Misplaced Pages

:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:09, 7 January 2020 view sourceTrappy-chan (talk | contribs)29 edits →Yomedan-chii.jp blog in Otokonoko← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:31, 23 January 2025 view source Iljhgtn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users41,238 edits →Survey: Jacobin: Reply 
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}}
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
{{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 = 283 |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
---xv--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--> -->


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
== RfC: ] ==
<div class="boilerplate vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived record of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' ''A summary of the conclusions reached follows.''
::Appears to be a '''no consensus''' outcome. From what I can make out of the relevant arguments, data provided by CEPR can be attributed, though its political alignment will also need to be taken into consideration. ] (]) 20:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
<!-- Template:rfc top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to register a new request for comment, you must manually edit the nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion.

-->
----

Given the recent relevance, which of the following options describes ] the best as a source?

Note: ], though editors acknowledged a partisan stance.

*'''Option 1:''' Generally ] for factual reporting
*'''Option 2:''' Unclear or additional considerations apply
*'''Option 3:''' Generally ] for factual reporting
*'''Option 4:''' Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be ]----] (]) 17:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

===Survey (Center for Economic and Policy Research)===
*'''Generally reliable but opinionated''' - I would say that CEPR as a policy shop is like Cato, Hoover, et al. - their opinion conclusions are generally structurally sound but should be taken in context of their ideological underpinnings and should be in-text attributed. Neither Cato nor CEPR are likely to publish something outright false or fabricated, but neither should their conclusions be treated as gospel truth. ] (]) 20:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

*'''Generally unreliable''' - I normally would have said Option 2, "Unclear or additional considerations apply", but I still have serious doubts about CEPR.

:I have cited before their report attributing 40,000 deaths in Venezuela to international sanctions, "which was refuted because of inaccuracies, methodological errors and bias." Namely:

::{{talk quote block|Economist Ricardo Hausmann and research fellow Frank Muci published a rebuttal to the report in Americas Quarterly, noting that to make their point, Weisbrot and Sachs take Colombia as a counterfactual for Venezuela, and arguing that Colombia is not a good counterfactual. In their rebuttal, they explain that the oil production trends between both countries were very different in the decade before sanctions and that two countries are also radically different in other dimensions. The rebuttal also states that just a month after the financial sanctions in late 2017, Nicolás Maduro fired both the relatively technocratic PDVSA president and oil minister and replaced them with a single military general with no experience in oil, who in turn fired and imprisoned over 60 senior managers of the oil company, including its previous president, on corruption charges, while nothing remotely similar happened in Colombia, thus confounding the effects of the sanctions with those of the firing.}}

:The report also admits that the counterfactual data was unknown.<ref>https://www.americasquarterly.org/content/dont-blame-washington-venezuelas-oil-woes-rebuttal</ref><ref>https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2019/05/09/pandering-to-the-imperial-left-the-new-cepr-report/</ref><ref>https://verifikado.com/las-sanciones-son-responsables-de-40-mil-muertes-en-venezuela/</ref>

:On the case of the last report on Bolivia, regardless of the findings, I'm worried that the organization mixes analytical content from political one. Specifically, in their press release <ref>http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/the-oas-helped-drive-bolivia-into-crisis-and-enabled-a-military-coup The OAS Helped Drive Bolivia into Crisis — And Enabled a Military Coup</ref>, the CEPR directly accuses the Organization of American States of enabling the crisis and the coup in Bolivia, {{tq|various organs of the OAS have played an enormous role in driving the crisis that led to Morales’s ouster}}, only using their position and the publication of the report as proof, and citing other alleged examples of actions "against the Left", namely in Haiti, Venezuela and Honduras. These appear to be closer to ] arguments, rather than more analytical ones.

:CEPR has been cited by Telesur <ref>https://www.telesurtv.net/news/bolivia-desmienten-oea-sobre-irregularidades-electorales-20191111-0045.html</ref><ref>https://www.telesurtv.net/news/mark-weisbrot-comenta-rol-oea-golpe-militar-bolivia-20191127-0038.html</ref><ref>https://www.telesurtv.net/news/venezuela-eeuu-viola-carta-onu-20190501-0019.html</ref><ref>https://www.telesurtv.net/analysis/US-Sanctions-on-Venezuela-Illegal-Under-UN-OAS-and-US-Law-20190605-0031.html</ref> and Venezuelanalysis,<ref>https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7313</ref><ref>https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14297</ref><ref>https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5877</ref><ref>https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/2916</ref><ref>https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/14446</ref><ref>https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14411</ref> both sources that have been found to be unreliable and that should be deprecated. I don't want to engage in ad hominem arguments myself, but it should also be noted that the CEPR's founders and members have been related and have openly shown their support for the ] in Latin America.

:Citing other discussions, {{tq|The ] shared in a 2004 article titled details on the CEPR-]-] links and how the group would issue similar letters}}, and the CEPR "{{tq|will often choose professionals to sign large ]s that support their motives.}}"

:* - CEPR-led group responding to the ]
:* - CEPR-led group calling for debt-relief for the ] administration

{{ref talk}}

:I want to clarify that with this I don't mean that the CEPR publishes mistaken or wrong information, meaning that it should not be included as it is the case if it was deprecated. On the contrary, their claims usually seem to be substantiated with research and analysis, but there seems to be a consensus on that it is a partisan organization, and at times the wrong conclusions might be reached because of this, meaning that not only said conclusions should be treated carefully, but also attributed. My fear remains that the CEPR is given the same weight as, for example, the Organization of American States. --] (]) 00:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

*'''Generally reliable'''. As with similar agencies, its findings should be attributed. ] (]) 07:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

* '''Mostly unreliable/opinionated/additional considerations''' per Jamez42. Their publications are partisan and published on a trendy basis. As a political thinkthank it should either be avoided or be represented minimally in political crisis issues. In the case of Venezuela, there have been also additional counter reports.<ref></ref> I am not saying that we should adhere to one institute or another, but we should not base whole sections on which center says what and their successive responses, as done in ] (see also what this kind of report lead to ] ). --] (]) 08:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
*:I would also like to bring here that the CEPR Misplaced Pages article has some history of alleged ]puppetry (see ].--] (]) 13:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
{{ref talk}}

*'''Generally reliable''' Called by bot. It is treated as generally reliable by news outlets, and so should be treated as generally reliable by Misplaced Pages. It's got Novel Prize winners on its advisory board. Not many think tanks can claim that. ] (]) 11:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Generally reliable''' as per NorthBySouthBaranof. ] (]) 21:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Additional considerations''' - I feel this is a split discussion. Looking into it, CEPR seems to be mostly reliable, if partisan, on many things. It does engage in some political activities that are quite commonplace in the US (e.g. lobbying) which are not seen as good practice in other countries, but it is US-based. However, coming from the minor discussion in regards their reliability on ''Latin American'' issues, this is where it gets more complex and where I'd say it becomes more often than not ''unreliable''. Perhaps this discussion could be split that way. See Jamez's analysis above for a large chunk of detail, and in the 2019 Bolivian political crisis page history for details of a CEPR report that gives very different statistics on the political outlook to most good reliable and local sources. ] (]) 02:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
:: {{tq|See the 2019 Bolivian political crisis page history for details of a CEPR report that gives very different statistics on the political outlook to most good reliable and local sources.}} The CEPR report made use of the official, publicly available election results. It doesn't give "different statistics" from other sources, it just demonstrates that the "sudden" change in the results was likely due to geography (rural, Morales-supporting regions return results later). If there are actual errors in the report, they should be highlighted, but otherwise I'm not aware of any issues related to that report. — ] 👻 (]) 04:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
:::Thanks for pulling me up on that; can we change {{tq|statistics}} to "interpretations". It's the only one I've seen that determines such a ''large'' change can be completely accounted for (as some of the other sources in the article would suggest, by not agreeing with it). ] (]) 21:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

*'''Generally reliable''' (randomly invited by bot) They are generally cited in the media as a reliable source. ] (]) 19:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

* '''Generally unreliable for factual reporting'''. As with all sources, the reliability depends on the text being cited. In general, for the US topics they specialize in, they may be regarded as a partisan source whose opinions can be used if they meet WEIGHT and are attributed. But on Latin American topics, more caution is in order, and they are not a reliable source (except in cases such as representing the Chavismo point of view, see ]). Factual errors in analysis have been frequently pointed out: see ]. It would be (legally) risky to label extensive factual errors intentional, so let the reader decide. The 2019 report in particular was extremely misleading according to sources. I would also note that many of the "media mentions" alleged above may be related to the fact that "talking heads" on television shows willing to represent the ] point of view are few in far between. See also the ] section of that article for charges that Venezuelan economics were slanted by the author. <p> Additionally, as mentioned above, the closer of this section should note that MEATPuppetry has long existed in this suite of articles. ] (]) 21:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)</p>

* ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS - mildly progressive and left-leaning, with area of expertise in domestic economics and international (Latin and South American) affairs. Domestic topic publications are reliable, providing good factual information and clear sourcing. South American topic pieces and sections of op-ed pieces and blogs are not reliable. No obvious editorial oversight or appearance of retraction-handling was seen. Generally respected in the press. Cheers ] (]) 02:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
* ''']'''. I don't see compelling evidence of the ] being significantly more reliable than other previously discussed ] and ], including the ] {{rspe|Cato Institute}} and ] {{rspe|Media Matters for America}} – both of which are usable with ] but treated with caution. The Cato Institute , just like CEPR. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 07:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Generally reliable''' There are no serious problems cited above, no factual errors cited, just poorly grounded claims of their factual errors. Baker and Weisbrot have an excellent reputation. A large part of their work is finding glaring errors of fact and logic in other sources; deeming them unreliable is absurd.] (]) 15:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
*: The ridiculous notion that 40,000 deaths in Venezuela can be attributed to international sanctions, and clear misinterpretation and manipulation of data as stated by other sources, is demonstrably factually incorrect as pointed out by more serious commentators. This claim comes from a clear supporter of chavismo. To call it a "lie" or "deliberate" could lead to a lawsuit; the evidence that it is demonstrably inaccurate and misleading is there. There is more of same. ] (]) 16:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

*'''Option 2-3:''' As the user who posted this RfC, I have waited to see what multiple users have shared before placing conclusions. Two conclusions have been made:

:*The main issue with CEPR is when it covers international subjects, mainly in Latin America. As {{u|Jamez42}} wrote, the information about sanctions causing 40,000 deaths (!) is dubious at best and their use of ] arguments is a source of concern. When using ], we can see . One of CEPR's main referral websites is Venezuelanalysis (see ]), while Venezuelanalysis is also present in CEPR's audience overlap.

::CEPR also has a history of advocating for the Government of Venezuela and some of their staff were previous employees of the Venezuelan government's ] lobbying group. For example, ], their '''director of international programs''', was the former executive director of the Venezuela Information Office and is a board member of ], an advocacy organization that the ] stated had promoted "". James, described as "a top U.S. protest organizer" by the ] in their '''' at the time, with the Center writing that Global Exchange and the Venezuela Information Office often promoted the same interests jointly. The Center also writes that James helped organize "solidarity groups" for the Venezuelan government while at Global Exchange and when part of the Venezuelan Information Office, she "began contacting activists and protesters". James' work with Global Exchange , but her work with the government of Venezuela is not included, however. Interestingly, two other CEPR employees were Venezuela Information Office staff; Robert Naiman</nowiki>]</nowiki>] and Alex Main. According to Emili J. Blasco of '']'', "". With previous Venezuelan government lobbyists working for for CEPR in such important positions, especially the director of international programs, one can see how allegations of bias exist among reliable sources and other economists. For international discussion, it is higly advised that CEPR not be used, especially with controversial subjects.

:*As some users have noted, CEPR is similar to ] as an economic policy organization. Per ], such sources usually fall under Option 2. The group also focuses on US domestic issues in a partisan, but more polished manner. As for lobbying in the US, that is a different story. For US domestic issues, CEPR seems to follow suit with other US economic policy groups. As a result, Option 2 may also be appropriate.

:At the very most, CEPR is Option 2 (additional considerations needing to be warranted for attribution, etc.) But as users and sources have indicated, Option 3 may be more appropriate if international subjects are covered, especially since CEPR does not seem to be notable for their US domestic policy position, mostly being cited when discussing international policy that is highly contentious (for example during the ]). For anyone closing this discussion, please make note of the potential conflict with international coverage and that usage of this source must be attributed in a detailed manner.----] (]) 22:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Generally reliable''' I have seen no major problems with using this source. It may be left-leaning but that is hardly disqualifying. I have seen academics rely on their reports so I think it is safe for Misplaced Pages. ~''''']'' <sup>(]/])</sup>'''~ 03:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Generally reliable''' per NorthBySouthBaranof, Burrobert, Bacondrum, "It is treated as generally reliable by news outlets, and so should be treated as generally reliable by Misplaced Pages. It's got Novel Prize winners on its advisory board." -- {{u|Darx9url}}, Bacondrum, "generally cited in the media as a reliable source" -- {{u|Jojalozzo}}, John Z, " I have seen academics rely on their reports so I think it is safe for Misplaced Pages." --Editorofthewiki. All strong reasons. --] (]) 09:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option 2:''' Unclear or additional considerations apply, for most coverage (left-leaning think tank, to be treated like CATO/AEI, etc.) '''Option 3:''' Generally ] for factual reporting, when it comes to Latin American coverage. --] (]) 00:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

* '''Option 2'''. Generally reliable, including re: Latin America, but should be attributed, as with other think tanks. As noted by other respondents, it is treated by other sources as reliable. It's usually described as a "left-leaning think tank" or similar.
: Much hay is being made by some respondents about the "40,000 deaths" paper, but in the paper CEPR are careful to acknowledge that {{tq|The percentage of deaths due to the sanctions is difficult to estimate because the counterfactual is unknowable, but it is worth noting that the counterfactual in the absence of sanctions could even be that mortality would have been reduced in the event that an economic recovery would have taken place.}}. It should also be noted that one of the authors of the "counter report" is Ricardo Hausmann, who is a member of the Venezuelan opposition and was an advisor to Guaidó at the time the report was written and published.
: As for the Bolivia report, the only complaints respondents seem to have are with CEPR's claims that the OAS played a role in Morales's ouster. It's difficult to see how this could be objectionable given that the publication of the OAS's preliminary report alleging electoral irregularities is regularly cited as one of the factors leading to his resignation. Given that the CEPR report is a direct refutation of the OAS's preliminary report, it's unsurprising that they would criticize the OAS.
: The traffic analyses, links from Venezuelanalyis, etc., are not really convincing, IMO. As noted, CEPR's editorial stance leans to the left, so it's unsurprising that other left-wing sources would cite them. That says nothing about whether CEPR itself is reliable or not. — ] 👻 (]) 04:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
::Adding link to ] for information, as he is mentioned in the above comment. ] (]) 21:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

* '''Option 2-3''': Wrt their report countering the OAS audit of the Bolivian elections, they felt comfortable releasing their examination and criticism of the OAS findings before the OAS had released their final conclusions and a host of corroborating data on 5th Dec. That also included, IMO, getting a host of people to sign an open letter condemning the OAS based on their criticism. Running a bunch of numbers to show likelihood depends on what data you put into it and their simulations are based on their own inferences about the reliability of the data and assumptions in interpretation. NYT pointed out that they had "not addressed the accusations of hidden data servers, forged signatures and other irregularities found by the O.A.S. observers, nor have they tried to explain the electoral council’s sudden decision to stop the count" <ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/world/americas/evo-morales-election.html</ref>. As someone who works in data science, if there is evidence that the data has been tampered with, the confidence in the results is questionable. You can't run reliable simulations on that if you are making a very bold claim about the diligence of an audit. It seems like in this case they are trying to look at data and make a conclusion to fit with their existing hypothesis while ignoring all objections. That is bad science. ] I would say that this research is unreliable, but I cannot speak for their other contributions and will give them the benefit of the doubt. Any detailed examination of their statistical analysis would be ] and I think it unlikely that there be a response of that nature as it is not a peer-reviewed paper.(]) 14:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

* '''Definitely not Options 3-4.''' CEPR distributes working papers that often end up as peer-reviewed publications in top econ journals. These should absolutely not be depreciated. Publications by CEPR itself should be attributed and are generally notable enough for inclusion, in particular when authored by recognized experts. Note that the disputed publication above is co-authored by Jeffrey Sachs, a professor of economics at Columbia. NPOV applies which means that if a CEPR publication holds a fringe view, then that fringe view should not be given undue attention or focus (i.e. if other studies rebut the CEPR publication, then those should also be included). ] (]) 14:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' <!--Template:Rfc bottom--></div>

== RfC: '']'' ==
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- ] 03:47, 9 December 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1891482437}}<!-- END PIN -->
{{anchor|rfc_04129E0|rfc_3493F5A}}{{rfc|media|rfcid=364959C}}
I recently found the Sixth Tone, which is owned by a mainland Chinese media company. Although Chinese media is sources which should be with catious when it comes to political issues in China, should we include the Sixth Tone as a realiable source to discuss Chinese society and culture (especially when there is no other source to fully describe a non-controversial Chinese events such as introducing a Internet personality and Chinese government-accused controversy on Chinese Internet service, since state-run media and popular western media)? Relisted by ] (]) 17:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC), originally raised by ] (]) 20:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
{{block indent|em=1.6|{{small|Notified: ], ], ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 02:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)}}}}<!-- Template:Notified -->

