deception, leaving them ignorant of the facts. Such people edit here and come across as ] to edit in the AmPol2 area when they propose that both CNN and Fox News should be deprecated. There is a vast difference, and fact checkers document it. | |||
| :'''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) | |||
| * '''Litmus test''': | |||
| * '''Comment''': For better understanding and context, especially for editors unfamiliar of this topic's origin: | |||
| : If a source regularly pawns off proven lies as truth to its audience, that makes it an unreliable source. | |||
| ::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. | |||
| * '''Application''': | |||
| ::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}} | |||
| : Because fact checkers and RS correctly and consistently label a myriad of ] as lies or unfactual, and most partisan right-wing sources consistently push those lies and unfactual statements as if they were true, then we must not use those sources for AmPol2 subjects. | |||
| ::At this moment, LionhearTV is listed as '''unreliable''' on ] as result of the no consensus discussion at RSN. | |||
| : This pushing of Trump's falsehoods is , for these sources. It's not an accident. They are not fact-checking their content, and thus fail our most basic requirement for all reliable sources. They are unreliable sources and should be deprecated for use on AmPol2 subjects. Sources on the extreme left-wing which consistently push falsehoods should suffer the same fate. | |||
| :<span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 13:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : The litmus test should be used as part of our RS-determination process. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| * '''Specific application to ] and Trump's dubious relationship to truth and facts.''' ''(added later)'' | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| : Some questions to ask: | |||
| ::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) | |||
| : Does Fox News (talk shows) ever publish a Trump statement and point out it's a lie? Do they do this consistently, so that readers get the impression that most of what he says can't be trusted (because that's the case)? Or do Trump supporters find support for their delusional beliefs by reading content at Fox News? -- ] (]) 16:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2025/01/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 11, 2025)<br/>Manila Republic: https://www.manilarepublic.com/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 14, 2025) | |||
| ::These are two instances I found so far where other sources copypasted from LionhearTV. But I saw other instances where LionhearTV is the one who copypasted from other sources, such examples include: | |||
| === Meet the fact checkers === | |||
| ::# 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) | |||
| Fact checkers should factor heavily into how we rate sources for factual accuracy. They are the ], so use them often. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| * led by ] | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :* {{cite web | last=Holan | first=Angie Drobnic | title=The Principles of the Truth-O-Meter: How we fact-check | publisher=] | date=February 12, 2018 | url=https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/feb/12/principles-truth-o-meter-politifacts-methodology-i/ | access-date=October 20, 2018}} | |||
| ::::'''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) | |||
| * ] - | |||
| * ] - | |||
| === Sources which should be deprecated for AmPol2 subjects === | |||
| All the sources listed here are unreliable for the AmPol2 area. Some are just too biased, and most fail the litmus test and should be deprecated for that reason. Deprecations should be done on a case-by-case basis. The proposal is for the wording and use of the litmus test, not for deprecations here and now. | |||
| {{hat|No deprecations right now}} | |||
| {{Columns-start|num=4}} | |||
| ; Hyper-Partisan Left - Most Extreme Left | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * '']'' | |||
| {{Column}} | |||
| ; Hyper-Partisan Right - Most Extreme Right | |||
| * ] | |||
| * '']'' | |||
| * '']'' | |||
| * '']'' | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * '']'' | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * '']'' | |||
| * '']'' | |||
| * '']'' | |||
| * '']'' | |||
| * ] | |||
| {{Column}} | |||
| ; Hyper-Partisan Right - Most Extreme Right (cont.) | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * '']'' (WND)<br>(] central) | |||
| * ] | |||
| * '']'' | |||
| * '']'' | |||
| * ] (Trump TV) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| {{Column}} | |||
| ; Russian disinformation | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| {{Columns-end}} | |||
| {{Clear}} | |||
| {{hab}} | {{hab}} | ||
| *'''Option 3'''It's a blog. That means ] applies. This means it might be contextually reliable for ] or under ] (with the usual condition that SPSEXPERT prohibits any use of SPS for BLPs) and so I don't see any pressing need for deprecation, but this is very clearly a source that is not generally one we should use. ] (]) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 19:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *:FWIW, the person behind this blog is not a subject matter expert. Like, we don't even know who this is. (One subject matter expert in Philippine showbusiness that I know of that runs a similar blog is , and I event won't even use the blind items as sources there lol) As explained above, once this gets to be used as a source, it won't be challenged and people just accept it as is. This is a low quality source that has to be blacklisted. ] (]) 01:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yeah that's fine. I was just saying that, in general, those are the only two avenues to use someone's blog. ] (]) 20:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Litmus test discussion === | |||
| * '''Option 4''' Their reportings are obviously flawed and a per example above copypasting is a not a good look nor a good indication for "reliability" and it is often used in BLP, yikes. '''''Warm Regards''''', ] (]) (]) 12:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I think this might be worthy of an essay, but I think we should be addressing these sources on a case-by-case basis. Some of the sources listed here are already deprecated, others (like Fox News) are reliable for some purposes and not for others. More importantly: news sources in general aren't necessarily all that great for writing encyclopedia entries. ]<sup> ]</sup> 19:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :* I totally agree that deprecations should be done on a case-by-case basis. The proposal is for the wording and of the litmus test. Any improvements would be welcome. -- ] (]) 19:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree with Nblund, and will add that few, if any, news sources would pass a litmus test because of RECENTISM, propagandizing by pundits, and errors and omissions. We already have PAGs that address how we should be using RS - see RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, and NEWSORG for starters. Then we have BLP, NPOV, OR and V. RS become a concern when editors don't strictly adhere to our basic core content policies and guidelines for news sources. We are not obligated to include everything the news publishes within days or even weeks of it being published. There's an obvious reason for the rush - the 2020 election - and I, like many others, oppose WP being used in that manner. Why not wait until a "hot-off-the-press" article is proven/disproven? WP content should have lasting encyclopedic significance, and not serve as an archive for news/pundit articles. Just sayin'....] <sub>]</sub> ] 20:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *I like the idea, even if compromises need to be made to get wide consensus. It would be useful to identify which sources would be impacted. --] (]) 21:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *I would oppose a litmus test. Sources always need to be evaluated in context, and litmus tests don’t take context into account. ] (]) 21:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :* ], yes, no disagreement about context, but many sources do "regularly pawn off proven lies as truth" in the context of AmPol2 subjects. We shouldn't have to constantly deal with newbies, drive-by editors, and editors who lack competence (I gave a very recent CNN/Fox incompetence example from a very experienced editor) who try to use these unreliable sources within the AmPol2 subject area. We should be able to point to the deprecation and quickly end the discussion. We already do that with many deprecated sources, but there are some sources that consistently "pawn off proven lies as truth" which are not deprecated for this topic area. Fox News "regularly pawns off proven lies as truth", and yet we don't deprecate it, even though . Defending such lies is their normal practice. On the rare occasions when it isn't pushing and defending Trump's lies, it's Shep Smith (no longer at Fox), Chris Wallace, or Neil Cavuto who dare to challenge all the other pundits at Fox and tell the truth. (Napolitano occasionally does that.) All the rest push and defend these lies, rendering Fox generally unreliable. Either we deprecate it, or we state clearly that it should be used with caution in this topic area, IOW generally only use it when it is those reporters who are telling the truth. Can we do that? The litmus test is pretty obviously useful. -- ] (]) 22:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * This is an interesting proposal. I agree that ] ] like the ones you listed should play a role in how editors evaluate source reliability, since they are a type of reliable source and should be taken into account under the ]. However, since there are not that many fact-checkers, I don't think fact-checkers alone will provide the coverage we need to comprehensively determine whether a source is (un)reliable. Specifically, I don't think articles examined in fact checks form a representative ] of all articles published by a source – fact-checked articles tend to be more controversial. (Likewise, the number of times a source is discussed on this noticeboard is an ] of how controversial it is, but not a strong indicator of how accurate it is. General reliability is determined by evaluating a source in its entirety, and is subject to a long list of ] exceptions.) — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 22:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :* The issue isn't so much about fact checkers, but about proven lies which are then pushed as truth on a consistent and daily basis by certain sources. In our current AmPol2 environment, these sources are known to be pro-Trump, and the only way to be pro-Trump when dealing with his falsehoods is to deny he said them, ignore them, or push them as truth. Fox News and other right-wing sources do this as a rule, not an exception. Here's where the litmus test comes into play. If we keep catching a source pushing lies, then they should be deprecated. They are not fact-checking their own reporting. -- ] (]) 00:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :** We ] for publishing false or fabricated information, but whether a source meets the threshold for deprecation is a community decision. Based on past discussions and RfCs, ] {{rspe|Fox News}} doesn't have anything close to the required amount of community support for deprecation, resulting in multiple aborted RfCs. In fact, no RfC on Fox News has survived the 30-day period on this noticeboard since {{rsnl|73|Request for Comment on Fox News Channel|the 2010 one}}, which concluded that Fox News is ] under ]. If you don't think this is the correct designation for Fox News, perhaps you could work with {{u|François Robere}} to craft a new RfC at ] that is phrased agreeably enough to last 30 days on this noticeboard. Ultimately, a re-evaluation of Fox News requires consensus from the community. Fact-checkers can inform the community's opinion, but they don't replace it. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 00:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::*{{u|Newslinger}}, I am more concerned about the misinformation, conspiracy theories, anonymous sources, false reports by foreign agents and so on that a variety of MSM sources have been publishing over the past 2 years, not just FOXNews. The Trump-Russia collusion (conspiracy theory) was debunked by Mueller's 2 year investigation, and to say otherwise is wishful thinking or speculation at best. If we are going to evaluate FOXNews, then the same should apply to the NYTimes, WaPo, and others who perpetuated the collusion theory. Granted, several prime time pundits on FOX rejected the collusion theory, but they aren't news anchors or journalists. This proposal is a side door to noncompliance with OR. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 01:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* Atsme, "conspiracy" was not proven, but the Mueller Report contains numerous examples of collusion/cooperation with an enemy power, all lied about by the Trump campaign. Over a hundred secret meetings between Trump people and Russian assets. It is not a conspiracy theory. Fox News pushes that "conspiracy theory" angle, which is an example of them pushing falsehoods. -- ] (]) 01:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*{{bcc|Atsme}}For the record, I think it's highly unlikely that there is consensus for any of the sources you mentioned – ], '']'' {{rspe|The New York Times}}, and '']'' {{rspe|The Washington Post}} – to be reclassified as anything other than ]. But, I don't speak for the community at large. For any editor who seeks to challenge existing consensus, my message has been consistent: the community needs to show consensus for the proposed changes, and consensus is gauged through discussion. The past noticeboard discussions on these sources speak for themselves, and in the absence of new revelations that significantly impair the sources' reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, these sources will almost certainly still be considered ] under ]. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::* {{u|Newslinger}}, that's a pretty sad situation, of which have been acutely aware. One would think that this new angle (pushing of lies on a daily basis and failure to fact check) would be enough to change consensus, but I fear that we have far too many editors here who believe those lies (no need to look far for examples) to be able to get the desired result. The opinions of partisan editors still trump RS and fact checkers here. Is there any hope for Misplaced Pages? -- ] (]) 01:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::**In my opinion, the editor base of the English Misplaced Pages is diverse enough for any partisanship among individual editors to be cancelled out as editing disputes are resolved through consensus. Depending on how popular an article is, some articles will take longer than others to become neutral, but with enough attention, all articles will eventually meet all of our ].<p>] is not the only standard for inclusion – if a source that is considered reliable publishes incorrect information, its claims can be countered by other reliable sources (including fact-checkers) and presented in a way that assigns ] to each position. If the source publishes a specious superminority position that is not corroborated by other reliable sources, it can be completely excluded from the article under editorial discretion (and in many cases, under ]).</p><p>If a source is unreliable enough, the community will reach a breaking point (e.g. {{rsnl|220|Daily Mail RfC|the 2017 ''Daily Mail'' RfC}}) and reclassify the source to save time on repetitive discussions. I hope that ] never becomes unreliable enough to reach that point, since it is beneficial for editors to have as many usable sources available as possible. But if it does get to that point, go ahead and submit an RfC – and that applies to any source. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)</p> | |||
| * We have just been through a case where Glenn Kessler wrote a falsehood about The Daily Caller, then made (which snopes.com has still . The falsehood was in Misplaced Pages's Daily Caller page for a short while without the correction. I think that shows not just how the proposed fact checkers can be unreliable, but also that they get more trust than they deserve. ] (]) 23:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *: Is there something in ]'s that should be corrected? The statements | |||
| {{bi|em=3.2|{{tq2|The edited video resurfaced on July 24, 2019, when a writer for the right-leaning ] posted a clip of the interview from the ] (CBN), to her Twitter page. That tweet was then picked up and given legs by U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, who retweeted with the comment, “I am sure the media will now hound every Democrat to denounce this statement as racist. Right?”}} appear to be a correct description of and ]'s . The Snopes fact check does not attribute the clip to '']'' or the Daily Caller News Foundation. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 00:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::* The story is correct. It was just mistakenly attributed to a Daily Caller contributor, so it was a cse of misattribution. Yes, that was an error, but a rare one. -- ] (]) 00:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::** '']'' did make an error here, which they corrected, but I don't see any errors from Snopes in their fact check. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 00:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* Agreed. It's not about never making errors, but about making them rarely and correcting them, all versus making errors as a deliberate method of operation and not correcting them. Then falsehoods are a feature, and not a bug. -- ] (]) 00:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::: was identified as by Molly Prince "reporter@realDailyWire". As far as I can tell the last Daily Caller article by Molly Prince was 2019-07-12. More recent articles are by . As for assertions about rarity, even if there was a way to evaluate that, it wouldn't matter because ] says we have to look, not believe assertions about generalities. ] (]) 01:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::On July 26, 2019, the day that was published, was {{tq|"Too close for missiles, I'm switching to guns"}}, with no mention of ''The Daily Caller'' or ''The Daily Wire''. Combined with the fact that her still describes her as {{tq|"a politics reporter at the Daily Caller News Foundation"}}, Snopes's description of her as {{tq|"a writer for the right-leaning Daily Caller News Foundation"}} was reasonably accurate at the time of publication. Without an announcement from Prince, ''The Daily Caller'', or ''The Daily Wire'', we don't know the exact date Prince left the Daily Caller News Foundation, or if she is still with them. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Agree, calling that a "falsehood" is quite the stretch. She indisputably was a writer for the Daily Caller (having written an article for them only two weeks before the Snopes fact check was published), and the Daily Caller still says that she "'''is''' a politics reporter at the Daily Caller". Just because she more recently wrote for someone else doesn't make Snopes' statement a "falsehood". If she had never been associated with the Daily Caller, and especially if she had instead been a left-wing writer, things would be different. But to say this is a falsehood, and further that it is one so severe as to impact their reliability, is, in my opinion, beyond the pale. At worst it is an incredibly minor error, but even that is quite debatable. ] (]) 02:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::We have that Molly Prince identifies herself exclusively as a reporter for Daily Wire, and has been writing for Daily Wire since as early as , after her last known writing for Daily Caller and before the Twitter post in question. And Kessler she was not a Daily Caller reporter at the time of the Twitter post. Newslinger's new thing is something that links to a Russian translation of a Twitter page that says nothing about what she worked for, so it is worth nothing. Thus Newslinger's only evidence is: a Daily Caller page. So acepting Newslinger means accepting The Daily Caller regardless what Prince and Kessler and Daily Wire say. But a simpler explanation exists: The Daily Caller didn't update the page recently. ] (]) 15:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: is the ]'s July 26 ] of Molly Prince's tweet. For archival, the Wayback Machine rotates between servers in different geographic areas. Frequently, an archival is performed by a server in an area for which Twitter defaults to non-English pages; for these archivals, Twitter's interface is in the non-English language, but the content of the page (including the user's bio and tweets) are in the language they were originally posted, completely unchanged.<p>However, the that I linked to is in English. On a desktop or laptop computer, you can see Prince's bio, {{tq|"Too close for missiles, I'm switching to guns"}}, on the left side of the page under the transparent gray overlay; the bio does not mention ''The Daily Caller'' or ''The Daily Wire''. According to the archives, Prince changed her Twitter bio to {{tq|"Reporter at @realDailyWire"}} some time between and , well after Snopes published their July 26 fact check.</p><p>It is ''The Daily Caller''{{'}}s responsibility to identify their own staff and Molly Prince's responsibility to identify herself. If they can't do that properly, it's a stretch to shift the blame to Snopes. I agree with {{np|AmbivalentUnequivocality}}: {{tq|"At worst it is an incredibly minor error, but even that is quite debatable."}} — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 19:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)</p> | |||
| ::::::::Blame whom you like, snopes was wrong and so were you. I regret having to spend so much time establishing something that was so clear from the start, and will spend no more time on this thread. ] (]) 20:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::But they weren't wrong. Her writing for someone else later does not change the past, or negate her previous work. Without some sort of official statement of separation, there is no reason she cannot be considered a contributor to both publications other than your opinion and assumptions. They are not mutually exclusive. No reasonable person would say "She is only a writer for them in the moment she is published, immediately following that she is no longer a writer for them until the moment her next piece is published. Since she wrote in that publication two weeks ago, she definitely isn't a writer for them now." ] (]) 22:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * It's a good start, although I feel that the absolute ''best'' sources for determining reliability are not fact-checker results on individual facts, but in-depth high-quality reporting on the source as a whole and its history. That sort of coverage can put individual controversies into a larger context that establishes the source's entire reputation, as well as establishing if these issues are the result of systemic problems (eg. management that prioritizes advancing a policy goal over fact-checking or accuracy.) --] (]) 07:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * Mmmmm, a newspaper as a fact checker? Sorry but we have to be 100% sure any fact checker has no bias.] (]) 08:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :* Fact checkers are usually employed as a distinct team within a newspaper, with the sole purpose (until today, anyway) of verifying reportage prior to publication. They do not write pieces, let alone opinion ones. ] (]) 18:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree with Newslinger and others who support our current PAGs and how we treat RS, which appears to be the prevailing view here. If wider community input is required, close this discussion and open an RfC at VP. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 10:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't like this idea. Who is watching the watchers? They aren't perfect either and it can be problematic when they get into the gray area of fact checking less black and white claims. There is also a concern regarding bias based on outside articles ], ], ],]. The fact check sites are useful but like so many things, especially in politics we are rarely dealing with black and white issues and which shade of gray you wish to view often depends personal views/interpretations. So beyond that, where does this lead? Would we have just a list of "acceptable" sources? What happens if a new source comes on line? Would it be off limits until blessed? What if a story by a source that isn't blessed gets a lot of traction and is seen as both influential and reliable? Really, I'm not sure what this proposal would solve. Yes, many of the political articles are poorly written but I think that has more to do with issues with failing to summarize and writing as if we are trying to persuade in the present vs telling people in the future what happened in the past. ] (]) 15:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :* Who's watching ''us''? If you dismiss fact checkers' as un-authoritative, then you're just passing up the responsibility to us. Who says we're better equipped to judge statements then expert investigators? ] (]) 18:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * The problem isn't with lack of data or with the ability to deprecate sources, it's with Wikipedians' willingness to admit some sources are worse then others. For example, we already have a plethora of sources on the unreliability of Fox News, including peer-reviewed studies (see ]), yet some Wikipedians still insist FN is "as reliable as any other outlet". If Misplaced Pages can't transcend its own politics to follow RS, then by all means - outsource the decision to other RS. ] (]) 18:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::My opinion... playing “gotcha” with the media is pointless. They ALL have twisted the news to fit narratives when it suits... and ALL have been criticized for it at one point or another. Not ONE is exempt. If we are going to call one out, we should call them ALL out. Declare ALL news outlets flawed. ] (]) 20:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. All news outlets may be flawed, but they are not equally flawed. That is like saying "Who cares if one person stole a candy bar and one person murdered a thousand people, they are both criminals and we should treat them equally". A source that makes occasional errors and quickly corrects them is substantively different than a source that constantly, and knowingly, publishes falsehoods with no corrections. ] (]) 22:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree with {{u|Blueboar}}, and will add that the days of automatically considering news sources reliable based on their past reputations for fact checking and correcting mistakes may still hold true for print but what we’re dealing with today is the internet. Not all are automatically corrected as evidenced and again. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some of the mistakes were made purposely. As editors, we must exercise caution, follow our PAGs and use good editorial judgment. We’re dealing with fast news, clickbait headlines, and intense online competition unlike what we had back in the day of prepping articles with editorial oversight before the story hit the daily presses. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 04:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: We know both you (Blueboar) and Atsme are of that opinion that all of outlets are equal, but can you actually back it with sources? I've a ] of sources on Fox (including peer-reviewed studies, and quotes from over two dozen RS) that show that FN is unusually, and consistently biased. ] (]) 22:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::As a former independent CNN field producer many years ago, I don't take a position that I cannot back-up with facts, so I'll start by providing a bit of educational reading material that speaks to your question: , , and . ] <sub>]</sub> ] 01:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Now you need to read ''Network Propaganda''' by Robert Faris and Yochai Benkler. This documents in great detail the change in Fox News, specifically, but also other right-wing news sources, over the last few years. Fox News has effectively joined the right wing media bubble, it has stopped citing sources outside the bubble, and that has led to a rapid increase in bias. The right wing media bubble does not engage in normal journalistic self-correction, it responds to falsification by doubling down or airbrushing out. If Fox News was ever a reputable news source, that time has ended. The only way you can use Fox is if it's corroborated by a reliable source, in which case there's no need to cite Fox. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::: {{ping|Atsme|Blueboar}} I'm not asking for intros, I'm asking for something ''concrete'', like ''Network Propaganda'' - the book Guy cites. Do you have something like that that makes a reasoned evaluation of how and why American media is "all equal", or not? ] (]) 19:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The Columbia Journalism Review speaks to some of the information in the source you cited, Guy, and the some European countries have made in good faith in the name of democracy but end-up imposing on free speech. There is a big difference between European democracies and our US Republic, so I expect and welcome different POVs. I'm ok with letting consensus make the decisions here - and they already have, over and over again, regarding FoxNews as being generally reliable along with any other generally reliable news source per RECENTISM, NEWSORG and NOTNEWS. We cannot rely solely on the single source you cited to rule out Fox News - we need specifics, and not from a single POV. I cited more than one source because they are educational/professional and reach into what is at the core of journalism. I look forward to seeing an updated Harvard review on this topic. I oppose state-run media because I am well aware of where it leads. The internet has certainly changed the way we receive our news, and it is not always for the better. There is clearly a trend toward a more slanted liberal bias in msm, perhaps it is more evident because of Trump's antics and the negativity surrounding his candidacy and the fact that so many people don't quite understand the workings of our electoral college and that it is actually part of the checks and balances that guard our elections against a mobocracy. I want to hear all sides of an issue including views from the far left, left, liberal, center, right, far right and independents. I want to know the views of Europeans and their take on US politics. There have been instances when a particular issue seemed out of sorts from a European perspective but was legal and perfectly acceptable in the US under our Bill of Rights. It's a balancing act and requires strict adherence to NPOV. It also exemplifies the need to stick to the facts and avoid speculation. Of course there will be partisan opposition to Fox but there's a reason for high ratings vs the ratings of other cable news networks. We don't have to like it, and I'm sure the opposition to Fox can come up with plenty of reasons to discredit their ratings, but we should at least take it into consideration - the same way we do polling. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 16:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: The question of how society should fix is it independent of the question of whether (and why) sources in the right wing media bubble are unreliable. The evidence is very clear: Fox was a heavily-right-leaning source, and in recent years has effectively joined the bubble sources that weight "truth" by ideology not factual accuracy. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If you don't mind me weighing in here, here is what I am seeing, which of course is weighted by ''my'' biases. ], you know how strongly I agree with you on most things, but there is one area where our views differ. I have a pretty much equally low opinion of Team Blue and Team Red, while in my opinion to you every lie and every stupidity of Team Red -- great or small -- is glaringly obvious to you while -- again in my opinion -- to you the the lies and stupidity of Team Blue really hard for you to see. I have also seen many editors who have the exact same problem except with the teams reversed. None of you are stupid or obviously wrong, but you are biased (as am I). I personally see some good and a lot of bad on both teams. We are all biased in different ways and when I say that in my opinion my equal bias against both teams is correct, the obvious reply is "well he would say that, wouldn't he?", but I can say this with a fair dgree of confidence; it is the considered opinion of the Misplaced Pages community as a whole that we should not deprecate Fox News. | |||
| :::::::Look at this NYT story. | |||
| ::::::::" 'The faster metabolism puts people who fact-check at a disadvantage,' said Ryan Grim, the Washington bureau chief for The Huffington Post, which reposted the fictional airplane tweets, the letter to Santa and the poverty essay. 'If you throw something up without fact-checking it, and you’re the first one to put it up, and you get millions and millions of views, and later it’s proved false, you still got those views. That’s a problem. The incentives are all wrong.' But Mr. Cook says he thinks that readers can tell which content is serious and which is taken from the web without vetting. 'We assume a certain level of sophistication and skepticism of our readers,' he said." | |||
| :::::::While the paragraph I just quoted is about the left-leaning Huffington Post, I think it is fair to say that the same can be said about many right-leaning sources. We should use them, but with care. --] (]) 16:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{u|Guy Macon}}, We do indeed agree on most things, and I would like you to understand why I consider the difference between left-partisan and right-partisan sources to be significant to their reliability. I presume we both agree that mainstream sources such as WSJ, WaPo, NYT and so on are generally reliable for claims of fact made in their factual, rather than editorial, pages. | |||
| :::::::: | |||
| ::::::::I made a comment below about the asymmetric polarisation of partisan media. Do you accept that Maddow is more likely to be criticised by her audience for a factually incorrect but ideologically pleasing statement, than is Tucker Carlson? Because that's what the facts show. Fox was losing revenue when it pursued more mainstream narratives in relation to Trump, and gained that revenue back when they became more partisan, butt he same was not true of the left. Left-partisan sources and audiences were as likely to share stories about perceived scandals with Clinton as were right-partisans, but right-partisans shared virtually nothing critical of Trump. You could arrive in the polling booth in 2016 having consumed a diet of right-partisan media (especially Fox and Sinclair) and be unaware that Trump was a serial fraudster with a history of sexual assault. I think most Fox viewers even now don't accept that he violated campaign finance law with payments to women, or that he actively welcomed Russian overtures, as Mueller shows, or that he obstructed justice, as Mueller shows. | |||
| :::::::: | |||
| ::::::::Do feel free to prove me wrong. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 18:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Interesting questions! I don't think any "prove me wrong" proof is available. Neither you, I, or the thoughtful right wingers who are biased for team Red are provably/obviously wrong or stupid. | |||
| :::::::::Is Maddow is more likely to be criticized by her audience for a factually incorrect but ideologically pleasing statement than Tucker Carlson? I think yes, but the key phrase is "by her audience". <s>Right</s> Left wing audiences tend to be far more critical and less accepting of total bullshit. There are batshit insane liberal websites, but none of them have anywhere near the audience that Infowars has. | |||
| :::::::::On the other hand, the mainstream media is pretty much the opposite; they criticize factually incorrect claims from the right far more than they do when the left does it. Or they selectively separate the claims from Team Blue but not from Team Red. Every mainstream report about global warming conspiracy theories emphasizes that they are largely a right-wing phenomena, but mainstream reports on antivax and GMO conspiracy theories consistently fail to mention that they are largely a left-wing phenomena. --] (]) 21:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: {{u|Guy Macon}}, you've got a typo above. You inadvertently wrote "Right wing audiences..." when you meant to write "Left wing...", at least that's what research and statistics show. Left-wing sources tend to self-correct, unlike right-wing sources. That's because left-wingers are generally higher educated, tend to use fact-checkers, consume a much wider variety of sources (right-wingers use Fox News and little else), and then their better critical thinking skills and knowledge of contrary evidence leads them to reject outright bullshit much quicker than right-wingers. | |||
| ::::::::::::Yes. that was a typo. I just fixed it. Thanks! As I said, batshit insane left wing sources do exist, but have nowhere near the audience of something like (spit!) Infowars. --] (]) 06:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: Both sides might initially believe something that confirms their biases, but left-wingers aren't in an isolating information bubble, so they self-correct fairly quickly. That's about the viewers and readers. The sources are very different too. Left-wing sources criticize each others mistakes brutally, whereas right-wing sources don't fact check well, and they pass on and amplify nonsense from each other. They rarely cricize other right-wing sources. | |||
| ::::::::::: Trump has told his base to not trust fact checkers or believe the "fake news", thus isolating them in a right-wing bubble. They don't even realize they need to self-correct. Also, the left-wing doesn't have the equivalent of Conservapedia. I suspect they use Misplaced Pages, which requires RS and that both sides of the story is told. | |||
| ::::::::::: Much of the research on this is found at the non-partisan ]. Start at . -- ] (]) 06:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{u|Guy Macon}}, There are indeed thoughtful right-wingers. George Will, for example. But if you look at them case by case, what you find is that they are mainly , or at least deserting the hyper-partisan right wing media. | |||
| :::::::::: | |||
| ::::::::::But that is an aside to the core question, which is as I outlined above: there is an asymmetric polarisation of partisan media, because left-partisan media suffers reputational and thus financial damage if it perpetuates falsehoods, whereas right-partisan media suffers damage if it publishes accurate stories that run counter to ideology. Do you see any parallels to in reporting by Maddow during the Obama presidency? | |||
| :::::::::: | |||
| ::::::::::Want to bet five bucks that Chris Wallace follows Shep Smith soon? ''']''' <small>(])</small> 22:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Someone who is rooting for Team Red might respond that at Fox news there was disagreement about how to handle criticism of Trump but that at MSNBC criticism of Obama or Hillary never makes it on air. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about internal political battles at various media outlets, and have no intention of researching them, so I just go along with whatever the consensus is at RSN about what sources are reliable for a specific claim. --] (]) 02:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: {{re|Atsme}} Again, I'm not looking for intros, I'm looking for something '''concrete'''. Do you have concrete comparatives, investigative pieces or peer-reviewed studies on this question, or not? ] (]) 12:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Hi, FR - I have said all I'm going to say about this subject. If you require more than the high quality diffs I've already provided, may I recommend searching the archives for former discussions about the topic? I believe you will find the concrete evidence you're looking for in the consensus that was obtained time and time again by the community. Another friendly tip - it truly does help to conduct research from the perspective of the opposition. Happy editing! ] <sub>]</sub> ] 13:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Four days ago you said that {{tq|as a former independent CNN field producer many years ago, I don't take a position that I cannot back-up with facts}}, and suggested {{tq|a bit of educational reading material that speaks to your question}}: two general critiques of "mainstream media", an introductory piece on bias, a piece on European media, and later an item on Fox's financial success. Neither of these is a "concrete comparatives, investigative piece or peer-reviewed study" on the relative veracity, reliability and ideological or political slant of American media outlets. Cheers. ] (]) 16:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I've tried to be helpful by responding to your questions, but I am working on another topic now, and find myself pressed for time. A simple Google search may help you find the results you seek. Regarding 3 of the sources I cited above: was published by ], a national 501(c)3 nonprofit educational organization, affiliated with ]. . CJR - Columbia Journalism Review - and - ] has been published by ] since 1961. All are high quality RS, and they do address the issues you've brought up. Critical thinking required - you will find answers to your questions in each of the articles published by the sources. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 22:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: I've got ], Atsme, I'm not looking to "Google" some more. I'm looking for you to show me some sources that support what you're claiming, and you're not delivering. Until you do, I can't take your claims seriously. | |||
| ::::::::::: As for CJR - here's some more bits. The first and the third are particularly strong, based on scholars and on a good piece of investigative journalism, respectively; the second is based on research by an NGO, and the fourth gives you the general gist of how Fox is seen in media circles: | |||
| :::::::::::# {{Cite journal |last=Nelson |first=Jacob L. |date=2019-01-23 |title=What is Fox News? Researchers want to know |url=https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/fox-news-partisan-progaganda-research.php |journal=Columbia Journalism Review |language=en |quote=Then there’s the question of what scholars should do if and when an outlet ceases to be partisan and crosses the line into propaganda. Though scholars like Searles assert that the categorization of Fox as a partisan news outlet akin to MSNBC continues to be accurate, others think that kind of comparison no longer applies. As Feldman explains, “While MSNBC is certainly partisan and traffics in outrage and opinion, its reporting—even on its prime-time talk shows—has a much clearer relationship with facts than does coverage on Fox.” Princeton University Assistant Professor Andy Guess echoes this point: “There’s no doubt that primetime hosts on Fox News are increasingly comfortable trafficking in conspiracy theories and open appeals to nativism, which is a major difference from its liberal counterparts.”}} | |||
| :::::::::::# {{Cite journal |last=Altman |first=Anna |date=2019-02-14 |title=Matt Gertz tracks how Fox News manipulates Trump |url=https://www.cjr.org/politics/matt-gertz-trump-tweets.php |journal=Columbia Journalism Review |language=en |quote=Fox knows that Trump is watching, and the network steers coverage to speak to him directly. By December, Fox’s “infotainers,” as Gertz likes to call them, won out, and urged the president to “stay strong,” feeding him cherry-picked poll stats that showed he was “winning” the shutdown. Today, Gertz feels confident that Trump will declare a national emergency to build his border wall, because that’s what Fox has been repeatedly telling him to do.}} | |||
| :::::::::::# {{Cite journal |last=Allsop |first=Jon |date=2019-03-11 |title=Fox News draws renewed scrutiny—and outrage |url=https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/fox-shine-pirro-carlson.php |journal=Columbia Journalism Review |language=en}} | |||
| :::::::::::# {{Cite journal |last=Allsop |first=Jon |date=2019-10-14 |title=What Shep Smith’s exit says about Fox News |url=https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/shep_smith_quits_fox_news.php |journal=Columbia Journalism Review |language=en |quote=The news-opinion divide... may often have been more smoke and mirrors than an actual firewall, but the appearance of one was of critical importance... The disappearance of Smith—who had been with Fox ever since Ailes founded the network, in 1996—further erodes that perception, perhaps more so than any individual event of the post-Ailes era.}} | |||
| ::::::::::: Cheers. ] (]) 13:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| === Reboot to specifically address Fox News (talk shows) === | |||
| It would have saved a lot of confusion above if I had been more specific and referred to Fox News (talk shows) as discussed at ]. Sorry about that. | |||
| The specific news department does occasionally disagree with the talk show hosts and tell the truth. Unfortunately, some editors believe the talk show hosts and disbelieve the news department when the news department corrects them, and then those editors defend Fox News as a whole, as evidenced by their repetition and defense of the lies told by Trump which Fox News defends and pushes. | |||
| We need to completely deprecate the talk shows. THAT is what I want to see happen. Can anyone here seriously disagree that Hannity, Ingraham, Tucker, Beck, Levin, Dobbs, ''et al'', never debunk Trump's lies, but push them as a rule, not as an exception? (If a specific talk show consistently tells the truth, we can make an exception for them.) -- ] (]) 16:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :I've been thinking about a different but related suggestion. Too often we are dealing with sources that blend news and commentary. Some sources kindly say "this is an OpEd" while others, are far less clear where they are simply reporting the facts vs where they are offering interpretations. Many of the sources that are considered to be moderate to far left or right are there not because they disagree with the basic facts but based on what they say the facts mean. The talk shows are largely opinion based commentary but are given a handy "OpEd" label. The same is true of many parts of stories from sources like The Huffington Post, Mother Jones and etc. Perhaps if we just acknowledge that the lines aren't clearly black and white we could start to treat the sources (from left to right) as commentary rather than fact more often and we could avoid some of the debates. ] (]) 17:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: We deal with opinions by attributing them, but when they are counterfactual, we give them less weight, often to the point of ignoring them. If those lies and conspiracy theories become notable, then we cover them. Sources that have a habit of repeating lies or treating them as facts should be deprecated because they are obviously not "reliable" in even the most basic sense. We do not use unreliable sources. Even lies must be sourced to RS. | |||
| :: Most of Fox News talking heads are engaging in disinformation, as Trump generally does. He has repeated some falsehoods so many times that he has effectively engaged in ].<ref name="Kessler_12/10/2018">{{cite news |last=Kessler |first=Glenn |authorlink=Glenn Kessler (journalist) |title=Meet the Bottomless Pinocchio, a new rating for a false claim repeated over and over again |website=] |date=December 10, 2018 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/10/meet-bottomless-pinocchio-new-rating-false-claim-repeated-over-over-again/ |access-date=January 16, 2019}}</ref> Sources which do the same should be treated like we treat him. We do not cite Trump for facts for the following reason: "The president is possibly the single most unreliable source for any claim of fact ever to grace the pages of WP." -- MPants 04:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC) I couldn't have said it better, and editors who believe RS agree with those immortal words by MPants. -- ] (]) 21:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Which all takes me back to the idea of why dont we just treat all news media as fundamentally not reliable for any breaking news story.] (]) 17:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| : The lesser reliability of breaking news stories is addressed at ]. I think it's unlikely for there to be consensus on a measurable definition of "breaking news" (e.g. number of days since the event). The {{tl|Current}} template informs readers that {{tq|"Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable"}}, and should be added to affected articles. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 18:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: Agreed. We tend to wait a few days for things to settle down. -- ] (]) 21:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| : Agreed. ] (]) 22:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Waiting a few days really isn't enough time for validation or verification of accuracy in subjective, politically motivated news reports. Investigations continue in the Russia conspiracy theory in an effort to determine exactly what led to the Mueller investigation and what role the Trump-Russia dossier played in the grand scheme. The only conclusion to date is that the Mueller investigation did not what the Democrat's theorized about Trump-Russia collusion. Oh, and I linked to Rasmussen's "political commentary" because of what was suggested above. Non-broadcast sites appear to be more upfront about marking their op-eds, political commentary, etc. although a few still falsely present political commentary as news. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 02:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::: ''"Investigations continue in the Russia conspiracy theory in an effort to determine exactly what led to the Mueller investigation and what role the Trump-Russia dossier played in the grand scheme."'' ??? | |||
| ::: Those investigations are part of a cover-up and distraction of the proven role of Russia in the election. It was Russia, not Ukraine, which interfered in the election. The Dossier's role is also well-known. We also know very clearly "what led to the Mueller investigation". The Dossier came after the Crossfire Hurricane investigation had started. Already in 2015, the CIA was receiving evidence of wrongdoing by Trump campaign people and other associates, but it wasn't until Papadopoulos role was told by the Australians that they could start the investigation. THAT is what led to the Russian investigation, which was subsumed into the Mueller investigation. Failure to believe this narrative is a failure to believe what RS tell us (read our articles and believe them!!) and, instead, believing what unreliable sources say. That is a serious deficiency, to put it mildly. There is a term for that here, but my sanction forbids me from saying it. Others may say it. | |||
| ::: Current investigations are just part of the Trump/Russian attempts to smear the Dossier, and those who still consider this all a "Russia conspiracy theory" are refusing to accept what RS have told us in their crystal ball hope that future cover-up attempts will succeed in rewriting history and will whitewash Trump and his administration of their collusion with Russia. They won't accept the fact that the Russian election interference happened with Trump's full cooperation and desire, and that is not a "conspiracy theory". | |||
| ::: Fortunately, we have honest public servants (some Trump appointees) who dare to tell the truth, and now Trump's false ] is being exposed by the honest people who were in the middle of it. The testimony today was damning. -- ] (]) 05:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|BullRangifer}}, I don't think there is anything we know "clearly" at this point in time. It is still under investigation. I think laid out the Mueller report clearly - they refer to the Trump-Russia collusion allegations as a "conspiracy theory" - we simply say what RS say: {{xt|"As a result, Mueller’s report provides the opposite of what Russiagate promoters led their audiences to expect: Rather than detailing a sinister collusion plot with Russia, it presents what amounts to an extended indictment of the conspiracy theory itself."}} As for the behind-closed-doors impeachment <s>inquisition</s> inquiry, it lacks transparency and credibility because of the partisanship behind it. The reporting by the same RS that pushed the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory proved nothing, much the same way nothing has been proven about the <s>inquisition</s> inquiry. You even criticized the for sloppy reporting in the recent past. I'm of the mind that we should continue exercising caution and more closely adhere to ] in an effort to avoid POV speculation. It will all come out in the wash. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 15:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: {{u|Atsme}}, you've conflated The Nation as a news outlet, with The Nation's opinion columnists: columnists for any media are not considered RS. You are quoting "opinion" as if it were "reliable journalism". From W:Reliable sources: "There is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable. Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline." ] (]) 21:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Hi, ToolmakerSteve. I think perhaps you misunderstood my comment. I simply shared an opinion about the article and quoted a statement they published while informally demonstrating the attribution process. This is a discussion forum, not an article so I don’t understand your criticism and if it’s not the latter, then I’m confused about the point you’re trying to make. ] is described on WP as “covering progressive political and cultural news, opinion, and analysis.” If you disagree with that description, may I suggest raising the issue on the TP of that article? ] <sub>]</sub> ] 23:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: {{u|Atsme}}, I find your comment profoundly concerning. We absolutely ''do'' know some things. The Mueller report found evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia (i.e. offers the campaign "welcomed" and in some cases reciprocated, including providing internal polling data to Russians) and documented several instances of obstruction of justice, including all three elements of obstruction. Mueller confirmed this to the House during his own testimony. The "oranges" investigation is blatantly pretextual and is founded on the "deep state" conspiracy theory, its bastard child "spygate", and latterly the false claim that Joseph Mifsud was a deep state asset rather than a Russian one. If you genuinely believe the Fox News view of the "oranges" of the Mueller investigation then I have to question your competence to opine on sourcing in the area of politics. The claims have been investigated by the Senate and the Inspector-General and found to be bullshit: the FBI investigation started because Australia reported Papadopoulos' drunken ramblings to their Ambassador. We can be reasonably confident from current reporting that MI6 also reported suspicious links between Russia and Trump. It is not a surprise that this wasn't well handled, there has never been a situation before where a neck-and-neck candidate in a presidential race has suddenly shown evidence of being an asset of a hostile foreign power. Trump's campaign manager was an unregistered foreign agent. His National Security adviser was an unregistered foreign agent. Rick Gates was also acting on behalf of a foreign power. As was Sam Patten. Have you not read the articles on Papadopoulos, Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Cohen, Kilimnik, the IRA? And of course Butina and Giuliani and Parnas and Fruman and Pecker and Stone and the rest? Even if Trump were innocent, the profound shadiness of his inner circle would be ample grounds for suspicion. | |||
| ::::: The Nation calls the Trump/Russia thing a "conspiracy theory". No reality-based source does. Mueller documented approaches to the Trump campaign from the GRU that were welcomed. It documents some responses. It shows that at no point did the campaign do what it ''should'' have done (and was required to do by law), which is to contact the FBI. The fact that Russia interfered with the US election is reliably established. With the exception of a fatuous "report" by Devin Nunes, every single investigation has backed that up. Mueller, the Senate, the intelligence community, the Pentagon, the House once not under Tea Party control, the DoJ, Jim Mattis, Mike Pompeo at State, and of course multiple foreign intelligence services including MI6. ''Nobody'' disputes this other than Team Trump. | |||
| ::::: The objective facts about the Steele dossier are: Christopher Steele was a long-time British intelligence operative, he ran the MI6 Russia desk from 2006-2009, and is respected by both British and US intelligence. His report was originally commissioned as opposition research by Republicans, then taken up by Democrats after Republicans dropped the contract. It's likely Steele sold it to the Dems because he saw that it contained some bad facts for Trump. The FBI used it in a cautious and appropriate way: their FISA warrant applications contained extensive footnotes informing the court of the nature of the report ''and its funding sources''. The FISA warrants were not based solely on Steele. The FBI investigation into the Trump campaign was not started by the Steele dossier, it was prompted by reports from Australian and likely also British intelligence of unusual contacts between Papdopoulos and the Russians (and possibly other contacts). The fixation on Steele has worked well for the right, and they are repeating it again now with the "whistleblower", but in the real world this is exactly the same as a gang of bank robbers complaining that the person who reported overhearing them plotting worked for the bank or the police. Almost all FISA warrants are approved, and the FBI can investigate any report they deem credible. Pointing at the "oranges" to draw attention away form the extremely damning facts elucidated by the resulting investigation is a political gambit, and any competent Wikipedian should recognise it as such because the facts are by now so well known. Unless you only read right-wing media. But right-wing media are disconnected form the reality-based media these days (cf. ''Network Propaganda''), and it is a massive problem if an editor lives in that bubble. | |||
| ::::: Trump (rightly) believes that the fact Russia interfered in the 2016 election and the fact Mueller discovered evidence of collusion and multiple counts of obstruction of justice, undermines the legitimacy of his presidency. Trump probably realises that he did indeed lose the popular vote by the largest margin of any elected president since the modern two-party system began, and that his electoral college victory depended on a total of 77,000 votes in three states that were heavily targeted by Russian social media influence campaigns using data stolen by Cambridge Analytica and internal polling provided to him by Manafort. Moscow Mitch certainly knows, and that's presumably why he is determined not to pass legislation to protect the 2020 election. | |||
| ::::: The Barr investigation is a terrifying abuse of executive power which would, on its own, have led to impeachment of any Democratic president who tried to pull a stunt like that. Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch talked for a couple of minutes on the tarmac at an airport and the conservative media completely lost its shit, Trump has sent his attorney general to travel the world to pressure foreign allies into supporting a revisionist history to support his own reputation, and to pursue his political enemies. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| Edit conflict with JzG. | |||
| ], so you continue to refuse to believe the RS we use in our articles, and instead are pushing Trump's counter-narrative/conspiracy theories? | |||
| Atsme, we DO know "what led to the Mueller investigation". | |||
| # It started when the intelligence agencies from eight European allies began to record very troubling conversations between Trump assets and Russian assets as they planned how to disrupt the election. They were just performing their routine surveillance of known Russian spies, and suddenly lots of Trump people were recorded talking to them and scheming. Those secret meetings were myriad, held all over Europe, and kept very secret. The Trump campaign has denied and lied about all of them. That's classic conspiratorial behavior. | |||
| # Those eight agencies started to report their findings to the CIA and FBI in 2015. (Even further back, in 2013 Trump was already discussing his plans with Russians, not Americans, to run for president in 2016, and we have evidence that already then the Russians told him very publicly (Facebook and Twitter) that they would support his candidacy. The illegal and unpatriotic plans to disrupt our democratic elections were in the works for a long time before 2016.) | |||
| # As this information from the secret meetings accumulated, the CIA and FBI were slow to respond. The CIA is not allowed to surveil Americans, and the FBI needed more proof. They were waiting for conclusive proof that these people were not acting on their own, but were informing the Trump campaign. | |||
| # That proof finally came when the Australian government reported about the Papadopoulos meetings which proved that he was reporting back to the campaign, acting on their behalf, and that the campaign had insider prior knowledge about the Russian hacking of the DNC and about how the Russians got the stolen mails to WikiLeaks and planned to release them at the most destructive time during the election. 5-6 days later the FBI opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the ongoing and widespread Russian interference. | |||
| # Much later the Dossier added some information, but the FBI only believed it because they had other sources which could independently confirm what the Dossier's sources reported. | |||
| # Later that Crossfire Hurricane investigation was subsumed into the Mueller investigation. | |||
| # Even Repuplican leaders and the Nunes Report confirm this narrative. | |||
| # THIS is the narrative which RS tell us. | |||
| # THIS is what we write in our articles. | |||
| '''Atsme, what part of this narrative do you not believe?''' (Feel free to use the numbers.) How can you edit here while holding such counter-RS views? Why do you keep pushing such views here? I thought you were sanctioned and warned about this path you're on. Pushing this narrative seems to violate your sanction. -- ] (]) 16:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :BR, what you know is what the media published, and that's all we're supposed to know, but keep in mind, we must adhere to NPOV when making our selections in whatever RS we cite. As for my concern about RECENTISM, is currently investigating the regarding the Trump-Russia investigation, and it's not just Fox News reporting it. When Durham's report is finalized, that is when we will know what really happened, but RSN is not the forum for us to discuss politics. I'll repeat once more that I will honor whatever consensus says about the reliability of Fox News, so call your RfC. Happy editing! ] <sub>]</sub> ] 17:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: NPOV is not the average between reality-based sources and bullshit. You say "what the media published", but that's not where we get these facts from, or at least not entirely. There are court transcripts and findings of fact, reports by US and other intelligence agencies, by the Senate and House committees, inspectors-general, and the Mueller report itself. The ''only'' holdouts are Team Trump, including Fox News. And Fox are pushing the manufactured counter-narrative (bluntly, propaganda) on most of this. That's a big reason why Fox is not reliable for anything other than ABOUTSELF at this point. I refer you again to ''Network Propaganda'', an excellent book recommended to me by ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{tq|what you know is what the media published}} And what we know about the universe is what scientists publish. That's how it works. We summarize what was published, not ] and not ] at some point in the future. Guy and BR's comments follow that principle; yours very much doesn't. And no, the '']'' is ''not'' an RS. ] (]) 19:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: ], the ''Washington Examiner'' is not a RS, but a purveyor and backer of the counterfactual narrative pushed by Trump, his allies, and Russia, the enemy of YOUR country, a narrative which you believe and push here. They are lying to you. It's not right that you read them or cite them. We should only use and support what RS say. | |||
| :: I have described the sequence of events which "led to the Mueller investigation" (your words). What part of that narrative don't you believe and why? You are evading. I suspect it's because you don't believe what RS say because you base your beliefs on what unreliable sources say, and you aren't allowed to use them in articles here. You shouldn't use them on talk pages either. If I have , then please explain. I can only go by what you write and the sources you do use, and they are invariably unreliable sources. | |||
| :: The ideas you voice are only found in fringe and unreliable sources, and '''now you're defending them right here, on the "Reliable notices noticeboard", of all places, so this conversation is extremely relevant to discuss HERE'''. I fear you are being misled. We love you as a person, but we are concerned for your well-being and your influence as an editor. This is sad. Please clarify. Your defense of unreliable sources at the "Reliable sources Noticeboard" is sad and alarming. | |||
| :: Above, ] pointed out the problematic nature of your "opine on sourcing in the area of politics", and that problem needs to be dealt with. It's a violation of your sanction. This must stop. -- ] (]) 19:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::I mean Washington Examiner is a RS for certain things. Also the three of you really need to chill out. ] (]) 00:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|PackMecEng}}, "There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed." It's a tabloid owned by a cult, handle with extreme caution, and the statements referenced fall solidly with the area of unreliability. As to chill out, well, maybe. Someone we think is nice, is seriously advocating that Fox News is a RS based on references to right-wing propaganda. That's a concern, especially given her history of advocating John Birch Society fringe nonsense at G. Edward Griffin. ''Network Propaganda'' is a very detailed analysis of the influences on Fox content, that shows why our historical acceptance of Fox should not persist. As a data point, Shep Smith has left. He was the only reliably mainstream voice on Fox. Mainstream is not the opposite of conservative, mainstream is the group of sources that collectively share a commitment to empirical reality. Many of us who love America are terrified of the current situation, where the President freely mixes fact and fiction and a substantial proportion of the US population, according to the media they are tracked as watching and sharing, have minimal exposure to factual coverage of important issues of the day, and extensive exposure to distorted or outright false versions. Easily a third of the US is being told that literal conspiracy theories are the true explanation, when every form of evidence usually considered reliable (intelligence agencies, IG reports, court findings of fact etc) says the opposite. That cannot be allowed to creep into Misplaced Pages content. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::: In these post-truth Trumpian<ref name="Trumpian_2/1/2018">{{cite web | title=Trumpian | website=] | date=February 1, 2018 | url=https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/trumpian | access-date=August 25, 2018}}</ref> political times, "fringe editors"<ref name="Fringe_editors">'''Fringe editors''': I define them as editors who lack the competence to vet sources, ''and'' who are misinformed by, and use unreliable sources.<br> Here's why I call them "fringe": (1) More people voted for Clinton, with Trump receiving 46.7 percent of the vote in the 2016 election. Trump voters were a clear minority, but "minority" doesn't necessarily equal "fringe". Things have changed since then. (2) That minority has grown even smaller, as many Trump voters have regretted their vote and are no longer supporters. (3) What's left is current Trump supporters, a much smaller group who are indeed fringe, largely because of their blind allegiance to a man divorced from truth and reliable sources. If it weren't for the fact that Trump is actually sitting in the WH, they would be ignored as a radical group of people divorced from reality, just like Trump. (4) Like Trump, they get their "news" from fringe, very unreliable, sources. Keep in mind that before Trump was elected, , yet Trump gets his "news" from them, InfoWars, and Fox & Friends, and he brought Bannon into the WH. Trump is a very fringe president. (5) Here we have a tiny subset of editors who try to include views from unreliable sources, and even try to use those sources as references. They lack the competence to vet sources, which seriously impacts their editing and discussions here. That is all very fringe by Misplaced Pages's standards.</ref> often have a strong Trump bias and point of view because they adopt Trump's open animosity toward RS,<ref name="Pak_Seyler_7/19/2018">{{cite web | last=Pak | first=Nataly | last2=Seyler | first2=Matt | title=Trump derides news media as 'enemy of the people' over Putin summit coverage | website=] | date=July 19, 2018 | url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-calls-fake-news-media-real-enemy-people/story?id=56687436 | access-date=July 23, 2018}}</ref><ref name="Atkins_2/27/2017">{{cite web | last=Atkins | first=Larry | title=Facts still matter in the age of Trump and fake news | website=] | date=February 27, 2017 | url=http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/321406-facts-still-matter-in-the-age-of-trump-and-fake-news | accessdate=March 9, 2017}}</ref><ref name="Felsenthal_3/2/2017">{{cite web | last=Felsenthal | first=Julia | title=How the Women of the White House Press Corps Are Navigating "Fake News" and "Alternative Facts" | website=] | date=March 3, 2017 | url=http://www.vogue.com/projects/13528783/american-women-female-white-house-reporters-political-journalism/ | accessdate=March 3, 2017}}</ref><ref name="Massie_2/7/2017">{{cite web | last=Massie | first=Chris | title=WH official: We'll say 'fake news' until media realizes attitude of attacking the President is wrong | website=] | date=February 7, 2017 | url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/kfile-gorka-on-fake-news/index.html | accessdate=March 27, 2017}}</ref><ref name="Page_2/7/2017">{{cite web | last=Page | first=Clarence | date=February 7, 2017 | title=Trump's obsession with (his own) 'fake news' | website=] | url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/page/ct-trump-lies-fake-news-kellyanne-conway-perspec-20170207-column.html | accessdate=February 9, 2017}}</ref> and believe his untruths and the ] circulated in his support and attacking those he does not like, especially ] and ]. | |||
| :::: These editors consider the RS we use to be fake news. Their bias and point of view are directly opposed to our RS guideline. Because these editors are so at odds with RS, which are the basis of all editing here, they should be monitored carefully. They cannot be trusted. They often create problems and disruption because they imbibe these unreliable sources. Note that not all Trump voters are like this, but the hardcore supporters are, and a few of them edit here. -- ] (]) 14:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes that is what RSP says no consensus, which is not the same as not a RS. This is not something that is being used in an article either so again no idea why you think reliability in general is an issue here. Finally for both of you, this is not a forum for your personal views. ] (]) 15:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I will agree that there are a lot of new editors or IPs that come in with "left-leaning sources are bad" and challenge established RSes, which we're never going to do; they are RSes for the reasons defined in ] and having some bias is not a reason to dismiss these. But that said: I personally have zero love of Trump, and absolutely do not agree on the "fake news" claims made. ''But'' I will stand behind the fact that with Trump in office, many of the quality sources have slipped in a lot more bias towards the left which, when coupled with continued growth of opinionated journalism, makes distinguishing good news articles from op-eds disguised as news articles in some of these RSes tricky, and we should at least be aware of this matter. CNN is one of the worst offenders, but the WaPost is not too far behind in that they have blatant dislike of Trump across the board, at least when scanning through their headline articles. It doesn't make these RSes any worse in RSes but we should consider how a piece is framed on a case-by-case basis to determine if it is actually trying to just report impartially or throwing its media weight around. And ''this'' is something difficult to convince editors to consider: there's a lot of editors that go "If it is an RS and not labeled Op-Ed, everything said should be treated at face value." This is where things like RECENTISM needs to be kept in mind. ''Today'' is not the right time to try to be making encyclopedic articles that are based on judgement calls made by the media and instead should more closely stick to facts, and only well after Trump is out of office should we start really considering how media opinion of him comes about. These issues, which have been validly brought up in discussions, should not be swept into the same cries from the new/IP editors that want to make out left-leaning sources as "fake news". | |||
| ::::: At the same time, the Trump situation has made the bias in right-leaning RSes far more apparent (as in the case of Fox News here) who are often lock-step in with Trump's claims, so that's even more important to distinguish Fox's actual journalism (which is normally fine, they are an RS by definition) from anything with their talking-heads programs. --] (]) 15:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Indeed, and the just published a bit of breaking news that aligns with some of the FoxNews predictions. IG will be publishing his report soon re: the FISA investigation, and it will be interesting to see how the media <s>spins</s> presents all this news as time progresses. I’m certainly in no hurry to rush to judgment, especially when all we have to go on is breaking news and/or news sources to build this encyclopedia. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 01:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{u|Atsme}}, No, the NYT does not "align with Fox News predictions". Fox is promoting the fiction that the Russia inquiry was an inside job by Democrats. NYT is reporting that Trump has deployed the DoJ to pursue the people he accuses of being responsible for the investigation, using criminal charges. | |||
| ::::::: | |||
| :::::::This is in line with his widely-reported attempts to identify the Ukraine whistleblower, who he would undoubtedly target as he has done McCabe, Ohr and the rest. | |||
| ::::::: | |||
| :::::::But do feel free to show me examples where Fox has pointed out that using the DoJ to pursue perceived political enemies is wildly inappropriate, as identified by sources quoted by the NYT and others. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 17:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Guy, when you quote something i said, please quote it accurately (my bold) “... and the NYTimes just published a bit of breaking news that '''aligns with some of the FoxNews predictions'''.” ] <sub>]</sub> ] 19:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{u|Atsme}}, But it doesn't. And even if it did, it would be a coincidence: Fox News' conspiracist bullshit predicting something that the reality of terrifying abuse of executive power also predicts. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 23:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: {{re|Masem}} Having a lot of headlines that look "anti-X" doesn't necessarily imply bias - it can just as well stem from "X" being a "bad" subject. That's why these things are measured ''comparatively'' and ''not by us''. American media is well-studied, and '']'' Fox is aberrant in the media landscape. ] (]) 12:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Understanding shifting biases is important but as I said, bias alone does not enter into whether something is an RS or not. Nor do I disagree with the stance that any Fox News talking head problem should be avoided like the plague as a source here, and that if we can get coverage from beyond Fox News' news desk coverage (which still meets the requirements of a RS), that would be better. But on the talking head issue, the same problems in talking head works at other RSes (op-eds, analysis pieces, etc.) are also apparent with their bias, and we absolutely should not be using such pieces, at least when discussing a very recent thing, because of the bias they exhibit. The reason to avoid Fox News talking heads has several more problems atop the bias and RECENTISM (eg promotion of false or questionable info), but ''any'' talking head opinion show or piece is trouble within WP for an ongoing topic particularly in the current media landscape. --] (]) 14:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{u|Masem}}, You are correct, but you have missed an important point. I refer again to ''Network Propaganda''. This details negative effects Fox was experiencing by pursuing mainstream narratives around Trump (e.g. reporting on his profoundly shady business career), the effect this had on shares, its loss of social media share - and hence click-based ad revenue - to Breitbart, and its switch during 2016 to uncritical Trump support, which then saw its social shares returning. | |||
| ::::::::Compare the following: | |||
| ::::::::Maddow is biased. She admits it. If she makes a factually incorrect statement and fails to correct is, she suffers reputational damage with her audience. Liberals consume a wider range of media than conservatives, and tend to value factual accuracy even wen it conflicts with preferred narratives. | |||
| ::::::::Carlson is biased. He doesn't admit it. If he makes a factually correct but ideologically inconvenient statement, he suffers criticism from Fox's one-man Nielsen ratings. If he makes a factually incorrect but ideologically acceptable statement he suffers no penalty at all. He might be fact-checked by the mainstream media, but his audience, for the most part, never see that. | |||
| :::::::: The evidence very clearly shows systematic and ''asymmetric'' polairisation and bias in the media. The Wall Street Journal is a right-leaning mainstream RS. Fos is not mainstream any more, it is part of the right wing media bubble and cannot be trusted unless corroborated by a mainstream source (in which case why use Fox?). ''']''' <small>(])</small> 17:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I just carefully read the two comments above, each by someone who I respect and almost always agree with. Then I read them again, and really considered them. I have to go with Masem on this one, and I do not think he/she missed any important points. This may, of course simply be because of ''my'' unconscious bias. --] (]) 02:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: {{re|Masem}} {{tq|bias alone does not enter into whether something is an RS or not}} Of course it does. What is "bias"? It's the tendency of an outlet to sway from objective or meaningful coverage of real events. "Bias" taken to the extreme becomes "propaganda", at which point it's no longer useful for us. Fox has been dubbed "propaganda" by ]. We cannot go counter to RS. ] (]) 12:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Bias is not a reason to reject a source, that is explicitly stated in policy.] (]) 13:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: Bias ALONE is not a reason, but extreme bias certainly is a factor. When it becomes propaganda, consistent failure to fact check, repetition and pushing of Trump's proven lies, and even providing him with false narratives which he immediately tweets, then we're dealing with a very unreliable source which fails our requirements for being considered a RS. | |||
| ::::::::::: We are talking about Fox News talk show hosts, not the News division. Keep that in mind. We often think that Trump invents these lies, but there are numerous times where it is evident he is watching Fox and Friends or Hannity and they create a new lie and/or false narrative, and he then tweets it and starts using it, '''often before the show has even ended'''. Fox News is writing our foreign policy. These Fox News talk show hosts literally manufacture false narratives as a feature, not a bug. They should be deprecated. They do not fact check or self-correct. -- ] (]) 14:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Maybe, but the point made was that bias alone could be a reason, not it has to go beyond bias to inaccuracy. Whilst is may be that Fox news talk shows may well fit that I do not think it is clear cut enough (are all of them this bad, most?) to have a blanket ban.] (]) 14:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::: ], they are that bad. (See my response to Masem immediately below.) If there is an exceptional talk show host or show which doesn't fit this pattern, we can make a specific exception for them, as they are an ]. | |||
| ::::::::::::: I think we can agree that EXTREME bias alone, because it ignores, hides, or totally distorts facts, makes a source so unreliable that we must deprecate it, especially when they do this on a consistent basis. We should not use misinformation sources. In the current political climate, we see this manifested as a consistent pushing of Trump's lies, without fact-checking or pushing back, but rather serving as a bullhorn to magnify the deception. I can't think of any Fox News talk shows where this isn't the pattern, but correct me if I'm wrong. We'll make an exception for such a show or host. -- ] (]) 16:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Extreme bias should not be a reason to rule out a source, but it should be a consider to ask "are they fact-checking? are they in editorial control?" Those reasons are sufficient to say a source is not an RS, which comes as a result of extreme bias, but that bias is not the reason to block the source. --] (]) 16:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::: ]. I fully agree. There are some very biased sources which stick close to the truth, but they are rare. It is only when their bias causes them to consistently subvert the truth that we should take action and deprecate them. The same principle applies to editors. Editors are free to believe whatever they want, but when their beliefs cause them to violate policy, push POV found in unreliable sources, use unreliable sources, and/or ] found in RS, it is THEN that we should start using topic bans. It is not the belief, in and of itself, that we censure, it is the actions which "come as a result of extreme bias" that cause us to take action. We're on the same page. -- ] (]) 20:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: Actually, I would mention the news division as well - it's far from being the best source out there, and shouldn't be used where better sources are available. See for example - 60 pages full of 4 months worth of errors and possible lies ("mistruths", if you'd prefer a euphemism) from Fox News news anchors. ] (]) 17:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: I agree. It is still the exception when the news division pushes back against Trump's lies, and the last time that Shep Smith did it, Carlson criticized him and the leadership did not give Smith the backing he should have gotten, thus revealing the agenda of the Fox News network as a whole. That was the last straw for him and he left Fox News. -- ] (]) 20:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Others have pointed out, but there can be extremely biased sources that ''do'' do fact checking and ''do'' make announced error corrections, all fundamental parts of determining whether something is an RS, and thus would still be an RS. But at that point, now it does become an UNDUE factor. It is just that experience tells us that there actually very few works at these points as bias often tends towards extremism when it is that strong, so fact-checking goes out the door to support that bias. This is why it is important to stress that the Fox News journalism side, which is pro-Trump in general, does do all that, maybe not with the rigor of the Old Grey Mare, but its there. I'd opt to use another source if there's that option, but I would not reject a Fox News article (not op-ed) otherwise. --] (]) 14:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: ], what you say does apply to the strictly News dept, but not at all to the opinions and talk shows. They are consistently pushing misinformation which they do not correct. Instead they double down on it. Therefore they, not the News dept., should be deprecated. If there is an exceptional talk show host or show which doesn't fit this pattern, we can make a specific exception for them, as they are an ]. -- ] (]) 16:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I am in full agreement on all of Fox's talking head shows on the general principle that they are known to push falsehoods. Never been a question. But I'm speaking in the general broad case to keep in mind beyond just Fox. --] (]) 16:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::{{u|Masem}}, It's more than that. See my comments above. Fox suffers damage if it publishes reality that contradicts Trump, whereas mainstream sources suffer damage if they don't. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 00:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::It is not like censorship ala China if that is what you are getting, nor a state-sponsored work subject to gov't review. Fox has decided to stick to its pro-Trump slate on its own volition, and would only be harming its image among its viewers if they went with a anti-Trump piece. That's the same with any biased source. What is harmed is public awareness when the media as individual entities "pick sides" and try to play as persuaders rather than reporters. This is 100% what the Fox talking heads do, but this is also what the op-ed pages of most mainstream sources do ''and'' what opinionated journalism does as well. They don't lose - we do as the consumers of news and in our cases, as people trying to write up articles of permanence for these topics. --] (]) 01:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| I think we can all agree that statements on opinion news shows, just as in newspaper op-ed pages, cannot be cited as facts. If nothing else, the commentators are presumably getting their facts from a journalistic, reportorial source, and that's what we should be citing instead. So the evening Fox News broadcast, like ''The CBS Evening News'' etc., would be ] for facts, but not something like a Sean Hannity or a Rachel Maddow opinion/commentary show. --] (]) 21:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| : | |||
| : "Fox News’ Chris Wallace was at it again on Friday, filling the void of truth-telling on a “news” network that defends President Donald Trump regardless of the facts....What Wallace is doing is important. Of course, he’s only stating obvious facts, but with Shep Smith gone from the “news” network viewers are mostly left with wall-to-wall Trump propaganda. So, although Wallace’s honesty should not stand out, unfortunately it does. He’s flying solo and because of that, he deserves credit." | |||
| Just sayin'... -- ] (]) 21:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Masem}} {{tq|This is 100% what the Fox talking heads do, but this is also what the op-ed pages of most mainstream sources do ''and'' what opinionated journalism does as well}} No, it's not. FN is unfortonutely unique in the American media landscape: | |||
| * Lauren Feldman, Associate Professor of Journalism and Media Studies at ]: “While MSNBC is certainly partisan and traffics in outrage and opinion, its reporting—even on its prime-time talk shows—has a much clearer relationship with facts than does coverage on Fox.”<ref name=cjr>{{Cite journal |last=Nelson |first=Jacob L. |date=2019-01-23 |title=What is Fox News? Researchers want to know |url=https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/fox-news-partisan-progaganda-research.php |journal=Columbia Journalism Review |language=en}}</ref> | |||
| * Andy Guess, Assistant Professor of Politics and Public affairs at ]: “There’s no doubt that primetime hosts on Fox News are increasingly comfortable trafficking in conspiracy theories and open appeals to nativism, which is a major difference from its liberal counterparts.”<ref name=cjr /> | |||
| * A.J. Bauer, Visiting Assistant Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at ], contrasts “esteemed outlets like the New York Times” with “an outlet (Fox) with dubious ethical standards and loose commitments to empirical reality.”<ref name=cjr /> | |||
| * Daniel Kreiss, Associate Professor at the ]'s School of Media and Journalism: “Fox’s appeal lies in the network’s willingness to ''explicitly entwine'' reporting and opinion in the service of Republican, and white identity.” (emphasis mine)<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1022982253 |title=Trump and the media |chapter=The Media Are about Identity, Not Information |last=Kreiss |first=Daniel |editor-last=Boczkowski |editor-first=Pablo J. |editor-last2=Papacharissi |editor-first2=Zizi |publisher=MIT Press |date=2018-03-16 |isbn=9780262037969 |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |oclc=1022982253}}</ref> | |||
| * ], Professor Emeritus of History at the ], refers to Fox as "privatized propaganda".<ref name=browning>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/10/25/suffocation-of-democracy/ |title=The Suffocation of Democracy |last=Browning |first=Christopher R. |date=2018-10-25 |work=New York Review of Books |access-date=2019-03-08 |language=en |issn=0028-7504 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20301231235959/https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/10/25/suffocation-of-democracy/ |archivedate=January 1, 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
| * Nicole Hemmer, Assistant Professor of Presidential Studies at the ], refers to FN as “the closest we’ve come to having state TV.”<ref name=newyorker>{{Cite magazine |last=Mayer |first=Jane |date=2019-03-04 |title=The Making of the Fox News White House |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/11/the-making-of-the-fox-news-white-house |magazine=New Yorker |language=en |issn=0028-792X}}</ref> | |||
| That's not comparable to any other outlet. See here<ref name=wapopanel>{{Cite video |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/video/editorial/opinion--sean-hannity-is-pretending-to-be-an-opinion-journalist-we-should-know/2018/04/19/36dc37ca-4412-11e8-b2dc-b0a403e4720a_video.html |title=Sean Hannity is pretending to be an opinion journalist. We should know. |date=2018-04-19 |language=en |access-date=2019-03-08 |work=Washington Post}}</ref> for a brief discussion of how other outlets treat "opinion journalism". ] (]) 14:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :But again, focusing strictly on Fox News' journalism deck, not their talk shows or op-eds, there hasn't been any evidence of them not doing the job that we expect of an RS: FN's journalism has not made up facts (like Breitbart or Sun), they have editorial controls, and they have published corrections when wrong. Not to the rigor of the NYTimes, but for purposes of WP:RS, '''nothing else matters'''. I understand the appeal that FN's journalism desk sitting next to the hotbed of disinformation from their op-eds is a scary combination, and there are certainly signs that the news desk is locked into a pro-Trump appropriate to reporting, but as long as we are sticking to their journalism, there has been no sign of any inappropriate steps taken by them. Selective coverage and bias does not affect evaluation of RS directly. If FN journalism ever crosses that line, ''then'' we can rule them out as an RS. What is being made difficult here is trying to emphasis that we need to look and seperate the content generated by FN between its journalism and its op-ed/talk show areas. The broadcast network is near impossible to distinguish and I would never ever consider trying to use a video segment of FN for that (which to many of the articles you list out above, I would completely agree with how those sentiments apply. I've had to watch FN while at gyms and the like and I feel like it is outright propagada at times). But their website coverage is clearly split between news and op-en/etc, and when they are doing their journalism job, it's reasonably good journalism. --] (]) 14:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: ], yes, there is a difference between the News desk and the talk shows, but this section is a "Reboot to specifically address Fox News (talk shows). It would have saved a lot of confusion above if I had been more specific and referred to Fox News (talk shows) as discussed at ]. Sorry about that. The specific news department does occasionally disagree with the talk show hosts and tell the truth." Now that Shep Smith is gone, there is even less justification to give any positive rating. | |||
| :: What we need to do is to deprecate the talk shows. We already have separate ratings at ]: | |||
| ::* '''"Fox News (news and website)"''' is rated "Generally_reliable", with this caveat: "Editors are advised to exercise caution when using Fox News as a source for political topics, and to attribute statements of opinion." The website should not be included. It is unreliable. | |||
| ::* '''"Fox News (talk shows)"''' is rated "No consensus". That should be changed to "Deprecated", never use, even with atttribution". -- ] (]) 01:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: ] (]) 01:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{sources-talk}} | |||
| ===Reliability vs UNDUE weight=== | |||
| We have been focused on the reliability of various news outlets, but perhaps we need to examine them from a different angle... that of undue weight. Specifically, does the way that Misplaced Pages uses news media give UNDUE weight to rumor and unsubstantiated opinion? ] (]) 14:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Excellent point, Blueboar. Such decisions are based primarily on one’s perspective and how closely an editor adheres to NPOV when choosing the RS to cite. I tend to favor pragmatic journalism in RS that publish all views without opinion/speculation. Of course, responsible editing can make that happen in their summary of the event, (facts only please), and if they do see fit to include a particular POV, do it according to our PAGs with in-text attribution, but also include any rebuttal (if there is one) so our readers can make their own determinations. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 18:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :To that, I would add the following. In my opinion, majority of POV disputes could be easily avoided if all sources used in some article are of the same level of reliability. Thus, if one viewpoint is supported by scholarly peer-reviewed publications, that means an article published in some local newspaper and authored by a person with zero credentials should not be accepted to support an alternative POV. That will easily deprive POV pushers of any tools to advance their POV: if one viewpoint is supported by the '']'' article authored by a renown professor, it would be unacceptable to use the article from some local newspaper to support the opposite view. | |||
| :In addition, I've just checked our policy, and it says that ] are considered reliable sources. It says nothing about newspapers in general, and that leads to some problems, because some users believe that, for example, ''any'' publication in ''any'' newspaper can be used, for example, in history related articles. Taking into account that many local newspapers have a tendency to publish questionable articles, we have a situation when Misplaced Pages ''de facto'' becomes a collection of various rumors. I suggest to move this discussion to the WP:V page, because it seems our policy needs some clarification.--] (]) 18:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a real problem. I've been working on ], and a claimed, based on an article in the ''Scranton Times Tribune'' (]) by a no-name, no-credential author, that Davitt had an influence on Gandhi's philosophy of nonviolence. As far as I can tell, this is an apocryphal story that spread on the Internet, as it isn't mentioned in multiple Gandhi biographies. However, there are some editors who would argue that as long as the information isn't explicitly contradicted it ought to be in the article, because the ''Tribune'' is a RS, and you can't cite a negative. <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 19:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Blueboar}}, a good source will distinguish between fact and speculation. We should include fact, we should not include speculation - about living individuals especially - unless it is so overwhelmingly prominent that we can't ignore it. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 17:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| I feel it should be pointed out that undue is about significant viewpoints, not accurate or qualified ones. Thus is 100 media RS say "X" we says X, unless better qualified sources say "X is not true".] (]) 13:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Sure, if 100 RS news outlets are all discussing X, then X is probably important enough for us to mention. The question is... when only one or two are discussing X, is it UNDUE for us to mention X? ] (]) 13:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Has to be case by case, hell we have whole articles based on 2 RS. Also what happens when you have 1 academic source and then 1 or 2 media sources reporting or discussing it? I think it is not black and white enough for some blanket rule.] (]) 14:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree it is best judged “case by case”... but I think we could use more guidance to help us make those case by case decisions. | |||
| :::At the moment, we seem to be operating on a purely WP:V/WP:RS basis (that if something is reported in an RS news outlet, we are allowed to mention it based on WP:V)... but, WP:V isn’t the only policy in play. we also need to examine content on a WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE basis. Content can be verifiable (supported by RS Media) and yet still not worth mentioning based on UNDUE. It is a grey zone, so we need more guidance to help us navigate that grey zone. ] (]) 14:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree, and have made that point myself on a few articles. But this is a sub thread that has nothing really to do with that, but rather to use of wiki fact checkers to determine RS quality, undue is unrelated to RS and has its own forum.] (]) 14:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :A lot of this goes back to RECENTISM. Our coverage of a breaking event should be on primarily facts and very little on opinion, even if that's a "significant" view, when the event is just happening. UNDUE is best applied well after the event to just what the more perennial coverage gives to a topic. And ''that'' is where it may be fine that only a few sources are supporting the UNDUE facets, as long as they high quality RSes looking back at the topic. A NYtimes long-form describing views of, say, the proceedings around Nixon's impeachment would be fine, but not sufficient today for those around Trump's. But that's unfortunately where editors love to dump tons of high-quality RS opinions and the like, and that's yet another problem. UNDUE really needs to consider the time factor. --] (]) 15:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::The opinion we avoid reporting is our own. The opinion of major commentators at the NYT or Fox are not only RSs for what they say, but can be just as important in the evaluation and significance of events as the events themselves--and sometimes, it seems of even more importance. The problem is including them in proportion, and the question that keeps being raised above is how to make the decision on proportion. We every one of us have the tendency to believe what we want to believe. We each would very much like to believe that the overwhelming majority of people in our country feel the same way as we do on major political questions, and that here is consequently no real need to consider the other position. Anyone realistic must admit that, whichever side we are on, at best a fairly slim majority do will agree with us, though people in the country are divided between which side the majority is. (The people here at WP who discuss US political articles do seem to have a great majority on one particular side, but if NPOV means anything, that should be irrelevant to how we write our articles). As for the country, a year from now we will have an actual vote on this, and can anyone really think that the vote for the side they favor will be 90% or even 70%? The most recent President to get even 60% was Nixon in 1972. We should consider ourselves very fotunate if our favored side gets a majority at all. Or shall we be like a certain political figure who keeps insisting that his side always is in a great majority despite the numbers? ''']''' (]) 05:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::More specifically. Let us say that I am convinced that one side are true patriots devoted to the truth, and the other side selfish scoundrels, trying to propagate lies. That does not entitle me on WP to label them accordingly,no matter how much I think it matters that people see it as I do. The most I will do on-wikito express my actual views is to give a hint of them on as talk page. ''']''' (]) 05:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::We should never be including our opinion, but my point is that we should not be racing to include the seemingly DUE opinion of major sources related to some event/action while that event is still going on or just happened, ''unless'' that opinion is part of the event itself. RECENTISM is about waiting for the dust to settle , and ''then'' apply UNDUE and weight and determine what's the best way to present how opinions were for the permanency of a WP article. Maybe it ends up that while the media disliked how someone behaved during an event, academics come to believe it was for the better good. How'd we write such would be best done after enough time has passed to get that sense, which may take years depending. Unless the opinion is part of the event, it is impossible to judge UNDUE appropriately in the midst and immediate wake of an event - its a kind of ] for current events. We also need to consider worldwide views, not just, say, the US for US events. Phrases like "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" are kind of valuable here to understand that as an impartial encyclopedia we should be looking to write from judging the world view where ever that is appropriate, and that again takes time to figure out, and not in the midst of an event. --] (]) 14:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Is research by Amnesty International a valid source for Misplaced Pages? == | |||
| Source: | |||
| Article: ] | |||
| Text in question: {{tq|"Thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process."|}} | |||
| What's the verdict on this? Thanks :-) ] (]) 22:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * Aside from the grammatical problems with the first sentence, Amnesty is a good source for such topics. -- ] (]) 22:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * They're a respected advocacy group, and I would say they're a reasonable source for some basic information. However: there's inherent uncertainty in estimates of extrajudicial executions and other human rights violations, so in-text attribution is probably warranted here unless multiple sources say the same thing. ]<sup> ]</sup> 22:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * Ahhh... I mean the title of the piece is "Blood-Soaked Secrets: Why Iran's Prison Massacres are Crimes Against Humanity". That indicates a pretty strong bias on the subject. Most sources like that, I wouldn't go anywhere near, no. If (say) it was ""Blood-Soaked Secrets: Why Hillary's Child Sex Rackets were Crimes Against Humanity", that'd be kind of a red flag too. | |||
| :For instance, your quote says | |||
| :{{talkquote|Thousands of political dissidents were... extrajudicially executed}} | |||
| :but | |||
| :1) What is "extrajudicially"? It doesn't sound like the executions were ''illegal'', since apparently the Supreme Leader of Iran said to do it, and with a title like Supreme Leader I suppose he can do whatever he wants. If it was all done according to Iranian law, then throwing in worlds like "extrajudicially" is pretty polemical I'd think, since it leads the reader toward making a conclusion that these events were illegal under Iranian law. | |||
| :2) How confident can we be that its "thousands" and not just "hundreds"? Amnesty International is not ''Time'' magazine. At the end of the day, they are here to stop stuff like this from happening, not shuffle papers. If (for instance) saying "thousands" when it's really only "hundreds" makes for a punchier argument, then they'll say that. At least, I sure hope they would (if one's attitude is "Well, saying this will help our cause, but it would, technically, be inaccurate, so let's not", one should probably be working for the ''Los Angeles Times'' and not Amnesty International). They ''might'' be super vigilant about not making possible misstatements of fact for the business purpose of maintaining the integrity of their reputation for veracity. ''Might'' be. I don't know. Since I don't know, I'm suspicious. ] (]) 23:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just to clarify, there's already a Misplaced Pages article about this massacre that the Amnesty International article describes (the ]), so this is about a well-established event. The question is whether the source can be used to add more details about the incident or not. ] (]) 23:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Amnesty is usually considered reliable but partisan, so it should be attributed. As an aside, "extrajudicial" means "outside the judicial system". For example, the Holocaust was ordered by Hitler and other Nazi leaders but is still extrajudicial because victims were not tried and convicted before being executed. I doubt that Amnesty is deliberately pushing false information because that would damage its credibility beyond the very short term. <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 23:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::In context there is a point at which the appearance of "a pretty strong bias" is actually nothing of the sort. Perhaps "a pretty strong emotional reaction", but those can be appropriate at times, like when all reliable sources agree that a mass murder took place. And to answer the question about "extrajudicial", in this case it means that though the killings were ordered by the government and ''de facto'' legal, these were not death penalties resulting from trial. ] (]) 23:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :It is a reliable source routinely cited by news media. I don't see that their bias against mass murder is a major problem since no reliable sources take a contrary position. In cases where editors question their information, it can be compared with other reliable sources. But the same is true for any source. ] (]) 23:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Reliable, but attribute to avoid any bias.] (]) 08:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :They aren't a new source. They are a respected advocacy organization and should be handled as such (in text attribution). With such organizations I've seen a mix of how people establish weight. It's clear when news sources cite something AI says. I've seen similar cases where such organizations are cited when they have a view on a subject but they haven't been cited by others. ] (]) 14:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * At the end of the day, Amnesty International is still an advocacy organization. They are not trying to be neutral and unbiased, they are trying to advocate. That the thing they advocate for enjoys pretty universal support in much of the world, still doesn't make then ''not'' an advocacy organization. If possible, we should prefer to use independent sources that reference or quote AI, and not AI themselves. Even if it is a given that the bare facts are accurate, there is liable to be substantial differences in presentation between an advocacy group vs a journalistic or scholarly source. If we must use AI directly as a source, the information should be attributed. ]] 15:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''', this is an excellent source on such subject. Even if someone considers it "biased" (I do not think it is really biased), such sources are perfectly fine per WP:RS, and especially with explicit attribution. ] (]) 19:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * I tend to believe that claims sourced to an advocacy organization should be attributed to that organization. Amnesty International is a respected international organization that is commonly referred to by other sources, but they still exist for the sole purpose of pushing a particular point of view. Because of their prominence, that viewpoint is probably significant in most issues they opine on. But it'd be best to include something like, "According to Amnesty International" whenever using their resource as a source, instead of just treating their claims as fact. ] (]) 22:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * I usually see it used with ] and I think that is the right thing to do. --] (]) 22:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes, but''' they are ultimately an advocacy group and may not always distinguish clearly between advocacy and research. I'd place them near (perhaps slightly above) SPLC {{rsp entry|Southern Poverty Law Center}} regarding reliability. ] (]) 13:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Yes''' in this case. It's a weighty document that contains much material to allow cross-checking of its claims. The numbers might be open to dispute if it weren't for the fact that they actually list the names: the regime could have skewered the document just by producing the people, if this were a sloppy list. They are an advocacy organisation, sure, but this is a report not a pamphlet or exhortation, and it contains many indicia of reliability and enough hostages to fortune that if it were sloppy it could have been used to completely discredit Amnesty. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' A number of editors have questioned the reliability of Amnesty International on the basis that it is an advocacy group. However there is no policy based reason for that view. ] says, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." In fact very few sources with the exception of tertiary sources such as review studies and encyclopedias are unbiased. Tertiary sources are unbiased in the sense that they seek to explain the biased views in secondary sources according their relative weight of acceptance. But health journals have a bias toward health, biology journals have a bias toward evolution, earth sciences have a bias toward the existence of climate change, etc. ] (]) 01:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :* I wrote an essay on the kinds of bias you describe. It is at ''']'''. --] (]) 06:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == The Guardian == | |||
| This newspaper has an inherent left wing bias in all it's articles, It's op-ed pieces are often anti-semetic. Why is it considered as a reliable source for anything?] (]) 00:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :''The Guardian'' is covered at ]. - <span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span><sup>]</sup> 00:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * Here's a ] and ]. Do you have any specific examples that would support your claims against ''The Guardian''{{'}}s reliability? — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 00:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * ''The Guardian'' is an eminently RS. Apparently offense has been taken that it accurately describes ] as "Far Right". -- ] (]) 01:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * ] is about having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not about being unbiased. A source simply having a perspective you find objectionable isn't sufficient to make it unreliable; see ]. The question when dealing with such sources (and I'm not sure the Guardian would even qualify as such relative to news media as a whole) is whether its perspective or bias influences its reporting. There's a huge difference between a source like ] that simply has a particular perspective and one that (for instance) was ''created'' to advance a perspective or which systematically has that perspective disseminated from above by a set of daily talking points as at ]; and even then, there's a difference between sources that work to advance a particular agenda (but do so 'fairly', ie. by reporting the news as it happens, if with a slant or with selective focus), and sources like the ] that just outright make stuff up, report stories with gross distortions, and otherwise don't exhibit the fact-checking and accuracy that ] requires. --] (]) 06:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :So? as has been said multiple times. BIas is not a reason for exclusion, if it was Fox would be banned, its not.] (]) 08:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| All bias media sources, Fox included should not be used as a RS for any project such as this. If a source is not centre and independent, then you cannot trust what they are reporting is true, or what facts are being ommitted to suit the bias of their articles. But if this is how[REDACTED] works then so be it. It will continue to be a joke in scholarly circles. Kind Regards J ] (]) 22:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| : ] {{rspe|Misplaced Pages}} ], and I would certainly hope that ], except for the purpose of studying or quoting Misplaced Pages itself. All readers are advised to ].<p>On media bias, our ] requires us to balance ] with sources representing other perspectives in ] to their ]. {{tq|"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by ], in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."}} (]) The result is a neutral article not obtained by limiting ourselves to extremely neutral sources like the ] {{rspe|Associated Press}} and ] {{rspe|Reuters}}, which would unnecessarily restrict our coverage, but by forming an accurate reflection of the world around us. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 22:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)</p> | |||
| * The ''Grauniad'' has a solid reputation for fact-checking and draws clear distinctions between news and editorial content. It has won many awards for high quality journalism. It is a reliable source. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * While I generally dislike the use of news media as a source, so long as we do allow that any news media source should be used as a reliable source, the Guardian should. And I say this as someone who has been quite critical of Guardian reportage on a couple of topics; for instance, the Guardian was quite credulous both in its publication of Wikileaks data and also its reiteration of poorly sourced information in China stories. However, with that said, the Guardian has much stronger fact checking, editoral standards and corrections policies than most other news outlets. No news outlet is perfect, and Misplaced Pages is definitely too dependent on them in general. But the Guardian should be one of the last outlets we walk away from, not the first. ] (]) 14:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * The ''only'' thing I would simply be careful with on the Guardian is that they've taken a firm stance that climate change is real and they will fight disinformation related to it, so when it comes to how they write about climate change deniers/skeptics in terms of opinionated thoughts. eg if they started saying "This idiot John Q Smith thinks that a 1.5degC rise is normal.", we'd be very careful in repeating that on WP (best I know, they haven't done anything like that). Otherwise an RS. --] (]) 14:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :* Ah... climate change ''is'' real. ] (]) 21:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :* Wow! Any source that doesn't take a "firm stance that climate change is real" is not a RS, and any editor who doesn't take such a stance should be topic banned from that topic area <u>IF they push denialist opinions</u> (forbidden ]) on those topic pages. The evidence is right up there with the theories of gravity and evolution. -- ] (]) 01:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::* It's not the question of whether CC is real or not, its how they would treat those that deny it with derogatory language because of the Guardian's firm stance to support that climate change exists. They can call people climate change deniers/etc. just fine, just that if they stoop to more derogatory terms, that's part of this "bias" and we should avoid including. --] (]) 02:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{re|Masem}}, I don't believe you that the news side of the Guardian said, "This idiot John Q Smith thinks that a 1.5degC rise is normal," or anything remotely similar. Link, or it never happened. ] (]) 03:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::: That was a hypothetical. I have never seen, nor would expect the Guardian to go there with a statement like that. But '''if''' they ever should, we should be careful of how to use that.--] (]) 04:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *''The Guardian'' doesn't outright fabricate stories, unlike The Daily Fail, but there are certain areas where caution should be exercised. It has put out anti-semitic stories in the past (see https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/06/averting-accusations-of-antisemitism-guardian) and probably should be topic-banned in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area. It is probably fine for most other topic areas though. ] (]) 02:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *: Since ''The Guardian'' made the necessary corrections ({{tq|"The words were replaced and the articles footnoted to reflect the fact"}}), I don't think this is enough to exclude ''The Guardian''{{'}}s reporting on the ]. ''The Guardian'' apologized for using politically incorrect language, and retracted the language when they received objections. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Unspeakable Love == | |||
| It would be OK to use this material {{tq|Soon after the 1979 revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini established the death penalty for homosexuality. In February and March of 1979, there were 16 executions for crimes related to sexual violations}} attributed to the following source in ] article? | |||
| source:{{cite book |first=Brian |last=Whitaker |title=Unspeakable Love: Gay and Lesbian Life in the Middle East |publisher=Saqi Books|year=2011|isbn= 0863564836|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=e0YhBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT44&lpg=PT44&dq=Soon+after+coming+to+power+in+1979,+Ayatollah+Khomeini+established+the+death+penalty+for+homosexuality.+In+February+and+March+1979+there+were+16+executions+for+crimes+related+to+sexual+violatio&source=bl&ots=wOz_xmymX_&sig=ACfU3U1vLYbk-x2ZZzUXxzElDaS0R22I8w&hl=es&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwigvJ6FyKvlAhXDBGMBHRftBJMQ6AEwDXoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=Soon%20after%20coming%20to%20power%20in%201979%2C%20Ayatollah%20Khomeini%20established%20the%20death%20penalty%20for%20homosexuality.%20In%20February%20and%20March%201979%20there%20were%2016%20executions%20for%20crimes%20related%20to%20sexual%20violatio&f=false}} | |||