*'''Additional considerations:''' '']'' described ''Sixth Tone'' as and . The site does seem to need more notablility, though, so I would most likely find a different source first. But as you say, there are not many other sources like this. I am on the fence.----] (]) 16:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
:: {{re|ZiaLater}} I agree with your opinion. It is hard to find sources which represent Chinese view while not engaging much in propaganda. And while we have The Paper, Sixth Tone uses English language. (I needed more Wikipedians to comment this)] (]) 23:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
: '''Comment''': Everything I've read (includiog articles I used as sources to write the Misplaced Pages article '']'' as well as the ''Foreign Policy'' article) seems to support that ''Sixth Tone'' itself is accurate for non-controversial cultural matters. ] (]) 12:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


==RfC: NewsNation==
== Fringe books used as sources for fringe theory article? ==
<!-- ] 13:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740574870}}
{{archive top red|status=no|There is strong consensus that the four listed books by Brenda James, William Rubinstein, John Casson, Mark Bradbeer, James Leyland, and James Goding '''should not be used''' in the ] article as ] for the claims within the books.<p>As with any ], a limited amount of ] content from the books may be used under ] to explain what the theory is. The amount of ] assigned to uncontroversial claims regarding these books should be proportional to the amount of coverage these books have received in ] ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 02:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC){{bcc|Tom Reedy}}</p>}}
{{rfc|prop|sci|rfcid=5F45265}}
Should ] use sources promoting the theory itself as its primary references? ] (]) 01:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
<!-- ] 02:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739068436}}
:{{replyto|Tom Reedy}} what is your ]? At nearly 3,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{tlx|rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for {{user|Legobot}} to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at ]. The RfC will also not be publicised through ] until a shorter statement is provided. --] &#x1f339; (]) 20:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
What is the reliability of ]?
::Does that work? ] (]) 00:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
:::{{diff|Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines|prev|929907917|Yes}}, thanks. --] &#x1f339; (]) 12:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Further explanation reposted from original statement. I don't know whether to post this here or on the ] The ] is a sublisting of the ], which is categorized as a ]. ] states that "for writers and editors of Misplaced Pages articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality." In general, Misplaced Pages allows discussion of fringe theories in articles about those theories as long as reliable sources discuss those theories, and the article is sourced to those reliable sources.


* '''Option 1: ]'''
In contrast, the primary sources for this article are the very works that propose the theory. Other sources are used in the article, but in a manner that appears to be ], and the only source that appears to be a ] for the topic is Matt Kubus' "The Unusual Suspects" in ''Shakespeare Beyond Doubt'' (2013), Paul Edmonson and Stanley Wells, eds.
* '''Option 2: ]'''
* '''Option 3: ]'''
* '''Option 4: ]'''
] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


These are the questioned sources:


===Survey (NewsNation)===
* Brenda James and William Rubinstein, (2005)
*'''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).
* John Casson and William Rubinstein, (2016)
**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.
* John Casson and Mark Bradbeer, ] (2015)
***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.
* James Leyland and James Goding, (2018)
***Writing in ''The Skeptic'', Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: {{xt|"Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."}}
***He wrote a UFO book titled ''Plain Sight'' which ] described as a {{xT|"conspiracy narrative"}} and a {{xt|"slipshod summary"}}.
***The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for {{Xt|“espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”}}
***The ] did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking {{xt|"Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary?}} while strongly implying the former.
***The '']'' has described him as a {{Xt|"UFO truther"}} with {{xt|"little appetite for scrutiny"}}.
***Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked ] investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians.
**Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs:
***In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the ''Washington Post'': ), the channel {{xt|"was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health"}}.
***In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said {{xt|"... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing"}}. The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to ]'s analysis, a Boeing 737 .
:] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage ] (]) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. ] (]) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' per Chetsford. – ] (]&nbsp;<b>·</b> ]) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative.] (]) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. Compare ]. ] (]) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' why are we putting ''any'' stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “]” syndrome. ] (]) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. - ] (]) 00:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' I would go with Option 2 but their UFO coverage makes me consider Option 3. I think for anything outside of UFO-related topics they are generally reliable. Other sources should be cited. ] (]) 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' for non-UFO coverage, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. ]@] 00:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


===Discussion (NewsNation)===
On the ], three reliable sources are listed that were used to establish the notability of the article for an ], but only one is in fact used as a source. As far as I've been able to learn, the theory hasn't received very much significant coverage (as opposed to mere passing mentions) in ''published'', ], ] sources that are '']'' of the subject in academic publications and web sites, nor really all that much in popular publications. If my interpretation of the three core content policies, ], ], and ] is correct, this article should not use these sources to discuss the topic any further than has been treated in ]. ] (]) 00:41, 9 December 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)
::Leyland teaches cyber-media in ], Goding is emeritus professor of ] at Monash University, Mark Bradbeer is a registered ]. John Casson was a ]. Anything from those sources is clearly unusable. One might just argue that Rubenstein and James’s book could be borderline and usable. William Rubenstein was out of his field, as a specialist in modern history. But technically he does know the rules of evidence even though they are not much in evidence in the book he co-authored with Brenda James. Understandably so because at least for the 2005 book, - which originally appeared under the imprint of ], a celebrity specialist book producer that was closed down soon after, though then was reprinted by Pearson Educational somehow - she wrote it and it was such a cipher-mongering mess he seems to have stepped it to make it less weird. She was a sometime lecturer in English at Portsmouth University, but now, apparently an independent researcher. David Kathman’s , one of several, shows the hackwork flourished in that work. Both were utterly out of their depth with their ‘pseudo-scholarly inanities’. This theory so far has had a 14 year old life, and there is scant resonance in the serious, secondly literature literature on Shakespeare and his age.


== Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] ==
::The silliness there is one that permeates all these fringe books: a heuristic method that combines crankily austere scepticism for the written records establishing Shakespeare’s authorship with a parallel facile gullibility for any inference one might make from hints on the margins of the documentary record that a noble must have written the works. Anal ] for the factual record, hallucinating credulity for imagined possible hidden clues in the records which never mention alternative candidates – for no record exists directly or indirectly linking any Elizabethan other than WS to the plays and poems. I.e. silence whispers the truth that the ample noise of contemporary voices fears to state. None of those books are RS: reviews of them by competent scholars are.] (]) 12:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] on the multiple issues regarding that article.
I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:<br>
1. The academic backgrounds of the writers of those sources are unknown (keeping in mind that they were written by Yemenis who have limited internet access), and<br>
2. {{tq|1=Yemeni state-controlled media outlets}} wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets")
Now, Javext has removed all the sources and text that they support from the article and used other sources (some of which I find no problems with using, although they provide little context compared to the other sources) and kept the sources that I've brought when I translated the Portuguese article.
]: This is the version of the article that has the Arabic sources and is the version that I want to keep and then expand with other sources that both I and Jav has used. <br>
]: This is the version that Jav wants to keep
Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand):
*
*
*
* (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome)
*
*
Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved:
*
''']]''' 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in ''The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast'' (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. also seems to be a relevant document. ] (]) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|1=There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle}}<br>]?<br>{{tq|1=citing Portuguese records}}<br>That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above ''']]''' 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. ] (]) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::One example of another secondary source comparing the accounts (after C. F. Buckingham) is Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1997). ''The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama''. pp. 290-291. () ] (]) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--] (]) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?''']]''' 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. ''The Independent'' is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. ] (]) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the ] was a thing according to a Facebook post made by a high school that he attended).{{efn|Machine translation: Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamusa, a native of Al-Shahr and a graduate of the third class of Al-Mukalla High School for Boys (now Bin Shihab High School for Boys)<br>High School Flags<br>Tuesday, September 17, 2024<br>After years of parting, Abu Bakr Bin Shihab High School for Boys in Mukalla embraced Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamoussa, who graduated on the educational ladder for years and is now at the age of retirement. He visited the high school and in his gaze with passion and love for the past years, he climbed the stairs of the high school to the second floor to the office of the principal Mr. Saeed Ahmed Al-Amari, who welcomed him warmly and said that this visit gave us a boost and moral support, and the visit for Mr. Bamoussa was to ask about the old administrators, services and guards who were who were in the period of the sixties and seventies, but unfortunately the administration could not answer this and invites everyone who has information about them to raise it quickly, as Mr. Bamoussa has been working for years on writing a book about the beginning of education in Hadramawt since the time of the Qaitian Sultanate in the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, and he made a very important statement that the first principal of the high school is Mr. Karama Bammin from Tarim and then came after him Mr. Al-Sudani Al-Taloudi and this was a surprise for us and he confirmed this in his book that will see the light after completion of it.<br>May God prolong his life and give him health and wellness to provide us with important information about the history of education in Hadramawt.<br>The high school administration thanks Mr. Mohammed Bamoussi for this visit and this effort exerted by him for this wonderful work, and wishes the officials in the Ministry of Education, the governorate office and the local authority to adopt such people who raise the slogan of education and the slogan of Hadramawt, the land of science, knowledge and culture.}} He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others . He also published a book about the city of Shihr . He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023 {{pb}}{{talkreflist|group=lower-alpha}} ''']]''' 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.] (]) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the ] ] and ] sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) ''']]''' 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. ] (]) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. ] (]) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@] If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in , which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! ] (]) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Hi, @]. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this:
::::::"Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India , his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." ] (]) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|1=capturing Al-Shihr}}<br>hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? ''']]''' 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder.
::::::::I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. ] (]) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city ''']]''' 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. ] (]) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{outdent|8}} {{tq|1="Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, '''capturing Al-Shihr''',}} (Never happened btw) {{tq|1= and how important it would be to conquer Diu."}}<br> ''']]''' 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::"Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? ''']]''' 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned ''']]''' 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::capturing a city != sacking it <br>your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here ''']]''' 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. ] (]) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Now show me where in your sources does it say that ''']]''' 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::You were just denying that this happened after I showed you the sources, why are you asking this now? Didn't I just give them above? ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{outdent|7}} What sources about capturing a city did you show me? Those letters clearly show that the portuguese wanted to capture the city and they failed as we have no proof of them being there after the battle was over. But did they lie to whoever they sent this letter to? ''']]''' 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Look bro, the letter doesn't state they failed, it states the Portuguese captured the city and then sacked it. For the fourth time, this DOES NOT mean they retained control of the city. ] (]) 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:@] so we can finish with and archive this, can we use those sources in anything other than the battle section? like the other sections that I've mentioned being deleted here ] <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]&nbsp;] (])</span> 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::In general I think we've established that there is currently no way of including any claim which cannot be directly traced to the 16th-century Portuguese histories or the Hadrami chronicles (which agree). This is because no source cites any other form of evidence, and because it represents the approach of English-language academic books. I have not reviewed the details and I do not know which claims qualify, but you're free to add anything you can find in an appropriate source. ] (]) 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::not even a legacy section like the one you proposed? <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]&nbsp;] (])</span> 06:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu ==
:Any book is a reliable source for the existence of its own content, insofar as it is evidence that the content exists in that book. It is not necessarily a reliable source for the validity of the content. &middot; &middot; &middot; ] ]: 16:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
<!-- ] 18:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740333680}}
::What I'm trying to determine is whether they conform to Misplaced Pages policy as reliable sources for this article. ] (]) 05:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
{{rfc|hist|bio|rfcid=5DC5768}}
* Fuck no. I mean, seriously. That's like basing an article on phrenology on the writing of phrenologists. I suppose if the books are shown to be notable crackpottery we can discuss them as exemplars, but the article itself should be written from and based on mainstream scholarship. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 17:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (B and C):
* Generally, '''no''', other than for ] material (e.g., there's no better source for what exactly Casson said than Casson's own publications). When it comes to analysis of this hypothesis, and how much weight to give it, rely entirely on ] ]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 09:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
* '''A: Geni.com'''
**] may take you quite a way in this fringe of the fringe topic. It isn't clear that it has yet received a full detailed refutation from an orthodox scholar (or even say a Baconian). If it has then obviously that should be used. The lead makes it clear that this theory has gained next to no traction, but that para entirely lacks references. This is when we miss the late ]! ] (]) 12:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
* '''B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley'''
:::] I would think that the first exception would rule out their use: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: (1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim." This topic would certainly qualify as an ]. ] (]) 16:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
* '''C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav'''
::::The topic has (rightly I think) been found notable & carries a clear (if unreferenced) health warning in the short lead. If no one can produce a proper RS discussing the detail, we only seem to have the choice of saying there is a theory, but hardly setting out what it is, or using these sources. ] (]) 17:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
:Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.
:::::I agree it's notable enough to have a WP page, but there are sufficient reliable sources to source the article without using the fringe works themselves. ] (]) 04:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
:They should be:
:While what someone writes may be acceptable as a source for their opinions on articles about them, they are never acceptable in articles about other topics. So while writings by Brenda James and William Rubinstein may be reliable sources for their articles, they are not reliable sources for an article about the Nevillean theory. The article should be based on reliable secondary sources that analyze the theory and explains the degree of its acceptance. Sometimes quotes from the authors may help readers but they should only be included if they have been repeated in reliable secondary sources. ] (]) 04:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
* '''Option 1: listed as ]''' (change nothing to A; add B and C at ] as such)
:::{{U| The Four Deuces}}, close, but not quite exact. Sources by Person A may and should be used for the opinion of person A about subject B, assuming subject B is notable, or a relevant part of a notable article. Whether this theory is notable enough for a separate article is in my opinion doubtful until there are more sources about this theory, but it is certainly relevant as a part of an article, and the sources can therefore be used, making the authorship clear. (The use should also make the publisher clear, so reader can jdge the likelihood of it being mainstream). So far from being a supplement, the explanation of the person's theory should be the main point of the article or section, and it should be based in large part on what the person says--taking account when necessary of other people's views that they may not be expressing it intelligibly or honestly. That's what we're writing about, his theory, not the public reaction to his theory. It is not nPOV to organize the discussion of something along the words of its opponents. We include the opponents, and may even give them greater weight than the supporter(s). but we first need to know what the supporters think, before the opposition can make sense. The opposition makes sense only if it's clear what is being opposed. ''']''' (]) 06:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
* '''Option 2: ]''' (list them as such at ])
:::for example.
* '''Option 3: ]''' (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2)
:::: ''The Truth will out'' is published by Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group in 2017--that gives it an altogether higher weight than if self published, since Routledge is an academic publisher, tho not one of the most important ones. Routledge tends to look for out of the way topics, and that has to be kept in mind, but the fact that they published it at all makes me willing to look at the theory. Otherwise, to be frank, I wouldn't even bother.
] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: ''Sir Henry Neville, Alias William Shakespeare: Authorship Evidence in the History Plays'' was published by Sir henry neville was McFarland, a publisher of considerably lower reputation, but still respectable. .
::::"Sir henry neville was shakespeare." seems to be an popular version of that published by an unimportant publisher
::::"Who Will Believe My Verse?" is also by an unimportant publisher
:::But none of these is self published. ''']''' (]) 06:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
*Rubinstein's work . John Casson was a psychotherapist while Bradbeer was a nurse and that says volumes about their expertise. The rest are published by fringe presses. Obviously, they are not reliable even for documenting the fringe theory in itself. The first one passes that bar (though CRC has published dubious stuff in past) but then the issue arises in abiding by ]. So, no reason to use it, either. ]] 07:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
:There is a recent book, Stuart Kells ''Shakespeare's Library: Unlocking the Greatest Mystery in Literature''. The author is not a proponent of the Neville theory but goes into quite a bit of depth on it. So that is a new source that can be used. ] (]) 04:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
:Here is another article in a peer-reviewed journal. It is co-authored by John Casson, but I think should be acceptable as an RS on the subject. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244018823465] (]) 04:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
::This RfC is not about those sources. But just ''en passant'', the first is reliable according to WP criteria, the second is non-peer reviewed nonsense. ] (]) 04:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
* These sources are bilge. Obviously they are "reliable" primary sources for their own views, but that is not really the issue - for NPOV we should be basing articles on respectable, ]ependent secondary sources and so contextualizing the ] as the silliness it is. ] (]) 00:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
As far as Truth Will Out, it is cited here as a source 4-5 times by an extremely RS. So this is overwhelmingly strong evidence that it is a RS, despite all of the name-calling and bluster above:
https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/neville-sir-henry-i-1564-1615 ] (]) 01:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
:Misplaced Pages doesn't take its cue for what an acceptable source is from other web sites, so whatever point you're trying to make is moot (nor is that website "an extremely RS" for the purpose of the Nevillian authorship page). The consensus of this discussion is pretty clear that the book is neither an independent nor a secondary source, which is required to be considered a reliable source for the article. ] (]) 01:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
::There is no consensus here at all, there's just a lot of cursing by people pushing an agenda. The issue isn't want you are discussing here, but it is a peculiar question for a fringe article. I just wanted to update this page with the latest information. ] (]) 02:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
:::I count 6 hard "No"s, 7 including me, 1 hard "yes" (you) and a couple of editors who brought up discussion points with no red-line opinion. Since you're the least-experienced editor here, and obvious ], and display no real knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies, I'd say the consensus is pretty clear. ] (]) 03:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
] ] (]) 02:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
{{abot}}


=== Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu) ===
== RfC: ==
* A: See "Geni.com" at ].
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- ] 19:06, 9 December 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1891537583}}<!-- END PIN -->
* 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.
{{rfc|media|pol|rfcid=060A55C}}
* 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 ===
Was recently questioned about the reliability of Grayzone. Grayzone of ] (see ]).