| I have to say that I cannot find any other sources to support "Ayatollah Khomeini established the death penalty for homosexuality".] (]) 14:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Books are usually poor sources for statements of fact, the reason being that books are usually not fact-checked by independent fact checkers. You are therefore thrown back largely on your confidence in the author. Well let's see... ] has an article. He's a legit journalist, writes for ''The Guardian''... Which means he's not an academic. However, is clearly very expert in the general subject. He speaks Arabic and has written several books. The passage is very specific: "In February and March of 1979, there were 16 executions." Not the sort of thing that a person like him would just make up. He seems unlikely, with his level of expertise, to have confused "executions" with "imprisonments" or something. Is this something he would do on purpose? Well, he's got a website, , so you can check him out more thoroughly there... is his Twitter feed. And is a library of his Guardian articles. He could be vetted more thoroughly thru these, but my overall sense is that no, he probably wouldn't do that, as it doesn't seem to fit what looks to be his business and career model. To the the extent that he might have a strong enough polemical bias to twist facts on purpose, he doesn't show it right off. | |||
| :TL;DR: Has the expertise to not get this wrong. Does not appear likely in my view to have got it wrong on purpose. So, source is OK. Just OK, but OK enough in my book. ] (]) 14:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Source is RS. There are billions of other sources that confirm homosexuals were outlawed under Khomeini "because it went against the Quran". Sky is blue. --] (]) 15:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|HistoryofIran}}, Well in that case, we should use one of those sources instead, one that's been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal or publication known to have a good fact-checking operation. ] (]) 10:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| I have no idea where the idea books are usually bad sources comes from. The publisher seem reputable, the author is a respected journalist who actual,y has a qualification related to the topic this book is about. Now there may be an argument for attribution, but its RS.] (]) 16:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Slatersteven}}, It comes from the idea that books are not fact checked. Articles in ''Time'' magazine are actually gone over by a fact-checker, independent of the write. She consults reference works, makes phone calls, and so forth to double-check that the writer indeed got his facts right. | |||
| :Books are not fact-checked in this way. Books are gone over by a copy editor, but she is looking for spelling and grammar mistakes and awkward wording; she might check some facts on an ad hoc basis, but not rigoursly. There's no time; she's got X days to copy edit the entire book, and fact-checking is labor intensive. Sometimes an author will pay out of his own pocket and hire a fact-checker. Not usually. | |||
| :And indeed I have some instances of distinguished authors getting fact wrong in books. | |||
| :Nor does the publisher care. HarperCollins etc. know that people buy books by subject and author. No one says "Oh, a new HarperCollins books, I'll buy it". So it's not their business model to care. They won't publish books by InfoWars type authors who make up facts wholesale from whole cloth, because that'd eventually tend to degrade their reputation; that's different from caring whether a proper author is loose with occasional facts. "Reputable publisher" sounds comforting, but it's just a magic word. It doesn't mean much really. | |||
| :So, a book is little better than a blog. The fact that it has physical mass, hard covers, cost some money to create, fancy dust cover... it feels comforting, but it doesn't mean anything really. Tha's not terrible; a lot of blogs are fine. It's just a matter of how reliable you think the author is, and you have to recognize that without a fact-checker even the best author's book or blog is going to be "Acceptable, but not great". Brian Whitaker looks reliable enough for me. Whether he had published his statement in a book or on his blog makes no real difference. We've decided to trust Brian Whitaker that what he says is true. ] (]) 10:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Herostratus}} your evaluation of the author was good but I think you may have a more accurate "sense" if you note that the author of has used another book () as the reference for the claims. It is more interesting that in the footnote 31 of the , the author has used email exchanges as a source of information! Can we rely on this?] (]) 06:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why wouldn't we? Email correspondence with experts in a given field is a valid way for journalists and academics to obtain information. It also cites a piece by Eliz Sanasarian, and other academic writings, and is published by University of Chicago Press. I don't see anything that would contradict this being a reliable source, in fact quite the opposite. ] (]) 08:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::No less then face to face interviews.] (]) 08:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Pleas take look at the provided link then make the commment, Not only the source is the email exchanges, but also are this two unriliable website, and . it is what was written in footnote: | |||
| :::::Some of this information is based on an e-mail exchange with Goudarz Eghtedari (Iran). For a discussion of this issue, see Sanasarian 2000 and various issues of the journal Homan (1999–2001). For more information on the Iranian GLB movement, see the website for Homan: The Group to Defend the Rights of Iranian Gays and Lesbians, www.homan.cwc.net. For literature on Iranian lesbians, see www.geocities.com/khanaeyedoost.According to Duran, “homosexual assault is frequently used by the police of repressive regimes, such as the SAVAK during the reign of the Shah of Iran or its successor,SAVAMA, the dreaded security organ of the Khomeini government” (1993, 187). ] (]) 11:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{Ping|AmbivalentUnequivocality}} According to which policy of ] is the email exchanges reliable?] (]) 11:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Are we citing to it?] (]) 11:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, the main source for that claim is email which as ] demanded, Unpublished materials are not considered reliable.] (]) 12:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Hold on I am confused now, is the claim being sourced to the book, or an e-mail?] (]) 12:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::A book, which cites another book, which cited email. Staff V seems to be arguing that since the chain starts with email, subsequent books based on the email are not RS. ] (]) 12:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I will reserve judgement on the merits of such an argument (though I think my above responses should give a clue) based upon what his response it.] (]) 12:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::I suggest then you read ] which does not support your contention. Books are RS, as long as they meet certain criteria, this one does. If you are not happy with this I suggest you take it to village pump and try to get policy changed.] (]) 12:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''', the book very clearly qualify as a good secondary RS on the subject. And what is the argument against using it, exactly? "A book, which cites another book, which cited email"... so the book is not an RS? This is the same "argument" as in the thread just below about Soviet gas vans. Wrong. An author of a secondary RS/a book can cite whatever (or nothing at all), but it is still his/her conclusion, and it is clearly a secondary RS. ] (]) 13:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::This secondary book is not reliable for this claim, because these claims refers to email! I did not talk about being reliable book or not generally.] (]) 14:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not only you are making an original research here, but you are trying to disprove claims made by a reliable source (a book by an expert) while not being an expert on this subject yourself. This is POV-pushing. ] (]) 15:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Books written by practicing journalists who specialize in reporting on the field the book is about (in this case, the internal politics of Middle Eastern countries) ought to be treated as reliable subject to the precautions stated in ]. Some of the best reporting on the contentious and highly technical field of nuclear weapons proliferation has been in books authored by journalists who work for large newspapers and news magazines. The guidance in ] has never been more appropriate wnen citing news sources in general, not just books or famously agenda-driven news outlets. --] (]) 13:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It is reasonable to say "''Statements'' written by practicing journalists who specialize in reporting on the field... ought to be treated as reliable subject to the precautions stated in WP:BIASED". It's not necessarily true, but it's reasonable, as long as its understood that there are exceptions, and it depends on what the statement is. | |||
| :::::Because whether its a book, a blog, an interview, or any other public statement doesn't necessarily or even usually make much difference. Just understand that, book or blog, if the person made a mistake -- for instance, slipped up reading a column of figures and wrote that the 2017 nominal GDP of Czechia is 245,000 (when actually that is the 2018 number) -- nobody is going to check that, probably. So it is not just expertise and lack of bias, you also need an author who wants to be and is able to be pretty careful about each statement of fact she puts under her name. Lots of writers are expert and unbiased, but not super careful. (As I said above, ''this particular'' writer for ''this particular'' statement of fact from ''this particular'' book is probably OK.) ] (]) 18:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::And any argument here must be based upon policy, not logic. Policy does not say that blogs and books are the same. Can we close this now, its just going round in circles.] (]) 08:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} I find it dubious to suggest that ] and ] would oppose inclusion of a source just because at some point the contents of that source were communicated via email. I would ask instead whether this source has any reviews that speak to its reliability; is it contradicted by other reliable sources; is it written by an author with a reputation for making shit up? This question seems more one of ] than ] to be honest. And for us to determine how due this particular source is for inclusion we must start by examining whether there's a countervailing view at all. ] (]) 14:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == ]s in the USSR and Nazi Germany, pt. 2 == | |||
| After substantial input from editors here including {{ping|Assayer|Slatersteven|Aquillion|My very best wishes|The Four Deuces|Someguy1221|Paul Siebert|Nug|K.e.coffman|ZScarpia}} discussion was quickly . Not being aware of discussion here, I tried to consolidate accounts of NKVD gas vans . Quickly thereafter {{u|My very best wishes}} has expanded our article's emphasis on Soviet use of gas vans, and changed the article's language to be more definitive . | |||
| My main concern is that the Nazi systematic use of gas vans for extermination is being subordinated to their sporadic and uncertain use in the purges in a manner that violates ]. This is especially alarming to me because {{u|The Four Deuces}} suggests that this has been a ] for ] including ]. | |||
| Until this discussion and investigation is included, hopefully in a manner involving a greater number of editors, I think we should be conservative with the article ]. -] (]) 14:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :This is not really an RS issue, its a NPOV issue.] (]) 16:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :This has been already discussed on WP:NPOV noticeboard , with consensus to expand the section about Nazi Germany. User Assayer promised to expand it, and he is welcome to do just that. Who said "this has been a cause célèbre for holocaust deniers"? If that can be reliably sourced to something other than Holocaust deniers themselves, perhaps this should be included to the page? ] (]) 17:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *As others have said, this is a ] / ] issue that is better taken to ] - at this point it's hard to see what reliable-sourcing question is being asked at all, since the real dispute is over focus and framing rather than what sources to use. Although I should also point out (since I see people in the discussion on that page bringing up the previous ] discussions as though they settled this definitively) that those discussions were over whether the sources ''can'' be used under ], not whether they ''should'' be used under ] or, if so, how much weight to give them and what tone to take under ]. Those, unfortunately, tend to be more difficult questions. --] (]) 18:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comments by involved users ({{ping|Assayer|Slatersteven|Aquillion|My very best wishes|The Four Deuces|Someguy1221|Paul Siebert|Nug|K.e.coffman|ZScarpia|Darouet}}==== | |||
| Actually, there is also an issue that makes this discussion relevant to this noticeboard. On the article's talk page, {{ping|Darouet}} proposed to list all sources that tell about Soviet gas vans, and to summarise which secondary sources are based on which primary sources. I think it would be good to move this discussion here. Moreover, per comments on the NPOV talk page, I propose to organize this discussion in such a way that involved and uninvolved users are separated from each other. In my opinion, noticeboards like this one are created to give more opportunity for non-involved users to voice their opinion, so that style seems to serve to this purpose better. | |||
| Here is my summary of all sources: | |||
| *A published in ]. The author is a writer specialized in cinematography. He just collected all available testimonies about ]. He provided no own analysis of testimonies, so, in my opinion, this book, despite the fact that it is a useful source of information, is just a collection of primary sources. | |||
| *The ] article published in 1990 by Zhirnov. This article is not available online (to the best of my knowledge). It is very likely that the Zhirnov's article used the Berg's dossier, the same document cited by the Kontinent (''vide supra''). | |||
| :The Zhirnov's article was cited by several secondary sources, each of which used it as the ''sole source'' about Soviet gas vans. These sources are: | |||
| :# Timothy J. Colton. Moscow: Governing the Socialist Metropolis. Belknap Press, 1998. ISBN 0-674-58749-9 p. 286 | |||
| :# Е. Жирнов. «По пути следования к месту исполнения приговоров отравлялись газом». Коммерсантъ Власть, № 44, 2007 (the article by the same author who just re-tells the story he published in KP). | |||
| :# Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Two Hundred Years Together (Двести лет вместе), volume=2, Москва, Русский путь, 2002, ISBN 5-85887-151-8, p. 297 | |||
| :# Yevgenia Albats and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick, KGB: The State Within a State. 1995, page 101 | |||
| :# Robert Gellately, Lenin, Stalin and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe, Knopf, 2007, ISBN 140003213X, p.460. | |||
| :In addition, the source Marek Hałaburda, “The Polish Operation”. The genocide of the Polish people in the USSR in the years 1937–1938, Orientalia Christiana Cracoviensia, 2013, v.5, p. 71. just cites the Polish book Wielki Terror: 1937–1938 by Tomasz Kizny, who, according to Joanna Madloch (''The Slavic and East European Journal'', Vol. 57, No. 4 (WINTER 2013), pp. 699-70) is just an independent photographer. Therefore, it is highly unlikely Kizny performed any independent archival research, and, most likely, he is telling the same story that the KP article. | |||
| *The article Н. Петров. «Человек в кожаном фартуке». Nikita Petrov, Novaya Gazeta (ru:Новая газета, спецвыпуск «Правда ГУЛАГа» от 02.08.2010 № 10 (31)) tells essentially the same story as the Zhirnov's article, but it provides no sources, so it is highly likely it is based on the information provided by Zhirnov (an author of the KP article). | |||
| *We also have the Grigorenko's book where he cites (from memory) testimonies of one person who happened to see what he described as usage of a gas van in ] in 1930s. In my opinion, the author provided no analysis of this primary source, so this source should be considered as a highly questionable primary source. | |||
| *Next source is memoirs by ex-policeman М. П. Шрейдеp. According to him, during transportation, the victims were intoxicated by car exhaust that made them semi-conscious. He is not telling that the primary reason was to kill them during transportation. Therefore, usage of this source is a direct violation of the rules that regulate usage of primary sources. | |||
| *The article by Sokolov (Газовые душегубки: сделано в СССР (Gas vans: made in the USSR) by Dmitry Sokolov, Echo of Crimea, 09.10.2012) was published in a local Ukrainian newspaper. It essentially summarizes the information from the above mentioned sources. | |||
| *In addition, we have the article published is a personal by Nicholas Terry, a scholar who is professionally studying and Holocaust denial. This article says the Soviet gas van story is used by Holocaust deniers to blame Jews in invention of gas vans. | |||
| In my opinion, there is a big problem with usage of sources, which are organized in such a way that multiple sources that used a tabloid article as the sole source of information are presented as many independent sources. In addition, several primary sources are used as secondary ones, whereas the opinion of the scholar who professionally studies the Holocaust is ignored. As a result, we have a three pronged violation: WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR are violated simultaneously. | |||
| Again, to let uninvolved user voice their opinion, all participants are strongly encouraged to comment in "involved" and "non-involved" sections, accordingly.--] (]) 03:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|AmbivalentUnequivocality}} I probably was not clear enough. When I listed the sources that are based on a single KP article, I meant that they cite only this article as a source of information. For example, Solzhenitsyn clearly writes that he obtained the information about gas vans from this KP article, and he does not cite any other source. There is no indication that Albatz, Merridale, Gellately, Solzhenitsyn use any other source besides the Zhirnov's article. Therefore, it is not my guess: they are talking about the same story that happened during the Great Purge, they cite ''only'' the KP article, they cite no arcival documents, they present no witness testimonies, and there is no indication any of them did any independent archival studies of this issue. Therefore, there can be no "probably" here: each of them is based on that KP article, and only on that article. Later articles authored by Zhirnov tell the same story, and they are based on the same single document the author happened to see in 1990, so it is not an independent publication either. The Polish work cites another Polish book authored by a photographer, who also did no archival research, and the only source of information available to him could be either that KP article or some of the sources listed by me above. That is not a guess, that is a logical conclusion. | |||
| :In addition, nobody claims these sources should be rejected, the problem is different: if several sources are telling the story that was taken from some single source, we cannot present them as several independent sources. Quite the opposite: we have to list them all, but we must clearly explain the connection between each of them and the original publication each of them is based upon. | |||
| :--] (]) 03:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am referring to things you have said such as "It is very likely that the Zhirnov's article used the Berg's dossier", "The article...tells essentially the same story as the Zhirnov's article, but it provides no sources, so it is highly likely it is based on the information provided by Zhirnov" and "it is highly unlikely Kizny performed any independent archival research, and, most likely, he is telling the same story that the KP article". These seem to be to be your assumptions about these sources, and not verifiable facts. Just because something is, in your opinion, "very/highly/most likely", does not mean that we can consider it as such. That is, as far as I can tell, your original research. ] (]) 05:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{re|AmbivalentUnequivocality}} Of course, it is verifiable. Thus, it is quite possible to find Kizny's book and check what source he was using. Taking into account that he himself is not a historian, and his book is not devoted to the gas van topic, it is ''highly unlikely'' that he did any independent research. Therefore, we have a very serious reason to assume it is not an independent source, but just a repetition of what other sources say. That can and should be checked, and, until it is checked, we should not use it.--] (]) 14:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I will reiterate; it is only your opinion that this is "highly unlikely", and making such assessments of sources is original research. I give very little weight to assumptions, no matter how serious one thinks the causes for such assumptions may be. ] (]) 04:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::], it seems this issue does belong to this page, at least, partially. First, should we treat the source that just reproduces a single secondary source as secondary or tertiary? Second, should we treat it as an independent source, or we should clarify the hierarchy of sources (which source is based on which)?--] (]) 14:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *Unfortunately, I think the comments by Paul are misleading and indeed original research. No, the publication in ] is not just a collection of testimonies. There is no such thing as "]". Paul could not even find the article in Komsomolskaya Pravda he tells was used by other sources. All authors of secondary sources clearly express their own views on the subject, they do not even cite directly the alleged source "...", including even later publications by the same author (Zhirnov). We simply do not know what other sources the historians (Albatz, Merridale, Gellately, Solzhenitsyn, etc.) could use, all of them are established experts. If even I could find four additional sources (such as the articles in Kontinent and by Sokolov and memoirs by Grigorenko and Shreider, ''none of which ever mention the article in Komsomolskaya Pravda''), so could others. ] (]) 15:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :# It doesn't matter, if the comments of an editor on sources are "original research" or not. In fact, research is indispensable to assess the reliability of sources. | |||
| :# The publication in ''Kontinent'' is merely a transcript of interviews for a documentary. The previous discussion at best proposed to use this source with caution and attribution. Actually I am surprised that My very best wishes is so in favour of that source, because it directly contradicts their other sources, in that the Soviet gas vans according to these "eyewitnesses" were not used for execution, but for rendering the victims unconscious before they were shot. | |||
| :# Albatz, Colton, and Solzhenitsyn cite ''Komsomolskaya Pravda''. Merridale cites Colton. To use Merridale and Colton as seperate sources is misleading. As of now the translator of Yevgenia Albatz' work has even been promoted to co-author status. Does anybody think that this increases reliability? | |||
| :# It does not matter what ''other'' sources historians might have used use. That's mere speculation. It is clear from the footnotes that many used only one source and others kept copying. Those are not independent sources. | |||
| :# The current use of sources in the article is so focused upon using everything available, that errors and contradictions are reproduced over and over again. I already introduced a work on Stalin's secret police by Alexander Vatlin. Based upon Berg's personal file it is clear that Berg became chief of the administrative economic department in Moscow’s NKVD in the summer of 1937 and was arrested on 3 August 1938. Instead, based upon a newspaper article by Zhirnov, Misplaced Pages claims that Berg was arrested in 1937. That's an example of ] and demonstrates how (un)reliable Zhirnov is. What could be found on Berg with Vatlin has quickly been removed from the article. Seems that this source didn't fit into the narrative, because Vatlin does not mention "Soviet gas vans". | |||
| :# To a large degree this is indeed an issue of ]. However, I would like to know when exactly ] and ] were thrown over board. As of now interviews, newspaper articles, novelists and studies from the 90ies are preferred over more recent scholarship.--] (]) 18:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Verifiable means if I read it and you read it we see the same thing, not that it is accurate. Scholarship is one part of RS, so it ], what it does not say is we can only use scholarly sources. So none of the above throws either out. I really suggest this is closed now, its not an RS issue and is becoming tiresome. Do not ping me again, I have said all I wish to say.] (]) 18:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::] And, yes, ] There is no grounds for an "anything goes"-approach. If there was any ping, it was unintentional and maybe due to the edit summary. --] (]) 19:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comments by non-involved users==== | |||
| *I do not really want to wade too deeply into this here (Seems like not really the correct place), but I will say that the above argument relies far too much on the assumptions, guesses, and opinions of one editor(unsigned, but page history shows it is Paul Siebert) to the point that it verges pretty deeply into Original Research territory. I am not comfortable with their assessment that all these sources "probably" rely upon the same source, especially when that source is unavailable. I see a whole lot of "in my opinion", "It is very likely", "highly likely", etc. This is really nothing more than guesswork, and you cannot dismiss sources based on an editor's assumptions or guesses, which seems to be the backbone of the above argument. ] (]) 01:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| I am not an involved edd, and have no idea how I am supposed to be involved. We do not second guess sources, we do not use assumption or OR to dismiss them. This is not an RS issue (the sources have been found to be RS) its a weight issue. This is getting tedious now.] (]) 09:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comments==== | |||
| *This is very strange posting by ]. He tells that all multiple RS above "''used a tabloid article as the sole source of information''". Why? No, they did not. Actually, most of the sources above perfectly qualify as independent secondary RS per ] (only two of them are reliably published memoirs by famous people and therefore probably primary RS, which does not preclude their usage per policy). An exception is , which was posted by an anonymous user with Russian name . No, this is not posting by Nicholas Terry. Fortunately, no one suggested to use this blog on the page so far. ] (]) 23:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * This is not a RS question, the sourcing is generally fine and can be addressed case by case on Talk anyway. The issue is of ], and as far as I can see we can fix that simply by putting the Nazi section first (since that's far and away the most prominent). I have done that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * How is this even an argument?! Everyone has heard about Nazi gan vans, lots of sources. "Soviet gas trucks" are covered by Russian tabloids who recount an eyewitness of a truck which nauseated but didn't kill transportees, some sources who repeat the tabloids, and Holocaust deniers who try to downplay Nazi gas vans. Nazi gas vans existed and killed many. The existence of a few "Soviet gas trucks" isn't even certain. ] (]) 11:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::This page does not include a single reference to tabloids or to Holocaust deniers. I did not see a single RS saying anything about Holocaust deniers in relation to the Soviet gas vans. None of the cited sources downplays Nazi gas vans. ] (]) 11:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I don't know much about this, but I did search. What I found in English: or is on www.vho.org whose title is "The Holocaust Controversy A Case for open Debate". German-Misplaced Pages calls a "Holocaust denier". The is skeptical on Berg - "no evidence". ] (]) 15:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK. Russian Misplaced Pages is not an RS, but it provides a link to yet another source , newspaper ] (currently not used on our page Gas van). There, a Russian state security official tells about Soviet gas vans as matter of ''fact''. Furthermore, your both sources (linked pdfs) also claim that Soviet gas vans did exist and refer to an additional source, a "four-part television series ... broadcast in the United States" (also currently not used on our page). However, one of the linked sources is a book by a Holocaust denier as you say, and another one is from the "". Are you saying they should be used for sourcing on the page? ] look OK to me. ] (]) 16:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I am not suggesting www.vho.org. Color me skeptical when everything I find in English is linked to Holocaust denial.] (]) 16:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, that's because some people denied the use of gas vans by ''Nazi''. ] (]) 16:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * My understanding was that Terry (the central academic RS in this case) was ambivalent if the Soviet gas vans existed but asserted if they did exist they were a small "innovation" with a local scope, not something codified into policy. ] (]) 14:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::What "central academic RS" do you mean? by this anonymous user ? ] (]) 14:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ===Source to check=== | |||
| These have come up as possible sources, can someone check them? | |||
| The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45 Stephen Wheatcroft Europe-Asia Studies Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353 "construction of gas-vans ('dushegubki') in 1937". | |||
| Cheers.] (]) 15:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| : Sole mention I see is in footnote 75 (page 1353): <blockquote>"Valentin Kovalev quotes a statement from Isaiah Davidovich Berg, the former head of the administrative economic department of the Moscow oblast' NKVD , that he had participated in the construction of gas-vans ('dushegubki') in 1937 in order to gas to death those sentenced to be shot. Further confirmation is needed concerning this sensational claim. See Valentin Kovalev, Dva Stalinskikh Narkoma (Moscow, Univers, 1995), p . 241"</blockquote> So a '''sensational claim''' needing further confirmation. ] (]) 15:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| How about ]?] (]) 15:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| : One sentence on "ginned up" lorry by Isai D. Berg at Butovo. No discussion, the rest of the page discusses shootings there. ] (]) 15:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is it an RS? If it is then we have an RS that talk s about this. Anything else is another matter.] (]) 15:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::The reference number 75 in the Wheatcroft's article is used in the sentence | |||
| ::::"'' Auschwitz as a centre for mass killing should be compared with the mass shootings of the NKVD throughout the 1930s, and not with the Gulag or the famine.''" | |||
| :::The ref 75 says: | |||
| ::::"'' Valentin Kovalev quotes a statement from Isaiah Davidovich Berg, the former head of the administrative economic department of the Moscow oblast' NKVD, that he had participated in the construction of gas-vans ('dushegubki') in 1937 in order to gas to death those sentenced to be shot. Further confirmation is needed concerning this sensational claim.''" | |||
| :::That means that (i) Kovalev refers to the same document that was used by Zhirnov in his KP article, and, most likely, Kovalev's claim is based on the same KP article, and (ii) Wheatcroft, who is a really serious historian specializing in Stalinist repressions, thinks that that claim is "sensational" and needs further confirmation.--] (]) 05:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Regarding the book, this page is not available to me, and I couldn't read it. However, if it tells about Berg, then it is definitely based on the same KP article, because the Berg's dossier seems to have been classified again (the only person who happened to see it was Zhirnov). Again, we are speaking about the same story reproduced by several secondary sources. --] (]) 05:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Which is irrelevant, that is not how RS works. We are not allowed to second guess or analyse RS. They may well be reap;ting the same story (assuming they are, and that is an assumption), they are still RS.] (]) 08:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Not exactly. We ''are'' allowed, and we ''must'' analyse RS before we use them. Thus, my analysis shows that the RS found by you supports the claim that the statement about Soviet gas van found in Valentin Kovalev's book is ''sensational'', and it requires further confirmations. Do you have any objection to that?--] (]) 23:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == should addictivetips dot com and privacyaustralia dot net be considered reliable sources? == | |||
| The websites seem to be ] and ], and are cited in ] as citations 19 and 22. ] 03:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :NO.] (]) 13:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * Rather obviously not. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * About these two sites: | |||
| ** AddictiveTips (addictivetips.com) is a ] with a . Most of their non-VPN content is of low quality, and AddictiveTips is at best ] for uncontroversial technology-related topics. AddictiveTips should not be used to establish ]. All of the content in AddictiveTips' is ] with ], and should not be cited on Misplaced Pages. Everything under <code><nowiki>https://www.addictivetips.com/vpn/</nowiki></code> should be ]. | |||
| ** Privacy Australia (privacyaustralia.net) is operated by a , only one of whom appears to be responsible for the site content. This alone makes Privacy Australia a ], but the fact that the site is almost entirely composed of ] with ] means that it should be ]. | |||
| {{bi|em=1.6|— ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 03:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)}} | |||
| *** Nice, though I've already removed the citations due to earlier consensus ] 07:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == A personal blog of a professional historian as a source for history articles == | |||
| According to The Guardian, Nicolas Terry is a . He collaborated with the ; currently he is a , and he has a personal blog where history related materials are published. Is a reliable source for WP articles devoted to various aspects of the Holocaust and its denial? | |||
| This question is a continuation of the previous discussion, but, since the previous discussion is becoming too convoluted, I decided to ask this question separately. Users {{ping|Assayer|Aquillion|My very best wishes|The Four Deuces|Someguy1221|Paul Siebert|Nug|K.e.coffman|ZScarpia|Darouet}} are participants of this dispute, so I would be grateful to see the opinion of non-involved users.--] (]) 03:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Can you provide links to his blog (which you want to cite) and the previous discussion? ] (]) 03:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, forgot to add it. .--] (]) 04:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Where is the previous discussion? ] (]) 13:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''No''', the blog is not an RS, only Nicolas Terry can be. For example, by this anonymous user is not an RS. But even if that were a post by Nicolas Terry, using the self-published source should be strongly discouraged. Anything significant by Nicolas Terry should be published in a better place, and especially on a controversial subject. ] (]) 03:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *In general personal blogs are not reliable sources, irrespective of who the author is. -] (]) 03:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::But, in specific, we do allow blogs written by experts (when writing about things in their field of expertise) ] (]) 13:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Ad Orientem}} I am aware of that general rule, however, I am asking because ] In my opinion, there is a possibility that Terry fits those criteria.--] (]) 04:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''', a personal blog can be reliable for certain topics if it meets ], although published sources are preferred. ] does not override SPS. <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 04:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::So it has been mentioned that this blog is not solely authored by Terry. There are several other contributors who seem to be pseudonymous. Is there a way to filter or search posts only by Terry? Can we have a reasonable level of confidence that Terry is the one using his named account? And does Terry share his byline or account with anyone else who might blog? I guess those criteria are ] 101. Yes, Terry's work might meet RS standards, but other contributors would need to be evaluated on their own merits, and since Blogger doesn't have blue check marks, we'll need to establish some way of knowing accounts actually belong to who they say they are. ] (]) 09:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Good questions. Let's try to answer. As Paul tells, it is a continuation of . Hence, this is an account in question who made . This is not Terry. What this blogger does? He cites Holocaust deniers from the "". He "forgets" about numerous reliable sources existing on this subject. He whitewashes crimes by the Stalinist regime. He has a Russian nickname. The bottom line: this is not Terry. ] (]) 12:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We can assume that any unsigned articles are either written by Terry or or are as good as written by him. ] (]) 19:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: We can? On what basis? Not trying to be argumentative I just don't see why anyone would make that assumption here. ] (]) 03:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' As per SPS his blog is an RS for his view, as long as they are attributed. But only his posts are RS, not anything else anyone posts there.] (]) 13:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::We also need to factor ] into the mix... he may be reliable, but still not worth citing. (Not giving an opinion on this case... just reminding people that reliability is not the only issue to discuss). ] (]) 13:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::True, buts its also a different issue.] (]) 13:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''', per ], "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, independent publications." If we accept that Nicolas Terry is "an established expert on the subject matter" then his writing is considered reliable, however that only extends to writing he, himself authors, not writing by non-experts which happen to be published near his writing. It is only writing where he is the clear author this applies to. --]] 14:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Limited''': Only when "posted by" is Nicholas Terry, and where the contents is uncontroversial. Any controversial claim would require a peer- or editor-reviewed source. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Depends'''. The author seems to mix factual reporting and his own opinion quite liberally on his blog, so editors should be cautioned not to present his opinion as fact. He seems to have strong views on the topic (regardless of whether they are appropriate or not). I agree with JzG. ] (]) 17:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' of course, as long as the author is an established expert as described above. As other editors have mentioned, posts written by other authors are not reliable, though I would add the caveat that if any other authors are themselves established experts, then their posts would also be acceptable. This isn't necessarily a ''strong'' source, but I also note that ] is in effect with regards to Holocaust denial. As a result, without compelling reasons to the contrary (e.g. direct contradiction in the peer-reviewed literature), it can most likely be depended on to give the academic position on any claims related to Holocaust denial. ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 18:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' is a link to a previous discussion. In this case the blog is being used to discredit one sentence in an otherwise reliable source about a Jewish Communist alleged to have created gas vans in the USSR. The story is popular in anti=Semitic literature but, other than this one source, is not cited in any other academic book at all. The author used as his source a tabloid, '']'' originally for Young Communists that now publishes anti-Semitic articles. (The narrative is that Nazi Germany did not gas any Jews, but the Jews gassed Ukrainians.) I think that this is a good case for ] ] (]) 19:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''No'''. I can't imagine what it would be used for in a topic so thoroughly covered by scholarly sources. For anything contentious, we need a peer-reviewed source. For any uncontentious, there will surely already be a peer-reviewed source. Can someone post an example of how the blog would be used and a link to the previous discussion? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| **], it is not thoroughly covered, see my comments above. ] (]) 21:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::], I perfectly understand limitations of this source. The problem is that the topic ("Soviet gas vans") . The only sources that cover this topic are Holocaust deniers writings, and that is analyzed in Terry's blog. I failed to find better sources.--] (]) 22:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Paul Siebert|Paul}}, I'm having difficulty following this discussion. Can you link to the precise blog post you want to use as a source, and the edit it will support? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] I mean source. I myself do not think it is really good, but other sources writing about that subject are even worse: they are based either on non-verifiable testimonies, or on some Russian tabloid article published in 1990. --] (]) 04:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|Paul Siebert|Paul}}, thanks. You've linked to a blog post by Sergey Romanov. I don't know who that is. That's definitely not an RS unless you can show that he's an expert. It means this discussion is misleading, because you seemed to be asking whether Nicholas Terry was an RS if self-published, but in fact you're asking whether Sergey Romanov is. Which edit did you want to use that source to support? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::], I know that the author of the post is not Terry, however, as far as understand, Terry is supposed to moderate his blog, so it seems the content of his blog is somewhat vetted by him. | |||
| ::::::I am going to use this blog to support the statement that the sensational claim about alleged invention and usage of has vans is cited by Holocaust deniers who question the fact of existence of Nazi gas vans (such as Alvarez). The fact that Alvarez questions the existence of German gas vans and cites the Soviet gas van story follows from his book, so this claim is not controversial, so it does not need an outstanding evidences. I do not think we should cite the Alvarez's book directly, because it is published by a publisher house that was established by a convicted Holocaust denier.--] (]) 18:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''', it can be used for some things. If I understand the issue properly, this all relates to allegations that the Soviet Union used gas vans and some of the controversy surrounding that...? That entire aspect seems slightly ]y, in the sense that while sources exist, they're sharply lower-quality and lower-prominence than the ones discussing the usage by Nazis. For more obscure subjects like this (where few high-profile mainstream scholars have weighed in), I feel it is appropriate to rely on what we can get - the opinion of an established scholar like Terry, even posted via ], seems important to include if we're going to discuss such an obscure aspect at all. --] (]) 21:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Depends''' This blog not only deals with Holocaust denial, it even engages with deniers’ arguments. Not many historians do that, for obvious reasons: Holocaust denial is not to be taken seriously. Arguments with Holocaust deniers simply are not the kind of material which would be published as a book. ] is a rare exception. The blog (and a different post by Romanov) have been cited by RS (historical scholarship). I take notice that the one user who preaches that {{xt|we simply do not know what other sources the historians could use}} is certain that Romanov {{xt|"forgets" about numerous reliable sources existing on this subject. He whitewashes crimes by the Stalinist regime.}} That’s simply unfounded.--] (]) 23:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. Per ], ''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, independent publications.'' OK, but who is author of the post in question ? Someone called "Sergey Romanov" . Is it even real name of the person? And even if it is real, what kind of expert he is? ] (]) 23:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :*Based on their last comment , Paul started this entire thread just to discredit a ''reliable'' primary source (the book by ], it was cited in a lot of other books and scholarly literature), along with claims by a number of other secondary RS, using another source, a blog by an unknown person that ''he knew was not an RS''. And his logic is misleading. Whatever Holocaust deniers could cite is simply irrelevant. ] (]) 22:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Welllll... I guess not.''' First of all, Nicholas Terry. As to ''notability'', in the sense that we want to say "According to Nicholas Terry...", let's see... Nicholas Terry is not bluelinked and probably isn't eligible yet, having written only one book () which isn't published yet, and he's a lecturer rather than a professor. We don't give just anybody standing to be quoted that way... We don't quote just any random university lecturer. "Is a professional historian" (in the sense that he makes his living as a history teacher) also applies to the your 11th grade history teacher, and we have to have a line somewhere. Terry has a PhD and has written a book and has other markers of notability, so he might be sufficiently notable to quote, but he's on the bubble anyway. | |||
| :As far his reliability for statements of fact, no, probably not. He doesn't appear to have a sufficient corpus that we can say "well, here is a guy with a sterling reputation for sufficient expertise, attention to detail, and lack of bias that we can take most anything he writes to the bank". For all I know his book will be reviewed in the manner of "Sparks gets many of his facts wrong...". | |||
| :As far as what ''he himself'' writes in his blog, its pretty much as good as what he might write in his book: neither is independently fact checked (probably; when the book comes out we can see if he credits a fact checker (unlikely)). That's not a deal-killer necessarily, if Terry himself is sufficiently reliable. But he's not, IMO. | |||
| :As to stuff written at that blog by anyone ''other'' than Terry, heck no. The third entry on the front page is titled "Yet another Holocaust-denying terrorist" and opens with "Meet a typical low-intelligence chan loser scum, Stephan Balliet...". We can't go near stuff like that of course, and really it colors the entire publication (blog or whatever you want to call it) and kind of implies that its editors are either biased or insufficiently in control. Terry's association with a publication like that is not a good marker that he can be securely trusted to not cherry-pick or even twist facts. (He ''probably'' doesn't, but "probably" is kind of a low bar for introducing statements of fact to the Misplaced Pages.) | |||
| :Taken all together, '''no''', I don't think we can consider Terry, by himself and publishing in a non-fact-checked venue, as a reliable source ''at this time''. As and if his academic career advances, that may change. ] (]) 12:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Only with attribution'''; there is no scholarly editorial control that would be present in the journal process or from an academic press. It cannot be used as source for material in WP voice. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]]</span> 22:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::You mean with attribution to "Sergey Romanov" who authored this blog post (and possibly has a different name in real life) or to "Nicholas Terry" who possibly has no idea about this blog post? ] (]) 22:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Paul asked this question about the blog in general, not a specific post. I replied on the same basis. Attribution means "ascribing a work or remark to a particular author" and I meant exactly what I wrote. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]]</span> 22:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Looking at some of the additional questions which have arisen, the question of notability of an individual to whom a text is attributed arises. Terry may be notable in whatever very specific specialism he has published in, and therefore his posts relating to that area worth inclusion. Whoever Sergey Romanov is, and if that is the real subject of this discussion, unless it can be shown otherwise he appears to be totally inconsequential, and therefore not sufficiently notable to include his views on any subject. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]]</span> 22:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you! OK, but simply looking at the blog, I do not see a single post by Terry. ] (]) 00:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Generally no'''; {{ping|Paul Siebert}} unfortunately I think you've incorrectly assessed the nature of the blog. According to the blog's introductory post back in 2006 by Nicolas Terry, he was only one of the founding collaborators ("I hope to dedicate some of my postings to this collective blog to discussing", "The contributors here met online at the RODOH forum"). . Its also unclear to me how much involvement Terry still has with the blog; the most recent post he made seems to be from 2016 and he doesn't seem to have been contributing regularly even then (unfortunately I cant find a way to search by author). Posts that he personally made may be RSs, but I don't see any indication he exercises control over the other contributors' work. -] (]) 00:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Is this the same noticeboard which just vetted ] related through an interview by a third person published as a transcript ("novel of evidence") of a documentary in a literary quarterly? {{xt|We don't quote just any random university lecturer.}} Why? Is his work too scholarly, maybe? Ok, he co-edited a volume on genocide denial for Routledge, which seems too make him less reliable than memoirs by former NKVD officers. He has published with Yad Vashem Studies, which is certainly less reliable than some Crimean local newspaper. The few times I consulted RSN before, amateur historians, i.e. authors with no professional expertise in history, who never studied history, let alone held a degree in history, and who published with the most specialist and small publishing houses, even indulged in self-publishing, were routinely considered to be perfect RS. You know, these authors provided information so special that it could not be found in mainstream historical scholarship, so it must have been reliable. In other words, there is anything but a standard by which RS are evaluated at RSN and that's a problem. If the reliability of the blog posts is to be assessed, these posts have to be compared to the findings of established historical scholarship. It can't be done by a simple thumbs up or down after superficially looking at the credentials of the author. And if the blog has been approvingly cited by historical scholarship, as it has been, that's a strong sign for reliability.--] (]) 01:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh yes, the publication by well known author Lipkov (although he wrote books in a different subject area) who cited other experts (like Golovkova) in ] is ''a lot'' better source than a post by an anonymous account on a blog. It does not mean that Lipkov is telling The Truth. It only means the source can be used per WP:RS. ] (]) 01:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::For those of us who have only just tuned into this saga, could you link to the approving citation Assayer? --] (]) 01:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not sure what is meant by “approving citation”, but this was seen as clearance of the source. RSN discussions tend to focus on the credentials of the author of a source which should only be the starting point of the assessment process. That case was a case of ]. Oral history is not per se unreliable, but historiography has developed a refined methodology of collecting, assessing and interpreting oral testimony. Even if we have testimony by a highly reputed historian with much experience in oral history, due to its form the source might not be completely reliable. Interviews a generally less reliable than written statements. Turning back to the case of the blog, it is important to note that it is dedicated to the refutation of Holocaust denial, something which historians usually don’t do, because such a discussion is pointless. The contributors to the blog, both amateurs and trained historians according to Terry’s own admission, wrote up a refutation of claims by Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf and Thomas Kues, all well-known deniers, which has been cited by historical scholarship. ''The Guardian'' named Terry “the UK’s foremost academic on the subject”. That said, the posts on this blog should be dealt with for their own merits. The posts I have read can be verified and corroborated by other sources (undoubtedly RS). Thus, it’s not an outright unreliable source. In general, I would not use this blog, however, except when dealing with Holocaust denial itself. The English Misplaced Pages routinely uses references and links to editions of Holocaust denier’s works. I do not see why a blog devoted to debunking Holocaust denial should not be reliable for debunking.--] (]) 18:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''In general''' blog posts by an established expert can be reliable sources per ], yes. But the specific source under discussion here seems to be , and it is not written by an established expert, and is therefore emphatically '''not a RS.''' It's just a blog post written by... someone, who we don't seem to have ''any'' info on. Not sure why we're even talking about Nicholas Terry and SPS when there's no indication that he's the author of the piece in question. ] (]) 03:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{re|RaiderAspect}} The story Assayer is talking about is described ], and its brief summary is as follows. Several secondary sources mention a story of a Soviet gas van that was used during the Great Purge. This story is based on one ] document that was published in ] in 1990. In addition to that, a couple of books exist where non-verifiable testimonies are reproduced, which tell about similar events in two Russian cities. In addition, we have an article in a local newspaper that was authored by a writer with unknown credentials. Of course, from the formal point of view, an newspaper article or a book are RS, according to our policy. However, as Assayer is correctly arguing, ''the article published in a local Ukrainian newspaper, which is authored by some unknown author'' seems much less trustworthy than the post in a personal blog of a professional historian who worked with Holocaust Memorial, and who is a history lecturer in a high rank British University. The same can be said about the book that uncritically reproduces some non-verifiable testimonies (actually, a memoir of a person who happened to hear a story told by a witness of alleged usage of Soviet gas van). | |||
| Please, understand me correctly: I myself prefer not to use blogs of that type, the problem is that that blog, which seem to be maintained and moderated by a professional historian, looks much more trustworthy, in terms of fact checking and accuracy, than such "reliable sources" as non-verifiable testimonies or an obscure local newspaper. The fact that the first type source does not fit our RS criteria, whereas the second type sources do means that something is fundamentally wrong either with our policy or with the way it is being implemented.--] (]) 04:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *No, the story is not "based on one ] document that was published in ] in 1990". Not at all. This is WP:OR at best. "''The article published in a local Ukrainian newspaper, which is authored by some unknown author seems much less trustworthy than the post in a personal blog of a professional historian''". No, it is precisely another way around. An article published (not self-published) by well known Russian historian in newspaper is ''a lot'' more reliable source per WP:RS than a blog post by unknown person. I am really surprised that Paul continue arguing otherwise. ] (]) 15:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| As with too many of these discussions on this board, this discussion is spinning. Please follow the form set out at the top of this page; 1) What is the content you want in what article? 2) What is the source? If it is a blog post, post the exact url of the blog post. Thanks. ] (]) 16:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :* The content is as follows: | |||
| :::"''The Soviet gas van story, in particular, Grigirenko's memoirs and Berg's case, is used by Holocaust deniers''". | |||
| :*The source is . | |||
| :--] (]) 17:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ohhhh. The actual post is by one "Sergey Romanov". I can't find anything about "Sergey Romanov". So he could be a 12 year old kid for all I know. He could be an agent of the Mongolian government. He could be a squeegee guy in Naples, Florida. He could be my cat. How is this possibly a good source, and huge trout to the person who started the thread, and stop doing that, kthx. | |||
| ::Sure I suppose if you squint really hard, you could say that technically the ''publication'' is edited by a "professional history" (that is, a history lecturer, not a professor or published author), but ''come on''. Who the writer of the piece is very very important. | |||
| ::If you've got info on Sergey Romanov, present it, and explain why the internet doesn't have it. If it's a pseudonym, tell us who's behind it, provide proof, explain why they are using a pseudonym, and point to the credentials showing his expertise, carefullness, and lack of bias. | |||
| ::In future maybe make it a lot more clearer, e.g. "A blog post by an anyonymous person, or at any rate a person who has no credentials that I know of". Then we could dispose of the question more quickly. ] (]) 18:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::You are not completely right (I am not saying you are not right). It seems that the blog is moderated by the owner, who is a professional historian. If any teenager can post an article in this blog, then you also can do that, right? However, I couldn't find how to do that. That means this blog is kind of "by invitation only", which means Terry is screening potential contributors. | |||
| :::In addition, Holocaust deniers Terry is writing about are beyond the scope of mainstream scholarly community, and Terry's blog is among few sources that write about them. Of course, had this topic been covered by better sources, I would never raised this question, but in a current situation I have no choice. | |||
| :::By the way, Sergei Romanov cannot be "a 12 year old kid" because he seems to be posting at this blog since 2006, so he belonged to the group that gave a start to this blog.--] (]) 20:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''The appropriateness of any source depends on the context.'' So the question is not simply, who is the author, but is this an appropriate source for a certain context. I am ambivalent if Holocaust denial should be discussed in the specific article in question, because the reality of the gas chambers is nothing to be discussed. If you search for "gas van" on the Internet, however, a Holocaust denying publication is to be found among the top ten search results by google. Except for this blog I do not know any other source which tackles the problem and it does not help at all to make funny comments ''ad hominem'' to discard reliabity.--] (]) 19:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, the context is completely irrelevant. is a blog post ''by unknown person''. This is just a garbage on the internet in terms of WP:RS, nothing more. ] (]) 22:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * I don't think we should be using blogs at all, even in cases where they are written by a recognized expert. Policy doesn't necessarily agree with me on that. Obviously I think the policy should be changed. Blogs, even those written by experts, have zero editorial oversight and fact checking. Both these processes require multiple participants. If all you have, and what you are forced to use is merely a blog, then to my mind you've already conceded the DUEWEIGHT debate, even if the source is factually correct. ]] 20:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Is NewsGram.com reliable == | |||
| Is reliable so that it can be used in a BLP article? Recently added in though it doesn't serve any purpose as of now. If it is reliable, then some important things in the Wiki article can be sourced from it. The editor-in-chief is some Munish Raizada , . - ] (]) 15:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :The ] describes the Editor in Chief thusly: He's described there as a medical practitioner and sociopolitical activist. All of the articles are either republications of articles originally printed elsewhere, or have bylines of "Newsgram desk". I can find no list of employed or free-lance journalists that work with them, I can find no editorial staff, nothing. That does not have the hallmarks of a reliable source. --]] 16:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Smacks of SPS, no not an RS.] (]) 08:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Non peer-reviewed pre-print version of scientific paper == | |||
| I have a question regarding this paper (linked below) by the geneticist Iosif Lazaridis. It seems to be a preprint, and I wondered whether this means it is not a reliable source (since that means it has not yet been peer-reviewed) https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1.full | |||
| Thank you. ] (]) 17:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>I hope you don't mind; I changed the section title to a more descriptive one in hopes of attracting more participation. ~ '']''<sup>(]|])</sup><small>]</small> 20:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :{{u|Skllagyook}}, If the paper is eventually published in some form, the preprint can almost certainly be cited. Obviously, it's preferable to cite the published paper but most academics would be considered experts for the purpose of ] anyway. <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 22:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Fiamh}}, Thank you. I do not think the paper is reviewed yet (I cannot find a non-preprint version), but I would assume it will be and will be published in that form eventually. And it is by (among others) a pretty prominent and well-regarded population geneticist - Iosif Lazaridis - (whose other papers are cited elsewhere here). So is it ok to cite it even if it has not yet been published in non-preprint form? (I have just added it as a ref on two pages, but if it is not acceptable, I will, of course, remove the new material.) Thank you again. ] (]) 22:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Skllagyook}}, checking I'm not sure this is a good idea. This is a new scientific finding that hasn't been peer reviewed or confirmed. I would hold off until Lazaridis publishes it. What I would do is remove the content from the article and copy it to the talk page so that it can be re-added if/when it is confirmed. <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 23:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Fiamh}}, May I ask why it is not a good idea (since you had said earlier that sources from academics were acceptable)? Would it help if my additions to the pages summarized it in a somewhat shorter form with a bit less detail? ] (]) 23:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|Skllagyook}}, as I understand ], it was more intended for general comments by experts on their subjects of expertise, rather than new findings. But it's possible that other editors have a different perspective on the guideline. <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 23:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{u|Fiamh}}, I see. Should I then wait for the opinions of other editors (to be added here) as well? ] (]) 23:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :As a non-reviewed paper, which is what it is in this form, I would treat it as the opinion of the author(s). Having been through this process, a submitted paper might be accepted without change (Yay!), accepted with revisions, rejected pending revisions or outright rejected. If rejected the final paper that results from teh work may be significantly different than the pre-review work. The correct thing to do is wait until the paper is released before using it. ] (]) 01:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :As its not been published or peer reviewed it is just his opinion, it may be RS if he is a recognized expert in the field (note, not just someone who works in it).] (]) 08:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *Per ], if it has not yet been properly reviewed and published ''but will be'' at some point, then there's no rush to cite it or to add any text to Misplaced Pages ''yet'' which does cite it. Why the rush? Wait until it's been reviewed and published, and ''then'' cite it. --]] 14:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *We ought to consider just how extraordinary the claims made in a pre-print scientific or scholarly jounal are when evaluating its reliability. shows the danger of relying on pre-prints and other non-peer reviewed reports for our articles. | |||
| :"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". It's worth waiting for at the very least peer-review of such reports. ''Science'', in fact, did publish Wolfe-Simon's paper, but then later carried reports by researchers who had been unable to duplicate the results she reported independently. The current consensus is that the work Wolfe-Simon reported was procedurally flawed, accounting for the lack of independent confirmation by other groups. We're an encyclopedia, and our readers aren't looking for breaking news, but verifiable information. --] (]) 23:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Jayron32}}, I assumed that it would be published eventually, but it has been at least a year now. Are all preprints eventually published in some form? I suppose I cannot be certain. Not being certain, is it okay to cite him since he is an expert in the field, or should I wait for the study to be published anyway? Thanks. ] (]) 16:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Skllagyook (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Slatersteven}}, Iosif Lazaridis is an expert in the field and has published several important papers on population genetics, especially of ancient peoples of the Near East and Europe. Would this mean his source can be cited before it is published/reviewed (as I had cited it before), or is the general consensus here in this thread against that? Some links on Lazaridis for reference: | |||
| :https://connects.catalyst.harvard.edu/Profiles/display/Person/115264 | |||
| :https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=eQmvmqQAAAAJ&hl=en | |||
| :https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Iosif_Lazaridis | |||
| :https://www.ellines.com/en/achievements/37774-sheds-light-on-the-genetic-history-of-europeans/ | |||
| :https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/people/iosif-lazaridis | |||
| :] (]) 16:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Irrelevant, at best we might be able to use this based upon ], but as its a science paper that has not be accepted for publication or been peer reviewed ] may also enter into it. A lot would depend on what it is being used as a source for.] (]) 16:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Slatersteven}}, I'm not sure I understand regarding ]; the link to ] leads to information of self published sources and what they are not acceptable (Why might this be a reason it could be used? Would it be the reverse?). It was being used (by me) in the ] and ] pages regarding the ancestral makeup of the those two ancient peoples. Lazaridis, in the 2018 paper, suggests that the Iberomaurusians were made up of two kinds of ancestry; with one kind from paleolithic Western Eurasians derived from the Caucasus (a population also ancestral to other Western Eurasian peoples in Europe and the Middle East) and the other kind from an ancient now-extinct population indigenous to North Africa. The Iberomaurusuian population is considered, in that paper, to have contributed to the genetics of the Natufian peoples of the Levant (as Lazaridis says, rather than the reverse as the earlier paper by Loosdrecht had proposed). If ] applied, one would, of course, not want to give it's description too much length or detail. ] (]) 16:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Because it is the closest I can think of policy wise "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter,". I was not clear about my other point. What I meant was what do you want to use it to say?] (]) 16:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|Slatersteven}}, I see. I understand now, thank you for explaining that re ] (I guess I missed it). The guideline, "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, independent publications" does seem to (to me) apply to Lazaridis. What I wanted to use it to say was what I described above: something (on the Iberomaurusian page) along the lines of: that, the study suggests that the Iberomaurusians were made up of two kinds of ancestry; with one kind from paleolithic Western Eurasians derived from the Caucasus (a population also ancestral to other Western Eurasian peoples in Europe and the Middle East) and the other kind from an ancient now-extinct population indigenous to North Africa. And (on the Natufian page), something about the fact that the study suggests that, The Iberomaurusuian population (which may have had the above described origin) is suggested (by Lazaridis 2018) to have contributed to the genetics of the Natufian peoples of the Levant (both under the respective "genetics" sections of those pages). ] (]) 16:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Problematic, as I understand it this is a copy of the paper that has not yet been submitted to peer review, but (I I read the what is pre-publication bit correctly) will be at some point. Thus it may be that once it has been peer reviewed its conclusions may change (or it may even be rejected). At the same time he is an expert and as such his self published opinions may be used in the way you wish ("according to..."). But (and here is the rub), he may well withdraw it after peer review, or significantly alter it. As such I would caution against using it, we are not a news paper and we can in fact wait until things become clear.] (]) 16:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{u|Slatersteven}}, I suppose the proposed section(s) discussing the paper (if it/they were added to the aforememtioned articles) could later be altered, or removed, depending on/to follow the results of peer-review (whenever that occurs). Or is it better to simply hold off on adding it at all until (when/if) it is published? ] (]) 19:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Hold off, nothing is lost by waiting, and a lot can be by not waiting.] (]) 11:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{u|Slatersteven}}, Ok, I will wait/hold off then. Thank you. ] (]) 21:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Original historical documents and historians who ignore it == | |||
| Question asked earlier so I ask it here too. If original historical document in a village mentioned Vlachs(15th, 16th, 17th century) and historian in the book states that in same village(15th, 16th, 17th century) live Germans, Croats or Serbs (it is not important), what do I do? Formally his claim is proof and the book is proof for Misplaced Pages article but according to original historical data in that village live Vlachs not Germans etc. It means that historian does not base his claim on original historical records. He could say that Chinese live in that village and this is proof for Misplaced Pages article. So i'm interested how to dispute that false quote and delete it from the article although this was said in the book by a historian who apparently lied] (]) 19:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Obviously, historians should be trusted, and the original document should not. There is a special discipline, ], whose aim is to establish how each concrete source should be interpreted. In general, it would be correct to assume that by default ''every'' historical document is lying, for each document was written not for usage by future Wikipedians, but to meet some practical goals, or to convey some idea (which may be unknown to us). In addition, some terms may change, so literal interpretation of sources may lead to serious mistakes. Thus, taking into account that the concept of nations or nationality was not existing during that time, it is quite likely that what we currently see as Vlachs (ancestors of modern Romanians, if I understand correctly) has no relation to those time Vlachs, because in XV century, any subject of Wallachian monarch was considered a Vlach (independent on their ethnicity). Therefore, any interpretation of primary sources may be performed only by professionals.--] (]) 19:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *The first thing you should do is look to see what OTHER historians say. Do they discuss the Vlach in village? If so, perhaps you can cite them. If none of them mention the Vlach, you need to ask why they don’t? Ask the historians. It may be that they are aware of your document, but consider it flawed for some reason. Or it may be that you have discovered a document that no one was aware of before. In which case you will have to wait for a historian to evaluate it and write a history of the village that incorporates that new document. The one thing you can not do is cite the document in WP yourself, as that would be ORIGINAL RESEARCH... which is not allowed (see ]. ] (]) 19:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Friends this is a very serious situation. I give an example, in Croatia Vlachs are historically mentioned and today they are Serbs and to a lesser extent Croats. Ivic Aleksa, Serbian historian (Budjanovci, 23rd XII. 1881 - Belgrade, 23rd XI. 1948). In his book he does not notice these original Vlachs, and he writes about them as Serbs. Mirko Valentić; Institute for Contemporary History, Zagreb, Croatia, states in the book "On the Ethnic Root of Croatian Bosnian Serbs""Because archival material, with few exceptions, gives the researcher only the Vlach name, A. lvic, retelling the archives, simply there where it says Vlachs reads a Serbs. Having found in the archival material a large number of writings for Catholics Vlachs ie descendants of the ancient Croatian Vlachs: Bunjevci, Morlaci and others, he would also declare these as Vlachs Serbs by calling them • Serbs of the Catholic faith. " Writing about the attempt to free Lika from which the Vlachs commit violence and crimes by Central Croatia, penetrating into the depths of Carniola, lvic suggests to his reader that the Austrian Archduke had ordered the“ expulsion of the Serbs from Lika. " The original document reads " Abtreibung der neu angesessnem Walachen in der Likha . "24 The same procedure was applied by Gomirje Vlachs, which A. lvić reads as "Gomirje Serbs", although the archival file contains "Wallachen zu Goymerie" .25 He treats the well-known Vlachs villages of Dubrava and Ponikve in the Ogulin area as well. lvic writes: "The Serbian places of Dubrava and Ponikva, where the Serbs lived." In the original document reads • die in dem Dorff Dubrau und Ponique wohnende Wallachen . "26 The lawsuit of Žumberak Vlachs from Marindol in 1668 is presented by Ivic as a lawsuit by" Serbs from Marindol ", although the original file states: • die Walachen zu Marienthall beclagen sich . "27 Forgery of this kind is roped in every page of Ivic's book. Here are only some examples randomly selected" <ref>{{"Budući da arhivska građa, osim rijetkih izuzetaka, daje istraživaču samo vlaško ime, A. lvić, prepričavajući arhivske spise, jednostavno ondje gdje piše Vlah čita Srbin. Našavši u arhivskoj građi veći broj spisa o Vlasima katolicima, tj. potomcima starohrvatskih Vlaha: Bunjevci, Morlaci i drugi, on će i te Vlahe proglasiti Srbima nazivajući ih •Srbi katoličke vere«. Pišući o pokušaju oslobođenja Like iz koje Vlasi čine nasilja i zločine po središnjoj Hrvatskoj, provaljujući i u dubinu Kranjske, lvić sugerira svome čitatelju kako je austrijski nadvojvoda naredio »proterivanje Srba iz Like«. U originalnom dokumentu stoji » Abtreibung der neu angesessnem Walachen in der Likha «.24 Isti postupak primijenio je s gomirskim Vlasima, koje A. lvić čita kao »Gomirski Srbi«, iako u arhivskom spisu stoji »Wallachen zu Goymerie«.25 Jednako postupa i s poznatim vlaškim selima Dubrave i Ponikve u okolici Ogulina. lvić piše: »srpska mesta Dubrave i Ponikve, gde su Srbi živeli«. U originalnom dokumentu stoji• die in dem Dorff Dubraua und Ponique wohnende Wallachen «.26 'Tužbu žumberačkih Vlaha iz Marindola 1668. prikazuje Ivić kao tužbu »Srba iz Marindola«, iako u originalnom spisu stoji: • die Walachen zu Marienthall beclagen sich «.27 Falsifikatima takve vrste vrvi svaka stranica Ivićeve knjige. Ovdje su gotovo nasumce izabrani samo neki primjeri"https://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=307682#page=18}}</ref> This is a quote from a Croatian historian. Therefore it is a forgery of history and how to delete those sources from Misplaced Pages?] (]) 20:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :One thing to keep in mind is that just because a document is old does not mean that the content is correct. Humans of the past were not significantly better than we are today, they did have their own views and biases, and they may have their own misconceptions or conventions. That why we don't typically use primary sources - it needs experts to evaluate and interpret them. --] (]) 22:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * It may be some kind of nationalism-biased (flawed) historiography (so common in this region). However, our "rules" for reliable sources are clear, using our own interpretation of this primary source would be an original research. As written above, we need another historian to balance this POV (preferably someone outside of this region). ] (]) 05:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Addendum: I see the problamatic work is quite old (published before 1948). I would not take anything so old (and from this very region!!!) related to nationalism, ethnicity etc. as a reliable source. For start, you may tag this source as unreliable (which it is for this kind of content) and then replace it with better source (preferably NOT Croatian, but it may be a hard task to find a non-local source for such information). ] (]) 06:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::This(old sources, books) is the basis for recent Serbian historiography or new books. Serbian new books generally have background in old writers. To be understood in the Balkans each country has its own history and Croats probably have some mythical historians(what I read mostly references to historical sources but there is probably some mythomania as well) but Serbian historians and books are twilight zone. When comparing their history to the original documents it is different as heaven and earth. But Misplaced Pages is being read all over the world therefore reference should be based on original historical documents. In this case Serbian false history is like created for Misplaced Pages. They just write(historians) the book and this is relevant proof for Misplaced Pages although the original data for some of the facts in that book says otherwise. ] (]) 11:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::You don't understand the problem, Serbian historians do not prove that Vlachs are Serbs. They consider Croatian Vlachs as Serbs without any major evidence. A good part of the Croatian population(Croats) are mentioned in the records as Vlachs. Proving something on Misplaced Pages with claims of Serbian historians it actually proves that these Croats are actually of Serbian origin without any evidence. Vlachs are neither Serbs nor Croats(and it is undeniable) but for Serbian history Vlachs are Serbs because it is their national interest and they can claim it in their own country but this is Misplaced Pages which is read all over the world. Here is another example from an article on Stokavian Croatian dialect:"'''By far the most numerous, mobile and expansionist migrations were those of Ijekavian-Shtokavian speakers of eastern Herzegovina, who have spread into most of Western Serbia, many areas of eastern and western Bosnia, large swathes of Croatia (Banovina, Kordun, Lika, parts of Gorski kotar, continental parts of northern Dalmatia, some places north of Kupa, parts of Slavonia, southeastern Baranya etc'''.) We do not have any known historical document that says that someone is migrating from eastern Herzegovina to 60% of Croatian area but that claims ""Okuka, Miloš (2008), Srpski dijalekti, SDK Prosvjeta" linguist Okuka Milos (there is no evidence in his book either). That's exactly what I'm talking about, Serbian historians and linguists have their own history that is not in the historical documents but his book is proof on Misplaced Pages about some kind of famous migration. But that article is read by people in the world who do not know situation on the ground and might think that really someone comes from eastern Herzegovina to Croatia. Did anyone migrate from eastern Herzegovina to Croatia probably yes but these are smaller groups of people who cannot inhabit 60% of Croatia(the only major migrations(historical records) are towards Dubrovnik area and Venetian area along the Adriatic coast) Therefore we cannot allow someone's private history(Serbian historians and linguists) or allow their false history as relevant evidence on Misplaced Pages. And that is why I ask what concretely to do in that case?] (]) 06:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, I have some experience with ethno-nationalistic POV-pushing in historiography (Czech-German). As I wrote, remove very old sources (worthless in this case) and if you can´t find a "neutral" source, simply add a reliable source from the Croatian side of the dispute to balance POV in the article(s). In best case, there would be a major scholarly research outside of this region, which could show us what is a fringe opinion in this field of study. ] (]) 08:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :What are these documents, who owns and has access to them, and how old are they?] (]) 08:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :On which documents you think? If you think of original historical documents (16th, 17th, 18th centurie) that mention Vlachs there are many. If you think about the documents that prove migration of someone from eastern Herzegovina there is some information for Dubrovnik area and Venetian area along the Adriatic coast. It is a factual situation. However reading Serbian historians and linguists we have fictional situation. And that's the problem because Misplaced Pages doesn't deal with factual evidence for Misplaced Pages a statement by a historian from some book is relevant evidence.] (]) 08:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::So is every historian who has written about this Serbian? Are there literally no other historians who have covered this topic? Interpreting centuries old primary documents is ''really far'' outside the realm of what editors should be doing. The fact is, unless you're literally talking about a historian who has misquoted an easily verifiable document, this sort of thing is not trivial. Editors are assumed to be in no position to assess (unless he states explicitly) why a historian's account of something seems to differ from available primary documents. Perhaps those documents are misleading. Perhaps they need to be interpreted in a specific context. Perhaps there are other documents painting a different picture. Perhaps there is a sort of academic language barrier between what the historian is saying and what the editor thinks the historian means. Aside from the last one, insofar as we might discuss whether the historian himself has been misinterpreted by editors, these are questions we are supposed to avoid discussing.<p>So for ways forward, I'd ask again, are there other historians who discuss these issues? Alternatively, are there reliable sources that cast doubt on whether these historians are reliable? Have they been called out by other historians for making things up? ] (]) 10:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Let’s go with logical thinking. Serbs allegedly are fleeing from the Turks in Turkish times. Croatian historian claims this "The second portion of the article deals with the Turkish conquests in Croatia and with the geography of the Balkan Vlachs enclaves from the Drava River to the Adriatic, '''since the Turkish colonization''' is followed by that of Austria which from the second part of the 16th to the end of the 17th centuries brought Vlachs from the Turkish Empire to the lands of the Croatian Kingdom." You don't need any historical document to understand that they are not the same people. If the Serbs are fleeing from the Turks then Turks cannot colonize them. Croatian historian claims and this "The Church had the most decisive role in the serbization process of Vlachs in the initial and middle phases; in the final phase, the most significant role was played by the newspaper Srbobran in the 80's and 90's of the 19th century. On the basis of the preceding analysis, the author concludes that present day Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia ethnically do not make part of the Serb nation."<ref>https://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=307683</ref> Why he established this in his scholarly work? Because we have no historical data that Serbs come to Croatia nor we have data that someone migrates from Serbia to Croatia(western Slavonia to Dubrovnik area). This is factual truth of which I talking about. Serbs have their own national interests but with that interest they penetrate into the origin of the Croatian population which is referred as Vlachs in the historical records and which speaks Stohkavian dialect same as today's Serbs. That is the problem and that is why we must go from the source.] (]) 11:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Looking for modern language-based ethno/religious-identities in early modern sources is a recipe for disaster... ] (]) 12:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, this is the biggest problem, on the bases of language or dialect some historian determine someone's origin and not based on historical records who talk about these peoples. That's why I'm interested what to do in that situations.] (]) 12:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well using the OP as a starting point. I can say that in my Town live some English people, that does not mean they are the only people that live there. So I go back to my question, what are these sources, who owns them, and why have they be ignored up till now (and how come you have found them when 100's of historians have not?] (]) 13:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::These documents are constantly in existence but they are interpreted by Serbian historiography through their national interest. There are Serbs(Croats, Bulgarians,Albanians etc) among Vlachs but we cannot consider all Vlachs to be Serbs and write books about them which are proofs on Misplaced Pages, it's as if all Americans would be English because they speak English that's Serbian historian logic. Unfortunately this is relevant evidence and how to challenge that evidence? These are books.] (]) 16:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::True, but we would need a source to say "they were not English", rather then us saying "they must not have been". I think it is clear form this your documents use the term Vlach which you are interpreting to include a specific group based upon no other evidence than assumption. Thus this is ].] (]) 16:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::If I understand the OP correctly, mentioned source(s) are known, but their interpretation (who are "Vlachs") is disputed (Serbs vs Croats). There may be (I hope) reliable sources from outside of this region. Until these are found, I think best course of action would be to use only recent academic production (not nearly 100 years old works!) from both Serbia and Croatia to balance the article POV. ] (]) 13:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, if that is the case, I agree. Given that a name does not tell us anything really unless there is a clear and unequivocal meaning to that name is fraught with OR risks.] (]) 13:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Vlach would mean neither Serb nor Croats. Vlachs is an out of use term for Romance (Latin derived) speaking people: distinct from Germanic or Slavic (Serbo-Croatian).] (]) 13:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The situation is even more complex. Thus, Eugene A. Hammel from University of California analyzed medieval Serbian censuses of 14th century and concluded: "The evidence suggests that subgroup differences were more ecological or situational than strictly ethnic and that the Vlachs were simply Serbs in a pastoral mode." And: "The dual meaning persists in modern usage, some Vlachs so-called because of their presumed Romanian origins, others because of their pastoral economy."<ref>Eugene A. Hammel (1980) Sensitivity Analysis of Household Structure In Medieval Serbian Censuses, Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History, 13:2, 105-118, DOI: 10.1080/01615440.1980.10594036</ref> --] (]) 15:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :You should not determine who the “Vlachs” are in the original historical document yourself, because this is not an easy task (see for example:])--] (]) 14:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::The latest forgery. Here's an explanation for deleting that quote from the article I quote "Forgery, in the article is states I quote "A letter of Emperor Ferdinand, sent on 6 November 1538, to Croatian ban Petar Keglević, in which he wrote "Captains and dukes of the Rasians, or the Serbs, or the Vlachs, who are commonly called the Serbs." In the book(Povijest Hrvata od najstarijih vremena do svršetka XIX. stoljeća (History of the Croats, 1899–1922)) of Vjekoslav Klaić Croatian historian is cited original document from year 1538. as follows "te in hoc, quod capitanei et woyvode '''Rasciani sive Servian! atque Valachi''', quos vulgo Zytschy (Cici) vocant, cum eorum subditis et adherentibus fidem devotionemque erga nos amplexi iam nunc ad loca ditionemque nostram commigrarunt et bona eorum omnia mobilia salva transportaverint, sedulam promptamque operam una cum ceteris navasse ac non vulgare adiumentum, quo id facilius fieret, per te allatum fuisse | |||
| This means that in the original document are mention "Rascians or Serbians '''and Vlachs'''" not as is quoted in the article by a Serbian historian "Rascians or Serbians '''or Vlachs'''" who are commonly called the Zytschy (ĆiĆi) not as Serbian historian states "who are commonly called the Serbs" Since this is a lie and a forgery of history I suggest deleting it from the article<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia</ref> What would you do if you noticed a forgery?] (]) 15:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{u|Mikola22}}, please tell me, did we talk with you ]? There, the IP-user subscribed as "mikola".--] (]) 21:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::It was me.] (]) 05:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Again, in a situation when the only available sources are (i) the historical document, and (ii) the old book published by some Serbian author, formally speaking, you cannot unilaterally decide that the book (a secondary source) is wrong, and the primary source is correct. | |||
| :If you believe we are dealing with nationalistic falsification of history (which may be quite possible), it is possible to do the following: you can try to find sources that question the approach of Serbian historiography to the description of those times events in that region. That may serve as a ground for removal of that source. | |||
| :A second opportunity is to explicitly attribute this statement to the source, something like: "according to 1940s Serbian sources .... ". That would clarify that the statement reflects not a generally accepted views, but some local (and, probably, outdated) viewpoint. | |||
| :If you are not disputing a Serbian claim to support a Croatian claim, but your real desire is to combat local nationalistic views (which are, obviously, wrong, no matter who is pushing them), the most unbeatable approach would be to avoid a discussion of ethnonational issues as much as possible: in reality, no Serbian or Croatian nations existed during that time, so it would be more correct to speak about ''population'', their language, religion, social structure etc. IMO, this is a universal approach to resolving this type problems.--] (]) 16:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Except that is not an original document, it is a book published in 1981, and claiming to be an accurate version of that document. It may not be a lie, the other source maybe, they both maybe.] (]) 16:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is interesting that those Rascians or Serbs who speak Ćići language mention and Romanian sources "istroromnii, atestai ncepnd din secolul al XVI-lea sub numele de Cici i ... '''sive Serviani atque Valachi quos vulgo Zytschy''' vocant).51 Oricum"<ref>https://www.google.com/search?q=quos+vulgo+Zytschy+(Cici)+vocant&rlz=1C1PRFI_enHR871HR871&oq=quos+vulgo+Zytschy+(Cici)+vocant&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8</ref> Only Serbs historians have their own way of interpreting original document, that's why I'm saying it's a forgery and that there is no place on Misplaced Pages for such evidence] (]) 17:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Frankly that is not what you said, you asked "If original historical document in a village mentioned Vlachs", that is clearly not what you are now what you are talking about. What you are now talking about is different (modern) interpretations of one document. Thus (again frankly) the whole basis of this question was flawed from the start (yes I am being generous). No your source does not trump the other or prove it is a fraud, as best we would have both claims in the article (which one?).] (]) 17:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Hatebase.org == | |||
| :::I didn't understand you? From Dubrovnik to western Slavonia or in 70% of Croatian teritory Vlachs are mentioned. There are hundreds of records that mention Vlachs and two or three that mention Serbs. That Vlachs(not Serbs or Croats) later became mostly Serbs and a lesser extent Croats. What does this(that today they are Serbs or Croats) have to do with their original origin. And Illyrians are Croats today because we probably assimilated them however we cannot claim that Illyrians were originally Croatians. Serbs throughout national history ignore fact that Vlachs were not originally Serbs, thus they clame that all Vlachs and even Croats that originating from Vlachs are Serbian origin. But Vlachs are not Serbs. Serbian historians in historical sources where the Vlachs are mention they read as they are Serbs and that is proof on Misplaced Pages. So I ask for advice on what to do? What Vlachs have to do with Serbia or Serbians. At that time when Vlachs are mentioned in Serbia they are also mentioned in Croatia, Romania, Albania, Greece etc. So they are not all Serbs because they are also mentioned in Serbia. Do you know who are Vlachs?] (]) 18:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We have given our advice... when two sources disagree, look for OTHER sources. Give more weight to those written by scholars from outside the Balkans (who are less likely to be emotionally involved in the ethno-political squabbles of the area). ] (]) 19:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{Reflist-talk}}<!-- Template:Reflist-talk creates a section-level reference list box. Please add comments and references for this section's discussion above this template. When a new discussion begins, the new section will be added below this template. Add a new {{Reflist-talk}} at the end of that section if needed. --> | |||
| Is a reliable source? ] (]) 19:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ], the ] and "Global muslim brotherhood daily watch" in articles about Islam == | |||
| :Is there an ] for this? And/Or some context for the use case? ] (]) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| We describe the first as an anti-Muslim conspiracy blog. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| Our article on the Middle East Forum is a bit equivocal but doesn't fill me with confidence, and I'm surprised that we call its founder ] an historian (yes, he once taught history, but that's not what he's known for - he's mainly a major critic of Islam). | |||
| :::<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) | |||
| Global MB Watch is a one man band run by Steven Merley who worked for ] whose senior consultant now is ] and was evidently, according to his description of himself the subject of praise by ], described by the Guardian as "not quite public enemy number one for many British Muslims -". | |||
| ::::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? == | |||
| These sources are used in articles such as ], ] and numerous others. ] ] 14:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :MEF after 2009 become peer reviewed and have editorial control yes its partisan but we allow partisan sources per ] --] (]) 14:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::The objection is not to partisanship. MEF, and the organizations it funds, actively foment Islamophobia, there is a long record through all of the venues it establishes and supports, and via all of the funding groups behind it, of militant antipathy as a driving force in a publicitarian cause. I don't think we should make an exception here. If MEF figures on a respectable site listing hate groups (]) as , then it should not be used on Misplaced Pages. We have huge resources from Academic, government think tanks etc. on all of these Islamic movements. The latter are often problematical, qua partisan, but they have no stepped over into financing fear and fomenting anti-Islamism as the MEF does.] (]) 16:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :I would be concerned if we were using Jihad Watch as an authority on Muslim subjects, but from glancing at the internal search results, all of the citations that I saw were specifically citing it to support claims about the activities and opinions of anti-Muslim academics, which seems potentially acceptable. I haven't reviewed the other sources at this time. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 18:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::We don't use blogs, let alone conspiracy blogs, which is how Jihad Watch is described. This is every more so given its decidedly polemical anti-Muslim world view. Sensitive topics require optimal sourcing. ] (]) 20:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::We should not be using blogs at all, as Nishidani said. Furthermore some of these sources look pretty clearly like ] outlets and they should not generally be used as sources. ] (]) 12:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Fair enough. I'd agree that these look like fringe outlets. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not sure it makes sense to lump all three of these sources together. The ] has been edited by ], who has held academic posts at various respected universities. And I don't think the SPLC is the best authority on anti-islamic sentiment after its ] fiasco. Is there any evidence that MEQ is an unreliable source, making stuff up or stating incorrect facts? If it should be discredited it should be on those grounds and not because Misplaced Pages editors disagree with its POV. <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 15:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| I'm working on adding citations to ]. I'm looking for a source that supports the sentence "Image Entertainment released another LaserDisc" . I've found the laserdisc in question on LaserDisc Database . Can I use it as a source? The "register now" box states that users can "submit" new Laserdiscs, which implies some editorial oversight compared to other websites with user-generated material (although it looks like there ). My other options are or interlibrary loaning the original Laserdisc. ] (]) 19:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Not so sure this is reliable == | |||
| While I was gnoming today, I saw ]. I noticed his was using ] so I removed it and . It looks like he read the note and then added . I looked at the webpage, and it really looks like it too may be non reliable. I checked here and didn't see it mentioned, so I figured I see what you all thought. Is that website reliable ? ]]</span> 14:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Primary sources are perfectly acceptable so long as a person does not do any outside-of-the-source analysis. As near as I can tell, in your first diff, the source is only being used to verify a paraphrase and a quote, which is by definition is without analysis. A primary source is reliable for directly stating what is printed in itself. For example, if I said "The source XXXX states that "the Sky is blue", as long as those words are actually printed in that source, the statement is accurate and is correctly cited to the source that uses those words. That's a fine use of a primary source. It would not be a good source for stating in Misplaced Pages's voice, without direct attribution "The Sky is blue", and neither is it a source for stating "Because the Sky is blue, all of these other things must also be true". But for the simple matter of providing an attribution for a quote, it's fine to cite a primary source. --]] 15:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::there is always the possibility of selective quotation. A group might publish a report, and not really liking the conclusions, then publish a summary or excerpt from it that is unfair or unrepresentative or presented in a biased context. We arre very carlessless in general in accepting quotations. ''']''' (]) 16:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is why I pretty much always support only using quotes to point out very specific things that article is already talking about. For example, if an article has a section on a controversial tweet, quoting the tweet. ] (]) 11:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Is the first source primary?] (]) 11:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sort of? I think it is best considered that "the event" is the lawsuit, and this is a primary document from that event. It is true that it includes an analysis of other sources, and in that sense may be considered secondary. But citing court cases is generally questionable, for a number of reasons. To begin, this is the opinion of a lower court at the state level, and so does not create any binding precedent; next, while it includes a secondary analysis that was informed by expert witnesses, this is not considered an expert publication in ''medicine'', but in law; further, lawsuits happen simply because someone filed one, not because an expert thought it was something significant worth writing about - as with cherry-picking quotes, it would be trivial to cherry-pick ''lawsuits''. If this had been a major, precedent-setting case that received a hearing before a State Supreme Court, circuit court, or SCOTUS itself, maybe. Or if this was something special and unusual and subjected to scientific rigor, like the Autism Omnibus case. Or if a section of a Misplaced Pages article is about the lawsuit itself, citing sources secondary to the case, then quoting the ruling could provide useful context. Otherwise this seems like a bad idea. ] (]) 11:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Except it is a legal judgement on the admissibility of evidence. Now I agree that we should not cherry pick law suits, but that is not an RS issue as such. I do not see how this is really a primary source, and seems to be a perfectly reputable legal journal. As such it passes RS, ] is a separate issue.] (]) 11:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's a perfectly reputable legal journal that seems to have as one of its missions to publish as many full-text opinions as they can from state and federal courts in Massachusetts. In this case they simply republished the opinion as is - there is zero added commentary. I don't see how the journal could be considered a publisher rather than a host. ] (]) 12:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *The Problem here is one of context... A legal judgement is being used to balance a medical claim. A legal opinion can balance another legal opinion, and a medical opinion can be used to balance another medical opinion... but is it appropriate to mix law and medicine. Does doing so create a false balance? ] (]) 12:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :*It is inherently unbalanced because ''only'' primary sources are used. A judicial ruling balancing an original research claim. Herbert's article cites only Herbert's own work to describe her research on the treatment of autism, and even though it is mentioned that there were three professional reviews of one of her books, the actual content of those reviews is not mentioned (in fact, two gave fawning praise, while the other was more circumspect). This is not an impossible task - Herbert's work is cited in literally dozens of medical review articles. ] (]) 23:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :The bottom of the page has {{tq|"Disclaimer: The data on this webstite is crowd-sourced..."}} and from the page you linked it's unclear what amount of checking is done before any submitted updates happen. Worldcat is the better option. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Possible COI & Sock puppet by user JIROT == | |||
| ::oops, I missed that. Thank you for the advice. I'll use WorldCat if I can't find a news article. ] (]) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Usage of AirPlay Direct for music articles == | |||
| The ] page states to report possible COI cases here. I noticed that ] is a single-purpose editor involved in 2 articles: | |||
| *He created a biography on ] - (I just cleaned up quite a bit of promotional language and Peacock terms in there.) | |||
| *Persistent introduction & reverts of a non-peer-reviewed paper by Richard M. Weiner at ]. User JIROT fails to explain why this unpublished hypothesis is notable for inclusion.</br> | |||
| I placed a COI tag at the mentioned biography and at his Talk page . I do not know how to proceed further, so I'll leave this "on your desk". Thank you. ] (]) 15:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Is reliable for use in articles about music (such as songs, albums, artists, etc.) ] (]) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I also noticed that he may have a possible sock puppet: ] that created the article ] within days of creating ], where he also promotes Richard M. Weiner. ] (]) 15:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *I've warned him about edit warring; otherwise I think this is currently a "monitor and see what happens" situation. --]] 15:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *Hi {{u|Rowan Forest}}, in the future, you might want to report ] issues to ] (]). The editors who frequent that noticeboard tend to be more familiar with COI and ] in article editing. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 03:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, I thank you all. ] (]) 13:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Per their about page they are not a normal news source, but a promotional platform. Their articles, etc are likely based on press releases and information from the subject of the article. So they might be reliable as a ] source within the limits of ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Movie Chambers and One Guys Opinion == | |||
| == Global Defense Corp == | |||
| I came across this website while looking for film reviews for an article, and it seems that while the ''sole'' reviewer there, Paul Chambers, has been creating film reviews since '86 for different news orgamizations (CNN among them), it would appear to fail RS as there appears to be no editorial oversight.<br> | |||
| I also came across another film review site, "One Guy's Opinion" run by a professor History at the University of Dallas named Dr. Frank Sweitek. According to his bio on the site, "Under the initials FS, he’s been the film critic of the University News since 1988, has discussed movies on air at KRLD-AM (Dallas) and KOMO-AM (Seattle), and can now be heard talking about the week’s openings on KLIF-AM (Dallas) every Friday at 6:17am...He’s also the founding president of the Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association, a group of print, broadcast and web journalists covering film in the Metroplex, and a member of the Online Film Critics Society. His reviews are also included on the Rotten Tomatoes website." Again, an apparently well-read reviewer, but a website without editorial oversight.<br> | |||
| Thoughts? - ] (]) 02:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Who is allowed to write reviews for Rotten Tomatoes?] (]) 08:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :I have no opinion one way or another except to note that, per ], self published sources are not entirely forbidden; in general self published sources by recognized experts in a particular field are generally thought carry the reputation of the expert and thus be reliable on their own without additional "editorial oversight". If a person were a recognized and well regarded expert in the field of film criticism, their own self-published works may be reliable. --]] 14:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, of note here, is the purpose of the citation you are looking to make from these sites. A self-published source is a perfectly reliable source for quoting itself. Every source reliably quotes itself (self-evidently). If the text you are quoting is actually in the work you are citing, the work is perfectly reliable ''for that purpose'' of providing the quote itself. However, if you are asking if the person who wrote the quote you are reproducing is, themselves, worth quoting, that's a different question. In the case of film reviews, it isn't reliability (after all, a person should be self-evidently reliable in correctly reporting their own personal feelings about a film), but rather things like ]; it isn't that we don't believe the person actually had the opinion of the film they themselves wrote on their own website, it is whether or not that opinion has widespread acceptance by mainstream sources to be considered due weight for us to quote it. So, if you're citing the source because you want to quote or paraphrase those reviewers opinions about a movie, it isn't reliability that's the issue (we trust the people to reliably report their own opinions on their own websites) it's a question of whether or not they are even worth listening to on the matter. ''However'', if you are trying to cite facts about the film in question which are not in other sources, that's a completely different thing. --]] 14:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Global Defense Corp should be deprecated as it is a incredibly unreliable source which frequently fabricates information they are incredibly biassed against Russian technology to such an extent as to lose all objectivity here I will share just a small snippet of the blatantly false information they have spread over the years | |||
| :::I understand that it isn't ''forbidden'' to use SPS, but I don't recall ever seeing a GA- or FA-quality article with a SPS in the references. The movie I am developing is a foreign one, which means a lot of sources in English are going to be hard to Google on up. Additionally, a few sources have vanished due to one reviewer website (''Film Journal Int'l'' getting gobbled up by ''BoxOfficePro''). Its not leaving me with a lot of standard sources to draw upon. I hate using sources that will get snipped during a GA/FA eval. - ] (]) 22:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| 1. they've claimed that Azerbaijan using either an Israeli or Turkish drone was able to destroy a Armenian nebo-m radar which is impressive considering Armenia doesn't even have that radar or has at any point Displayed any interest in buying that radar there evidence for this is a footage of Azerbaijan destroying a p-18 radar and them claiming it's the nebo-m and they didn't just claim this once they've claimed it at least twice in two different articles. | |||
| ::::I think it's perfectly acceptable to use self-published sources for their reviews of films and books, provided, of course that the author has some reputation or expertise as a reviewer. I don't think editorial oversight is that important when you're using the source purely for the attributed opinion of a critic. The fact that this Paul Chambers has been published in multiple different reliable sources indicates that his opinion is noteworthy and might be worth including. Same thing with Frank Sweitek. They could even be okay for basic factual information about the film, especially if there's a lack of other English-language sources, though not for anything controversial or that has BLP implications. ] (]) 06:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Except we only have his word he has been published on multiple rs, nor do we know context ("and tonight on WBKRKRNSP we talk to three members of the public about the new film by Bert Terrible".] (]) 08:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| 2. in this article you can see a picture of the SU57’s internal weapons bays but what they don't tell you is that this picture is CGI at no point do they communicate this in fact they claim it's from the Sukhoi design Bureau even though it's not. | |||
| ::::::A quick Google search confirms that he isn't an empty hat; Chambers has indeed worked for CNN () as well as everywhere else he claims. Sweitek also appears to be the real deal. - ] (]) 22:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It was just the reference to Rotten Tomatoes that made me wary, normally people who are respected experts do not have on their CV "and Misplaced Pages".] (]) 09:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I get it, and understand. I just went a little deeper than just checking RT. Carry on. - ] (]) 02:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| 3. in this article they talk about how the S 400 range decreases against objects at low altitudes which is true but fail to explain that this is true for all radar guided Sam systems thanks to an effect known as radar horizon where objects at low altitudes are able to hide behind the curvature of the earth and therefore can only be detected at certain distances but not only do they not explain this to the reader creating a false impression that this is an issue unique to the S 400 but they even claimed that Turkey accused Russia of fraud because of this. which is weird for several reasons one Russia has at no point claim that the S400 range does not decrease with altitude but also because it implies Turkey believed the S 400 could defy the laws of physics they also have no source of this claim and no other articles on the Internet claim this. | |||
| == Database of 18,000 Retracted Scientific Papers Now Online == | |||
| 4. In this article they claimed SU57 lacks sensor fusion which it doesn't and then just ignore that low probability of intercept radar is a thing . | |||
| "'''Retraction Watch Database''' is designed expressly for finding out whether any given study is still legit. The next time you read an article or hear someone say, "studies show that talking is bad for you," you can head over to the site and see what's what." | |||
| * https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/science-questions/database-18000-retracted-scientific-papers-now-online.htm | |||
| * http://retractiondatabase.org/ | |||
| --] (]) 07:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Guy Macon}}, Nice! See for one well known author. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 12:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| 5. in this article they berate the S 400 for not intercepting Israeli F35’s in Syria but forgot to mention that Russia and Israel were long believed to have an agreement in the Syrian civil war to not engaged each other. | |||
| == Encounter Books and Adler & Adler Publication reliable? == | |||
| There bias is also evident in just in the words that they say frequently attacking Russian equipment with ad hominems such as cooling the S 400 ,another lame duck missile system, or starting there articles with stupid Russians or Russian equipment exposed. they also lack of any transparency no one knows who owns the website none of the articles say the names of the people that wrote them making the website Even more suspicious but despite all of this they are still frequently cited all the time on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| Article: ] | |||
| Sources | |||
| 1.https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/02/01/turkey-exposed-fatal-flaws-in-russian-made-s-400-surface-to-air-missile/ | |||
| 2. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/07/11/rostec-nebo-m-radar-is-it-a-scam-or-propaganda/ | |||
| Text in question: {{talk quote|"Khomeini told the Muslim faithful that marrying a girl before she begins menstruation was a “divine blessing.” “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.”|}} | |||
| 3. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/12/28/russian-su-57-will-carry-four-missiles-in-the-internal-weapons-bay/ | |||
| Sources: | |||
| * {{tq|"Khomeini called marriage to a girl before her first menstrual period “a diving blessing,” and he advised the faithful: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” This practice continues to this day, despite the severe injuries girls often incur from early intercourse and childbirth.|}} | |||
| 4. Radar Horizon. (n.d.). www.ssreng.com. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www.ssreng.com/pdf/Radar_Horizon.pdf | |||
| * {{tq|""In many of his works Khomeini himself strongly recommends pre-menstruation marriage as "a divine blessing." "Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house," he write in Tawzih al-Masayel"|}} | |||