: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)
Note: ].
::AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a ]. But it could be a good follow-up. ] (]) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. ] (]) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. ] (]) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. ] (]) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


:Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC? &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1:''' Generally ] for factual reporting
::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)
*'''Option 2:''' Unclear or additional considerations apply
:Read Background: B. ] (]) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3:''' Generally ] for factual reporting
::<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)
*'''Option 4:''' Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be ]


=== Survey A: Geni.com ===
Thanks again.----] (]) 09:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
:'''Deprecate'''. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. ] (]) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Deprecate'''.<strike>'''Question'''. Isn't it already deprecated?</strike>--] (]) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Deprecate''' A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
: '''Unsure'''. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) ] (]) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Deprecate'''. Really bad. Needs to go away.—] 00:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


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


===Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)===
*Option 2, that about tells me nothing about editorial policy or who writes for it. But looking at a sample of stories it all seems to be the same people some of whom appear to be editors of Greyzone. I think this is an example of some of it is SPS and some of it may not be, thus should be used with care.] (]) 10:06, 12 December 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)
:*'''Comment:''' {{re|Slatersteven}} You are asking for more information? ]. I have done my research on Grayzone in the past and have my own opinion. If you wish to discuss this, would it be possible to do so on your talk page? Whatever is more appropriate, just trying to be as transparent as possible.----] (]) 11:00, 12 December 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)
:::Any conversation about this matter should be kept in one place. If you wish to address my doubts please do so here so others can see.] (]) 11:05, 12 December 2019 (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)
::::{{re|Slatersteven}} What doubts to you have? Just want to reply in a proper manner.----] (]) 11:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::"But looking at a sample of stories it all seems to be the same people some of whom appear to be editors of Greyzone. I think this is an example of some of it is SPS and some of it may not be, thus should be used with care." how much clearer could I have been?] (]) 11:27, 12 December 2019 (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)
::::::{{re|Slatersteven}} The main issue that Grayzone has with its editorial policy is its political ties. Russia often utilizes Grayzone editors and its founder ] according to ]. The founder, Blumenthal, has been . ] has said that "Blumenthal’s views completely flipped" after meeting with RT and that Blumenthal "has attacked not only the ] but also Bana al-Abed, a nine-year-old girl who lived in rebel-held Aleppo and ran a Twitter account with her mother. ... The man ... now accuses anti-Assad Syrians of belonging to al-Qaeda and has claimed that the White Helmets were affiliated with the Islamist group". Hopefully this explains some of their editorial view.----] (]) 11:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
::::::In addtion: The ] has {{tq|"Blumenthal was not as clear of a spokesperson for Kremlin geopolitics before he appeared at the same RT gala as disgraced former National Security advisor Michael Flynn and the Green Party’s Jill Stein in December 2015. During that occasion, he joined a panel called “Infowar: Will there be a winner” alongside Alt Right anti-Semite Charles Bausman of Russia Insider. A month later, Blumenthal’s pro-Kremlin position crystalized with the founding of the Grayzone Project. ... With other Grayzone contributors, Norton has been criticized for downplaying war crimes and helping publicize false theories about rebels contaminating Damascus’s water supply".}}----] (]) 11:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' Near as my research turns up, this is basically a gussied-up personal blog for Max Blumenthal and his cadre of close friends; anything which I would trust from this source I would first crosscheck against more reliable sources; and at that point I would just use the better source. I would use attributed quotes per ] but otherwise I would never use such a site for speaking in Misplaced Pages's voice. --]] 14:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
* '''Option 1''' It is a useful source of information and has a coverage and perspective that is not always available from other sources. I would attribute anything I used from the site. ] (]) 15:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
*:What makes that perspective trustworthy? How can we know that the site's factual reporting is reliable? --]] 19:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
*::{{re|Jayron32}} They are possibly trying to make ? If someone today was told that smoking is unhealthy but then saw a 100-year-old smoker who attributes smoking to their longer than average lifespan, who would you trust? Having a perspective different from someone else does not make them reliable.----] (]) 04:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
* '''Option 4 or 3.''' ] (]) 16:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
* '''Option 2.''' While Max Blumenthal has done some great journalistic work in the past, he's done some dubious work more recently too. We know nothing about Grayzone's editorial standards and it reads like a blog.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)</small>
* '''Option 3'''. Looks to be less reliable than Alternet, which is itself unusable. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 20:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
* '''Option 3'''. One could use this to attribute stuff to someone with ] I think. I can't seem to find anything on fact-checking and would need more information on standards, the people behind it and whatnot. - ] (]) 23:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
* '''Option 1'''. Max Blumenthal is not the only journalist associated with this publication. Western state-mouthpieces like the NYT are considered reliable despite their obvious pro-imperialist bias, so why depreciate sources that dispute that narrative? Maybe Grayzone is pushing an agenda sometimes, but so are the western sources that are held up as infallible. ] (]) 16:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option 3 or 4'''. It is a self-published site. Most of its contributors are also regulars with Russian state media (e.g. Anya Pamparil is an RT America presenter) and its agenda seems to converge 100% with the agenda of Russian state media. An informed glance at any of its articles shows several factual errors, suggesting little or no editorial standards or fact-checking. It is a partisan site which might be usable for the opinions of its contributors if they are noteworthy but not as a source of news or information. ] (]) 17:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option 3 or 4'''. (In Nicaragua, Torture Is Used to Feed ‘Fake News’) and I think it shows that the accuracy of Grayzone is worrisome. The article explains how The Grayzone Project published an article by "Charles Redvers", who, according to the article, lied about his background and identity. Redvers wrote about a video where 20-year-old Nicaraguan student Dania Valeska, after Sandinista militants besieged a church in Managua where she and two hundred other students sought refuge, was forced to recant, after being arreste, beaten and threatened to be killed. Redvers claimed that Valeska was "''{{tq|later shown to be play-acting}}''", referring to the livestream she published during the attack, where gunshots could be heard and apologized to her mother, thinking she would die. Daily Beast quotes the United Nations as a rebuttal:


==RfC: Jacobin==
::{{tqb|The United Nations human rights office disagrees. In an August 29 report, it noted that the threat to life was very real. “The church was subject to shootings by police and pro-Government armed elements for several hours, which led to the killing of two individuals and injured at least 16,” part of a crackdown the office said violated “international human rights law.” (The Nicaraguan government expelled the U.N.’s human rights team following the report’s publication.)}}
<!-- ] 17:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740070870}}
{{RfC|prop|pol|media|rfcid=857ECCA}}
Which of the following best describes the reliability of '']''?
* Option 1: ]
* Option 2: ]
* Option 3: ]
* Option 4: ]
— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


:It is worth mentioning that ], ] "''{{tq|due to its propagation of conspiracy theories}}''" and because "''{{tq|it is a self-published blog that is biased or opinionated.}}''", often quotes The Grayzone Project: . In another instance, Grayzone even claimed that ] received financement by the United States State Department.