| ] (]) 17:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *I would be wary of using Robert Spencer as a source about any thing Muslim. If its relevant or factual a better source would have mentioned it.] (]) 17:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *{{u|Stefka Bulgaria}}, where are you seeing the quote? That being said:-{{pb}}] is definitely not a RS for anything related to Islam. And his views shall be always used with necessary attribution and that too, ''iff'' other sources have covered his views on the issue. That the work has been published by ] just lends to the case for not using it, at all.{{pb}}''Adler & Adler'' has published about ~50 books in the 80s. No repute as a press, going by the credibility of most of their authors and lack of publication-reviews. Now, ]. An emphatic '''no'''. ]] 18:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Encounter books (page 48), Adler and Adler (page 35). ] (]) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Being "conservative" or skeptical of Islam does not an unreliable source make. What's concerning here is that the authors do not have a high reputation for accuracy and the Encounter itself seems like, at best, quite polemical in tone; it publishes . Pro-Iran disinformation is also something to be on the lookout for. I'm not sure about these exact quotes, but there are other sources describing Khomeini's encouragement of pedophilia. See, eg. (pg. 2). <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 18:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wot? An outright polemic Islamophobe, <u>per a bunch of scholarly sources</u>, does not a reliable source make. ]] 05:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::True, but when they also have a reputation for falsehoods its does. It just saves time to point out their view of Islam is so negative it (basically) is a false view (and falsity a non RS does make).] (]) 11:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| 5. Butowski 2021, pp. 78–82 | |||
| == http://utahrails.net and http://rrpicturearchives.net == | |||
| 6. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2022/01/24/sukhoi-su-57s-x-band-n036-byelka-and-n036l-1-01-l-band-radars-are-not-what-you-think/ | |||
| As used in ], but not limited to that article. These appear to be fan pages each curated by an individuals and they're extensively used in numerous train related Misplaced Pages articles. Are these good to remain as sources or external links? I am thinking that they might fall under ] or ]. ] (]) 20:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :External links do not have to be reliable. Open wikis are OK as long as they are reasonably established. They should not be used as sources because of ]. <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 02:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think fan sites belong as external sites either, per ] "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria for people.)" ] (]) 03:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Fan sites are not acceptable as reliable sources or external links in my opinion based on the policies referenced above. – ] (]) 09:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| 7. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2019/09/22/over-hyped-s-400-and-s-300-surface-to-air-missile-failed-to-detect-f-35i-adir/ | |||
| == The mystery of ''Street Fighter II: The World Warrior'''s release date == | |||
| 8. When Israel bombs Syria, Russia turns a blind eye. (2022, January 3). thearabweekly.com. Retrieved January 22, 2025, from | |||
| So here's something I found on '']'' to be questionable. (For clarification, this is about the very first version of ''Street Fighter II'', not ''Champion Edition'' or later updated games.) For the longest time, this page has stated the arcade version was release on Feburary 1991 (some specifically claiming Feburary 6, 1991), and looking at every corner of the internet, this seems to be generally accepted as the correct date. Except, according to the official information from Capcom's side, this is not true; states the release date is actually March 1991. This date is also (4m 48s) in '']'' released in 2018, so I came to conclusion that it's reasonable to assume this is the right one. | |||
| https://thearabweekly.com/when-israel-bombs-syria-russia-turns-blind-eye ] (]) 15:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Do we use them? ] (]) 15:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The S 400 Misplaced Pages page has 20 citations from them and the su 57 Misplaced Pages page has four. ] (]) 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that they're generally unreliable but I'm not so sure I'd chalk it up to bias rather than incompetence. They seem to be suggesting that the news they publish is a sideline to their core business of international security consulting... But they're spamming the cheapest ads on the internet alongside that content suggests that this is their primary income. To me it looks like a vanity site, I also suspect they are ripping stories off or using generative AI. ] (]) 17:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I will agree with you that they are incompetent But I think you can be incompetent and bias, some mistakes they've made such as having a image of the SU57 that is CGI on the web page and claiming it was a picture taken by Sukhoi I could see that being a result of incompetence but stuff like claiming Turkey accused Russia of Fraud over the S 400 because its range decreased against objects at lower altitude I have a harder time believing is just incompetence specially since the mistakes that they made seemed to always understate Russian equipment’s capabilities I have never been able to see and correct me if I'm wrong any incidents where they have overstated a piece of Russian equipment’s capabilities and yet I have seen dozens of mistakes in the opposite direction which suggests to me it is not random error. but quite frankly if their biassed or not I think is irrelevant even if we somehow conclude that they do have a neutral point of view there is still no way they could be considered a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards as they do not meet the other criteria mainly the one which is in quote ‘Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy’ there is no universe where they pass that one and as a result they cannot be considered a reliable source something which you agree with this alone should be enough to get the website Deprecated irrespective of if their bias or not. ] (]) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think the one thing that seems to be universally agreed on is that this is not a reliable source. ] (]) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would agree, that regardless of whether it's bias or incompetence, it all adds up to unreliability. Cheers. ] (]) 23:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Should we trust ] for statistics == | |||
| Based on this information, I updated the page in accordance to the one listed in Capcom's official record. The user named ] then changed it back to the original date, citing these sources: | |||
| Certain pages about certain living subjects contain an infobox template that really emphasises view counts and subscriber statistics. However, that data is often sourced from ]. Here's what WP's page about Social Blade says; | |||
| * https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278746/ (iMDB) | |||
| * https://www.giantbomb.com/street-fighter-ii-the-world-warrior/3030-243/ (Giant Bomb) | |||
| "An official YouTube Twitter account, @TeamYouTube wrote that "Please know that third party apps, such as SocialBlade, do not accurately reflect subscriber activity." Social Blade's Twitter account responded to that tweet, commenting "We don't make up data. We get it from the YouTube API. We rely on it for accuracy." Social Blade's community manager Danny Fratella suggested that YouTube content creators may notice subscriber and view count purges more due to a higher accessibility to data-tracking tools like Social Blade." | |||
| These state Feburary 6, 1991 is indeed the correct one, but then again, they're both user-generated sites; I don't think they're enough proofs to disregard the date given by Capcom's products and websites. Currently I've reverted Steelermajor's edit because they didn't respond to my request on ] for a week, but I decided to came here for other editor's opinion about this. --] (]) 12:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :IMDB is not an RS.] (]) 12:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * ] {{rspe|IMDb}} is ] and should be avoided. The is an open wiki, which is user-generated and should also be avoided. is a reliable ] in this context. From the sources provided, March 1991 would be the date to use. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 12:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| The question is should we trust it? | |||
| == Attribution when facing square brackets in a quote == | |||
| Plus, why do pages about gamers and vloggers place so much emphasis on what appears to be arbitrary, trivial information that is prone to fluctuation?]] 15:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| In a by UK Home office's border agency we read: | |||
| :It is ] - I don't think ] applies since it is drawing its data out of an API but I'd say it's a marginal source. ] (]) 16:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote>According to the USSD Background Note of March 2008: “The Iranian Government has faced armed opposition from a number of groups, including the MEK (which the U.S. Government added to its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations in 1999), the People’s Fedayeen, the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), and the Baluchi opposition group Jundallah.” (Political conditions)</blockquote> | |||
| ::It certainly isn't a source that I would trust but it is frequently cited in certain articles to populate value statement parameters such as subscriber count, view count, like count etc in ]. My understanding is that ] sources shouldn't be used to verify value statements? ]] 17:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Prior discussions for reference; ], ], ], ]. The general opinion appears to be that it's marginal at best. Personally I doubt how reliable their data is, if it's available from the original source that should be used and if it's not available from the original source I wouldn't trust it. They also have 'rankings', which are worthless for anything other than the opinion of Social Blade. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: EurAsian Times == | |||
| Essentially, UK border agency is quoting a piece from US State Department Background Note in 2008, but is adding a sentence in square brackets. The question is whether the content in square brackets, i.e. "cult-like terrorist organisation Mujahedin-e Khalq" should be attributed to the UK border agency or to the US State Department? In other words, is the bracketed content an interjection?(p.s. The matter has been discussed , but we need more opinions)--] (]) 13:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :The USSD, as the source is only being used as a source the the quote by the USSD, the UK boarder agency does not put it in their voice.] (]) 13:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 23:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740610876}} | |||
| ==An article published in a local Ukrainian newspaper as a source for a history article== | |||
| {{rfc|prop|pol|rfcid=11A50DD}} | |||
| This source was already mentioned in the previous discussion devoted to the ] article, but it seems the idea to discuss several sources simultaneously was not good, so I am posting my question about this source specifically. | |||
| The (used to have its own article but it was apparently PRODed) is cited in several hundreds of articles, mostly pertaining to Russian military hardware and South Asian issues, but not exclusively. It was mentioned ] ] ] on this noticeboard but only on a surface level. | |||
| The source is in a local Ukrainian newspaper. I failed to figure out credentials of this author. An interview in (which is a ]) says he is a historian, but I failed to find reviews on his publications, and his books. Our policy says that mainstream newspapers are considered reliable sources, but I would like to know a third opinion if this publication is a mainstream newspaper article. | |||
| In light of all this, how would you rate the EurAsian Times? | |||
| The statement this source is supporting is {{tq|Gas vans were also reportedly used in other parts of the Soviet Union}}. | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| This question may be simultaneously a WP:V and WP:NPOV issue, because outstanding claims need outstanding evidences, and it would be good to hear a third opinion on whether such a publication may serve as an adequate evidence for such a claim.--] (]) 03:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| :Do we really need 3 active posts on the same noticeboard, about the same article? It suggests that whatever is going on at ] is a bigger/thornier issue than a matter of a specific source's reliability. ] (]) 03:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| ::], unfortunately, yes. I realized that discussion of this concrete source separately would be less confusing and time consuming, and resolving this issue would be a first step out of an impasse. | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| ::In particular, I would like to know if my understanding of ] is correct, and if such sources {{tq|are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.}}--] (]) 03:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you. '''''<span style="color:#503680">] ] ]</span>''''' 22:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) <small>PS: it is the first time I create an RFC, I hope it is not malformed</small> | |||
| *'''An RS and can be used, especially with attribution to author'''. I think the source is OK because the author (Sokolov) is a historian who published, for example, . A lot of info about him, including other numerous scholarly publications, can be found . This is an interview with him in one of major Russian newspapers. According to introduction by 3rd party, ''"Dmitry Sokolov is a historian from the city of ]. Since 2007, he has published many history articles in journals, and since 2013, he has been publishing monographs annually on various periods and aspects of the tragic events that began in 1917 on the land of Tauris."'' This is all in Russian. The article in question was published (not self-published) in a newspaper. The article is clearly a ''secondary'' source because it summarizes claims from books by ], ] and several others. Yes, as Paul tells, one of his summary statements was that gas vans were also reportedly used in other parts of the Soviet Union - because such cases have been reliably reported in books by Grigorenko, Shreider and yet another author cited in the review article by Sokolov. ] (]) 03:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Is there any evidence it has a poor reputation for fact checking?] (]) 09:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Slatersteven}} if I understand it correct, this works in an opposite way: an evidences of a good reputation and fact checking should be presented per ].--] (]) 14:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::Always been unsure, as its hard to prove that where as it is easy to show it does not have one. So I tend to err on the side off "it has a good reputation because it does not have a bad one".] (]) 17:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{re|Slatersteven}} it seems you still don't understand. Our policy says ]. That means want to see a proof that this newspaper is a mainstream newspaper, because otherwise it cannot be considered a reliable source. | |||
| ::::Moreover, the newspaper page where Sokolov's article is published has a disclaimer that explains Sokolov's opinion does not necessarily reflects the editorial board's opinion. Therefore, this publication is more like ], and, per ], it should be considered {{tq|'''reliable primary source''' for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact}}. | |||
| ::::Is my understanding correct?--] (]) 18:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I cannot say if it is mainstream I am not Ukrainian (but I see nothing to indicate it is not), as to your second point, correct so we attribute.] (]) 19:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That is an interesting approach: does it mean that every newspaper is considered mainstream unless the opposite has been demonstrated? If yes, that fully contradicts with my understanding of our policy. | |||
| :::::Regarding your the second answer, "attribute" ... to whom? What are credentials of this author? Had he authored any book or article that was published by some reputable publisher or scholarly journal?--] (]) 19:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, sure, see the link to his book above; he has many other publications noted in another link. Also, this is not "news", but an educational publication about the past by historian. How this article can be a "primary" publication if it is entirely based on other sources, primary and secondary? ] (]) 19:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is a page about this newspaper on ruwiki, ], and it does not tell anything bad. ] (]) 18:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::So, speaking of the three meanings of a source , (a) the article itself is OK (it claims nothing extraordinary, but simply summarizes what other sources on this subject say), (b) the author is fine, an established historian based on his publications, and (c) the newspaper is obviously not a scientific journal, but this is just an article on history for general public, enough to reliably document whatever author tells. Also, the newspaper is located in Crimea where author apparently lives. At the time of publication, it was a Russian language Ukrainian newspaper (as Paul tells), but it was expropriated by Russia in 2014, together with peninsula. ] (]) 15:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *I am hesitant on this one, just because I have seen a considerable amount of historical misinformation in newspapers especially the more minor ones. It is reliable for the fact that the author wrote it, but I wouldn't take it much farther than that. I doubt that editors are in a good position to vet such claims—especially if they put a disclaimer on it! <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 19:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unless I am mistaken, Paul misled us by saying: ''newspaper page where Sokolov's article is published has a disclaimer that explains Sokolov's opinion does not necessarily reflects the editorial board's opinion''. This is not a disclaimer for this specific publication. This is a disclaimer at the very bottom of the website which goes everywhere: Ответственность за точность изложенных фактов несет автор. За содержание рекламных материалов редакция ответственности не несет. ] (]) 19:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ===Survey (EurAsian Times)=== | |||
| Since English Misplaced Pages users are not expected to know Russian, below I reproduce the disclaimer in full | |||
| :"''При перепечатке и цитировании ссылка(гиперссылка) на "Крымское Эхо" обязательна. Точка зрения авторов может не совпадать с точкой зрения редакции. Ответственность за точность изложенных фактов несет автор. За содержание рекламных материалов редакция ответственности не несет. Материал, обозначенный (R), публикуется на правах рекламы.''" | |||
| * | |||
| Google translates it as follows: | |||
| :"''When reprinting and citing, a link (hyperlink) to the Crimean Echo is required. '''The authors' point of view may not coincide with the editorial point of view'''. Responsibility for the accuracy of the facts presented lies with the author. The editors are not responsible for the content of advertising materials. Material labeled (R) is advertised.''" | |||
| ===Discussion (EurAsian Times)=== | |||
| In my opinion, the statement in bold is exactly what ] means.--] (]) 19:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * Previous discussions at ] (2024) ] (2023), and ] (2022). It looks like there's already consensus that it's unreliable and an RfC is not necessary. ] (]) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*Yes, this is a disclaimer at at the very bottom of the website which goes on all pages, right? But you made it appear as a disapproval of the article by Sokolov : "newspaper page where Sokolov's article is published has a disclaimer that explains Sokolov's opinion does not necessarily reflects the editorial board's opinion". The disclaimer does not say anything about Sokolov or his article. ] (]) 19:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yes, there is already strong consensus for its general unreliability (with just one dissenting editor in all of those discussions). I guess the only question is whether it should be deprecated, given its quite frequent use ] (]) 10:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I agree that most opinions expressed about it were negative, but it felt a bit like shaky ground to be able to know if it could still be used for some specific things, be treated as generally unreliable, or to actually deprecate. That is why I wanted clarification before potentially going on a hunt. Sorry if an RfC was overkill for this one, but I figured that since it is used quite a lot it could be good to clarify. '''''<span style="color:#503680">] ] ]</span>''''' 10:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == flightconnections.com == | |||
| *'''Comment''' Reading this source, it looks ''totally'' unreliable. It's written in a sensationalist and politicized rather than academic or historical style. My Very Best Wishes has found two links showing that the author Dmitry Sokolov has a presence somewhere on the Russian-language internet, but his lack of connection to English-language academia makes it impossible to verify his credentials, importance, and suggest he's not a well known journalist or historian. The paper he's written in is not a major / flagship or internationally recognized publication and I can get no information about it in English. | |||
| I wonder if flightconnections.com is a reliable source. Examples of it use are on and . In both cases ] asks for {{tq|airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet ]}}. I have doubt if flightconnections qualifies as reliable. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 02:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :In short, nearly every red flag one could conceive of is present here. I thought that in these topic areas, we were supposed to use the highest quality academic sources, with an emphasis on English-language sources. By contrast, this feels like scraping the bottom of the fringe barrel in one of the darker and more remote recesses of the internet. -] (]) 19:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, it is simply written as an article for general public, not as an academic paper. This is a newspaper, not an academic journal. But the newspaper and especially the author still qualify just fine per WP:RS. That's the policy. ] (]) 19:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Pegging == | |||
| *'''Irrelevant'''. The topic area is under strict sourcing restrictions; local newspapers need not apply. ] (]) 20:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::I wish you were right, but, alas, The Great Purge is not under this restriction. Only Nazi gas van topic, and only in part related to Poland falls under that restriction.--] (]) 20:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| At this point, after educating people about pegging for the last 14 years, I do indeed qualify as an expert. I am the go-to person for information about pegging in the sex education world. | |||
| *'''Comment''' It should be noted that this source is also used to argue that the primary sources quoted by this source (Sokolov), namely the memoirs by Shreder and Grigorenko, have to be quoted in the article as well. Whereas on this page My very best wishes writes that Sokolov {{xt|claims nothing extraordinary, but simply summarizes what other sources on this subject say}}, they have frequently maintained on the talk page that Sokolov “discusses” the claims by Grigorenko., and therefore these primary sources may freely be used. Upon Sokolov and the sources quoted by him they also base their conclusion that gas vans have been used “in at least three different cities” in the USSR. This conclusion is not supported by any other sources. Not using these sources they consider to be censorship. | |||
| :This is an article on the Holocaust both in Poland and the Soviet Union. Gas vans were used at ], e.g.. The whole epic discussion has emerged, because it has been maintained by some, that the "same" gas vans as were used by the Nazis were ''first'' used, probably even "invented" by the Soviets. A quote by journalist Yevgenia Albats, stating: "yes, the very same machinery made notorious by the Nazis - yes, these trucks were originally a Soviet invention, in use years before the ovens of the Auschwitz were built", has been vigorously defended, thereby effectively integrating the "Soviet gas vans" into the narrative of the Holocaust. I think that narrative is untenable and not supported by scholarly sources, only by fringe sources like Sokolov, but those who connected the "Soviet gas vans" to the Nazi gas vans should not deny that they intend to suggest that very connection. Applying the source restrictions would certainly clear things up a bit. --] (]) 20:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :To that, I would add that one of the most renown historians writing about Stalinism, Wheatcroft, clearly writes that the claim that gas vans were used during the Great Purge is "sensational", and it needs further confirmation (Stephen Wheatcroft, The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45. ''Europe-Asia Studies'', Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353). Therefore, the statement that Sokolov's article contains nothing extraordinary directly contradicts to what a top quality reliable source says.--] (]) 21:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Regarding your "''applying the source restrictions would certainly clear things up a bit''", ] to do that, and I am still awaiting for a responce.--] (]) 21:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :*This is probably off-topic, but ] is not only a journalist, but also a ] who received her PhD degree in ] and taught in a number of other Universities. More importantly, she is a top expert in Russia on the KGB subjects; she worked as consultant for the Russian Duma commission to examine KGB involvement in Soviet coup attempt of 1991. This is all described in her book used on the page. Also, "same gas vans" is the narrative by ''almost all sources that mention both Soviet and Nazi gas vans'', for example, by ], and yes, also by ] and Sokolov. Sources on the Holocaust usually do not mention Soviet gas vans simply because Soviet gas vans were not a part of the Holocaust, quite obviously. ] (]) 21:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{xt|Sources on the Holocaust usually do not mention Soviet gas vans}} and so forth - that's exactly the reason why the sources who "mention both Soviet and Nazi gas vans" are ]. And saying "almost all sources", one should note that the majority of scholarly sources on "Soviet gas vans" do not mention Nazi gas vans at all. The fringe character of the whole subject is the reason why you have to turn to an article by a virtually unknown local historian in a Crimean newspaper in the first place. To insist that an otherwise insignificant aspect of the history of gas vans should be exempted from the strict sourcing restrictions otherwise applied in the very same article is inconsistent, confusing and leading to distortion.--] (]) 09:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| perhaps be reviewed? I am the only sex educator I know of who ''specializes'' in pegging. I have taught countless classes since 2012 (in person and over Zoom) for beginners, equipment, and advanced pegging, and written many, many articles about pegging as well. Were they published in magazines or on websites that made me edit the crap out of what I'd written until it lost its meaning? No. Wouldn't play that game because the message was too important to me, and because they wanted free material. | |||
| *'''Comment''' Why even use newspaper article (or op-ed), when there are plenty of peer reviewed journals and books devoted to this part of the world/history? If you want author´s opinion, simply use higher quality source he wrote on the same topic. ] (]) 06:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| I am not a person of notoriety like Tristan Taormino or Dan Savage, but that does not mean I don't know what I'm talking about or what I put out into the world about pegging is just my 'opinion'. There have been no 'studies' on pegging and there aren't likely to be anytime soon, for obvious reasons. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Since when was the only measure of an expert their notoriety? I have gone down the rabbit hole of pegging and remained there. I have held space for all the different expressions of pegging during that time, which are numerous. I have advised hopeful and how to approach their partners, while also educating them about the (intensely) common misconceptions and assumptions about the sexual act, and so many more things that are a part of pegging. Masculinity, role reversal, communication, etc, etc. | |||
| From the article: "Her 2008 poem "Material" appears in England's current school sixth-form syllabus." . I know very little of England's educationsystem or Pearson, so my question is: does the ref support the claim? ] (]) 12:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| I have helped countless couples find the best equipment for them, which is much more complicated and individual than a cheap strap-on and dildo. Educating interested people about pegging has been my mission for the last 14 years. Other sex educators have more surface knowledge about this sexual act - knowledge that can be gleaned from a simple Marie Claire article. | |||
| : It's likely accurate, but it's a primary source so shouldn't be used anyway. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 12:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *Actually, I think this is a good use of a PRIMARY source. It's Due for inclusion because most poets are not on the syllabus and it's a simple verifiable fact not subject to interpretation. <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 14:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Fiamh}}, assuming this source supports "appears in England's ... school sixth-form syllabus", would you say it supports "current?" ] (]) 15:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}}, No, I'd say "was on the syllabus in 2017-18". <span style="font-weight: bold">] <sup>(], ])</sup></span> 16:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| My apologies if I sound a little irritated. My intentions are good. Famous people are not the best sources, necessarily. In sex education circles I am widely known as the go-to expert. | |||
| == californiabirthindex.org ? == | |||
| https://peggingparadise.com/ (my original website) | |||
| Can anyone tell if this is a credible primary source for birth records, or if there is a better one? | |||
| https://www.theartofpegging.com/ (my educational and patron platform) | |||
| In particular is an ongoing dispute if ] was actually born Justin. Or any other name. | |||
| https://pegging101.com/ (pegging with no kink for the vanilla people) | |||
| Any help appreciated! ] (]) 21:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| With Respect For All That You Amazing People Do, | |||
| : this is not a question of reliability. Primary sources cannot be used per ]. The policy is very clear. ] (]) 22:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Ruby Ryder ] (]) 05:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It’s foremost a question of reliability. If the information is from an unreliable source then I won’t consider using it as a reason to search for reliable secondary sourcing. If the source is accurate then it begs the question why the disconnect of what is true, verses what is being reported. | |||
| ::It’s been suggested Smollett, or someone, changed his name, although some states amend birth certificates maybe California does not. ] (]) 23:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::The policy language could not be clearer: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." | |||
| :Ms. Ryder, | |||
| :::If reliable secondary sources do not discuss the material, then it ''must'' be excluded by policy. "It’s been suggested Smollett, or someone, changed his name" is precisely the type of innuendo and rumor that has absolutely no place in Misplaced Pages, and this is a matter of policy that every Misplaced Pages editor is obligated to follow.] ] 02:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :What would help here is if you could point us to either reliable, independent sources citing your work, or of you writing for publications that you don't publish yourself.... something that helps us see that, as you say, "in sex educations widely known as a go-to expert." I fully believe that you are. | |||
| ::::I wasn’t looking to use it as a source per se, but to determine what is accurate in the many sources available. | |||
| :The problem with someone using your sources as a reference has to do with Misplaced Pages's rules on using self-published sources, which your websites, videos, etc, count as. We can use such sources as reference (if within some limits), but only if we can see that the creator is a ''recognized'' expert in the field... and by recognized, that means either cited by or hired to write on the topic by reliable sources. I know that it seems like your voluminous experience and the visible quality of your materials should count for something here, but alas it does not. I don't think we'd be expecting, say, the New York Times or the Journal of the American Medical Association in this case, just some recognizable source that takes such sexual matters seriously. It doesn't even have to be material that is online (although that would help.) Articles that quote you or recommend your sites or training services would really help. Can you point us to such citations? -- ] (]) 06:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Right now we are unable to reliably source any birthname so we’ve removed that from the info box. | |||
| :I appreciate the work that you do. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages editors cannot use their own judgement to assess the expertise of someone. There are people who research topics and work in a field their entire lives who become experts in those fields and publish their work on their own websites. But there are also pseudo-experts who do the same thing. Editors on Misplaced Pages are not allowed to use their own judgement to discern the difference between the two, but must rely on a third party to establish their expertise. If you have ever given an interview on pegging for a newspaper or a magazine, or had your website cited by a sexologist or another recognizable sex expert as a good resource on pegging, for instance, then that would allow us to recognize the reliability of your site for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::At this point it seems he was born Justin, and Jussie is a nickname. None of which has been reliably sourced, but all of which have been ongoing edited into the article. | |||
| ::::I figured there was something to it and wanted to get some resolution on the matter. ] (]) 03:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"Justin" should be excluded from the article until reliable secondary sources report it. The fact that one very reliable source ''withdrew'' the claim is a strong indication that the so-called birth name was probably an error. ] ] 04:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Excluding ‘Justin’ for now is exactly what we are doing; because of this inquiry we are also removing the ‘birth name’ from info box because there is *no* source he was born as ‘Jussie’. ‘Jus’ is one of many nicknames for people named Justin, personally I feel this is the most likely explanation. | |||
| ::::::I’m convinced there’s at least one very good PR person at work on the issue, as can be seen on the article talk page. ] (]) 05:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:01, 23 January 2025
Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
List of archives , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 910, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465
Additional notes:
Shortcuts- RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
- While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
- This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.
RfC: NewsNation
 |
|
What is the reliability of NewsNation?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Survey (NewsNation)
- Option 2: Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light).
- NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
- In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the 2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings, Coulthart said "... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"! . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including Jamey Jacob and Mick West, all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects.
- Writing in The Skeptic, Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: "Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."
- He wrote a UFO book titled Plain Sight which Jason Colavito described as a "conspiracy narrative" and a "slipshod summary".
- The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for “espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”
- The Australian Broadcasting Corporation did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking "Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary? while strongly implying the former.
- The Sydney Morning Herald has described him as a "UFO truther" with "little appetite for scrutiny".
- Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked 60 Minutes (Australian TV program) investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians.
- Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs:
- In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the Washington Post: ), the channel "was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health".
- In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said "... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing". The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to Mick West's analysis, a Boeing 737 .
- NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
- Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage Personisinsterest (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2: Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. BarntToust 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 per Chetsford. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage. Compare WP:ROLLINGSTONE. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 why are we putting any stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “broken clock” syndrome. Dronebogus (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage. - Amigao (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 I would go with Option 2 but their UFO coverage makes me consider Option 3. I think for anything outside of UFO-related topics they are generally reliable. Other sources should be cited. Frankserafini87 (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 for non-UFO coverage, Option 3 for UFO coverage. ミラP@Miraclepine 00:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (NewsNation)
- For purposes of clarification, the reliability of NewsNation has previously come up in two different RSN discussions and two different article Talk page discussions. Beyond that, however, it's repeatedly invoked to source UFO articles to the point that constant re-litigation of its reliability via edit summaries is becoming a massive time sink. Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Useage of Arabic-language sources in Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)
This thread is opened at the request of @Kovcszaln6 following the dispute between me and @Javext in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) on the multiple issues regarding that article.
I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:
1. The academic backgrounds of the writers of those sources are unknown (keeping in mind that they were written by Yemenis who have limited internet access), and
2. Yemeni state-controlled media outlets
wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets")
Now, Javext has removed all the sources and text that they support from the article and used other sources (some of which I find no problems with using, although they provide little context compared to the other sources) and kept the sources that I've brought when I translated the Portuguese article.
Special:diff/1266430566: This is the version of the article that has the Arabic sources and is the version that I want to keep and then expand with other sources that both I and Jav has used.
Special:diff/1266448873: This is the version that Jav wants to keep
Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand):
- (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome)
Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved:
Abo Yemen✉ 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. This also seems to be a relevant document. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle
WP:AGE MATTERS?citing Portuguese records
That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above Abo Yemen✉ 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- One example of another secondary source comparing the accounts (after C. F. Buckingham) is Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1997). The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama. pp. 290-291. (link) GordonGlottal (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?Abo Yemen✉ 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. The Independent is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the Quaiti Sultanate was a thing according to a Facebook post made by a high school that he attended). He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others . He also published a book about the city of Shihr . He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023
- This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. The Independent is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?Abo Yemen✉ 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. This also seems to be a relevant document. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
References
- Machine translation: Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamusa, a native of Al-Shahr and a graduate of the third class of Al-Mukalla High School for Boys (now Bin Shihab High School for Boys)
High School Flags
Tuesday, September 17, 2024
After years of parting, Abu Bakr Bin Shihab High School for Boys in Mukalla embraced Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamoussa, who graduated on the educational ladder for years and is now at the age of retirement. He visited the high school and in his gaze with passion and love for the past years, he climbed the stairs of the high school to the second floor to the office of the principal Mr. Saeed Ahmed Al-Amari, who welcomed him warmly and said that this visit gave us a boost and moral support, and the visit for Mr. Bamoussa was to ask about the old administrators, services and guards who were who were in the period of the sixties and seventies, but unfortunately the administration could not answer this and invites everyone who has information about them to raise it quickly, as Mr. Bamoussa has been working for years on writing a book about the beginning of education in Hadramawt since the time of the Qaitian Sultanate in the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, and he made a very important statement that the first principal of the high school is Mr. Karama Bammin from Tarim and then came after him Mr. Al-Sudani Al-Taloudi and this was a surprise for us and he confirmed this in his book that will see the light after completion of it.
May God prolong his life and give him health and wellness to provide us with important information about the history of education in Hadramawt.
The high school administration thanks Mr. Mohammed Bamoussi for this visit and this effort exerted by him for this wonderful work, and wishes the officials in the Ministry of Education, the governorate office and the local authority to adopt such people who raise the slogan of education and the slogan of Hadramawt, the land of science, knowledge and culture.
Abo Yemen✉ 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.GordonGlottal (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the Special:diff/1266430566#Background Special:diff/1266430566#Losses and Special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city Internet Archive a txt version of the book that can get machine translated can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) Abo Yemen✉ 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.GordonGlottal (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. Javext (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Javext If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in this letter, which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from the catalog description but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! GordonGlottal (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, @GordonGlottal. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this:
- "Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India , his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." Javext (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
capturing Al-Shihr
hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? Abo Yemen✉ 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder.
- I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. Javext (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city Abo Yemen✉ 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. Javext (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city Abo Yemen✉ 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Javext If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in this letter, which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from the catalog description but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! GordonGlottal (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. Javext (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
-
"Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr,
(Never happened btw)and how important it would be to conquer Diu."
Abo Yemen✉ 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- "Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? Abo Yemen✉ 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned Abo Yemen✉ 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- capturing a city != sacking it
your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here Abo Yemen✉ 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. Javext (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now show me where in your sources does it say that Abo Yemen✉ 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You were just denying that this happened after I showed you the sources, why are you asking this now? Didn't I just give them above? Javext (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now show me where in your sources does it say that Abo Yemen✉ 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. Javext (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- capturing a city != sacking it
- You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? Abo Yemen✉ 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What sources about capturing a city did you show me? Those letters clearly show that the portuguese wanted to capture the city and they failed as we have no proof of them being there after the battle was over. But did they lie to whoever they sent this letter to? Abo Yemen✉ 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Look bro, the letter doesn't state they failed, it states the Portuguese captured the city and then sacked it. For the fourth time, this DOES NOT mean they retained control of the city. Javext (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @GordonGlottal so we can finish with and archive this, can we use those sources in anything other than the battle section? like the other sections that I've mentioned being deleted here #c-Abo_Yemen-20250108072200-GordonGlottal-20250107223800 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- In general I think we've established that there is currently no way of including any claim which cannot be directly traced to the 16th-century Portuguese histories or the Hadrami chronicles (which agree). This is because no source cites any other form of evidence, and because it represents the approach of English-language academic books. I have not reviewed the details and I do not know which claims qualify, but you're free to add anything you can find in an appropriate source. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- not even a legacy section like the one you proposed? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- In general I think we've established that there is currently no way of including any claim which cannot be directly traced to the 16th-century Portuguese histories or the Hadrami chronicles (which agree). This is because no source cites any other form of evidence, and because it represents the approach of English-language academic books. I have not reviewed the details and I do not know which claims qualify, but you're free to add anything you can find in an appropriate source. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu
|
|
The following genealogy sources are currently considered Generally unreliable at WP:RSP (A), or in repeated inquiries at WP:RSN (B and C):
- A: Geni.com
- B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
- C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav
- Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.
- They should be:
- Option 1: listed as Generally unreliable (change nothing to A; add B and C at WP:RSP as such)
- Option 2: Deprecated (list them as such at WP:RSP)
- Option 3: Blacklisted (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2)
NLeeuw (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)
- A: See "Geni.com" at WP:RSPSOURCES.
- B: See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#Have we got lists of reliable and unreliable websites for genealogical research?, in particular subsection #genealogy.eu, where this RfC for the 3 sources in question was prepared together with @ActivelyDisinterested. The other sources discussed there fall outside the scope of this RfC.
- C: See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy) (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). NLeeuw (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Preliminaries
- Probably need to add the website Genealogics.org to the list of unreliable sources. It also uses Misplaced Pages articles which would be WP:CIRC. --Kansas Bear 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK. But it could be a good follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. NLeeuw (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. NLeeuw (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. NLeeuw (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK. But it could be a good follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see WP: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#RfC: Universe Guide. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Read Background: B. NLeeuw (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey A: Geni.com
- Deprecate. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. JoelleJay (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate.
Question. Isn't it already deprecated?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC) - Deprecate A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unsure. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. Really bad. Needs to go away.—Alalch E. 00:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
- Deprecate, per background discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. I think this source has been often discussed in a superficial way, together with other sources, which does not always lead to a clear perspective. This is not like the other two. It collects a lot of useful extracts from primary sources than can be helpful for getting a grip on a topic. Although it is basically the work of one editor, this editor was assigned to do this for an organization which does make some efforts to maintain a reputation for quality. (The FMG publishes a journal, and it posts some online corrections to Keats-Rohan's reference works for the 11th and 12th century, and she has noted those helpful efforts in print.) On the other hand, Medlands does not use secondary material very much, so it is normally not going to the type of source we would use on WP on its own for anything non-obvious. I note these complications because I see that sources like Ancestry.com and Findmypast also have special notes about how they can sometimes have useful primary materials. To give a practical example of what might go wrong, what I saw in the past whenever this source was discussed, is that it was even deleted from external links sections and so on. I think this is a source that can be used for external links at the very least. I feel hesitant to say that it should NEVER EVER be used even in the main body to be honest, although I don't use it on WP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate Crawley has no academic background in history and MedLands is self-published. It is not published by FMG only hosted by them. That it contains a lot of useful information is not the same as it having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, something it doesn't have. Deprecation isn't blacklisting, editors are warned against adding it not blocked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "the source is generally prohibited". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Editors who know the fine print will be the ones using the source correctly, and will know how to handle the situation. The issue is that editors who don't know keep adding this as a reference to support content, and the many discussions on the source show they isn't support for that. Adding a warning when editors post will at least get editors to ask why they are getting the warning, and help them understand the situation.
- Deprecation of this source will reduce the pointless pseudo-legal debates, by reducing the problem of the source being repeatedly readded. Editors should use their own good judgement, but as repeated discussion about this source have shown that isn't happening. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes the cost of not having to continuously patrol for this source and have the same discussion about it's reliability again and again.
- Separately before the two of us fill the survey section with our disagreement (mea culpa), should we move this discussion to the Discussion section? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "the source is generally prohibited". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Generally unreliable. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) Generally unreliable is the one which says this:
"questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published"
I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would only allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be prohibited. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)- Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at the May 2023 MedLands RSN shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he knows may be of little factual significance at face value just because he finds them "interesting" (but is reproduced by way of interest), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't verify. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. NLeeuw (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the Generally unreliable category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then only as far as we have to. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at the May 2023 MedLands RSN shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he knows may be of little factual significance at face value just because he finds them "interesting" (but is reproduced by way of interest), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't verify. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. NLeeuw (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Generally reliable, in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. Ghirla 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate per ActivelyDisinterested.—Alalch E. 00:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav
- Deprecate. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. JoelleJay (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as genealogy.eu and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). NLeeuw (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Lancaster (talk • contribs) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the Europäische Stammtafeln, Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. Ghirla 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". NLeeuw (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; Foix. --Kansas Bear 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site here. And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the Europäische Stammtafeln. Ghirla 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. NLeeuw (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site here. And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the Europäische Stammtafeln. Ghirla 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. WP:SPS. Deprecation will have a positive effect. And while it's always possible that someone in the know, who's really into genealogy, has the ability of figuring out out how the operator of this website makes it have the content that it has, that's not useful for determining reliability.—Alalch E. 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)
@ActivelyDisinterested: my apologies also. To be clear, I respect your concern, and I think I understand it. I think we've conveyed our concerns, and laid out some pros and cons, and background principles. I'm not stressed about that. I think its a point of getting the balance right. In practical reality the three sources should not normally be used, and I see no big disagreements. I just think the difference between the two categories offered is (or should be) meaningful, and I wanted to make that clear. I am not really disagreeing with any other specific point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Although I disagree I can understand you position. It's to easy to get stuck in disagreement spirals are part of RFCs. Let's see if anyone else brings any new ideas. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I previously commented that a seperate warning for generally unreliable sources would be helpful, for ones that are problematicly readded on a regular basis would be useful. That way a warning would appear but wouldn't come with the baggage of deprecation. At the moment deprecation is the only resource available, but it is a somewhat blunt hammer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested Thanks for restoring the discussion from the archive; it evidently was not yet closed. It would seem that we've got a clear result though. Should I request a third party to formally close it with a conclusion, or how does this go with RfCs? NLeeuw (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- The {{RFC}} tag was missing, which would have added "DoNotArchiveUntil.." to the header to stop it from being archived. I've add the RFC tag which will list in for every to see (not just those to happen across it on RSN). I suggest waiting and seeing if any more comments come in, as they editors have taken part yet. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested Thanks for restoring the discussion from the archive; it evidently was not yet closed. It would seem that we've got a clear result though. Should I request a third party to formally close it with a conclusion, or how does this go with RfCs? NLeeuw (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: Jacobin
|
|
Which of the following best describes the reliability of Jacobin (magazine)?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate?