===Survey: ''Jacobin''===
:As it has been pointed out, Grayzone is highly opinionated and a self-published site too. Its main contributor, Max Blumenthal, . . Answering to other editors saying that other outlets are "Western state-mouthpieces" or have a "pro-imperialist bias" as a justification, two wrongs don't make a right. --] (]) 20:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' I am opposed to the use of ] and think that no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2. With that being said, I would list New York Times or the CBC in precisely the same way and I don't believe that any of the complainants have demonstrated in any way that Jacobin is less reliable, per Misplaced Pages's standards, than any other American news media outlet. I am deeply concerned that many of the complaints are about "bias" when reliability does not include a political compass test. This is not grounds to treat a source as unreliable. ] (]) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{re|User:Jamez42}} Now that you mentioned Zero Hedge, ] has some interesting metrics as well. The Audience Overlap shows that Grayzone readers often frequent ] (see ]) and the recently created Orinoco Tribune, which uses Telesur, Grayzone and ] (see ]) as its primary sources. {{strike|, "grayzoneproject.com", Alexa Internet shows that 47.1% of traffic sources came from Venezuelanalysis, 45.3% from Consortium News and 20.8% from ] (see ])}}.----] (]) 21:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC) '''Edit:''' Apologies, this is a traffic source comparison and not where Grayzone received their traffic.----] (]) 23:08, 22 December 2019 (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)
::Also, you can see that Blumenthal is listed under "Frequent Contributors" and the GrayZone Project is listed under "News Partners".----] (]) 21:41, 18 December 2019 (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)
*{{strike|'''Option 4:'''}} '''Option 3:''' As the user who posted this RfC, I have patiently observed what multiple users have shared. , with ]. ] also shows an overlap with Telesur (]) and Venezuelanalysis (]). Multiple users here have also said Grayzone is "less reliable than Alternet", that there are "several factual errors, suggesting little or no editorial standards or fact-checking", that "the accuracy of Grayzone is worrisome" and that we should "never use such a site for speaking in Misplaced Pages's voice". The allegations shared about is also unsettling.
*::It was corrected only after significant outside pressure and even then the correction was weak and inaccurate. The guy who wrote the article was explicitly mocking the people who pointed out his error and accusing them of something along the lines of being corporate shills. It also wasn’t a single incident as they publish nonsense regarding Russia and Ukraine, including and up to outright conspiracy theories, pretty regularly. It simply is not a reliable source, however much one agrees with their editorial stance.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::So you agree with Iljhgtn's conspiracy theory that this was the purposeful result of pushing bias not an error? ] (]) 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
**::::I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including ] and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
**:::::You misquote the editor (to your benefit), for someone so interested in errors supposedly motivated by bias that seems odd... In context its clearly stronger than that "This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." when nothing suggests that this was the result of narrative pushing (thats how you push a narrative either, as you've pointed out although lingusitically similar its an embarrassing and obvious error). ] (]) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
***::::::You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
***:::::::You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) ] (]) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
***::::::::No , I’m not. I’m simply asking you to refrain from trying to falsely characterize other people’s comments as “conspiracy theories” in a cheap attempt to delegitimize them since they’re clear nothing of the sort. Not everything you disagree with is a “conspiracy theory”. In this particular case, the article clearly had false info in it. No one has ever said that “information was changed” (as if on purpose) so please stop pretending otherwise. What was said was that “bias creeped in” which I think is a fair characterization. So please quit it with the strawman’ing.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
***:::::::::I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we ]. I believe @] is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. ] (]) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
***::::::::::Its you who needs to provide a source to substantiate your allegations against a living person. ""This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." is a BLP violation unless a source is provided or the author drops dead. ] (]) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:And what is your source for that? Nobody else is saying that this was the result of bias, the sources say that "third largest corporate owner of housing" became "owns a third of housing" which is a very understandable mistake. You appear to have constructed your own conspiracy theory around this incident. ] (]) 17:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Im sorry but “third largest owner” turning into “owns one third of all housing stock” is NOT an “understandable mistake”. It misstates the actual fact by a factor of 500. Maybe if this was like a student in some freshmen class using AI to write a paper that would be “understandable” (and still get an F) but this is supposed to be a professional, who’s job it is to get this stuff right and this is supposed to be a serious organization that has an editorial board that does fact checking. Which they obviously didn’t do.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) ] (]) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Whats “not math”? The difference between .0006 and .33? You sure? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::And let’s see these “every major and minor publications” that make these kinds of error.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I note the failure to provide the requested source. ] (]) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
**:::::Right back at you.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
**::::::, your turn and no stonewalling now provide the source or go away. ] (]) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
***::::::Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
***:::::::Your source that this was "exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative" and not simply an error is what? ] (]) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I have to say I question your judgment in supporting option 3 "generally unreliable" over ''Jacobin'' publishing and then retracting a single erroneous sentence, and for having a bias/narrative/agenda, when you also !voted option 1 "generally reliable" for ] which routinely publishes fabricated information without retraction. Could you kindly articulate how an admittedly biased outlet with a team of fact checkers is apparently significantly worse than a think tank that churns out misinformation and disinformation ()? <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 20:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' A screenshot of a tweet documenting an already corrected error is insufficient to depreciate a reliable source. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --] (]) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. ] <small>(])</small> 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Gamaliel}} Mostly ] and at ]. Kind regards,
:::::Thank you for the links. I will repost once I've read through those discussions. ] <small>(])</small> 18:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2 at the very least, change current assessment'''. It might be easier to comment if editors agree or not to change the current category. My position is based on coverage that mixes opinion with facts and its use of unreliable sources, some of which have been deprecated by this noticeboard (like The Grayzone). I went into more detail about this at ] and at ]. --] (]) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' (intext attribution) ] and ] cover most of the points here. Jacobin publishes opinions peice that should have intext attribution. This is how they are used in the large amount of ] that Jacobin also has. I may not like Jacobin very much but bias, opinion, or minor mistakes do not make a source unreliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' ]: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." The example given was a mistake in a book review, cubsequently corrected, about how much housing stock Blackstone owned. No reasonable editor would use this review as a source for an article on housing or Blackstone and more than one would use a reliable source on U.S. housing for an article about 19th century French poetry. ] (]) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1-ish''' Jacobin are clearly a biased source but they are also clearly as reliable for facts as any other major ]. When they make mistakes, they correct themselves, and that ''improves'' their reliability, it doesn't hurt it. ] (]) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2: additional considerations/bad RFC''' - based on the discussion above, evidently there's some kind of social media uproar about some thing that Jacobin published and later corrected. It's poor timing to hold an RFC on reliability both when emotions are high and when it's in response to an isolated incident, both of which are true here. But ignoring that, it seems (again from the discussion above) that ''Jacobin'' published something that was egregiously incorrect, then retracted or corrected it. That's pretty much the standard we expect of reliable publications: errors are compatible with reliability, it's how the publication responds to and corrects errors that determines reliability in this context. gives ''Jacobin'' a "high" reliability score of 1.9 (out of 10, lower scores are better), which is in the ballpark of the ''New York Times'' (1.4) and ''Washington Post'' (2.1). However, they also give it a "left bias" rating of -7 (a 20-point scale with 0 as completely unbiased), which is on the edge of their extreme ratings. Editors should consider attribution, and/or balancing this source's POV against publications more to the right. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


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


:It's not a matter of some particular instance about mistakes regarding mixing up "third largest" with "a third of" or whatever. Heck everybody does stuff like that. The ''NYTimes'' has has published more (unintentionally) misleading or plain-wrong charts than I've had hot meals. I mean, ''Nature'' finding that "among the 348 documents that we found to include the ] 'fact' that 80% of the world's biodiversity is found in the territories of indigenous peoples] are 186 peer-reviewed journal articles, including some in ], ], and ], and 19 news articles targeted at a specialist audience." Imagine that. I would guess that that's largely because "puts indigenous peoples in a good light" trumps "is true" in the ''emotional hind-brain'' of the leather-elbow-patch set. It's not a lefty thing in particular, right-wingers are just as bad I'm sure.
:After summarizing what everyone has shared so far, {{strike|one can see that ]}}.----] (]) 11:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Option 3 should be the best for Grayzone as editors have concerns about the reliability, though its usage is limited. Using this option is less prohibitive on the source and should help with any concerns with ].----] (]) 23:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
:: {{u|ZiaLater}} per your analysis and the comments that came after I think I'll have to change my vote to '''Option 3''' it satisfies the concern that I had for ]. I'll have to strikethrough my previous vote and write a new one though - ] (]) 23:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


:Which just strengthens my point, there're no blinders like ideological blinders, so its not so much a matter of how many fact-checkers you have as in how you maybe are presenting facts which, while individually true, are cherry picked or incomplete or out of context or one-sided or otherwise misleading. It might not even be intentional, exactly. Mind-sets are like that. Better to stick with ''Time'' or other people who are more into just blandly attracting a broad readership rather than with people who have points to make.
*'''Option 4''' per ZiaLater's and Jamez42's excellent analyses. There is no reason to ever cite this on an encyclopedia; this is a self-published blog by a fringe-y figure. To the extent one wants to cite facts, there's no indication that the blog has any indication of consistent fact-checking, ], or ''any'' of the other requirements we require. To the extent one wants to cite opinions, a citation to the website would violate ] and ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
* '''Option 4''', pretty well summed up by ] ("gussied-up personal blog for Max Blumenthal and his cadre of close friends), ] ("less reliable than Alternet, which is itself unusable"), ] ("its agenda seems to converge 100% with the agenda of Russian state media"), ] ("self-published blog by a fringe-y figure"), and analysis by ] and ]. This "cadre of close friends" do seem to re-publish each other's agenda, and no indication of more reliable authors at GrayZone have been given. ] (]) 23:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
* '''Option 3 or 4'''. Inherits Alternet's general-unreliableness, and what exists is not great - mostly it focuses on Max Blumenthal's arrest, which implies that the site itself has little independent reputation outside of being, essentially, his blog. --] (]) 23:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' While there are some concerns with this source, there are some contributors who are respected university researchers. I think we should take it on a case-by-case basis. ~''''']'' <sup>(]/])</sup>'''~ 01:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
:: Which contributor is a respected (or even unrespected) university researcher? I couldn’t find any. ] (]) 08:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
:::] is notable (as former UK MP, not as a researcher) and was interviewed on ] in a ''Grayzone'' video four days after you asked.<sup></sup> Check out their channel, it's not only ]. &ndash;] (]) 00:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
:::: While Galloway is "notable," I don't think he falls into the category of "respected university researcher." , he's worked for ] and ], both ] and frequently described as disinformation outlets that uncritically report conspiracy theories. He's more of a controversial political figure. - ] (]) 19:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::Here's someone from academia: . --] (]) 20:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 2 or 3''' Should not typically be used because it primarily publishes investigative journalism (i.e., primary research) and opinion. Can be used for ] or when they publish investigations whose notability is established by being taken up by other sources, e.g., Blumenthal's story about burning aid in Venezuela. Not frequently used, no need for deprecation. — ] 👻 (]) 04:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
:*{{re|Cmonghost}} You do make a good point that it is not widely used on Misplaced Pages. Maybe we should ] in order to be less prohibitive, though editors agree that there may be some inaccuracies here. Deprecation could also cause issues with ], so I am thinking about moving towards Option 3.----] (]) 05:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
:*'''Option 3''' Here Grayzone says that reports on Chinese organ harvesting "rely without acknowledgement on front groups connected to the far-right Falun Gong cult . . ." Funny, Misplaced Pages's article ] sources include NYT, WaPo, CNN, the Economist, and so on. I will note that this is considerably worse than anything seen at certain sources that have been deprecated. However, as a general matter, I don't like deprecating sources, so option 3. ] (]) 16:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option 4''' per Jamez42 and ZiaLater. It's basically a blog written by a politically-fringy figure that's closely associated with other deprecated news sites. I think deprecation is the best option to prevent it from being used to spread unreliable information. Any reliable facts it contains likely can be supported with more reliable sources that should be preferred anyway. ] already provides an exception for a deprecated source to be used in ] contexts. - ] (]) 21:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 or 2''' per {{u|Slatersteven}}, {{u|LittleChongsto}}, {{u|Cmonghost}}, {{u|Jayron32}}. The editor ] is an award-winning journalist, writer, author, and documentary maker, who has written for numerous publications, including The New York Times, Nation, Guardian, etc. (see his Wiki page). Reviews of his books have critical acclaim in many notable publications, but you wouldn't know it from reading the bulk of his Wikipage, because instead of an accurate summary of the reviews, those reviews have been cherry-picked for the juiciest quotes that are most likely to raise eyebrows and quotes from his harshest critics who call him an antisemite because he doesn't tow the line of being pro-Israel, and in Western politics it is criminal to criticize Israel.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/07/debunking-myth-that-anti-zionism-is-antisemitic|title=Debunking the myth that anti-Zionism is antisemitic |last=Beinart|first=Peter|date=2019-03-07|work=The Guardian|access-date=2020-01-03|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077}}</ref> He probably agrees with the U.N. that Israel should be charged with war crimes. Let's see what Time of Israel--a publication I often see used as ]--has to say about the U.N.'s decision to proceed with war crimes<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-rights-council-adopts-report-accusing-israel-of-war-crimes-in-gaza/|title=23 to 8, UN rights council adopts report accusing Israel of war crimes in Gaza|last=staff|first=T. O. I.|website=www.timesofisrael.com|language=en-US|access-date=2020-01-03}}</ref>:
::"Foreign Ministry vows Jerusalem ‘will not cooperate with this mockery,’ says ‘moral majority’ of states did not vote in favor of measure".
:So if Blumenthal agrees with the U.N., apparently he is an immoral ].
:Some of the things Blumenthal writes about are shocking precisely because they are true, and the mainstream media will not share it. Like the fact that Maduro's troops did not burn the U.S. "aid" that was supposed to pass through the U.S. economic blockade, which is what nearly all the U.S. media said and never retracted. But Blumenthal showed footage that in fact the "peaceful" pro-Guaido activists were throwing Molotov cocktails that probably set the trucks on fire. Although the U.S. media got it wrong, they are not the "fake news" in this case, it's entities like TeleSUR that got it right that are liars and conspiracy theorists.
:And indeed, many of the things Blumenthal says do challenge the corporate media's portrayal of events--which is why his award winning work is taken so seriously. He does not tow the line of the establishment, especially by not being a Zionist. Instead, he is labelled an ] by Zionists like ], Rabbi ], and Rabbi ].. When a writer brushes up against the establishment by exposing certain things they are not supposed to, the "emperor's lapdog"--the establishment corporate media--is not going to like the experience. (])<ref>{{Citation|title=Chomsky - "The Emperor's Lap Dog" (New York Times)|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUax4FBr2Hc|language=en|access-date=2020-01-03}}</ref> Those raised eyebrows are the result of Blumenthal and his writers at Grayzone telling uncomfortable truths that need to be told:
::"If these institutions condemn us, that's pretty good reason to think we are doing the right thing."
:-Chomsky<ref>{{Citation|title=Noam Chomsky on Corporate Media and Activism 2016|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fE4mAE5thg|language=en|access-date=2020-01-03}}</ref>
:--] (]) 07:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}