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey: Jacobin
- Option 2 I am opposed to the use of WP:GREL and think that no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2. With that being said, I would list New York Times or the CBC in precisely the same way and I don't believe that any of the complainants have demonstrated in any way that Jacobin is less reliable, per Misplaced Pages's standards, than any other American news media outlet. I am deeply concerned that many of the complaints are about "bias" when reliability does not include a political compass test. This is not grounds to treat a source as unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2/3, bias is one thing, getting things down right incorrect is another. As was demonstrated in the pre-discussion, the notion around the housing stock was truly an egregious error. This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts. When that happens, "Generally unreliable" or at minimum, "Additional considerations" makes sense as the guidance when using this source. I do not think further deprecation is warranted though since the reporters seem to be of a mixed quality, some are more diligent than others and the bias merging into wanton disregard for facts varies there too. The problem is, we rate sources, not just individual writers, and therefore as far as a source rating goes, "Option 2" or "Option 3" then makes the most logical sense. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was corrected. Your entire case is based on a single incident where a single writer made a single mistake. And it was fixed. There is absolutely no grounds for "Generally unreliable" on the basis of presented evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was corrected only after significant outside pressure and even then the correction was weak and inaccurate. The guy who wrote the article was explicitly mocking the people who pointed out his error and accusing them of something along the lines of being corporate shills. It also wasn’t a single incident as they publish nonsense regarding Russia and Ukraine, including and up to outright conspiracy theories, pretty regularly. It simply is not a reliable source, however much one agrees with their editorial stance. Volunteer Marek 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you agree with Iljhgtn's conspiracy theory that this was the purposeful result of pushing bias not an error? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was corrected only after significant outside pressure and even then the correction was weak and inaccurate. The guy who wrote the article was explicitly mocking the people who pointed out his error and accusing them of something along the lines of being corporate shills. It also wasn’t a single incident as they publish nonsense regarding Russia and Ukraine, including and up to outright conspiracy theories, pretty regularly. It simply is not a reliable source, however much one agrees with their editorial stance. Volunteer Marek 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including User:Iljhgtn and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? Volunteer Marek 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You misquote the editor (to your benefit), for someone so interested in errors supposedly motivated by bias that seems odd... In context its clearly stronger than that "This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." when nothing suggests that this was the result of narrative pushing (thats how you push a narrative either, as you've pointed out although lingusitically similar its an embarrassing and obvious error). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including User:Iljhgtn and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? Volunteer Marek 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome. Volunteer Marek 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- No , I’m not. I’m simply asking you to refrain from trying to falsely characterize other people’s comments as “conspiracy theories” in a cheap attempt to delegitimize them since they’re clear nothing of the sort. Not everything you disagree with is a “conspiracy theory”. In this particular case, the article clearly had false info in it. No one has ever said that “information was changed” (as if on purpose) so please stop pretending otherwise. What was said was that “bias creeped in” which I think is a fair characterization. So please quit it with the strawman’ing. Volunteer Marek 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we WP:FOC. I believe @Horse Eye's Back is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its you who needs to provide a source to substantiate your allegations against a living person. ""This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." is a BLP violation unless a source is provided or the author drops dead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we WP:FOC. I believe @Horse Eye's Back is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- No , I’m not. I’m simply asking you to refrain from trying to falsely characterize other people’s comments as “conspiracy theories” in a cheap attempt to delegitimize them since they’re clear nothing of the sort. Not everything you disagree with is a “conspiracy theory”. In this particular case, the article clearly had false info in it. No one has ever said that “information was changed” (as if on purpose) so please stop pretending otherwise. What was said was that “bias creeped in” which I think is a fair characterization. So please quit it with the strawman’ing. Volunteer Marek 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome. Volunteer Marek 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- And what is your source for that? Nobody else is saying that this was the result of bias, the sources say that "third largest corporate owner of housing" became "owns a third of housing" which is a very understandable mistake. You appear to have constructed your own conspiracy theory around this incident. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Im sorry but “third largest owner” turning into “owns one third of all housing stock” is NOT an “understandable mistake”. It misstates the actual fact by a factor of 500. Maybe if this was like a student in some freshmen class using AI to write a paper that would be “understandable” (and still get an F) but this is supposed to be a professional, who’s job it is to get this stuff right and this is supposed to be a serious organization that has an editorial board that does fact checking. Which they obviously didn’t do. Volunteer Marek 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whats “not math”? The difference between .0006 and .33? You sure? Volunteer Marek 01:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- And let’s see these “every major and minor publications” that make these kinds of error. Volunteer Marek 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I note the failure to provide the requested source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Im sorry but “third largest owner” turning into “owns one third of all housing stock” is NOT an “understandable mistake”. It misstates the actual fact by a factor of 500. Maybe if this was like a student in some freshmen class using AI to write a paper that would be “understandable” (and still get an F) but this is supposed to be a professional, who’s job it is to get this stuff right and this is supposed to be a serious organization that has an editorial board that does fact checking. Which they obviously didn’t do. Volunteer Marek 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Right back at you. Volunteer Marek 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- , your turn and no stonewalling now provide the source or go away. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Right back at you. Volunteer Marek 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that. Volunteer Marek 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your source that this was "exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative" and not simply an error is what? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that. Volunteer Marek 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have to say I question your judgment in supporting option 3 "generally unreliable" over Jacobin publishing and then retracting a single erroneous sentence, and for having a bias/narrative/agenda, when you also !voted option 1 "generally reliable" for The Heritage Foundation which routinely publishes fabricated information without retraction. Could you kindly articulate how an admittedly biased outlet with a team of fact checkers is apparently significantly worse than a think tank that churns out misinformation and disinformation (and has a team of paid staff working around the clock to target, dox, and threaten Misplaced Pages editors)? Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was corrected. Your entire case is based on a single incident where a single writer made a single mistake. And it was fixed. There is absolutely no grounds for "Generally unreliable" on the basis of presented evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 A screenshot of a tweet documenting an already corrected error is insufficient to depreciate a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs) 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Gamaliel: Mostly Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin and at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine). Kind regards,
- Thank you for the links. I will repost once I've read through those discussions. Gamaliel (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Gamaliel: Mostly Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin and at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine). Kind regards,
- I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 at the very least, change current assessment. It might be easier to comment if editors agree or not to change the current category. My position is based on coverage that mixes opinion with facts and its use of unreliable sources, some of which have been deprecated by this noticeboard (like The Grayzone). I went into more detail about this at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin and at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine). --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 (intext attribution) WP:RSBIAS and WP:RSOPINION cover most of the points here. Jacobin publishes opinions peice that should have intext attribution. This is how they are used in the large amount of WP:USEBYOTHERS that Jacobin also has. I may not like Jacobin very much but bias, opinion, or minor mistakes do not make a source unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 Context matters: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." The example given was a mistake in a book review, cubsequently corrected, about how much housing stock Blackstone owned. No reasonable editor would use this review as a source for an article on housing or Blackstone and more than one would use a reliable source on U.S. housing for an article about 19th century French poetry. TFD (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1-ish Jacobin are clearly a biased source but they are also clearly as reliable for facts as any other major WP:NEWSORG. When they make mistakes, they correct themselves, and that improves their reliability, it doesn't hurt it. Loki (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2: additional considerations/bad RFC - based on the discussion above, evidently there's some kind of social media uproar about some thing that Jacobin published and later corrected. It's poor timing to hold an RFC on reliability both when emotions are high and when it's in response to an isolated incident, both of which are true here. But ignoring that, it seems (again from the discussion above) that Jacobin published something that was egregiously incorrect, then retracted or corrected it. That's pretty much the standard we expect of reliable publications: errors are compatible with reliability, it's how the publication responds to and corrects errors that determines reliability in this context. Media Bias/Fact Check gives Jacobin a "high" reliability score of 1.9 (out of 10, lower scores are better), which is in the ballpark of the New York Times (1.4) and Washington Post (2.1). However, they also give it a "left bias" rating of -7 (a 20-point scale with 0 as completely unbiased), which is on the edge of their extreme ratings. Editors should consider attribution, and/or balancing this source's POV against publications more to the right. Ivanvector (/Edits) 17:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2/3 While BIAS usually covers issues like, it may not be entirely sufficient for advocacy media, which includes Jacobin. While Jacobin is a fine publication and I've sourced it myself, the reality is it does not usually report Who/What/Why but almost exclusively publishes explainers and analysis pieces that have a designed structure. For instance, How Biden Embraced Trump’s Terror Smear Against Cuba is not an editorial or opinion piece, it's presented as straight news reporting in the form of an explainer article. But, as an encyclopedia, we obviously can't start injecting artistic wordsets like "terror smear" into articles. So merely saying that BIAS can cover the case of Jacobin is not sufficient. For the purposes of encyclopedia writing, there will never be anything chronicled by Jacobin that is appropriate for WP which we can't find a superior source for elsewhere. They don't do spot news, data journalism, or investigative reporting, which are the three ways we use newsgathering media to reference articles. Simply looking at the current issue, I don't see a single story that is actually reporting things. Each article is an opinion piece lightly packaged as an explainer. So, while I don't think Jacobin is "unreliable" per se, I don't see any value of using it for the very scope-limited purpose of encyclopedia-writing. Chetsford (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 for facts and 2/inline attribution otherwise for articles that are mainly opinion. The hoohah over an article that was actually about Mark Fisher and since corrected such that it doesn't even mention Blackstone seems like a one off. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nothing in the above discussion or that I've seen in the last year leads me to deviate from my !vote in the previous RfC which was this: Option 2: mostly a partisan opinion source usable with attribution if noteworthy, but occasionally publishes well-researched pieces by experts in their fields, on topics that might not be covered in more mainstream sources, in particular on the history of the left or on socialist theory. I also think that the closing of the last RfC, and in particular green flagging on RSP, did not reflect the consensus of the discussion, as I argued when this came up on this board in 2023: I have long been unhappy with the RSP summary of the many RSN discussions of this source, where the consensus has clearly been much more negative than the summary. It is clear that several editors have major issues with its use in specific areas (e.g. Russia/Ukraine, Venezuela) and that this should be flagged, and that it publishes content by a few conspiracy thinkers (Branko Marcetic was mentioned in the last discussion, McEvoy flagged here) and again this isn't highlighted in RSP. So I'd favour a rewrite of the RSP and possibly a change from green to yellow as a better reflection of the community consensus. In short: I think we need to approach it in a much more case by case basis. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 My assessment hasn't changed from last time, jacobin publishes mostly opinion so this is largely a moot point and the rest of what they publish often contradicts itself—blindlynx 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- 1 or 2, I think that most of the time they should be used with attribution but they're generally reliable enough that I don't think we should be requiring attribution. I also question the need for a new RfC... It doesn't seem like there has been anything substantial since last time so this shouldn't have been opened. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak option 2 per above voters (especially AD and Bob), but I won't die on that hill if the consensus ultimately feels differently. Strong oppose option 3, though, for somewhat obvious reasons. The Kip 18:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1/2 - I don't like Jacobin. They read to me like the socialist equivalent of Christian rock. But they have an editor, publisher and corrections, and I'm reasonably sure they're not actually liars. It's an opinion outlet, like a leftist analogue of Reason. I'm not convinced coverage in Jacobin connotes notability. So I'd give them a strong "considerations apply" - attribute, not ideal for notability - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1/2 Jacobin's fine. It's left-leaning, but it doesn't cook up facts or make shit up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3
or 4They publish outright falsehoods and when they issue corrections these are weak and weaselly. The recent completely absurd claim in one of their articles that Blackstone owns 33% of US single family housing stock is an example (it’s actually 1/10 of 1%). Whether you’re sympathetic to their editorial position is irrelevant. Garbage is garbage and facts are facts and as an encyclopedia we can’t rely on click bait nonsense for sources. Volunteer Marek 19:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC) - Option 1, with attribution for analysis and opinion pieces. The Blackstone mistake was bad, and the author's petulant attitude upon being corrected leaves much to be desired. But the error was corrected relatively promptly, and they have an editorial team on staff. I'm not in favor of downgrading a source based on a single mistake. However, Jacobin has an explicit editorial stance that informs nearly all of its articles, and if it's used for more than straightforward facts, it should probably be attributed as e.g. "the socialist magazine Jacobin". I'm open to changing my view if others can demonstrate a more sustained pattern of errors or falsehoods. Astaire (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 (with caveats) due to the lack of developments since the last RfC which could actually change the conclusion of general reliability, as opposed to demonstrating fallibility or bias. I do have some sympathy with the
no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2
position articulated above, but I think that comes down to how we interpret "generally reliable" in practice. In other words, "additional considerations" always apply, in principle. The difference between option 1 and option 2 comes down to how likely we expect those "additional considerations" to be of practical relevance, and how exactly we should address them. XOR'easter (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC) - Option 1, it doesn't seem anything has changed since the last RfC. Corrections and retractions is what a reliable source is expected to do and is a sign of reliability. Mistakes which are far greater than this are commonplace across the array of reliable sources (what matters is whether there are corrections or not) nor does partisanship equate to unreliability. Here the error appears to be about what's more or less a single sentence, an ancillary point or side-note in an opinion piece which has been corrected since. It should be treated no different a manner than any other openly partisan neworgs such as Reason (RSP entry). There is no requirement for reliable sources to be "neutral" or for the matter any standard that suggests newsorgs with an explicitly stated ideological position are any better or worse in matters of reliability than newsorgs that don't have an explicitly stated ideological position. WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASED are quite clear.
- Though the standard disclaimers apply which are to check for whether what they publish has due weight for inclusion (not an issue of reliability), use in-text attribution with their political position made apparent when quoting opinion and that the context always matters. That there is a subreddit post critical of a error that was corrected is no basis for determining reliability of sources on Misplaced Pages or starting an RfC, so this is also a Bad RfC. This discussion has been had at a much greater depth in the previous RfC where it was shown that the magazine in question has quite significant use by others and affirmatory coverage from reliable secondary source demonstrating that they generally have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" which doesn't needs to be rehashed. Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1: Bad RfC + L + Ratio Creating this RfC immediately after some sort of ostensible social media outrage (ex. I nominated David Joyner (business executive) for deletion not long after the Killing of Brian Thompson, and people got so upset that they brigaded it via external social media) seems like a bad idea. It's been made clear in the past that Jacobin has a perspective (like literally any media outlet) but don't sacrifice factual accuracy to get there. My previous vote remains true: "While it wears its political perspective on its sleeve, it has proven itself time and again in its robust fact-checking. The issue with conservative and reactionary sources on the WP:RSP isn't that they have a bias – it's that they constantly express said bias through the use of provable mis- and disinformation. Jacobin does not sacrifice factual accuracy for the sake of a bias."
- I would say the same of any other outlet whose perspective coexists peacefully with actual facts. The sort of neoliberalism adopted by American news outlets which we categorize as generally reliable (correctly so) isn't some sort of default worldview that needs to be treated as sacred and less biased than any other. If we're allowed to point to a single incident, then I could just as easily (but wouldn't, because I'm acting in good faith) point to the NYT's 2002–2003 reporting about Iraq and WMDs which was so unbelievably mistaken and grounded in literally nothing that we spend a paragraph attributing it to falsely luring Americans into supporting an illegal invasion based on lies, yet Misplaced Pages (even in the days when that story was reasonably fresh) would balk at the idea of calling them 'marginally reliable', let alone 'generally unreliable'. Meanwhile, this one is literally just a typo in a single article – a bad typo, but one anyone with a brain could understand didn't reflect reality and which was quickly corrected. Reading some of the stories on the front page right now, they report on events similar to what would be covered in a magazine like the generally reliable New York and contain no obvious factual errors. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2, mainly per u:BobFromBrockley. The Blackrock error was quickly corrected, so I don't hold it against them. Consider this quote from CANZUK
Anglo-conservatives sometimes fantasize about reuniting the dominions ... where workers could be exploited freely.
A not-insignificant percentage of the content supported by Jacobin is of similar nature. Alaexis¿question? 21:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC) - Option 1 A screenshot from Reddit detailing an error which was corrected is not reason to lower our consideration of the reliablity of the publication. WP:GREL is generally reliable, not always reliable. Admittedly the publication does contain a lot of opinion peices, however that is already covered by WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL. Notably, The Economist is similarly heavy on opinion pecies and community consensus is that it is WP:GREL. TarnishedPath 22:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 Jacobin is basically the left-wing equivalent to the right-wing British Magazines Spiked and The Spectator. Like these publications, most of its content is opinion orientated, and citing less opinion-focused sources should be preferred. It's clear that the current "generally reliable" rating is suggesting to readers of RSP that Jacobin's opinionated content is usable carte blanche without caveat, which I do not think is accurate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some Jacobin pieces have openly pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories , as well as conspiracy theories about the Euromaidan which have not been retracted. The Green RSP rating has mistakenly led people to believe these pieces were reliable , Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- You should probably read farther than the headline. Simonm223 (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The pieces (which are both by staff writer Branko Marcetic) are strongly slanted, but you're perhaps right that saying they are "pushing conspiracy theories" is going a bit far. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- "The CIA bungled intel pre-9/11" is somewhat the opposite of a conspiracy theory since it literally attributes to incompetence what conspiracists attribute to malice. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The pieces (which are both by staff writer Branko Marcetic) are strongly slanted, but you're perhaps right that saying they are "pushing conspiracy theories" is going a bit far. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- You should probably read farther than the headline. Simonm223 (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some Jacobin pieces have openly pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories , as well as conspiracy theories about the Euromaidan which have not been retracted. The Green RSP rating has mistakenly led people to believe these pieces were reliable , Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Summoned by ping in this thread) Bad RFC / No listing just as in 2021. Or Option 2, it is a liberal analysis magazine, to be considered frequently as WP:RSOPINION. See you at the next 1-day social media hysteria. MarioGom (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but Jacobin is not remotely liberal. It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. MarioGom (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I find it really funny when Americans see somebody holding mainstream social democratic politics and start calling them extreme. Simonm223 (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. MarioGom (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but Jacobin is not remotely liberal. It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1. Correcting a mistake is a sign of reliability. The normal caveats about bias/opinion and attribution apply, but not seeing enough to move it down to 2. -- Patar knight - /contributions 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 The current summary at WP:RS/P acknowledges that Jacobin is biased and that editors should take care when using it, which is exactly how it should be. Bias and adherence to factual accuracy are two different things; neutrality is not objectivity and vice versa. We do not need to demote it purely for being biased. Agree with others that an RfC being started based on a Reddit thread of a screenshot of a tweet of an editor who made a mistake which was ultimately corrected is a bit silly. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 as per the analysis by Selfstudier, XOR, and Tayi. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 WP:GREL already has certain considerations and it doesn't mean that 100% of what is published can make it to WP. Editors are expected to use their judgement. The article in question is a WP:NEWSBLOG. I don't see any reason for downgrading them based on a reddit thread. Lf8u2 (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 This entire RfC appears to be politically motivated and is predicated on a correction of a sentence that mixed up "third largest" with "a third of". Many other mainline newspapers have made similar, if not worse, errors before. The question is whether corrections were made when such errors were pointed out. And the correction was made here, meeting requirements of reliability. This is likely also about an opinion article, which makes this even more pointless. Silverseren 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weapons of mass destruction from the New York Times? Was that ever retracted? TarnishedPath 11:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- 3. If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than Jacobin to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it.
- It's not a matter of some particular instance about mistakes regarding mixing up "third largest" with "a third of" or whatever. Heck everybody does stuff like that. The NYTimes has has published more (unintentionally) misleading or plain-wrong charts than I've had hot meals. I mean, here we've got Nature finding that "among the 348 documents that we found to include the are 186 peer-reviewed journal articles, including some in BioScience, The Lancet Planetary Health, and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and 19 news articles targeted at a specialist audience." Imagine that. I would guess that that's largely because "puts indigenous peoples in a good light" trumps "is true" in the emotional hind-brain of the leather-elbow-patch set. It's not a lefty thing in particular, right-wingers are just as bad I'm sure.
- Which just strengthens my point, there're no blinders like ideological blinders, so its not so much a matter of how many fact-checkers you have as in how you maybe are presenting facts which, while individually true, are cherry picked or incomplete or out of context or one-sided or otherwise misleading. It might not even be intentional, exactly. Mind-sets are like that. Better to stick with Time or other people who are more into just blandly attracting a broad readership rather than with people who have points to make.
- They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine. As long as we include the qualifier. Herostratus (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Herostratus: not to backseat comment but if "They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine." isn't that a 2? I'm in much the same boat and offered a split 1/2, my understanding is that a 3 shouldn't be used for opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Backseat comments are totally fine. I live for them. I'm not sure about the details of our rule, but aren't all publications are completely reliable for their contents? If the News of the World says "the moon is made of green cheese" we can certainly say "According to the News of the World, the moon is made of green cheese" if for some reason that was useful. The ref is just so the reader can check that they did indeed print that. Similarly for any opinion or other statement. Since all entities are reliable for their own contents, I assume we are not talking at all about that. Why would we.
- @Herostratus: not to backseat comment but if "They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine." isn't that a 2? I'm in much the same boat and offered a split 1/2, my understanding is that a 3 shouldn't be used for opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- What we are talking about is: if entity X says "FBI stats say that African-American violent crime was up 50% in Los Angeles in 2024", can we say that in our own words because we can be confident that it is true because we know that entity X has a good fact-checking operation? Can we be very very sure that entity X would also point out if violent crime for all races was also up 50%? Can we be very very sure that this increase is not because the FBI started using a new definition of "violent crime", because entity X would surely point that out? Can we be very very sure that violent crime in the city of Los Angeles is steady and the increase is purely from Los Angeles County (or whatever), because entity X would surely point that out? In other words -- can we be very very sure that entity X would not cherry-pick some facts and leave out others because they are here to make points? We want to be careful about being led by the nose by these people. Herostratus (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think the thing is our due weight policy says that due weight (noteworthiness) is apportioned based on the amount of attention given in reliable sources. I take that to mean opinion in generally reliable sources is worth reporting; opinion in generally unreliable sources isn’t. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail is not reliable for its own contents, having doctored its archives. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- What we are talking about is: if entity X says "FBI stats say that African-American violent crime was up 50% in Los Angeles in 2024", can we say that in our own words because we can be confident that it is true because we know that entity X has a good fact-checking operation? Can we be very very sure that entity X would also point out if violent crime for all races was also up 50%? Can we be very very sure that this increase is not because the FBI started using a new definition of "violent crime", because entity X would surely point that out? Can we be very very sure that violent crime in the city of Los Angeles is steady and the increase is purely from Los Angeles County (or whatever), because entity X would surely point that out? In other words -- can we be very very sure that entity X would not cherry-pick some facts and leave out others because they are here to make points? We want to be careful about being led by the nose by these people. Herostratus (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 The author's attitude certainly leaves much to be desired... but I don't think a single mistake that was quickly fixed – in a blog piece, which generally wouldn't even be cited except in very limited circumstances and with attribution per WP:NEWSBLOG – is a good enough reason to downgrade their reliability. Smallangryplanet (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 My opinion is unchanged from the previous RfC. It is absurd that we've opened up another RfC over a minor issue that was quickly corrected, all because a few neoliberal redditors got mad about it. I think citations to Jacobin should require attribution, but trying to tar them as unreliable over this one case is ridiculous. Log off Reddit, there is nothing worthwhile to be found there. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2. I concur with other editors that this RFC should never have been opened. Please be more considerate of your fellow editors' time. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 possibly Option 3. I don't see that the source is any better than it was in 2021. Per Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d's previous comments and references from the 2021 RfC copied below as well as this recent incident. Yes, making a mistake and correcting it is good but when the mistake is so egreious and the author attacks people who note the error how much faith should we put in the source? Last time I also noted that per Adfont's media review (not a RS but still worth a look) this source is more biased than Breitbart!
Normally, we put these extremely ideological sources in the Option 2 category (e.g., Salon (RSP entry), Townhall (RSP entry)). Jacobin obviously doesn't report straight news, so it (i) always needs to be attributed and (ii) check to see if it complies with WP:WEIGHT. However, Jacobin has additional issues. Its stated political mission is to:
centralize and inject energy into the contemporary socialist movement
. So it is more in line with an advocacy group than a news source. Also, it has pretty fringe views. James Wolcott identifies Jacobin as part of the alt-left . It's pretty fringe-y on topics concerning Venezuela , the USSR/Communism , and anti-semitism , . I would avoid using Jacobin for those topics. But if you need a socialist/Marxist opinion on something, then Jacobin is definitely a good source to use. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Based upon Noonlcarus's comment, Jacobin does seem to frequently use deprecated/unreliable sources for facts. Some examples include Alternet (RSP entry) , Daily Kos (RSP entry) , Raw Story (RSP entry) , The Canary (RSP entry) , and the Electronic Intifada (RSP entry) .Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, when a source is this biased we have to ask if that level of bias is going to have too great an impact on both the weight they give various facts thus leading to questionable conclusion and their ability to verify otherwise factual claims as we saw here. I think that puts the source deep into the use with caution territory Springee (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- And yet you rated the Heritage Foundation at 2/3 below and didn't find any problem with their extreme ideological bent, saying in their defense that deprecating the foundation
would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge
. This is a group that is regularly equated in academic best sources with fascism such as in:- Neo-fascist trends in education: neo-liberal hybridisation and a new authoritarian order Díez-Gutiérrez, Enrique-Javier, Mauro-Rafael Jarquín-Ramírez, and Eva Palomo-Cermeño, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS). Sep2024, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p125-169
- Pandemic abandonment, panoramic displays and fascist propaganda: The month the earth stood still. By: McLaren, Peter, Educational Philosophy & Theory, 00131857, Feb 2022, Vol. 54, Issue 2
- THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY THINK TANK. By: Stewart, Katherine, New Republic, 00286583, Sep2023, Vol. 254, Issue 9 (note that the think tank that they call "The West Point of American Fascism" in this article is the Claremont Institute but that they refer to Heritage as participating in Claremont events.)
- The Road Ahead Fighting for Progress, Freedom, and Democracy, Weingarten, Randi, American Educator. Fall2024, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p2-9. 8p.
- So I guess my question is one of consistency: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the fascist-adjacent Heritage foundation? If not why do you believe that the Heritage Foundation is more valuable to the "goal of collecting knowledge" than Jacobin? Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are missing a major difference. HF isn't a media source, they are a think tank. Jacobin is a media source, not a think tank. I've argued that all think tanks should be used with great care and in particular we should generally not cite them unless an independent RS points to their work. So the question is can we cite HF when a RS mentions the views/claims/etc of HF with respect to the article topic. In that regard I'm suggesting we treat them more like a primary source vs a RS. Jacobin is different and the relevant question is can we treat them like a regular RS as we do with many other news media sources. If Jacobin publishes a claim about an article subject should we cite them? I argue they should be evaluated by the same standards we use for news media sources. By that standard it's strong bias etc means we should use it's claims and reports with caution and should question if they have weight to justify inclusion. In your post above you provided a list of texts but absent links I can't see what they say nor if their arguments are sound or crap but they don't impact the distinction I've made. Springee (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The list of texts are available via Misplaced Pages library which is why I provided bibliographical information rather than links as links to material on WP library don't work. With the exception of New Republic all are academic journals. And now please answer my original question: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the Heritage Foundation? Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you want to cite those sources to support an argument you should tell us what they say or at least why you think they support your position. As for your question, I already answered. It doesn't matter if the HF is more or less compromised because the purpose of each is different. When it comes to topics of automobiles Honda is more compromised than the AP but they also might be a better source if we are asking about stratified charge combustion in automobile engines. Springee (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- On this charge I will defend Springee. I don't necessarily agree with them but I'm not seeing the dissonance in their arguments, especially as they seem to be going 2/3 on both (there is not formal vote here but that seems to be the upshot of what they're saying). Their slighlty idiosyncratic argument about the purspose of the source being primary is also one which they've been making consistently for years. With all due respect I think you're being too hard on Springee. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I take the idea that a publication being openly social democratic is too biased to be reliable personally offensive. Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. But I will concede that Springee is being consistent. And I actually agreed that think tanks should be treated as primary sources. Frankly, were Springee to be more reasonable on the "political bias" overreach, we might otherwise be agreeing. Simonm223 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- We may not be disagreeing at all given we both are giving them a "2". I'm arguing that their bias is too much to make them a 1. The possible 3, the same score I gave them last time, is a concern regarding things like the issue that started the recent discussion. I was about to post something about really disliking the RSP's simplistic bucketing. It's really not a good system as we really should put more effort into asking if a source is appropriate for the claims being supported and when an encyclopedia should be citing strongly biased sources in general. If we need to use such a strongly biased source is the information DUE? Springee (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- We do agree on disliking the RSP bucketing system. My personal opinion is no news media source should be treated as a blanket "generally reliable" because reliability is contextual. However I do think that Jacobin is, from a global perspective, not in any way ideologically extreme. Social democracy is a normal left-of-center political position. The extreme-right shift of US politics over the last few decades makes them seem like outliers but that's the real bias problem right there. Simonm223 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their About Us page states they offer
socialist perspectives
and approvingly includes quotes describing them as supportingradical politics
andvery explicitly on the radical left, and sort of hostile to liberal accommodationism
. Crossroads 22:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)- I would strongly advise against getting too side-tracked by having a conversation about "social democracy" vs "democratic socialism" (same goes for any arguments over distinctions between "left" vs "liberal" in this thread). I can say from experience that these semantics rabbitholes are shockingly deep, and they're not at all necessary or helpful for this RfC. All I'll say is that these terms are commonly used as synonyms by at least some people, and the "Ideology and reception" section of Jacobin (magazine) notes
the political diversity of contributors, incorporating "everyone from social democratic liberals to avowed revolutionaries"
, so I don't think either you or Simonm223 are wrong on this. Different people are gonna use different terms and apply different meanings to each of them. Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would strongly advise against getting too side-tracked by having a conversation about "social democracy" vs "democratic socialism" (same goes for any arguments over distinctions between "left" vs "liberal" in this thread). I can say from experience that these semantics rabbitholes are shockingly deep, and they're not at all necessary or helpful for this RfC. All I'll say is that these terms are commonly used as synonyms by at least some people, and the "Ideology and reception" section of Jacobin (magazine) notes
- Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their About Us page states they offer
- We do agree on disliking the RSP bucketing system. My personal opinion is no news media source should be treated as a blanket "generally reliable" because reliability is contextual. However I do think that Jacobin is, from a global perspective, not in any way ideologically extreme. Social democracy is a normal left-of-center political position. The extreme-right shift of US politics over the last few decades makes them seem like outliers but that's the real bias problem right there. Simonm223 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center.
Where outside the United States are you talking about? The world where barely 20% of countries recognize same-sex marriage? Where sixteen countries have banned the burqa? Is it Japan, where the conservative Liberal Democratic Party has been in power since 1955? Or China, where a media outlet that is as critical of the Chinese Communist Party as Jacobin is of the Democratic Party would have long been banned, and their writers arrested? I think we all need a reality check here, especially if we want to represent reality in our articles. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)- While I can't speak for them, I'm guessing they probably had in mind specifically other western democracies, as it's common for European countries to have a mainstream Socialist Party with an ideology listed as social democracy (to name a few: Spain, Portugal, France, Albania, etc).
- I'm comfortable speculating this is their argument because it's one that's often repeated in American progressive-left circles. This argument is usually presented as follows: Bernie Sanders is viewed as the furthest left one can go in America, the things his supporters want are not radical to other developed countries (paid time off, universal healthcare, etc), therefore what is far left in America is only moderately left elsewhere.
- Not saying I entirely agree or disagree with that argument, either how Simonm223 phrased it or how I interpreted it. Just saying I think they had in mind comparable democracies, not the entire world.
- Vanilla Wizard 💙 16:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. I don't feel the need to put a million qualifiers on a comment on a WP discussion board when all I really need to say is that the United States has an abnormal political compass compared to its peers. But also there used to be lots of socialists, for instance, throughout the Middle East. American allies killed most of them. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- This has become a discussion about Overton windows rather than the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. I don't feel the need to put a million qualifiers on a comment on a WP discussion board when all I really need to say is that the United States has an abnormal political compass compared to its peers. But also there used to be lots of socialists, for instance, throughout the Middle East. American allies killed most of them. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- We may not be disagreeing at all given we both are giving them a "2". I'm arguing that their bias is too much to make them a 1. The possible 3, the same score I gave them last time, is a concern regarding things like the issue that started the recent discussion. I was about to post something about really disliking the RSP's simplistic bucketing. It's really not a good system as we really should put more effort into asking if a source is appropriate for the claims being supported and when an encyclopedia should be citing strongly biased sources in general. If we need to use such a strongly biased source is the information DUE? Springee (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I take the idea that a publication being openly social democratic is too biased to be reliable personally offensive. Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. But I will concede that Springee is being consistent. And I actually agreed that think tanks should be treated as primary sources. Frankly, were Springee to be more reasonable on the "political bias" overreach, we might otherwise be agreeing. Simonm223 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The list of texts are available via Misplaced Pages library which is why I provided bibliographical information rather than links as links to material on WP library don't work. With the exception of New Republic all are academic journals. And now please answer my original question: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the Heritage Foundation? Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are missing a major difference. HF isn't a media source, they are a think tank. Jacobin is a media source, not a think tank. I've argued that all think tanks should be used with great care and in particular we should generally not cite them unless an independent RS points to their work. So the question is can we cite HF when a RS mentions the views/claims/etc of HF with respect to the article topic. In that regard I'm suggesting we treat them more like a primary source vs a RS. Jacobin is different and the relevant question is can we treat them like a regular RS as we do with many other news media sources. If Jacobin publishes a claim about an article subject should we cite them? I argue they should be evaluated by the same standards we use for news media sources. By that standard it's strong bias etc means we should use it's claims and reports with caution and should question if they have weight to justify inclusion. In your post above you provided a list of texts but absent links I can't see what they say nor if their arguments are sound or crap but they don't impact the distinction I've made. Springee (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- And yet you rated the Heritage Foundation at 2/3 below and didn't find any problem with their extreme ideological bent, saying in their defense that deprecating the foundation
- Option 3 or 2 - Right-wing outlets that mix opinions in their articles, selectively choose facts to promote a political agenda, or sloppily misrepresent the truth have rightly been marked as unreliable ages ago. There is no reason to have a different standard for other political positions. And regardless of that, outlets that do that cannot be relied on (i.e. are unreliable) to present an accurate picture of the facts on a given topic, nor are their writers' opinions noteworthy in our articles. Op-eds from even mainstream papers like NYT, WaPo, etc. are routinely removed as sources; outlets like Jacobin that consist entirely of such articles should likewise not be used (and we have already done this for right-wing opinion outlets like Quillette). The green checkmark at RSP misleads editors into thinking opinions and claims published in Jacobin are more noteworthy than they really are. Crossroads 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jacobin's raison d'etre is to promote socialism, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting. However, it may be used with caution for topics within its area of expertise (such as the theory and history of socialism, labor movements, and socialist cultural commentary), provided proper attribution and corroboration from neutral sources are applied. 2601:340:8200:800:30C1:6FF8:F57B:FCF8 (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is no more a good argument than it would be to state that the raison d'etre of X publication is to promote capitalism and the geo-political interests of the United States, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting.
- I could apply that faulty argument to shitloads of mainstream US publications that are currently considered to be generally reliable. TarnishedPath 05:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jacobin's raison d'etre is to promote socialism, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting. However, it may be used with caution for topics within its area of expertise (such as the theory and history of socialism, labor movements, and socialist cultural commentary), provided proper attribution and corroboration from neutral sources are applied. 2601:340:8200:800:30C1:6FF8:F57B:FCF8 (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1. Folks have said it well already so I won't belabor the point. I can't really imagine an occasion when I would cite Jacobin, but I consider them roughly a left-wing equivalent of The Economist or Reason (also publications I'd be unlikely to cite –– all three of these are usually rather predictable and tend to offer shallow analysis). I wasn't sure how we list those other two so I checked RSP just now and saw that they're 1s. Yes, OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument, but I was more interested in getting a baseline on where the community draws the line between 1 and 2. With respect, I object to Crossroads' comparison to Quillette, which leans heavily into platforming fringe ideas and displays little editorial oversight. (Interestingly, here's some solid reporting by Jacobin on a hoax published in Quillette, revealing the latter's abysmal editorial practices, courtesy of this past RSN discussion.) Generalrelative (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Personally I don’t see Reason and Economist as equivalent, and was surprised to see Reason green flagged for the same reason that I don’t think Jacobin should be. That is, whereas Economist is mostly reporting and some opinion, both Reason and Jacobin are mostly opinion and some reporting. The Jacobin piece on the Quillette hoax looks good to me, but everything else they’ve published by that author wouldn’t be usable for facts as they’re pure op eds. I’d put the Spectator and National Review in the category as Jacobin and Reason. (Whereas Spiked and American Conservative are worse, red flag territory rather than amber.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Additional considerations apply. As I indicated in the discussion above which I started, the mere fact that Jacobin thought it appropriate to publish a statement that Blackstone Inc. "owns a third of US housing stock" indicates that they do not do adequate fact-checking before publishing articles. Therefore, one should attempt to corroborate any facts they publish with more reliable sources before relying on Jacobin to support any factual statements in articles. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1. Our guideline on reliable sources is explicit that
reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective
. I may not personally love the political perspective of Jacobin, but they don't go out of their way to platform disinformation that flatly contradicts academic consensus about reality. Regarding Jacobin as unreliable on the grounds of its bias would require evidence that said bias leads it to regularly publish misinformation and untruths. I haven't seen this established.Moreover, the error brought up that somehow has sparked this RFC was both A) corrected in a timely manner, which is what we expect from a reliable source; and B) a case where context matters, as the original source was a book review of several books written by Mark Fisher. If cited, it should be cited to warrant information about Fisher or his books or the genre he wrote in, etc. The Blackstone number wasInformation provided in passing
, and we already know that such info occasionallymay not be reliable
, and so we use our best judgment as editors, citing and reading a wide variety of sources and going to the best sources. For a topic like Mark Fisher, looks like Jacobin is a good resource. For Blackstone and housing, try an article from the journal Urban Studies. Not every source is perfect at every subject, but when a source has a known editorial staff, issues corrections to publications, and is grounded in reality, it's reliable, even if I wouldn't personally enjoy talking politics with the editor.Finally, when a piece published in Jacobin is an opinion piece, we can just treat it as such, per our guideline about opinion pieces in reliable sources. The Economist and The Wall Street Journal publish a lot of opinion pieces too, yet GREL they've remained. As the perennial list says of The Economist,editors should use their judgement to discern factual content—which can be generally relied upon—from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources
. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 or Option 2, long overdue for the reasons already set out in this thread. And frankly, the idea that a magazine whose name is derived from the people who instituted the Reign of Terror was ever acceptable w/o issue is offputting by itself. Just10A (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, the founder has said that in naming the magazine, he was thinking of The Black Jacobins, a book about the Haitian Revolution, not the French. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not that that is relevant anyway when assessing reliability. TarnishedPath 01:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Black Jacobins is named so because the author analogizes the actions of the Haitians to that of the French Jacobins. It's just adding an extra step (not to mention that the word has a known meaning on it's face, so it's mostly irrelevant.). Regardless, it's clearly derived, and it's frankly silly to even argue semantics. Just10A (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to be clear your argument about the name being relevant to reliability is literally arguing semantics. Your objection doesn't make any sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was referring to the semantics of what counts as "derived from." And no, while the name clearly doesn't inherently reflect relevance. If a source called "The KGB Times" came up on the noticeboard for reliability, it's perfectly reasonable for a person to point out "Hey, I don't think it's reliable for reasons x,y, and z, andddd the name also doesn't exactly inspire confidence." That's all I'm saying. Don't twist my statement into something it's not. Just10A (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is arguing semantics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- If that's your benchmark, then practically everything is arguing semantics, including this whole thread. "Jacobin publishes words -> what are the meaning of those words? (semantics) -> can we qualify those meanings as 'reliable?'" Clearly distinguishing factors, and I'm not interested in arguing semantics about the word "semantics" with you like a 12 year old. My vote's been explained, get over it. Just10A (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is arguing semantics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was referring to the semantics of what counts as "derived from." And no, while the name clearly doesn't inherently reflect relevance. If a source called "The KGB Times" came up on the noticeboard for reliability, it's perfectly reasonable for a person to point out "Hey, I don't think it's reliable for reasons x,y, and z, andddd the name also doesn't exactly inspire confidence." That's all I'm saying. Don't twist my statement into something it's not. Just10A (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to be clear your argument about the name being relevant to reliability is literally arguing semantics. Your objection doesn't make any sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, the founder has said that in naming the magazine, he was thinking of The Black Jacobins, a book about the Haitian Revolution, not the French. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1/Keep the current RSPS summary I think a few people arguing for additional considerations are misremembering the current RSPS legend. Additional considerations doesn’t refer to things like weight, or bias, or that you need to attribute opinion pieces because those are all standard considerations that apply to all sources. The current RSPS summary already says (in part)
Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'.
I can't find anything that indicates that's not still a perfectly good summary. CambrianCrab (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1* Jacobin is a biased source, something that should obviously be considered by anyone thinking of sourcing them for anything contentious, but their reporting has never been an issue in terms of establishing basic factual information about a situation. One writer for a book review making a dumb statement that was corrected by the source doesn't change that. BSMRD (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1: Nothing of substance has been presented to suggest that this source is not GREL. Most of the reasons being presented for MREL appear to be about bias, but that is not of direct relevance to reliability unless it can be shown that any bias directly impinges somehow on its reliability. That it provides a perspective from a rarefied position on the political spectrum is a moot point in terms of reliability. Arguably it is good to have sources from all different positions on the political spectrum for the purposes of balance, but that is, again, irrelevant to its reliability. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1/2: generally reliable, they have a correction policy. Bias for opinion pieces and essays should be taken into account, attribute accordingly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bad RfC As on 25 July 2021. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 I previously commented in the 2021 RfC based on our guideline for use of biased sources. In particular I found this 2019 assessment by the Columbia Journalism Review persuasive. Most recently this January 4, 2025 article from the Columbia Journalism Review cites a Jacobin article from November 2024 positively. A major trade publication in the field of journalism still seems to find Jacobin worth citing as "demonstrat convincingly" how Harris lost the pro-labor vote in the 2024 election. Why should we not follow CJRs lead? The arguments seem to be (1) Jacobin recently issued a major retraction and (2) Jacobin has a left-wing bias. I could buy into (1) if they constantly issued retractions, but no one has shown that that is the case. (2) is contrary to WP:BIASED. Altogether, I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently from reliable but right-of-center-biased publications like The New Criterion or The Atlantic Monthly. — Wug·a·po·des 07:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 or Option 3: Not only is Jacobin an extremely biased, ideologically charged source, but their reporting has been called into question multiple times. At the very least, additional considerations do apply. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2. This is not a WP:NEWSORG. Its stated purpose is "to foster class consciousness and build the institutions that can tame and eventually overcome capital". Compare to the missions of the NYT: "We seek the truth and help people understand the world."; or the BBC: "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain". The NYT and the BBC are both biased (every source is biased), but they do at least aim to deliver reporting. Jacobin, on the other hand, is an advocacy organisation. That doesn't make it automatically unreliable, nor does that make it solely a source of opinions, but that does makes it qualitatively different from the newspapers that others have compared it to - and that is an important additional consideration worth noting. For the record, I disagree that one incident of inaccuracy is enough to downgrade a source, particularly one that was corrected. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just because I note that my earlier !vote wasn't posted in to this section, for the avoidance of doubt, whilst I think this is a Bad RFC because there's no reason for initiating it, I support Option 2 or Option 3 because it is strictly an opinion site and not one that should be relied on for statements of fact about anything but itself. FOARP (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 – Jacobin may be biased, but that has no bearing on reliability. They have many well-respected articles that have been cited by other reliable sources, have transparent editorial controls, and a demonstrated process for retraction and correction. I see a couple complaints above that Jacobin isn't a news organization; however, this isn't relevant to reliability. Just like The Economist, Jacobin publishes more retrospective, interpretive articles which for certain subjects can often be better than using contemporaneous news articles. Overall this is a very bad RfC given the creator's undisclosed connection to the previous overturned RfC (see comment by Tayi Arajakate) and a complete lack of any examples of actual uses on Misplaced Pages where the reliability is questioned. This is as far as I can tell a knee-jerk reaction to a single example of an error on an unrelated topic in an offhand remark inside a book review, and which wasn't even used on Misplaced Pages. An absurd reason to open an RfC. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 per Silver seren and Wugapodes (and thank you for providing actual reported information on their editorial process rather than speculation, heavy irony in this whole discussion). This whole saga is based on one correction? Really? Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 bias has nothing to do with reliability. Meanwhile, corrections are a strong signal of reliability. --Pinchme123 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion: Jacobin
- Seeing as there's substantial disagreement in the pre-RfC section above, I've gone ahead and launched this RfC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pings to @Feminist, The wub, Thebiguglyalien, Super Goku V, Simonm223, FortunateSons, Oort1, Burrobert, ActivelyDisinterested, Hydrangeans, Vanilla Wizard, Iljhgtn, Selfstudier, Horse Eye's Back, NoonIcarus, Harizotoh9, and Springee: who commented above. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Additional pings to @WMrapids, David Gerard, Bobfrombrockley, Shibbolethink, Crossroads, Herostratus, Dumuzid, Aquillion, Gamaliel, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, BSMRD, Wugapodes, Ip says, King of Hearts, Chetsford, Tayi Arajakate, MPants at work, Jlevi, The Four Deuces, Grnrchst, Szmenderowiecki, Dlthewave, Jr8825, Thenightaway, Nvtuil, Peter Gulutzan, FormalDude, Volunteer Marek, FOARP, Sea Ane, 3Kingdoms, Bilorv, Blindlynx, Jurisdicta, TheTechnician27, MarioGom, Novemberjazz, and Volteer1: who commented in the 2021 RfC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you should also disclose that the previous RfC was initially closed by you (back then under the usernames User:Mikehawk10 and User:Mhawk10) and the discussions that followed at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 6 § Jacobin (magazine) and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340 § Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability led to an overturn on grounds of it being heavily flawed and ostensibly a supervote, followed by a re-close afterwards. Especially considering your statement in the above section questioning that (re)closure now, which also partially forms the basis for this RfC. Those discussions might also answer your question on why it was (re)closed in the manner it was. Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've tried to ping everyone from the prior RfC and from the discussion above. This was done manually: I excluded 1 vanished account and I tried to ping people by their current usernames if they have changed names since then. If I missed someone, please feel free to notify them. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per my prior comments about space constraints I've split this to its own section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've just moved the RFC out of the discussion again. The RFC shouldn't be made a subsection of the prior discussion, due to ongoing issues with overloading on the noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Editors should bear in mind that reliability does not mean infallibility. It merely means we can use sources where applicable. In this case, the impeached article is a book review, which combines a description of a book and the reviewer's opinions. The only acceptable use of a book review - whoever wrote it and wherever it is published - is in an article about the book reviewed.
Ironically, there can be no article about the book because it lacks notability. It was only reviewed in Jacobin. We are basically working to prevent things that will never happen. Under current policy therefore this source could never be used.
Our time would be better spent ensuring that RS policy is adhered to.
TFD (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bad RFC because we should not be rating things just for the sake of rating things, but since we're doing this: Jacobin is clearly an opinion outlet, not a news outlet. We shouldn't be relying on them for statements of fact for that reason alone. FOARP (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding my !vote above I do agree this is a bad RFC because there's not ever been an example presented of Jacobin being used to source anything even remotely questionable during the RFCBefore discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, there was one example that generated the 2023 discussion which was Jacobin being used to source a description of the 2014 Maidan Revolution as "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests", so that's one occasion of it being used to source something questionable. It was also used by the same editor on the 9/11 attack page to source the claim that the CIA facilitated the attacks and intentionally withheld information that could have stopped the attacks.
- That editor is now blocked (because of their conduct on this noticeboard I think?) but they used the green flag at RSP to justify their edits. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Absolutely a bad RfC, I rolled my eyes when I was pinged about this. Nothing fundamental has changed about Jacobin's editorial line or policy since the last RfC was opened four years ago. I can't believe we're hashing this out again because of a single reddit post. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding my !vote above I do agree this is a bad RFC because there's not ever been an example presented of Jacobin being used to source anything even remotely questionable during the RFCBefore discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Jacobin author who wrote the nonsense claim that Blackstone owns 1/3 of US housing stock literally mocked the people who tried to correct him and the correction - which itself was inaccurate and weaselly - was issued only after social media pressure. This is an outlet that very obviously does not care one bit about fact checking if it gets in the way of producing click bait pieces. It’s exactly the kind of source we should NOT be using, especially as the whole media landscape is shifting that way. Volunteer Marek 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- They issued a correction. This is what we expect of reliable outlets. Your personal characterization of the correction as "weaselly" is your personal opinion on tone and has nothing to do with any Misplaced Pages policy. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did this correction at least state what the correct % was? Like, the correction itself tries to make it seem like a minor overstatement rather than, you know, a completely wild exaggeration that tried to take advantage of general innumeracy. “I’m a billionaire!”. “No you’re not”. “Ok that was an overstatement”. Come on. It’s quite disappointing to see how many people are fine with misinformation, weak sourcing and “alternative facts” as long as it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. Whats even more disappointing is when these are people who are claiming to be building a factual encyclopedia. Facts are facts and garbage is garbage, regardless of whether it come from the left or right. Volunteer Marek 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes facts are facts and garbage is garbage but as long as we allow garbage like New York "Iraq has WMDs" Times to be treated as a reliable source I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently. Jacobin is compliant with Misplaced Pages's requirements. If you want to talk about tightening those requirements I'd be open to the discussion at WP:VPP. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Was the weapons of mass destruction bit ever retracted by New York Times? As far as I'm aware it wasn't. Perhaps we should be wasting community time and having a discussion about them? TarnishedPath 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah my point is just that a lot of editors are establishing a double standard where Jacobin is being held to a higher standard than what Misplaced Pages generally expects from news organizations. I would like it to be measured against the same standard as anyone else. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'm not the biggest fan of them because there's so much oped stuff but we've never thought that reason to downgrade The Economist. TarnishedPath 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Exactly. And that is kind of what I was getting at when I suggested the right venue for what Volunteer Marek was concerned about was WP:VPP. If we allow these kinds of sources then we allow these kinds of sources. I would be happy to restrict these kinds of sources more than we do but it has to be handled at a policy level rather than via exceptions to present policy. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'm not the biggest fan of them because there's so much oped stuff but we've never thought that reason to downgrade The Economist. TarnishedPath 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah my point is just that a lot of editors are establishing a double standard where Jacobin is being held to a higher standard than what Misplaced Pages generally expects from news organizations. I would like it to be measured against the same standard as anyone else. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Was the weapons of mass destruction bit ever retracted by New York Times? As far as I'm aware it wasn't. Perhaps we should be wasting community time and having a discussion about them? TarnishedPath 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes facts are facts and garbage is garbage but as long as we allow garbage like New York "Iraq has WMDs" Times to be treated as a reliable source I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently. Jacobin is compliant with Misplaced Pages's requirements. If you want to talk about tightening those requirements I'd be open to the discussion at WP:VPP. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did this correction at least state what the correct % was? Like, the correction itself tries to make it seem like a minor overstatement rather than, you know, a completely wild exaggeration that tried to take advantage of general innumeracy. “I’m a billionaire!”. “No you’re not”. “Ok that was an overstatement”. Come on. It’s quite disappointing to see how many people are fine with misinformation, weak sourcing and “alternative facts” as long as it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. Whats even more disappointing is when these are people who are claiming to be building a factual encyclopedia. Facts are facts and garbage is garbage, regardless of whether it come from the left or right. Volunteer Marek 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- This does not appear to be an outlet generally characterized as producing click bait. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not the case that a book review can only be used in an article about that specific book. For example, they are frequently cited in biographies of authors, in order to demonstrate that those authors meet the relevant wiki-notability standard. And an article about the pedagogy of some subject could cite reviews of textbooks about that subject. XOR'easter (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The Heritage Foundation
Moved to WP:Requests for comment/The Heritage Foundation – Due to how large the discussion has become, and size constraints on the noticeboard, this discussion has been moved to it's own page. LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Sources for Chapel Hart
Hi, I am currently reviewing a GA nomination for Chapel Hart. I've never heard of the following sources currently being used nor can I find past discussions on them. As such, I would others' opinions on them.
- https://texasborderbusiness.com/chapel-hart-music-video-for-new-single-i-will-follow-premiered-by-cmt-on-friday-february-5th/
- https://drgnews.com/2022/09/19/darius-rucker-set-to-release-new-song-featuring-chapel-hart/
- https://www.southernliving.com/chapel-hart-danica-vocal-cord-surgery-6825847
Lazman321 (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Texas Border Business link (now dead but available from the Wayback Machine) is a press release, you can find the exact same wording elsewhere. So it would be reliable in a primary way, as it's from the band about the band.
Southern Living appears to be an established magazine, I don't see why it wouldn't be reliable.
The drgnews.com article appears to be another press release, as the wording is found in many other sites. Oddly though I can't access any of them, as I get blocked by cloudflare for some reason. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- Thank you, I'll take this into consideration for my review. Lazman321 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Southern Living tends toward puffery, and I would avoid using them for controversial claims (although they mostly avoid making controversial claims anyway). I would accept an article by them as supporting notability. John M Baker (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- My assessment:
- The https://texasborderbusiness.com/ source isn't labeled as a press release. Overall, the site looks like a low-quality free newspaper that lightly repackages any information they receive that they think would interest their readers (i.e., their advertising targets). Other sites label it a press release, and I'm sure these other sites are correct. That said, even if we treat it like a press release, press releases can be reliable for the sort of simple fact this one is being used to support.
- The DRG News source is labeled as being from The Country Daily, which appears to be a media outlet/country music magazine. They might be part of https://www.cumulusmedia.com
- Southern Living is a reliable source.
- WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- My assessment:
RfC: TheGamer
OP has withdrawn the discussion. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 21:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TheGamer seems to be either user-generated content, or slop listicles. Additionally, it seems to source it's content largely from dubious YouTube content, Reddit posts, or Twitter/X threads. However it is listed as a source in articles such as Flowey purely in relation to one listicle that ranks Flowey in relation to other characters. What is the reliability of this site?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate?
Kaynsu1 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bad RfC. While begun in good faith, this RfC is malformed. The opening statement is not
neutrally worded and brief
as our information page about RfCs advises. I would also ask why the existing guidance about TheGamer available at the list maintained by WikiProject Video games isn't considered sufficient. If this is at root a page-specific concern about Flowey, as the opening statement causes it to appear to be, the matter can surely be handled better at Talk:Flowey. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Nevermind then. I'll delete the info on the Flowey page that provides no encyclopedic value. The reason I proposed this originally was because TheGamer's content has gotten worse and more sloppy since 2020.Kaynsu1 04:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.GBNews can be reliable for group based child sex exploitation
Hello everyone, I am making the argument that whilst GBNews is generally speaking not a great source, it has some of the most stellar investigative reporters on group based child sex exploitation, aka rape gangs.
For example, Charlie Peters has written about this extensively, it is his main topic of writing for years. https://www.gbnews.com/authors/charlie-peters
I'd genuinely argue he is even as or if not more reliable on this topic than most trusted sources. If you want an insight into why I believe that, without going into just arguing over facts and analysis which I can do in the comments below this thread, read this anecdote from him being the only reporter who bothered to show up to one of the most prolific child sex abuse cases in British history for most of the hearing https://thecritic.co.uk/why-was-i-the-only-reporter/
Yes, GBNews is genuinely quite a sloppy publication, I'm not here to make an argument that it is not even remotely, but I think the summary ought to be changed from the first to the second.
There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable.
There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable. It is reliable for specifically group based child sex exploitation.
I am not sure if it is precedent to specifically name a reporter, but if that is the case then specifically naming Charlie Peters is important here. He isn't the only good reporter on child sex abuse at GBNews but I'd argue he's the best. In essence, I'd argue and make a fierce case that Charlie Peters of GBNews (and some other reporters), regardless of his employer, is easily one of the most qualified and leading reporters on this specific topic of group based child sex exploitation and I'd make a very long argument that articles specifically by him should be included and it would be worse not better for Misplaced Pages to include them. I am not arguing for Peters (and some other reporters) to be included for other topics at this moment, just specifically the topic of child sex abuse.
I hope I have formatted this correctly, thank you. NotQualified (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry but it is the source we judge, not the writer, his work say in the Telegraph can be cited, not his work for GB news. Slatersteven (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to be clear here, I am not saying Peters is the only good reporter. GBNews has some good reporters and they're specifically concentrated on this. I think GBNews is generally slop but I just wanted to cite a specific reporter as an example. I think GBNews' work and information on this very narrow subject is worth considering. NotQualified (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems backwards, WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require exceptional sources, not exceptions for terrible ones. signed, Rosguill 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- GB News is persistently and relentlessly unreliable. We cannot make exceptions for a single reporter (and I say that as someone who believes Peters to be one of the better GB News reporters, though admittedly that's a very low bar). If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that weren't run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think more sensationalist reporting is going to make that page better. Let's leave GB News off it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I'm being clear here I'm only talking about one narrow subject. NotQualified (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was also being very specific to that one page as well. Simonm223 (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you're saying that, specifically on child rape, they're sensationalists. I agree with you that their titles would do better without the incessant capitalisations but their reporting on this isn't errant in any way. NotQualified (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was also being very specific to that one page as well. Simonm223 (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I'm being clear here I'm only talking about one narrow subject. NotQualified (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you're basically just saying Peters is a racist and if I can prove he isn't racist you'll be convinced? Here he is covering a white rapist. https://www.gbnews.com/news/two-rotherham-child-abuse-victims-accidentally-left-out-court-rapist-sentencing-office-error NotQualified (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I absolutely did not say that Peters was racist, so don't do that again please. I was pointing out that GB News inevitably covers Asian grooming gangs, but almost never white ones. If Peters broke that mould I would be convinced. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, I've just seen your userpage. That explains it. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- > Sources (some are invalid and blatantly biased for[REDACTED] standards but summarise info well. i'll find a proper source for them.
- Not all the sources in my user page are valid at all, I've just added them to look deeper in later on to verify myself.
- If you're accusing me of being a right wing grifter so be it, I literally just added an article by Bindle to my user page smearing the right as racist grifters before I read this, I edited McMurdock's article and wrote how he kicked a woman four times, I try my best to be fair. I am not interested in just saying "Pakistani men rape and whites don't", that's absurd. The state has routinely failed children of rape. I'm arguing that GBNews on this topic is good. NotQualified (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose even Bindel can be right occasionally. That's not the point though, I followed a few of your links and saw the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page - that's not good on a BLP, whether you are a right-wing grifter or not (I have no idea if that's the case). But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop. It would be incredibly problematic if we had to define sources as reliable or not depending on which journos were producing the material, especially as their material is routinely filtered through an editorial process which we have defined as unreliable in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand. I regret making my initial point on Peters specifically because you're right that specific journalists do not save a publication. I've been trying to change the position to accomadate this, and say something more so on the lines of "Generally speaking, their covering of child sex abuse is good, can we make an exception for this topic". Is your argument here from the context of me originally saying Peters was good or is your argument here that no matter how good the journalism is on child sex abuse, the rest of the publication is too sloppy to make an exception? " But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop"
- > the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page
- Is this on the word 'despite'? This was talked about on the talk page, I agreed it was a mistake. NotQualified (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose even Bindel can be right occasionally. That's not the point though, I followed a few of your links and saw the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page - that's not good on a BLP, whether you are a right-wing grifter or not (I have no idea if that's the case). But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop. It would be incredibly problematic if we had to define sources as reliable or not depending on which journos were producing the material, especially as their material is routinely filtered through an editorial process which we have defined as unreliable in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, GBNews is generally slop, we can agree on that. I believe they have good journalists focusing on child rape. NotQualified (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can't separate the two, that's the issue. The Daily Mail has good journalists as well, the problem in using them is the venue they publish their work in. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree the Daily Mail is total slop as well, but if they had excellent journalism on one specific topic that would warrant an exception. That's what I'm arguing here. NotQualified (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can't separate the two, that's the issue. The Daily Mail has good journalists as well, the problem in using them is the venue they publish their work in. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not going to repeat that as you have made clear that was not your intent, but I'm not trying to strawman you. I've misinterpreted what you're saying here as you calling Peters / GBNews / their audience racist (though that is not what you are saying), I am confused on what you exactly are you trying to say with the below. May you please elaborate?
- "If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that weren't run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear." NotQualified (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- GB News is a right-wing channel (and, to be fair, it is transparently so); it tells its viewers what they want to hear. Much of the right-wing audience believes that child abuse is mostly committed by Asian gangs, because that's what right-wing narratives have told them, even if it's false. GB News doesn't actually say that is true, but it reinforces those ideas by focusing on such cases. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not accusing you of calling them 'racist', but what exactly would you call the behaviour your describing, if not racist.
- Yes, GBNews is obviously a right wing channel. I believe you can criticise nearly all political journalistic publications that aren't state funded of pandering to their audience. CNN, the Telegraph, the Guardian, Fox, etc. I find it all a bit obnoxious.
- I do however have qualms with the idea that GBNews is, how do I put this, 'filtering out or downplaying' rape gangs when they are not Pakistani / Bangladeshi? You say the majority of these perpetrators are white, I believe that is true of CSAM online but I amn't sure that's true at least on a per capita basis for rape gangs though I have collated a lot of sources which I intend to read when I have the time, as you've noted on my talk page, so I'll be better informed to answer this in the future.
- In essence, your hesitance or better put refusal to add an exception to GBNews on rape gangs isn't derived from a sense that they're journalistically or factually incorrect outright but rather they have underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. If I'm understanding what you are saying correctly which I'll need confirmation on as I do not wish to strawman you. NotQualified (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly what GB News does (though I would not go as far as saying it is "factually correct" all the time). It is, however, understandably more careful with its narratives with this subject than it is with others (although it does publish nonsense like this, notably not by Peters). Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's an opinion piece that more falls under geopolitics. That wouldn't fall into what I, or the other user, is arguing to include.
- If we can agree that at least nearly all the time they are factually correct on this very specific subject, and the wealth of information is enormous, we can just put a warning that GBNews has something along the lines of "accusations of underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias" in a general sense (but is better on this subject (and thus the exception being made) as you noted and I agree), but that if possible, should be substantiated with another source, but is still acceptable on this very specific subject, even independently, especially if there are no other sources available. That's reasonable, I believe. Thoughts? NotQualified (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced, I have to admit, and I wouldn't vote in favour of it. Though I ask, could it be any worse that allowing the Telegraph, a paper which posts rabidly transphobic opinion pieces, to be used on trans-related topics (as was allowed in a recent RfC)? It's unlikely. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- As long as what is written is factually true, the agenda behind it just has to be made known to the editor beforehand to caution them. We shouldn't restrain facts and deprive people of them because we deem the authors morally repugnant. NotQualified (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced, I have to admit, and I wouldn't vote in favour of it. Though I ask, could it be any worse that allowing the Telegraph, a paper which posts rabidly transphobic opinion pieces, to be used on trans-related topics (as was allowed in a recent RfC)? It's unlikely. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly what GB News does (though I would not go as far as saying it is "factually correct" all the time). It is, however, understandably more careful with its narratives with this subject than it is with others (although it does publish nonsense like this, notably not by Peters). Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- GB News is a right-wing channel (and, to be fair, it is transparently so); it tells its viewers what they want to hear. Much of the right-wing audience believes that child abuse is mostly committed by Asian gangs, because that's what right-wing narratives have told them, even if it's false. GB News doesn't actually say that is true, but it reinforces those ideas by focusing on such cases. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, I've just seen your userpage. That explains it. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I absolutely did not say that Peters was racist, so don't do that again please. I was pointing out that GB News inevitably covers Asian grooming gangs, but almost never white ones. If Peters broke that mould I would be convinced. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think more sensationalist reporting is going to make that page better. Let's leave GB News off it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Whilst I agree that GB News should be approached with caution (and I wouldn't touch their climate change reporting with a barge pole), I think Charlie Peters is an exceptional reporter. I would generally trust what he has to say before, for example, The Guardian or The Times. I think that by barring his reporting on GB News we are probably barring the country's most pre-eminent authority on gang-related CSE. IT's worth bearing in mind that coverage of this topic has now become highly-politicised, but Charie probbaly brings the most balanced and fact-based perspective to the coverage of the issue. We could treat his reporting on GB News on this particular issue as an instance of expert WP:SPS. If other sources are reporting the same thing then fine, bit I honestly believe we would be devaluing Misplaced Pages's coverage by excluding him. The fact remains he is not interchangeable with other journalists at other news outlets, because he brings a wealth of research and statistics to the table, and has probably interacted with grooming gang victims more then any other journalist. Betty Logan (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know this sounds silly but it is refreshing hearing more knowlegable Wikipedians explain what I'm trying to articulate so eloquently. I do want to be clear however that I think GBNews' coverage on gang CSE is excellent, not just Peters. The main contention seems not to be on if it is factual, no one here seems to be disputing this, but rather if it has underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. You can read my last comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269267836 as I try to Steelman what another user is saying to the best of ability. NotQualified (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are there any third-party sources that validate the claim that GB News and Peters are the best sources on this topic? Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you mean? How would that work? Are you asking if reputable sources cite GBNews regularly on this topic? If so, yes I've read many articles, especially the Telegraph, mentioning them if I recall correctly. NotQualified (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, according to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources,
If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims.
That seems to be one way it works. Normal editorial processes are that we use secondary sources to evaluate the significant views among published reliable sources, and UBO is in most cases relatively weak validation for other claims. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) - If you're going to start an RfC on this topic (which would be required to carve out an exception for GB News), it would be far better to present such evidence as opposed to a simple opinion of "I think it's reliable". Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, according to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources,
- I'm not sure there are any sources out there that flat out stipulate that Charlie Peters is the best source for this topic, but he is increasingly becoming the "go to" source in this area. The New York Times report how he "broke" the latest story about the Government declining the national inquiry into CSE in Oldham, and other news outlets have approached him to co-author their articles, presumably for his insight, such as The Telegraph and The Spectator. Deadline profile him here—it is worth bearing in mind he was a specialist in this area before working for GB News, having made a documentary about the Rotherham cover-up. Maggie Oliver—a former police detective who blew the whistle on the cover-up in Greater Manchester and now works with survivors—holds his journalism in high regard. In reality, as NotQualified has noted, other news outlets have re-used facts first reported by Peters in their own stories, so there is no way to really avoid his core reporting. Part of the reason for this is because other news outlets have not dispatched their own reporters to cover trials and sentencing, so they are dependent on those that have. For the record, I do think there is a difference between the core facts as reported by Peters and the framing of these stories by GB News in its broadcasts. Betty Logan (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- If other sources have reported on the details, then they should be used. That way editors waste less time arguing about the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- You get less depth and less nuance from news outlets which repackage his work, usually for sensationalist reasons. Peters has interviewed the survivors and their families extensively. He attended the trials and the sentencing. If other news outlets are happy to re-use his material I don't see why it should be any issue here. Betty Logan (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Any other source is going to be less sensationalist and so less controversial. The issue is doing the simple option so as to avoid wasting time arguing over which source to use rather than something more useful. GBNews is by it's nature always going to be controversial, so using a different source for the same information is the best option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is an ad hoc approach which only works for one news story at a time. Simply put, what if other sources don't. This is why it is important the exception is carved out. NotQualified (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- If a single news source is the only source that picks up a detail, that probably goes to show that detail shouldn't be included (WP:WEIGHT / WP:BALASP). That other news sources decide not to include certain details may well be because they do not believe the details are important, or that they are presented properly. I would say it goes to shows why there shouldn't be a exception given. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested this statement can be applied to any source in any discussion... Alaexis¿question? 21:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, choosing the least contentious source to support a detail is always a good idea (regardless of the article). Arguing other a contentious source when others are available isn't a good use of editors time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- You get less depth and less nuance from news outlets which repackage his work, usually for sensationalist reasons. Peters has interviewed the survivors and their families extensively. He attended the trials and the sentencing. If other news outlets are happy to re-use his material I don't see why it should be any issue here. Betty Logan (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The New York Times says
No British media outlet has revived the grooming scandal with the zeal of GB News, a hard-right cable news channel that went on the air in 2021, a decade after The Times’s investigation into grooming gangs.
which does not exactly sound like a ringing endorsement. It instead sounds rather more like exactly the sort ofunduly represent contentious or minority claims
we're supposed to take care to avoid. If a primary source has been published in multiple places, I see no compelling reason why the reliability of GB News even needs to be discussed, and it seems like nobody wants to use the secondary parts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- Surely that's a WP:WEIGHT issue to be determined in the context of what is being written, rather than a WP:RS issue. Betty Logan (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even if it isn't a "ringing endorsement", it does sound like NYT agrees it has the largest wealth of knowledge on this issue, which is one of the reasons I'd argue it's critical to allow. If that knowledge was erroneous, I'd obviously agree it shouldn't be included, but that knowledge as discussed on this talk discussion seems to be virtually always correct.
- > If a primary source has been published in multiple places,
- And what if it isn't. Misplaced Pages as a whole suffers. NotQualified (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
And what if it isn't.
- WP:VNOT and WP:NOTNEWS, even were it to be considered reliable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Other sources are reporting on Peters “breaking” the story in that he revived a myth that was taken up by Elon Musk who then intervened in uk politics and got far right grifters competing with each other for his attention, making Peters’ “reporting” noteworthy, but not reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- post sources NotQualified (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- A few examples:
- FT: “How a handful of X accounts took Elon Musk ‘down the rabbit hole’ on UK politics… In the past week, Musk has also amplified posts on the grooming scandal by former prime minister Liz Truss, former Labour MP Kate Hoey, former Reform politician Ben Habib and people linked to broadcaster GB News.”
- Yahoo News: “News of Philips's rejection letter was then reported by GB News on 1 January, sparking an intense debate about whether such an inquiry was needed. This was picked up by Elon Musk who began posting prolifically about the issue, levelling harsh criticism at the government and at one point calling for Philips to be jailed for rejecting the request.”
- BBC: ”Debate around grooming gangs was reignited this week after it was reported that Phillips rejected Oldham Council's request for a government-led inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation in the town, in favour of a locally-led investigation. The decision was taken in October, but first reported by GB News on 1 January.”
- BBC Verify: “In one post, Mr Musk alleged that "Gordon Brown committed an unforgivable crime against the British people" and shared a video clip from campaigner Maggie Oliver appearing on GB News. In the clip, Ms Oliver alleged: "Gordon Brown sent out a circular to all the police forces in the UK saying 'do not prosecute these rape gangs, these children are making a lifestyle choice'."… But BBC Verify has carried out extensive searches of Home Office circulars issued across that period and found no evidence that any document containing this advice exists.”
- New Yorker: “The onslaught began on January 1st, when Musk responded to a report by GB News, a right-wing cable-news channel, which said that the country’s Labour government had rejected a national inquiry into non-recent sexual abuse in Oldham, a town just outside Manchester, in northern England. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the actual story is more complicated than that.”
- NYT: “No British media outlet has revived the grooming scandal with the zeal of GB News, a hard-right cable news channel that went on the air in 2021, a decade after The Times’s investigation into grooming gangs… Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform U.K., an anti-immigrant party, has praised Mr. Peters, saying he had “really reignited this story” and demonstrated that “these barbarities have taken place in at least 50 towns.”… The cumulative effect of Mr. Musk’s inflammatory posts has been to energize Britain’s populist right.”
- BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- A few examples:
- post sources NotQualified (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- If other sources have reported on the details, then they should be used. That way editors waste less time arguing about the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you mean? How would that work? Are you asking if reputable sources cite GBNews regularly on this topic? If so, yes I've read many articles, especially the Telegraph, mentioning them if I recall correctly. NotQualified (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I’m just here to say that a source being generally unreliable doesn’t mean they can’t be reliable in specific circumstances. That is, if you want to make a case that a specific subset of GB News output is reliable enough to support statements in a specific article, you can make that argument on the Talk page of the article and it doesn’t need to be carved out as a formalised exception on WP:RSP. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree with this, both "generally reliable" and "generally unreliable" are not absolutes. Either way you may be required to convince other editors (on the articles talk page) that a specific source should, or shouldn't, be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Considering that there is quite a lot of academic material on this subject that isn't currently being used in these articles I'm somewhat reticent to start making exceptions for generally unreliable news media organizations out of some sort of belief we are missing sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The specifics would be a discussion for the articles talk page, but in general I'd agree. Less news and opinion sources, and more academic sources would be an improvement for many articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Considering that there is quite a lot of academic material on this subject that isn't currently being used in these articles I'm somewhat reticent to start making exceptions for generally unreliable news media organizations out of some sort of belief we are missing sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree with this, both "generally reliable" and "generally unreliable" are not absolutes. Either way you may be required to convince other editors (on the articles talk page) that a specific source should, or shouldn't, be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
If other sources do not follow though with a story, there may well be reason why, and one of those is they can't confirm them. This is what they are RS, they do try to fact-check before publication. So if a reputable publication does not report it I have to ask the question why is the only source reporting this an iffy one? Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for this comment, this was also my interpretation when reading the thread, and surprised no-one else referenced the obvious here: If Charlie Peters is such a respectable journalist (let's assume he is for the sake of argument), then why is his work not published in respectable and reliable sources such as The Telegraph that he previously worked for? While trying to avoid a discussion on this journalist career path and choices in life, it does seem remarkably odd that there aren't reliable sources reporting his coverage indepth. This makes me suspect that it's because it's much easier to publish for GB News than it is other news orgs that do fact-checking and thorough reviews. Baring in mind, its not just WP that considers GB News as generally unreliable, there is rough consensus among UK journalism that it is a trashy tabloid-like source. So why is such a respectable journalist writing such great contributions for a trash can? Without intending to speculate much further than I already have, it could be because what he writes for GB News isn't as reliable as what he has written elsewhere. Generally if there were topics that I would say GB News was specifically unreliable for, it'd be along the lines of Reform Party coverage (it's a quasi-primary source at this point), and contentious topics such as the far-right riots, Tommy Robinson, and grooming gangs. Feel free to accuse me of a broad stroke, but I'd otherwise consider GB to be generally reliable for entertainment and culture topics (similar to NYP). CNC (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to be clear here, it isn't just Peters, I'm arguing that generally their coverage on group based child sex exploitation is good. Peters has written under multiple papers. I do not know why he works for GBNews particularly right now but he brings spectacular journalism to it. NotQualified (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nah. If there's news that doesn't suck it'll show up elsewhere. Per CommunityNotesContributor, that it isn't showing up elsewhere raises an eyebrow - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong disagree with OP. In fact, i’d say that the fact that the Telegraph has taken up Peters’/GBNews’ reporting might lead us to the rule that the Telegraph, is not reliable on this highly contentious topic. Example: here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/04/grooming-gangs-scandal-cover-up-oldham-telford-rotherham/ Peters and a co-author claim to catalogue the “cover up” of the grooming scandal “to preserve the image of a successful multicultural society” — yet every single factual claim in their article is taken from a pre-existing primary source (a 2010 W Midlands police report, a 2013 sentencing report, the 2014 Rotherham Jay inquiry, the 2015 Rotherham Casey report, the 2019 Manchester police report, the 2022 Telford Inquiry and the 2022 national independent review) that to my mind prove that far from a cover up this has been extensively investigated and publicly addressed for well over a decade. There is no actual investigation here; they rely on the investigation done by others and use it to spin an inflammatory conspiracy theory. I think it might be time to downgrade the Telegraph not upgrade GBNews. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding this article, is it usual for reliable sources to correct the content of articles without referencing a change? This was first published on January 4th, and modified by January 8th with attribution to GB News added (can verify with copyscape):
"In Jess Phillips’s letter to the council, revealed by GB News, she said she understood the strength of feeling in the town, but thought it best for another local review to take place.
"The state must leave no stone unturned in its efforts to root out this evil. As one victim, told GB News, "..."
- It's good they corrected the article with necessary attribution for unverified claims, however it took 4 days to do so, and they failed to reference such changes in the article, including the original date. Not a good look imo. CNC (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding this article, is it usual for reliable sources to correct the content of articles without referencing a change? This was first published on January 4th, and modified by January 8th with attribution to GB News added (can verify with copyscape):
Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer
Is this sigcov , reliable for Draft:BRYTER? HelixUnwinding (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- The first link goes to a summary of a detailed software review by Friedrich Blase, the “Innovator-in-Residence” of the Ontario Bar Association. It looks like Dr. Blase, whose LinkedIn profile references writings on legal technology, might qualify as a subject matter expert, so I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. The second link goes to a blog, which would not be a reliable source. John M Baker (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you very much. HelixUnwinding (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Did Howard Dean get paid to give speeches promoting the MEK?
Hogo-2020 and I have bit of a dispute here: can we list that Howard Dean as among the American officials who received either cash payments or some other form of compensation for making speeches promoting the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran? Sources:
- A telephone interview with Ben Smith (journalist) that was published on a newsblog on Politico. Smith writes that Dean "said that while he's given paid speeches for the group, his advocacy is pro bono."
- An editorial by Glenn Greenwald in The Guardian.
- The editorial links to a Christian Science Monitor article, which writes "Mr. Dean confirmed to the Monitor that he received payment for his appearances, but said the focus on high pay was “a diversion inspired by those with a different view.”"
- An article in Salon which says "Dean himself has acknowledged being paid but has not disclosed specific sums". Dean's advocate responded to that article, according to Salon, saying "On the issue of the MEK, he is not a paid advocate. He was paid for a handful of speeches, but has not been paid for his advocacy."
VR (Please ping on reply) 13:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Vice regent I don’t think the reliability of any of these sources would be in question by most editors - this seems a bit more of a content dispute on the surface. The Kip 01:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @The Kip, well Hogo argues that the guardian piece is an WP:OPED, the politico piece is a WP:NEWSBLOG and there's no consensus for salon at WP:RSP. These are all WP:RS-based arguments.VR (Please ping on reply) 03:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The issue at hand is whether a couple of op-eds provide sufficient evidence to justify adding to Misplaced Pages that a politician was paid for making speeches. Then, there's also the question if this would be in line with WP:DUE. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @The Kip, well Hogo argues that the guardian piece is an WP:OPED, the politico piece is a WP:NEWSBLOG and there's no consensus for salon at WP:RSP. These are all WP:RS-based arguments.VR (Please ping on reply) 03:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are two issues here, neither of which is really a WP:RS issue directly (but they touch on how different types of sources can be used and the considerations that come with them.) First, since those are all either opinion pieces, interviews, or quotes, they would have to be attributed if used; they can't be used to state facts in the article voice - looking over the article history, it previously said
In 2012, Seymour Hersh reported names of former U.S. officials paid to speak in support of MEK, including former CIA directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss; New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton
. If the listed sources were all you could turn up for including Dean in that list with that sort of wording, it's not enough for that specific wording - you can't say as fact that he was paid, and cite an opinion piece from Greenwald to support that. (That said, is there a problem with citing the CS Monitor article directly? Citing it via an opinion piece by Greenwald seems weird; the Greenwald piece is a weaker source due to being opinion.) Either way, second, as is often the case when dealing with largely opinion sources published in RS / WP:RSOPINION venues, is the WP:DUE issue - the question is then whether Greenwald etc. are noteworthy enough for their opinions about this to be in the article, or whether the sum of all of them is enough to put it over the top, or the like. --Aquillion (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I should add, looking at the discussion, it feels to me like this is a result of a dispute over previous wording that probably reflected the broad strokes of what the sources support but which wasn't quite correct in terms of both the specific source it relied on and how it summarized it - finding individual sources for every person in that list, yet trying to retain it as a list whose original version was really an inaccurate paraphrase of a different source, is going to constantly run into problems like this and may produce WP:SYNTH issues. I would suggest discarding that list and instead reconsidering what the section should say from the top, after reviewing the best available sources individually. Why this list of people? Why those specific names? Just because they were in the Shane source, which doesn't say they were paid? I suggest going back to the drawing board, looking at the relative level of coverage for each and whether it's something we can use for fact or just attributable opinion, then deciding who to cover and how to cover them based on that. --Aquillion (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think that this is solid advice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Those are great points. It would be great if you can help discuss on that talk page.VR (Please ping on reply) 01:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aquillion thanks for your input. Understand the point about CS Monitor. But my next question is this: Ben Smith, a journalist working for a reputable source like POLITICO, wouldn't just fake or distort an interview. Smith isn't stating his opinion, he's giving the results of the interview. To me Smith is a stronger source than CSM because CSM doesn't actually say where they got the info from. In either case, is the CSM source enough to state it without attribution or would it also require attribution? VR (Please ping on reply) 01:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Stumbled across this. The Christian Science Monitor investigation into the MEK paying Dean and many others (which I happened to edit). https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0808/Iranian-group-s-big-money-push-to-get-off-US-terrorist-list . I don't understand the dispute here. Dean is on record in this article admitting he was taking their money.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I should add, looking at the discussion, it feels to me like this is a result of a dispute over previous wording that probably reflected the broad strokes of what the sources support but which wasn't quite correct in terms of both the specific source it relied on and how it summarized it - finding individual sources for every person in that list, yet trying to retain it as a list whose original version was really an inaccurate paraphrase of a different source, is going to constantly run into problems like this and may produce WP:SYNTH issues. I would suggest discarding that list and instead reconsidering what the section should say from the top, after reviewing the best available sources individually. Why this list of people? Why those specific names? Just because they were in the Shane source, which doesn't say they were paid? I suggest going back to the drawing board, looking at the relative level of coverage for each and whether it's something we can use for fact or just attributable opinion, then deciding who to cover and how to cover them based on that. --Aquillion (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Is REAL, Journal of Almería Studies an rs for Bering Strait
See. The link doesn't go to the source cited and I can't find that aource. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Found a Spanish Misplaced Pages article on the explorer. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I found a link to the pdf but the article is in Spanish which I don't read well. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 @Doug Weller My Spanish is at a passable level, from a first glance I’m not seeing anything outlandish/indicative of unreliability but I can take a deeper look a bit later. The Kip 01:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I found a link to the pdf but the article is in Spanish which I don't read well. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- The journal isn't peer-reviewed, so it's not a top quality source, but it is a serious journal, in the sense it is something we would usually accept as reliable in general. The writers seem reasonable-ish. However, it's not a good enough journal that an outlandish article would become reliable. I'm reading the article now, and a couple of things strike me as a bit off, but maybe it's just because I've been drawn to it here. Will give a bit more info later today.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, the article appears to be claiming Lorenzo Ferrer Maldonado completed a crossing of the Northwest Passage in 1588. Between February and March. This is an extraordinary claim, I don't think the source is good enough to state that in the article.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- And if I'd checked, I'd have found out that he made up the story although it was taken seriously 200 years later. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The article is really odd, it is drifting towards the genre of x was actually Spanish/Catalan/Indian/Hungarian and the Masons hid the evidence of how they built pyramids so they could continue Akenhaton's religion. They use a photoshop reconstruction of how a woodcut of Ferrer might have looked and suggest a Spanish conspiracy to hide the fact they had discovered the Northwest passage, so the English and Dutch couldn't use it. They also claim that "Anglosaxon scholars" now accept Ferrer's claims, but fail to cite them. Valeriano Sánchez Ramos seems to be a quite decent local historian of eastern Andalucia, whereas Alfonso Viciana Martínez-Lage is more of a general writer but has published some academic stuff. I can't quite make my mind up if this is a sort of folie à deux, or whether they are publishing an academic joke.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- They managed to get published in Boletín de la Real Sociedad Geográfica (Tomo CLX (2023), p. 115). But still I wouldn't give it much weight unless there are other scholars that concur with them. Alaexis¿question? 21:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm really surprised at that, I would have to say this is covered by WP:FRINGE. It is hard to understand how the editorial team might have accepted for publication an article which suggests an ice-free passage existed in the winter of 1588. You need specialist ships, and often icebreakers, to do it in summer today.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- That someone was able to navigate the northwest passage at that time is definitely bthe type of exception claim that WP:EXCEPTIONAL talks of. This would require multiple high quality sources, so this source alone would not be reliable for the claim. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm really surprised at that, I would have to say this is covered by WP:FRINGE. It is hard to understand how the editorial team might have accepted for publication an article which suggests an ice-free passage existed in the winter of 1588. You need specialist ships, and often icebreakers, to do it in summer today.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- They managed to get published in Boletín de la Real Sociedad Geográfica (Tomo CLX (2023), p. 115). But still I wouldn't give it much weight unless there are other scholars that concur with them. Alaexis¿question? 21:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The article is really odd, it is drifting towards the genre of x was actually Spanish/Catalan/Indian/Hungarian and the Masons hid the evidence of how they built pyramids so they could continue Akenhaton's religion. They use a photoshop reconstruction of how a woodcut of Ferrer might have looked and suggest a Spanish conspiracy to hide the fact they had discovered the Northwest passage, so the English and Dutch couldn't use it. They also claim that "Anglosaxon scholars" now accept Ferrer's claims, but fail to cite them. Valeriano Sánchez Ramos seems to be a quite decent local historian of eastern Andalucia, whereas Alfonso Viciana Martínez-Lage is more of a general writer but has published some academic stuff. I can't quite make my mind up if this is a sort of folie à deux, or whether they are publishing an academic joke.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- And if I'd checked, I'd have found out that he made up the story although it was taken seriously 200 years later. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, the article appears to be claiming Lorenzo Ferrer Maldonado completed a crossing of the Northwest Passage in 1588. Between February and March. This is an extraordinary claim, I don't think the source is good enough to state that in the article.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Pirate Wires?
Pirate Wires describes itself as an "American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." It doesn't shout "reliable source" to me (feels more like a group blog), but could somebody else take a look at this and help me determine if (a) its articles, or (b) its claims about itself should be cited in articles or BLPs, as was done here? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wouldn’t this be an aboutself citation anyway? I would be more concerned about primary/OR here in that case.
- Regarding the source: they are likely to be pretty biased, but according to the page linked, they seems sufficiently reliable for this, unless someone can dig up large-scale issues I missed. Employees, proper funding etc. all seem to be fine. FortunateSons (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of
as of January 2025, his profile at the online publisher Pirate Wires lists him as a senior editor
? I just wanted to make sure PW was something worth mentioning at all, or if it was more akin to 'he's the senior editor this super-serious blog' and name-dropping a site that bore no mention. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)- I’m not sure, but think being descriptive is fine for “articles about Misplaced Pages” and stuff, “critical“ is probably better coming from a specific source, even if it’s obvious. With everything else, it’s probably a question of DUE, not RS. FortunateSons (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd eschew calling out any of his particular articles over others, since there's... no reason to, right? Without reliable third-party sourcing, they're no more notable or inclusion-worthy than his others. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think this is a case for BRD, but it seems like a reasonable option FortunateSons (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd eschew calling out any of his particular articles over others, since there's... no reason to, right? Without reliable third-party sourcing, they're no more notable or inclusion-worthy than his others. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I’m not sure, but think being descriptive is fine for “articles about Misplaced Pages” and stuff, “critical“ is probably better coming from a specific source, even if it’s obvious. With everything else, it’s probably a question of DUE, not RS. FortunateSons (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of
- Pirate Wires has a strong right wing "libertarian tech bro" bent to its coverage, unsurprising given its links to Peter Thiel. The way it frames events is often strongly slanted, sometimes to the point of being misleading. Take for instance the recent story claiming that the WMF had been taken over by "Soros-backed operatives" . I would argue that this framing is conspiratorial and hyperbolic. I think it might sometimes be usable with caution for uncontroversial facts, but more objective sources should be preferred. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a Business Insider story on Pirate Wires that gives a good sense of its ethos . Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Invoking George Soros conspiracy theories to attack an organization is not a good start for Pirate Wires, a new publication that does not have much of a reputation at this point. Definitely not generally reliable, and I would avoid using this publication for claims about living people. — Newslinger talk 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call it a "group blog", it just has a niche audience in the tech industry. It is certainly more factually based than Fox News. The article you linked is using it problematically though. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Words of the founder Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Solana is the founder and operator of Pirate Wires, so maybe it's wise to consider his pieces in particular self-published. No idea the level of editorial rigour other contributors are under though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pirate Wires should be considered Generally reliable. The information that they publish, though perhaps from a libertarian or right wing political slant, is generally truthful/accurate and therefore should be considered WP:GENREL unless someone is able to provide substantial evidence and examples that disprove this. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's Mike Solana's blog. Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have an evidentiary basis for your claim? I ask because I was recently described in a Pirate Wires article as a member of a powerful pro-Hamas group, and while this was entertaining in its foolishness, the important point for RSN is that it was a factual error. The article contained many inaccuracies about various things, and it was clear that no attempt had been made to avoid errors and erroneous conclusions. So, using it for BLPs might be unwise, and the notion that it is "generally truthful/accurate" seem highly questionable. Of course, I only have one data point, so it could be an outlier, but I doubt it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. I was not happy about Pirate Wires being used for that whole fiasco. But as for the evidence look above at the link Selfstudier provided in which Mike Solana says, "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever." Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously his personal thing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- What "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" are you referring to? Can you cite specific examples please and quote from the source directly? Also, are there other reliable sources which then criticize PW for "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" or is that WP:OR and/or your own conclusion being reached? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously his personal thing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. I was not happy about Pirate Wires being used for that whole fiasco. But as for the evidence look above at the link Selfstudier provided in which Mike Solana says, "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever." Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have an evidentiary basis for your claim? I ask because I was recently described in a Pirate Wires article as a member of a powerful pro-Hamas group, and while this was entertaining in its foolishness, the important point for RSN is that it was a factual error. The article contained many inaccuracies about various things, and it was clear that no attempt had been made to avoid errors and erroneous conclusions. So, using it for BLPs might be unwise, and the notion that it is "generally truthful/accurate" seem highly questionable. Of course, I only have one data point, so it could be an outlier, but I doubt it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Considering that comment and the fact that founder Mike Solana is the chief marketing officer of Founders Fund, Pirate Wires has a major conflict of interest with all of the individuals and organizations associated with Founders Fund, and is a non-independent source with respect to all related topics. — Newslinger talk 03:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pirate Wires is trashy far-right culture wars content. It is at best a group blog - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Marginally reliable, there seems to be a pretty wide spread quality wise because they seem to allow their writer a loose leash. This means that some articles are very good and some are very bad. Personally I've found them solidly reliable for the more wonkish techy stuff but have a lot of issues when they start to cover politics or culture/society in general. Crypto seems to be the only blindspot within their otherwise area of expertise, their crypto coverage is just awful and should be avoided like the plague. When used I would attribute and I would strongly advise against any use for BLP not covered by ABOUTSELF. I agree that pieces by Solana should be treated as self published and that coverage by Pirate Wire is not to be considered independent of the Founders Fund. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Need context before coming to RSN
At this point, the source is used in only 7 articles in mainspace. . in general, RSN really shouldn't be used to approve sources ahead of time, editors exercise their own discretion, debate merits of source in the talk page of article, and come here if the same source is debated over and over again, or if reliability is still at issue. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per
Slaterstevenits founder describes it as a WP:SPS - it should be treated accordingly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- Not me. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh dear did I misread? OOPS should be per Selfstudier apologies. I will strike above. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not WP:SPS and its founder merely said things along the lines of "I am not bought and paid for nor a mouthpiece for any billionaire" etc. Now I do not know the veracity of that statement for sure, but I do not see that Mike Solana declared Pirate Wires to be SPS or a blog. It has numerous other independent journalists and appears to run as a full-fledged journalistic organization like any other, with their own right leaning or right-libertarian bias of course. But bias is not a reason for a source to otherwise be deprecated or considered SPS or anything else, it is just the nature of nearly every source that some bias to one direction or another is to be expected. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not me. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- But they don't have any indication of editorial controls, or a fact-checking process, or any of the things that an WP:RS would have; neither is there any reason to think they have a particular
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
. A statement like "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever" makes it pretty clear that it's not structured the way we'd expect a RS to be structured. I'm with the editors above who describe it as a blog - there's just nothing here that even has the shape of an RS. The fact that the person who runs it sometimes also includes guest posts by other people doesn't change the fact that there's no editorial board, no source of fact-checking, and most of all no reputation. Like... what makes you think that it's a WP:RS, according to the criteria we use? Where do you feel its reliability comes from? --Aquillion (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Yeah by that criteria this is a SPS, one guys blog is still one guys blog even if they let their friends post. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- But they don't have any indication of editorial controls, or a fact-checking process, or any of the things that an WP:RS would have; neither is there any reason to think they have a particular
Usage in Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages
Is the Pirate Wires piece "How Misplaced Pages Launders Regime Propaganda" by Ashley Rindsberg a reliable source of claims for the Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages article? Rindsberg has published other content about Misplaced Pages on Pirate Wires, including "How Soros-Backed Operatives Took Over Key Roles at Misplaced Pages". — Newslinger talk 04:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's at best, usable for the attributed opinion of Rindsberg only, but even then, it's obviously polemical and partisan. There's lots of right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages that I personally find disingenuous, but inevitably an article on "Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages" is going to have to include some partisan sourcing, but not framing it as fact is essential. I am unsure whether Pirate Wires is prominent enough a publication that it would be due to mention in any capacity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't even think its usable for that... Can't find anything that suggests that Rindsberg is a subject matter expert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sources in that article should have some leeway, as Misplaced Pages is obviously going to be criticised by such sources. But I totally agree with Hemiauchenia that framing is key. This is the opinion of a hyper partisan source, framing it as fact is wrong. Whether it should be included or not is a discussion for the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is more or less a group
- blog that mostly publishes opinion, including eg antisemitic Soros conspiracy theories. Any Misplaced Pages editor reading their coverage of this project will immediately spot multiple falsehoods and errors, and also personal attacks on names editors based on these inaccuracies. At best on a par with Quillette. In short, not reliable for this topic, and if this topic is a guide to how robust its general reporting is it’s probably not reliable for anything. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Both unreliable and WP:UNDUE. Rindsberg's views on any topic are quite irrelevant to anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agree fully. Unreliable and undue. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Both unreliable and WP:UNDUE. Rindsberg's views on any topic are quite irrelevant to anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- almost certainly no. the article attacking[REDACTED] has falsehoods and even ignoring that and arguing its an opinion piece we could use with attribution , it goes at it from a very marginal POV … there are more useful opinion pieces from more reliable outlets out there.Bluethricecreamman (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- How is it used by others or is it even used by others? If sources have cited their work then I think we can as well. However, I would be very cautious about using it as an independent reference. Very cautious to the point where I would generally say no. Perhaps in a case where it's spot on topic (ideological bias of Misplaced Pages) but then only with attribution. Speaking generally, these sort of sources are always difficult as they may provide very good information but other than editors reading the text and using their own common sense, OR, etc, we don't have a good way to judge the quality of the output. BTW, this is also why I think "use with caution" may not be specific enough. Some sources are more like "use with caution but probably OK" while others are more like "use with extreme caution but there is probably a case where it provides more than about self content". Springee (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pirate Wires itself is notable as it's had coverage in other notable outlets but its viewpoint about Misplaced Pages per se might not have been documented in RS yet. But I'm confused -- Why are some of these other media outlets' self-published viewpoints included without them necessarily being considered RS themselves? Manuductive (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- The term self-published refers to sources without adequate editorial oversight, which includes most group blogs. Well-established news outlets are not self-published sources. — Newslinger talk 14:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Imo Having Misplaced Pages articles that discuss whether Misplaced Pages is reliable, biased, antisemitic, etc is silly. We're all too inherently conflicted as Misplaced Pages editors to give a sober assessment of these topics and what is/isn't due to include. These topics are best left to scholars. That said, Pirate Wires is a lot less established than these other publications you mention. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Outright rejecting Pirate Wires because it's "right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages" and has "a very marginal POV" is the issue with WP:RSN that the piece is trying to critique. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- But it does affect WP:DUE weight (which requires balance between sources, and which is the real concern for something that, as a WP:SPS or a website with no reputation, would obviously be opinion at best.) The article already contains a large number of right-wing sources with a similar perspective; does this piece add anything to them? My feeling is that articles like this are subject to problems where editors try to do this nose-counting thing where they add dozens of opinionated or biased sources saying the same thing because they feel it's a really important perspective - but that's not how opinion is really meant to be used. If we have twelve sources that are fundimentially similar saying the same thing, they ought to be condensed down to a single sentence or so saying "a bunch of sources said X" (unless some of them are individually noteworthy on their own merits somehow, eg. if they're an opinion from a significant expert, but that obviously isn't the case here.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Chess makes a perfectly valid point. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's being rejected because it's a random tech guy's blog - not because it's right wing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- One thing @Hemiauchenia said I half-agree with. The question of Misplaced Pages bias is one best answered by academics - which we should document appropriately and neutrally - the opinion of Ashley Rindberg on a blog with no editorial board is not a notable opinion, again, not because of its left-right bent but because
she's just some person with a megaphone. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- It is your opinion that it is a blog. That itself would need evidence and probably an RfC. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, Ashley Rindsberg is a man. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Evidence has already been provided. In this thread. The founder brags about having no editorial board on twitter dot com. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Getting neither the gender
"she's"
nor the spelling"Ashley Rindberg"
correct shows me you may not have looked into this very much. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- Oh do stop. That's an awful lot to take from a bloody typo. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a freebee for all the people looking to say Misplaced Pages has a left-wing bias. This is what a reliable source accusing Misplaced Pages of a left-wing bias looks like: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.2020.1793846 Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Two can play that game. https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased Iljhgtn (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Manhattan Institute is a think-tank with no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it is obviously not a WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- This too, in addition to my comment below. Frankly I'm finding this interaction very strange. Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I should add that the Manhattan Institute was discussed previously here; the discussion was never closed or added to WP:RSP but by a quick nose-count the total unreliable + deprecate opinions outnumbered the "unclear" opinions almost two-to-one (and there were almost no people saying it was GREL.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- This too, in addition to my comment below. Frankly I'm finding this interaction very strange. Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- What game? I literally provided a source accusing Misplaced Pages both of left-wing bias and of bias against women at the same time. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Manhattan Institute is a think-tank with no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it is obviously not a WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Two can play that game. https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased Iljhgtn (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Getting neither the gender
- We don't actually require an RFC for every individual dispute; and sources certainly do not automatically default to reliable. Just doing a quick nose-count in this discussion suggests that it's extremely unlikely that an RFC on Pirate Wires' reliability would support your contention that it is reliable - numerous issues have been raised, especially regarding its lack of editorial controls and its lack of the
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
that RS requires. We can pull it through an entire RFC if you really think it's necessary but I think your time would be better-spent looking for more clearly reliable secondary sources covering this, if you want it in the article. This would also turn things back to the more fundamental WP:DUE problem I mentioned above - this looks identical to dozens of similar pieces posted by people with similar opinions; given that it's published in what's at least a low-quality source compared to the ones already in the article, what makes this one significant enough to highlight? --Aquillion (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is your opinion that it is a blog. That itself would need evidence and probably an RfC. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- One thing @Hemiauchenia said I half-agree with. The question of Misplaced Pages bias is one best answered by academics - which we should document appropriately and neutrally - the opinion of Ashley Rindberg on a blog with no editorial board is not a notable opinion, again, not because of its left-right bent but because
- For disclosure, I originally wrote the Mike Solana article. I think the answer is no to this question specifically, and similar questions generally.
Pirate Wires is an advocacy media outlet. Its writing is in a punchy tone -- a tech-ish form of gonzo journalism -- that blends opinion with explanatory reporting. They don't do spot news. So there's just no utility in using it for encyclopedia-writing.
That's not to say it's either good or bad, merely that it doesn't serve the limited purposes for which we use sources here. (It ran a widely cited interview with Jack Dorsey and I don't think anyone believes they made-up the interview. But if we need to cite that interview in an article it can be referenced to any of the numerous RS that, themselves, cited it through précis', versus Pirate Wires directly.) In any case, anything it publishes that is encyclopedic will be covered in a second, more conventional RS and we should reference the second source. Anything not referenced in a pass-through outlet is probably undue. Chetsford (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
CEIC data
I often see this site being used as a source for country-list data. They appear to be professional, but I'm not sure if they're considered a proper secondary source. They do not appear to be the same CEIC as the one owned by Caixin, as they say they are owned by "ISI Markets". Wizmut (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- It looks like just a big database. I would trust the first party sources for raw data more. EEpic (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- If in question use secondary sources. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Fantasy Literature
I see this source around a lot and I would like to have it settled for whether it is OK to use for reviews. It looks good to me and not promotional or any of the typical sorts of issues that plague these kinds of websites, but I am not sure, and I would like to know before I use it on pages, and sometimes books are cited to this at NPP and I am unsure how I should judge it. I would judge it as decently established but it looks to me to be straddling the line between online review publication and blog. It's used on about 160 already. Anyone else have any thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- It has the appearance of a blog. It has a sort-of staff:. I'd be hesitant to use it for WP:N purposes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is the terms its staff work under:
- Basically they're unpaid volunteers who become voting members of the staff. They are expected to review an unspecified but regular number of books in order to maintain their membership. It isn't clear that there's much in the way of editorial oversight beyond a pledge not to plagiarize review material. Considering their concentration on volume of reviews and appearance of loose editorial standards I'd be hesitant to use this group to establish the notability of a book. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- So just for notability purposes it is unusable or is it something that should not be included on pages that are notable? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd say unusable for notability purposes. I'd likely leave it off other pages unless it had something significant to say that better sources didn't. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
NASASpaceFlight.com
Looking to see if we can come to some consensus on NASASpaceFlight.com's use as a reliable source in articles related to SpaceX, specifically in its use in Starship flight test 8 and Starship flight test 9.
At a glance, to me the site seems to be a bit fan-sitey and seems to glean a lot of information from rumour and speculation based on photos and video they've taken from the perimeter or via drones flying over SpaceX facilities. I also see no evidence on the website of any editorial oversight or fact checking policies.
Talk:SpaceX Starship/FAQ mentions the site as a reliable source but the only criteria they give for its inclusion are that the source
"should already have a Misplaced Pages page (notable enough to be created) and have reliable sources covering them (notable enough to be mentioned)."
which I think we can all agree is not valid signal of reliability. RachelTensions (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:RS calls for
"a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"
. A Google books search appears to show WP:USEBYOTHERS, and even use by NASA. They appear to have some editorial staff, but there's no editorial guideline I could find. Obviously the forum section wouldn't be reliable per WP:USERGENERATED.
Given how often they are used by other sources I would think they should probably considered generally reliable. Is there any specific instances that are of concern? After all generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Is there any specific instances that are of concern? After all generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable.
Nothing in particular, mostly just looking to see if coverage of events from this source would constitute sigcov in reliable sources for the purposes of WP:N. RachelTensions (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)- This is probably a reliable source, but WP:SIGCOV isn't just matter of reliability. Notability is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:SIGCOV isn't just matter of reliability.
no, but coverage in an unreliable source does not count for WP:GNG. That's why I'm seeking opinions on whether this source in particular is reliable. RachelTensions (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is probably a reliable source, but WP:SIGCOV isn't just matter of reliability. Notability is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've found their written news reporting to be generally reliable however their coverage of SpaceX in particular often comes off as promotional (you very rarely see the controversies or criticisms found in other sources reflected in their work) but that may be more self-censorship to maintain their inside access to SpaceX than objective promotion. I would not touch their forum or youtube channel with a 10 foot stick but thats surely besides the point of this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I would not touch their forum or youtube channel with a 10 foot stick but thats surely besides the point of this discussion.
well, maybe not exactly besides the point. There are several citations to their YouTube channel in the articles I've mentioned (and similar articles). What in particular about their YouTube channel do you believe is less reliable than their website? RachelTensions (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)- In general I find the stuff on their Youtube channel to be much more speculative and clickbaity as well as of a generally low quality. Often its just one of their people flipping between a bunch of pictures from the day before and speculating live about what they might mean. It also doesn't appear to be subject to the same standard of editorial review, its not the same standard of writing and analysis (much of it appears unscripted and I haven't seen them make corrections after the fact). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
How restrictive is the TRT World „Turkish Government conflict of interest“ unreliability?
How broad should this restriction be interpreted? For example, does it include topics such as Kurdistan, Israel and the current conflict in Syria? FortunateSons (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would have thought it applies very strongly for Kurdistan and Syria, as Turkey is in open conflict in those areas. Israel might depend on the context, Turkey obviously isn't a uninterested party but it's not Iran. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear it would be reliable for statements of the Turkish governments official views in all cases. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Of course, I‘m just asking about reliability for facts, because I saw some less than great statements, particularly in the I/P area. Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Basically agree with ActivelyDis. I think TRT World is pretty good on non-domestic issues on the whole, but not for anything Kurdish. Israel is fine. Probably not good for Syria as Turkey is a belligerent party there, although I’ve never seen it actually publish anything questionable on Syria apart from Kurdish-related stuff. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear it would be reliable for statements of the Turkish governments official views in all cases. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Is “Zannettou, Savvas "A Quantitative Approach to Understanding Online Antisemitism". a reliable source for Happy Merchant
I can’t find evidence it’s been published. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not up for reading it right now, but it's been published, and the correct citation is: Zannettou, S., Finkelstein, J., Bradlyn, B., & Blackburn, J. (2020, May). A quantitative approach to understanding online antisemitism. In Proceedings of the International AAAI conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 14, pp. 786-797). Google Scholar shows a few places where it can be accessed. If it's kept, the references to it in the Notes section should change "Savvas" to something like "Zannettou et al." FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I should add that the Zannettou et al. citations that currently exist in the article are preprints, which generally are not RSs, per WP:PREPRINT. The other citation was also subsequently published in conference proceedings. Conference proceedings might or might not be reliable sources for specific content, depends on the conference and the content. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's important to keep in mind that most of the preprints people link to as sources were eventually published; we just link to the preprints as courtesy links because they're usually what's available. PREPRINT even mentions this. --Aquillion (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but in that case, you still need the correct citation for wherever it eventually appeared, and if there's a link to that final version in full, then you should link to the full final version rather than a preprint draft. In this particular case, the citations themselves were not for the final version, and the final versions are both available in full elsewhere. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's important to keep in mind that most of the preprints people link to as sources were eventually published; we just link to the preprints as courtesy links because they're usually what's available. PREPRINT even mentions this. --Aquillion (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I should add that the Zannettou et al. citations that currently exist in the article are preprints, which generally are not RSs, per WP:PREPRINT. The other citation was also subsequently published in conference proceedings. Conference proceedings might or might not be reliable sources for specific content, depends on the conference and the content. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- What's the context for this question? Where is it being cited/do you want to be able to cite it? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Hydrangeans I'm a bit confused by the question - did you look at the article? It's cited several times there and as I can't find evidence that it's been reliably published I don't think it should be used. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry; that's my bad. I was running on low sleep and shouldn't have been on Misplaced Pages, and I read your prose where you don't include a link but glazed past the header text where you did include a link. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Hydrangeans I'm a bit confused by the question - did you look at the article? It's cited several times there and as I can't find evidence that it's been reliably published I don't think it should be used. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- See https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/7343/7197 GordonGlottal (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Apologies, I missed another one, also apparently never published."Zannettou, Savvas, Tristan Caulfield, Jeremy Blackburn, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Michael Sirivianos, Gianluca Stringhini, and Guillermo Suarez-Tangil. "On the Origins of Memes by Fringe Web Communities." arXiv.org, September 22, 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.12512." Doug Weller talk 08:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I provided a link to the published version of that one in my second comment above. The citation is Zannettou, S., Caulfield, T., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Sirivianos, M., Stringhini, G., & Suarez-Tangil, G. (2018, October). On the origins of memes by means of fringe web communities. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018 (pp. 188-202). There's an alternate citation at the top right of the copy where it says "ACM Reference Format." FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @FactOrOpinion ACM is reputable, but I seem to have forgotten that we can use published conference papers, but not papers simply presented at a conference. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that I'm following. Both papers were published in conference proceedings. FWIW, even preprints are published in WP's sense of this term, which is only "a source that is made available to the public in some form." Even if there are no conference proceedings, it's possible to use a conference paper that was presented, as long as the presenter has made it publicly available (e.g., via something like arxiv.org). But all of this only establishes that the paper is published and therefore verifiable, not that it's a RS for the content in question. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I mean when is a paper submitted to a conference run by a reliable organisation an RS? When submitted? If published as part of the publication of the conference papers? Doug Weller talk 15:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- A paper that's been submitted to a conference should be treated like a preprint. A paper that appears in conference proceedings is more likely to be an RS, but that will depend on whether the conference is one that reviews all papers in a way that's similar to peer-reviewed journals, and — as always — on the WP content that it's being used as a source for (a paper can be an RS for some content and not for other content). Assuming that the papers do substantiate the WP text, I'm guessing that they're RSs (Google Scholar indicates that they've been cited over 200 times). FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is published, Conference proceedings of Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), volume 14. AAAI has been around since 1979 with respected associations. Submission to a conference is not sufficient to meet any standards. Acceptance by a reputable conference after peer review (some conference talks are invited and not peer reviewed) is a good indicator of reliability though not a guarantee (the conference paper may well be revised between acceptance and publication in a proceedings and even then might in the long run not be considered reliable). As it stands, I would say reliable for the use of Happy Merchant online unless other sources can be found undermining its reliability. Erp (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would consider a paper published in the proceedings of a respected conference a reasonably reliable source. If it was contradicted by peer-reviewed research or, even better, a peer-reviewed meta-analysis of available literature I would give it a bit less due than those sources. But I'd say that yes, at its base, this looks reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks all. I'm really cross with myself for not checking on Google Scholar - ironically I've just done that with another paper. I would have saved you all a lot of time if I had done that. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would consider a paper published in the proceedings of a respected conference a reasonably reliable source. If it was contradicted by peer-reviewed research or, even better, a peer-reviewed meta-analysis of available literature I would give it a bit less due than those sources. But I'd say that yes, at its base, this looks reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I mean when is a paper submitted to a conference run by a reliable organisation an RS? When submitted? If published as part of the publication of the conference papers? Doug Weller talk 15:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that I'm following. Both papers were published in conference proceedings. FWIW, even preprints are published in WP's sense of this term, which is only "a source that is made available to the public in some form." Even if there are no conference proceedings, it's possible to use a conference paper that was presented, as long as the presenter has made it publicly available (e.g., via something like arxiv.org). But all of this only establishes that the paper is published and therefore verifiable, not that it's a RS for the content in question. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @FactOrOpinion ACM is reputable, but I seem to have forgotten that we can use published conference papers, but not papers simply presented at a conference. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Hawar News Agency
Should we be using articles from the Hawar News Agency, especially in relation to the (geo)political side of Rojava? This also includes articles in the scope of the Syrian civil war. It has ties to the SDF, which means there is a significant conflict of interest here; I should also add that the YPG/YPD/SDF heavily censor narratives critical of theirs, which raises concern over its reliability. I want to get community consensus before I do anything, especially because the article in question (Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria) is related to a CTOP. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 19:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Copying this response from the talk page of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria:) Of course we have to use Hawar, simply because it is one the most prominent news sites from Syria. It shouldn't be used as the sole source for contentious issues (unless it cites claims), but for basic facts such as local election results, regional policy decisions, etc. it is one of the only sources available. It is also used as a source by academic researchers such as in The Kurds in the Middle East: Enduring Problems and New Dynamics, The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts, Soldiers of End-Times. Assessing the Military Effectiveness of the Islamic State, and Statelet of Survivors. The Making of a Semi-Autonomous Region in Northeast Syria.
(The following part is new, written for RSN:) These are books written by experts on Syria, released by reputable publishers such as Oxford University Press, and they have seemingly deemed Hawar to be a partisan, but useable source. Speaking from experience as an editor who has been active in editing articles on the Syrian civil war for ten years, I would also note that Hawar was previously discussed by editors and similarily assessed, as it is fairly reliable though should be used with caution in especially problematic fields such as casualty numbers (where partisanship becomes a major problem). Applodion (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC) - Having read through the article you linked it doesn't show that media is heavily censored. A relevant sentence would appear to be:
"In the current situation, the journalists we interviewed usually stress that, on the one hand, they enjoy relative freedom of expression. The PYD did not forcefully close those it considers as antagonistic media. Reporters can move freely in the region and cover a wide array of issues. Additionally, journalists from international or regional media are also generally allowed to operate freely. However, they also say that there is always a tension with the authorities in power and there are red lines that cannot be crossed."
As well as:"Gradually, they seem to have adopted an editorial line that is less critical, if not supportive, of the political system in Rojava. This support, according to some local journalists, is not due so much to direct imposition from the authorities, but rather to their own convictions and, even more important, to the feeling that doing otherwise would be very unpopular in a conflict-ridden context."
So it doesn't sound like they have the most freedom of media, but it appears a long way from heavily censored. Restrictions on reporting matters that could effect security are common in areas of conflict (and even outside of them).
Hawar News Agency has some WP:USEBYOTHERS and would probably be covered by WP:NEWSORG. Issues of bias (WP:RSBIAS) and opinion (WP:RSOPINION) don't immediately make a source unreliable. In general I would agree with Applodion, reliable but caution should be taken for issue where it's bias or censorship of security matters may effect it's reporting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC) - Agree with above, helpful to understand its bias, but this means to use with caution and understanding rather than preventing use. CMD (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agree with the above. If we are citing it for contentious claims, then it's better we provide attribution. Unless OP or someone else can come up with credible sources that question the reliability of Hawar, I don't see any reason to worry about its inclusion. Looking over the article, it seems most of the citations to it are for easily verifiable facts (i.e. changes in AANES leadership, recognition by the Catalan parliament, etc.), rather than anything contentious. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- If we consider TRT sub-optimum in relation to Rojava and the Syrian war because of its affiliation to the Erdogan government (see above on this noticeboard), the same should apply to Hawar. It’s fine for reporting the statements by AANES/PYD/SDF or uncontentious facts, but it should always be attributed and triangulated for anything at all contentious. I’d rate it above Al-Masdar and below the SOHR for reporting facts about eg battles in the Syrian war, but like them is a weak source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is there anything to show that Hawar is not independent of the SDF? I couldn't find anything making an explicit link. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: "Misdirected US strike killed 18 allied fighters in Syria" from the Associated Press: "On Thursday, the group held funerals for 17 of its fighters in the border town of Tal al-Abyad, the SDF-linked Hawar news agency said...". 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 22:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- That would indicate a need for caution. Whether to the level of TRT I couldn't day. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: "Misdirected US strike killed 18 allied fighters in Syria" from the Associated Press: "On Thursday, the group held funerals for 17 of its fighters in the border town of Tal al-Abyad, the SDF-linked Hawar news agency said...". 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 22:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is there anything to show that Hawar is not independent of the SDF? I couldn't find anything making an explicit link. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Being censored is a WP:BIASED issue and a reason to use a source with caution (with attribution for anything remotely contentious), but it doesn't automatically render them completely unreliable. The big question is whether they're yielding to pressure to publish things that are actually inaccurate rather than just one-sided. If not, they can still be used with caution - we'd want to cite better sources when possible and avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to a source with a clear bias, but there's some advantage to having sources that are close to conflicts. And a major problem with removing sources simply for being subject to censorship is that it could produce systematic bias by removing every source from a particular region; I'm not familiar with the Syrian press specifically, but in other regions with similar censorship, there's still a difference between sources that carefully report as much as they can get away with and as accurately as they can within the restrictions of government censors, and sources that full-throatedly broadcast misinformation to support the party line. --Aquillion (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: LionhearTV
Moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Sources § RfC: LionhearTV – Royiswariii, 19 January 2025 00:55 (UTC)
I want your comments about the reliability of LionhearTV, I can't determine whether it is reliable or not, on New Page Sources, the Lionheartv is in the unreliable section, but, despite of that some editors still using this source in all Philippine Articles. So let's make a vote:
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
Royiswariii Talk! 10:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. The Philippines has plenty of WP:RS to choose from. If you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find refs for something or someone and have to use this, I'd say consider against and don't add it to the article. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: For better understanding and context, especially for editors unfamiliar of this topic's origin:
- LionhearTV is a blog site, as described on its "About Me" page, established in 2008 and functioning primarily as a celebrity and entertainment blog. The site is operated by eMVP Digital, which also manages similar blog sites, such as DailyPedia and Philippine Entertainment.
- In addition to these blogs, LionhearTV organizes the RAWR Awards, which recognize achievements in the entertainment industry. This accolade has been acknowledged by major industry players, including ABS-CBN and GMA Network. Like other awards, the RAWR Awards present physical trophies to honorees.
- A discussion about LionhearTV’s reliability as a source took place on the Bini (group) talk page in September 2024 (see Talk:Bini (group)/Archive 1 § LionhearTV as a reliable source). The issue was subsequently raised on the Tambayan Philippines talk page (Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 52 § Lionheartv) and the WP:RSN (Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 452 § LionhearTV). However, these discussions did not yield a constructive consensus on whether LionhearTV can be considered a reliable source. The discussion at Tambayan deviated into a debate about SMNI, which was unrelated to the original subject. Meanwhile, the sole respondent at the RSN inquiry commented,
It may come down to how it's used, it maybe unreliable for contentious statement or comments about living people, but reliable for basic details.
- At this moment, LionhearTV is listed as unreliable on Misplaced Pages:New page patrol source guide#The Philippines as result of the no consensus discussion at RSN.
- AstrooKai (Talk) 13:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lionheartv is one person operation. How can there be editorial discretion on that case? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm more surprised on how a single person actively manages three blog sites and one accolade, with the accolade even giving out physical trophies to its winners. Like, how is he/she funding and doing all of these? AstrooKai (Talk) 14:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's immaterial on how we determine WP:RS. What could be very important that other WP:RS missed out on that only this blog carries? If it's only this blog that carries articles about something, it's not very important. This blog is the very definition of WP:RSSELF. I'm surprised we're having this conversation. A blacklist is needed. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm more surprised on how a single person actively manages three blog sites and one accolade, with the accolade even giving out physical trophies to its winners. Like, how is he/she funding and doing all of these? AstrooKai (Talk) 14:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lionheartv is one person operation. How can there be editorial discretion on that case? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3. There's something about its reporting and organizational structure that is off compared to the regular newspapers. Borgenland (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Though, I find it strange and concerning that reputable sources copypasted some of LionhearTV's articles:
- LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts/ (December 8, 2024)
Sunstar: https://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts (December 10, 2024) - LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2025/01/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 11, 2025)
Manila Republic: https://www.manilarepublic.com/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 14, 2025)
- LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts/ (December 8, 2024)
- These are two instances I found so far where other sources copypasted from LionhearTV. But I saw other instances where LionhearTV is the one who copypasted from other sources, such examples include:
- LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-im-okay-to-cinemas/ (December 30, 2024)
Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/showbiz/music/2024/12/29/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-i-m-okay-to-cinemas-0948 (December 29, 2024) - LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/06/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game/ (June 27, 2024)
Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/starmagic/articles-news/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game-22637 (June 24, 2024)
- LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-im-okay-to-cinemas/ (December 30, 2024)
- I honestly don't know about these editors, they just copying each other's works. Probably cases of churnalism. AstrooKai (Talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Though, I find it strange and concerning that reputable sources copypasted some of LionhearTV's articles:
- Option 3 - As much as possible, LionhearTV and its sibling sites under the eMVP Digital should not be used as sources when more reliable outlets have coverage for a certain event, show, actor and so on. Even if a certain news item is exclusive to or first published in a eMVP Digital site, other journalists will eventually publish similar reports in their respective platforms (refer to some examples posted by AstrooKai). -Ian Lopez @ 15:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- What I fear in these kinds of low quality sources is that people will find something very specific about someone, e.g. "This person was seen in a separate engagement vs. the others in their group," and this low quality source is the only source that carried this fact, and since this it is not blacklisted, this does get in as a source, and most of the time, that's all that's needed. We don't need articles on showbiz personalities tracking their every movement as if it's important. Blacklist this. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
| Discussion about moving RFC to RSN |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Option 3It's a blog. That means WP:SPS applies. This means it might be contextually reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF or under WP:EXPERTSPS (with the usual condition that SPSEXPERT prohibits any use of SPS for BLPs) and so I don't see any pressing need for deprecation, but this is very clearly a source that is not generally one we should use. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, the person behind this blog is not a subject matter expert. Like, we don't even know who this is. (One subject matter expert in Philippine showbusiness that I know of that runs a similar blog is Fashion Pulis, and I event won't even use the blind items as sources there lol) As explained above, once this gets to be used as a source, it won't be challenged and people just accept it as is. This is a low quality source that has to be blacklisted. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah that's fine. I was just saying that, in general, those are the only two avenues to use someone's blog. Simonm223 (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, the person behind this blog is not a subject matter expert. Like, we don't even know who this is. (One subject matter expert in Philippine showbusiness that I know of that runs a similar blog is Fashion Pulis, and I event won't even use the blind items as sources there lol) As explained above, once this gets to be used as a source, it won't be challenged and people just accept it as is. This is a low quality source that has to be blacklisted. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4 Their reportings are obviously flawed and a per example above copypasting is a not a good look nor a good indication for "reliability" and it is often used in BLP, yikes. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Hatebase.org
Is hatebase.org a reliable source? GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is there an WP:RFCBEFORE for this? And/Or some context for the use case? FortunateSons (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have checked and I can't find any previous discussion, hence why I opened this one. There is an article about the site. I intend to use it to expand list of slurs articles. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I’m not making a statement on the source, as I’m not familiar with it .Then this doesn’t require an RfC, just a normal source discussion, if you’re concerned about reliability. Do you mind removing the descriptor from the title? And best of luck! :) FortunateSons (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, I just added it because I saw some of the other discussions had it. I am removing it from the title. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- That happens, don’t worry about it! Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, I just added it because I saw some of the other discussions had it. I am removing it from the title. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I’m not making a statement on the source, as I’m not familiar with it .Then this doesn’t require an RfC, just a normal source discussion, if you’re concerned about reliability. Do you mind removing the descriptor from the title? And best of luck! :) FortunateSons (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have checked and I can't find any previous discussion, hence why I opened this one. There is an article about the site. I intend to use it to expand list of slurs articles. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- used in 4[REDACTED] articles, seems highly premature. use best judgement until it can't be resolved in an article's talk page between editors, and needs wider[REDACTED] community feedback. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wish this were otherwise because it looks like a really interesting website but it uses user-generated content. Which is a problem from an RS perspective. Simonm223 (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- None of the uses are for anything other than Hatebase itself, and as the site was been retired since 2022 it's unlikely it will see much more use ('retired' as it's been closed to editing, all user data deleted, and may go offline at any point, so not quite closed but very close). As most of the supporting data is gone, and what there was was user generated, I don't think it could be used as an RS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
LaserDisc Database?
I'm working on adding citations to the home media section of King Kong (1933). I'm looking for a source that supports the sentence "Image Entertainment released another LaserDisc" . I've found the laserdisc in question on LaserDisc Database here. Can I use it as a source? The "register now" box states that users can "submit" new Laserdiscs, which implies some editorial oversight compared to other websites with user-generated material (although it looks like there may be just one editor). My other options are worldcat or interlibrary loaning the original Laserdisc. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- The bottom of the page has
"Disclaimer: The data on this webstite is crowd-sourced..."
and from the page you linked it's unclear what amount of checking is done before any submitted updates happen. Worldcat is the better option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)- oops, I missed that. Thank you for the advice. I'll use WorldCat if I can't find a news article. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Usage of AirPlay Direct for music articles
Is airplaydirect.com reliable for use in articles about music (such as songs, albums, artists, etc.) GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per their about page they are not a normal news source, but a promotional platform. Their articles, etc are likely based on press releases and information from the subject of the article. So they might be reliable as a WP:PRIMARY source within the limits of WP:ABOUTSELF. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Global Defense Corp
Global Defense Corp should be deprecated as it is a incredibly unreliable source which frequently fabricates information they are incredibly biassed against Russian technology to such an extent as to lose all objectivity here I will share just a small snippet of the blatantly false information they have spread over the years
1. they've claimed that Azerbaijan using either an Israeli or Turkish drone was able to destroy a Armenian nebo-m radar which is impressive considering Armenia doesn't even have that radar or has at any point Displayed any interest in buying that radar there evidence for this is a footage of Azerbaijan destroying a p-18 radar and them claiming it's the nebo-m and they didn't just claim this once they've claimed it at least twice in two different articles.
2. in this article you can see a picture of the SU57’s internal weapons bays but what they don't tell you is that this picture is CGI at no point do they communicate this in fact they claim it's from the Sukhoi design Bureau even though it's not.
3. in this article they talk about how the S 400 range decreases against objects at low altitudes which is true but fail to explain that this is true for all radar guided Sam systems thanks to an effect known as radar horizon where objects at low altitudes are able to hide behind the curvature of the earth and therefore can only be detected at certain distances but not only do they not explain this to the reader creating a false impression that this is an issue unique to the S 400 but they even claimed that Turkey accused Russia of fraud because of this. which is weird for several reasons one Russia has at no point claim that the S400 range does not decrease with altitude but also because it implies Turkey believed the S 400 could defy the laws of physics they also have no source of this claim and no other articles on the Internet claim this.
4. In this article they claimed SU57 lacks sensor fusion which it doesn't and then just ignore that low probability of intercept radar is a thing .
5. in this article they berate the S 400 for not intercepting Israeli F35’s in Syria but forgot to mention that Russia and Israel were long believed to have an agreement in the Syrian civil war to not engaged each other.
There bias is also evident in just in the words that they say frequently attacking Russian equipment with ad hominems such as cooling the S 400 ,another lame duck missile system, or starting there articles with stupid Russians or Russian equipment exposed. they also lack of any transparency no one knows who owns the website none of the articles say the names of the people that wrote them making the website Even more suspicious but despite all of this they are still frequently cited all the time on Misplaced Pages.
2. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/07/11/rostec-nebo-m-radar-is-it-a-scam-or-propaganda/
4. Radar Horizon. (n.d.). www.ssreng.com. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www.ssreng.com/pdf/Radar_Horizon.pdf
5. Butowski 2021, pp. 78–82
8. When Israel bombs Syria, Russia turns a blind eye. (2022, January 3). thearabweekly.com. Retrieved January 22, 2025, from https://thearabweekly.com/when-israel-bombs-syria-russia-turns-blind-eye Madnow2 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do we use them? Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- The S 400 Misplaced Pages page has 20 citations from them and the su 57 Misplaced Pages page has four. Madnow2 (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that they're generally unreliable but I'm not so sure I'd chalk it up to bias rather than incompetence. They seem to be suggesting that the news they publish is a sideline to their core business of international security consulting... But they're spamming the cheapest ads on the internet alongside that content suggests that this is their primary income. To me it looks like a vanity site, I also suspect they are ripping stories off or using generative AI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will agree with you that they are incompetent But I think you can be incompetent and bias, some mistakes they've made such as having a image of the SU57 that is CGI on the web page and claiming it was a picture taken by Sukhoi I could see that being a result of incompetence but stuff like claiming Turkey accused Russia of Fraud over the S 400 because its range decreased against objects at lower altitude I have a harder time believing is just incompetence specially since the mistakes that they made seemed to always understate Russian equipment’s capabilities I have never been able to see and correct me if I'm wrong any incidents where they have overstated a piece of Russian equipment’s capabilities and yet I have seen dozens of mistakes in the opposite direction which suggests to me it is not random error. but quite frankly if their biassed or not I think is irrelevant even if we somehow conclude that they do have a neutral point of view there is still no way they could be considered a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards as they do not meet the other criteria mainly the one which is in quote ‘Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy’ there is no universe where they pass that one and as a result they cannot be considered a reliable source something which you agree with this alone should be enough to get the website Deprecated irrespective of if their bias or not. Madnow2 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think the one thing that seems to be universally agreed on is that this is not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would agree, that regardless of whether it's bias or incompetence, it all adds up to unreliability. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will agree with you that they are incompetent But I think you can be incompetent and bias, some mistakes they've made such as having a image of the SU57 that is CGI on the web page and claiming it was a picture taken by Sukhoi I could see that being a result of incompetence but stuff like claiming Turkey accused Russia of Fraud over the S 400 because its range decreased against objects at lower altitude I have a harder time believing is just incompetence specially since the mistakes that they made seemed to always understate Russian equipment’s capabilities I have never been able to see and correct me if I'm wrong any incidents where they have overstated a piece of Russian equipment’s capabilities and yet I have seen dozens of mistakes in the opposite direction which suggests to me it is not random error. but quite frankly if their biassed or not I think is irrelevant even if we somehow conclude that they do have a neutral point of view there is still no way they could be considered a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards as they do not meet the other criteria mainly the one which is in quote ‘Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy’ there is no universe where they pass that one and as a result they cannot be considered a reliable source something which you agree with this alone should be enough to get the website Deprecated irrespective of if their bias or not. Madnow2 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Should we trust Social Blade for statistics
Certain pages about certain living subjects contain an infobox template that really emphasises view counts and subscriber statistics. However, that data is often sourced from Social Blade. Here's what WP's page about Social Blade says;
"An official YouTube Twitter account, @TeamYouTube wrote that "Please know that third party apps, such as SocialBlade, do not accurately reflect subscriber activity." Social Blade's Twitter account responded to that tweet, commenting "We don't make up data. We get it from the YouTube API. We rely on it for accuracy." Social Blade's community manager Danny Fratella suggested that YouTube content creators may notice subscriber and view count purges more due to a higher accessibility to data-tracking tools like Social Blade."
The question is should we trust it?
Plus, why do pages about gamers and vloggers place so much emphasis on what appears to be arbitrary, trivial information that is prone to fluctuation?𝔓𝔓 15:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is WP:PRIMARY - I don't think WP:SELFPUB applies since it is drawing its data out of an API but I'd say it's a marginal source. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It certainly isn't a source that I would trust but it is frequently cited in certain articles to populate value statement parameters such as subscriber count, view count, like count etc in this template. My understanding is that WP:PRIMARY sources shouldn't be used to verify value statements? 𝔓𝔓 17:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Prior discussions for reference; Aug 2021, Jan 2024, June 2024, RFC June 2024. The general opinion appears to be that it's marginal at best. Personally I doubt how reliable their data is, if it's available from the original source that should be used and if it's not available from the original source I wouldn't trust it. They also have 'rankings', which are worthless for anything other than the opinion of Social Blade. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: EurAsian Times
|
|
The EurAsian Times (used to have its own article but it was apparently PRODed) is cited in several hundreds of articles, mostly pertaining to Russian military hardware and South Asian issues, but not exclusively. It was mentioned a few times on this noticeboard but only on a surface level.
In light of all this, how would you rate the EurAsian Times?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
Thank you. Choucas Bleu 🐦⬛ 22:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) PS: it is the first time I create an RFC, I hope it is not malformed
Survey (EurAsian Times)
Discussion (EurAsian Times)
- Previous discussions at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 458#Eurasian Times (2024) Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 399#The Eurasian Times (2023), and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 389#EurAsian Times (2022). It looks like there's already consensus that it's unreliable and an RfC is not necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, there is already strong consensus for its general unreliability (with just one dissenting editor in all of those discussions). I guess the only question is whether it should be deprecated, given its quite frequent use BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that most opinions expressed about it were negative, but it felt a bit like shaky ground to be able to know if it could still be used for some specific things, be treated as generally unreliable, or to actually deprecate. That is why I wanted clarification before potentially going on a hunt. Sorry if an RfC was overkill for this one, but I figured that since it is used quite a lot it could be good to clarify. Choucas Bleu 🐦⬛ 10:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, there is already strong consensus for its general unreliability (with just one dissenting editor in all of those discussions). I guess the only question is whether it should be deprecated, given its quite frequent use BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
flightconnections.com
I wonder if flightconnections.com is a reliable source. Examples of it use are on Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport and Los Angeles International Airport. In both cases WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT asks for airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE
. I have doubt if flightconnections qualifies as reliable. The Banner talk 02:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Pegging
At this point, after educating people about pegging for the last 14 years, I do indeed qualify as an expert. I am the go-to person for information about pegging in the sex education world.
Could this conversation about the veracity of my 'opinions' in 2017 perhaps be reviewed? I am the only sex educator I know of who specializes in pegging. I have taught countless classes since 2012 (in person and over Zoom) for beginners, equipment, and advanced pegging, and written many, many articles about pegging as well. Were they published in magazines or on websites that made me edit the crap out of what I'd written until it lost its meaning? No. Wouldn't play that game because the message was too important to me, and because they wanted free material.
I am not a person of notoriety like Tristan Taormino or Dan Savage, but that does not mean I don't know what I'm talking about or what I put out into the world about pegging is just my 'opinion'. There have been no 'studies' on pegging and there aren't likely to be anytime soon, for obvious reasons.
Since when was the only measure of an expert their notoriety? I have gone down the rabbit hole of pegging and remained there. I have held space for all the different expressions of pegging during that time, which are numerous. I have advised hopeful givers and receivers how to approach their partners, while also educating them about the (intensely) common misconceptions and assumptions about the sexual act, and so many more things that are a part of pegging. Masculinity, role reversal, communication, etc, etc.
I have helped countless couples find the best equipment for them, which is much more complicated and individual than a cheap strap-on and dildo. Educating interested people about pegging has been my mission for the last 14 years. Other sex educators have more surface knowledge about this sexual act - knowledge that can be gleaned from a simple Marie Claire article.
My apologies if I sound a little irritated. My intentions are good. Famous people are not the best sources, necessarily. In sex education circles I am widely known as the go-to expert.
https://peggingparadise.com/ (my original website)
https://www.theartofpegging.com/ (my educational and patron platform)
https://pegging101.com/ (pegging with no kink for the vanilla people)
With Respect For All That You Amazing People Do, Ruby Ryder RubyRyder (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ms. Ryder,
- What would help here is if you could point us to either reliable, independent sources citing your work, or of you writing for publications that you don't publish yourself.... something that helps us see that, as you say, "in sex educations widely known as a go-to expert." I fully believe that you are.
- The problem with someone using your sources as a reference has to do with Misplaced Pages's rules on using self-published sources, which your websites, videos, etc, count as. We can use such sources as reference (if within some limits), but only if we can see that the creator is a recognized expert in the field... and by recognized, that means either cited by or hired to write on the topic by reliable sources. I know that it seems like your voluminous experience and the visible quality of your materials should count for something here, but alas it does not. I don't think we'd be expecting, say, the New York Times or the Journal of the American Medical Association in this case, just some recognizable source that takes such sexual matters seriously. It doesn't even have to be material that is online (although that would help.) Articles that quote you or recommend your sites or training services would really help. Can you point us to such citations? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate the work that you do. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages editors cannot use their own judgement to assess the expertise of someone. There are people who research topics and work in a field their entire lives who become experts in those fields and publish their work on their own websites. But there are also pseudo-experts who do the same thing. Editors on Misplaced Pages are not allowed to use their own judgement to discern the difference between the two, but must rely on a third party to establish their expertise. If you have ever given an interview on pegging for a newspaper or a magazine, or had your website cited by a sexologist or another recognizable sex expert as a good resource on pegging, for instance, then that would allow us to recognize the reliability of your site for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. Photos of Japan (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)