: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)
== Numerous Poor Sources Added to ] to Promote Religious POV ==
::{{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)
Recently {{ping|1990'sguy}} has , and numerous unreliable sources to the ], many of them from evangelical Christian publishers and authors without any formal background in folklore studies. Examples include the following:
::::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)
*Collins, Ace (2010). ''Stories Behind the Great Traditions of Christmas''. Zondervan. ISBN 9780310873884.
::::The Daily Mail is not reliable for its own contents, having doctored its archives. ] (]) 00:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::As his page makes clear, is not a folklorist nor an academic of any sort, and Zodervan is a Christian publishing branch of HarperCollins.
*'''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)
*Bowler, Gerry. 2005. ''Santa Claus, A Biography''. McCellend & Stewart Ltd.
::While certainly better credentialed than Collins, , but is also happens to be a Christian interests author. This is a general audience book not subject to peer review, and another ] fail.
*Grimassi, Raven. 2000. ''Encyclopedia of Wicca & Witchcraft''. Llewellyn Worldwide. ISBN 9781567182576.
::] is a new age publisher that regularly publishes fringe stuff with zero editorial oversight. This is an RS fail.
*Mosteller, Angela. 2010. ''Christmas, Celebrating the Christian History of Classic Symbols, Songs and Stories''. Holiday Classics Publishing.
::Obvious ] fail (). All that aside, appears to be self-published, which, under normal circumstances, would mean immediate removal.
*Weiser, Franz Xaver. 1958. ''Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs''. Harcourt.
::Catholic theologian with no background in folklore studies, nor any background, it would seem, outside of Catholic theology. Yet another ] fail.
This page could use more eyes. ] (]) 22:55, 25 December 2019 (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)
:I reverted per ], as you're making major changes to an article without discussion (thank you for starting a discussion after being challenged). The sources are RS, and being a Christian author doesn't disqualify one from being an RS, just as an atheist author/publisher wouldn't be automatically disqualified. I'm pinging ], a regular editor on topics related to this. --] (]) 23:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. I concur with other editors that this RFC should never have been opened. Please be more considerate of your fellow editors' time. ] (]) 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::Nobody said anything about "being a Christian author doesn't disqualify one from being an RS". For example, Rudolf Simek is Catholic. Unlike the sources you've provided, however, he is a specialist and an academic, and his work receives peer review. Please go ahead and self-revert. ] (]) 23:42, 25 December 2019 (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!
:::HarperCollins and Harcourt are reliable publishers per ]. A theologian discussing a Christmas tradition (since Christmas is a Christian holiday) is most certainly appropriate. --] (]) 00:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
::{{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>}}
::::Being published by a respectable press is one crtiterion for reliable sources, but is not probative in and of itself. For some reason the publisher's reputation seems to be the go-to argument for editors who want to add janky information to WP articles. The main goal for publishers is to make a profit, not educate or ensure that information is unbiased or true. ] (]) 01:37, 26 December 2019 (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 ] (]) 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Well, the information can be hardly called "janky." The only reason the Yule log survived well into the Christian era is that it was Christianized. To eliminate the context in which it entered Christmas celebrations and instead claim that for most people, the Yule log is a Germanic pagan custom, is a specious claim and qualifies as POV-pushing. --] (]) 03:32, 26 December 2019 (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:
:As far as I know our requirement is reliable, not academic. Nor is bias (religious or otherwise) a criteria for exclusion. Now one can argue that they may be non expert, but one can argue that they may well be experts about christian tradition (but not folklore). As the Yule log is now very much part of Christian tradition their views might well be RS, if attributed.] (]) 10:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
::# ''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
::Academic is a high standard for reliability, so it's a question of weight as to whether to consider other sources alongside academic material. That biased sources aren't necessarily unreliable doesn't mean we should include them, either. It just means they aren't automatically unreliable. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 15:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
::# ''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
:::Which is not an RS issue.] (]) 20:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)+
::# ''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>
::::Agreed, Slatersteven. And Rhododendrites, I have no problem attributing the claim. My objection is to Bloodofox wanting to remove it altogether. --] (]) 21:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
::#''The Road Ahead Fighting for Progress, Freedom, and Democracy,'' Weingarten, Randi, American Educator. Fall2024, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p2-9. 8p.
:::*] actually ''is'' an ] issue, in that it imposes restrictions on how a source can be used (ie. a ] source is generally not reliable for unattributed statements of fact.) But I think that Rhododendrites' point is that people have a tendency to give biased sources a degree of leeway that they shouldn't have in terms of ] - simply being published, alone, is not necessarily enough to clear the high ] bar needed to weigh them against an academic source. ] isn't a binary; a source that is reliable for a brief mention of a noteworthy opinion may not (as in this case) be reliable to implicitly pit against an academic description of a custom's origins. More generally, yes, this involves ] issues as well. My concern is that these are not simply "books by Christians" but, largely, books unequivocally described by their authors as intended to advance and celebrate Christian views. That sort of ] source ''can'' be cited, cautiously, provided they're not used for a large part of the article, and provided they're not used in ways that would contradict higher-quality sources; but citing a major chunk of the lead solely to such sources is waaaay over the line. If the opinions expressed in these sources are relevant, we ought to be able to find secondary sources covering it - otherwise, I think the bar for putting attributed opinion in the lead is ''extremely'' high and there's no particular indication that these sources are noteworthy enough to clear it. Is ] someone so important that his personal opinions about yule logs belong in the lead? --] (]) 06:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
::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)
A book which uses the same kind of declarative statement for historical and religious claims, conflating the two (e.g. "God came down to earth", reading from the introduction of the Ace Collins books published by Bible publisher Zondervan), is not a great source for historical facts on a subject which has already received coverage in academic history texts. That doesn't necessarily mean such sources are unreliable for any purpose, but they carry less weight and should generally be attributed if included at all. Also, just from a general editing perspective, it's not good form to add a single paragraph to the body and then transform the lead so that 2/3 of its paragraphs are about that bit you just added... &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 15:40, 26 December 2019 (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)
===User attempting to promote a particular author and/or the author's POV===
::::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)
While the user apppears to have given up on re-adding self-published sources, the user is still adding random sources found on the internet featuring non-specialists next to academics and other specialists in the article. This is evidently to either promote one of these books (), the ideas expressed therein, or both. Noted folklorists and philologists are currently emphasized next to these non-]-compliant sources, despite ]. This is stranger yet considering that academic sources detailed in the article already make the situation clear (innovation vs. tradition). The goal appears to ensure that a particular quote by a particular author occurs in the lead. ] (]) 05:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::If you want to cite those sources to support an argument you should tell us what they say or at least why you think they support your position. As for your question, I already answered. It doesn't matter if the HF is more or less compromised because the purpose of each is different. When it comes to topics of automobiles Honda is more compromised than the AP but they also might be a better source if we are asking about stratified charge combustion in automobile engines. ] (]) 21:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::On this charge I will defend Springee. I don't necessarily agree with them but I'm not seeing the dissonance in their arguments, especially as they seem to be going 2/3 on both (there is not formal vote here but that seems to be the upshot of what they're saying). Their slighlty idiosyncratic argument about the purspose of the source being primary is also one which they've been making consistently for years. With all due respect I think you're being too hard on Springee. ] (]) 21:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I take the idea that a publication being openly social democratic is ''too biased to be reliable'' personally offensive. Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. But I will concede that Springee is being consistent. And I actually agreed that think tanks should be treated as primary sources. Frankly, were Springee to be more reasonable on the "political bias" overreach, we might otherwise be agreeing. ] (]) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::We may not be disagreeing at all given we both are giving them a "2". I'm arguing that their bias is too much to make them a 1. The possible 3, the same score I gave them last time, is a concern regarding things like the issue that started the recent discussion. I was about to post something about really disliking the RSP's simplistic bucketing. It's really not a good system as we really should put more effort into asking if a source is appropriate for the claims being supported and when an encyclopedia should be citing strongly biased sources in general. If we need to use such a strongly biased source is the information DUE? ] (]) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::We do agree on disliking the RSP bucketing system. My personal opinion is no news media source should be treated as a blanket "generally reliable" because reliability is contextual. However I do think that Jacobin is, from a global perspective, not in any way ideologically extreme. Social democracy is a normal left-of-center political position. The extreme-right shift of US politics over the last few decades makes them seem like outliers but that's the real bias problem right there. ] (]) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their page states they offer {{tq|socialist perspectives}} and approvingly includes quotes describing them as supporting {{tq|radical politics}} and {{tq|very explicitly on the radical left, and sort of hostile to liberal accommodationism}}. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I would strongly advise against getting too side-tracked by having a conversation about "social democracy" vs "democratic socialism" (same goes for any arguments over distinctions between "left" vs "liberal" in this thread). I can say from experience that these semantics rabbitholes are shockingly deep, and they're not at all necessary or helpful for this RfC. All I'll say is that these terms ''are'' commonly used as synonyms by at least some people, and the "Ideology and reception" section of ] notes {{tq|the political diversity of contributors, incorporating "everyone from social democratic liberals to avowed revolutionaries"}}, so I don't think either you or Simonm223 are wrong on this. Different people are gonna use different terms and apply different meanings to each of them. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 03:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center.}} Where outside the United States are you talking about? The world where ]? Where ]? Is it Japan, where the conservative ] has been in power since 1955? Or China, where a media outlet that is as critical of the ] as Jacobin is of the ] would have long been banned, and their writers arrested? I think we all need a reality check here, especially if we want to represent reality in our articles. ] (]) 03:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::While I can't speak for them, I'm guessing they probably had in mind specifically other western democracies, as it's common for European countries to have a mainstream Socialist Party with an ideology listed as social democracy (to name a few: ], ], ], ], etc).
::::::::I'm comfortable speculating this is their argument because it's one that's often repeated in American progressive-left circles. This argument is usually presented as follows: ] is viewed as the furthest left one can go in America, the things his supporters want are not radical to other developed countries (paid time off, universal healthcare, etc), therefore what is far left in America is only moderately left elsewhere.
::::::::Not saying I entirely agree or disagree with that argument, either how Simonm223 phrased it or how I interpreted it. Just saying I think they had in mind comparable democracies, not the entire world.
::::::::<b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 16:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Yeah. I don't feel the need to put a million qualifiers on a comment on a WP discussion board when all I really need to say is that the United States has an abnormal political compass compared to its peers. But also there used to be lots of socialists, for instance, throughout the Middle East. American allies killed most of them. ] (]) 18:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::This has become a discussion about Overton windows rather than the source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3 or 2''' - Right-wing outlets that mix opinions in their articles, selectively choose facts to promote a political agenda, or sloppily misrepresent the truth have rightly been marked as unreliable ages ago. There is no reason to have a different standard for other political positions. And regardless of that, outlets that do that cannot be ''relied on'' (i.e. are unreliable) to present an accurate picture of the facts on a given topic, nor are their writers' opinions noteworthy in our articles. Op-eds from even mainstream papers like NYT, WaPo, etc. are routinely removed as sources; outlets like ''Jacobin'' that consist entirely of such articles should likewise not be used (and we have already done this for right-wing opinion outlets like ''Quillette''). The green checkmark at RSP misleads editors into thinking opinions and claims published in ''Jacobin'' are more noteworthy than they really are. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Jacobin's ] is to promote socialism, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting. However, it may be used with caution for topics within its area of expertise (such as the theory and history of socialism, labor movements, and socialist cultural commentary), provided proper attribution and corroboration from neutral sources are applied. ] (]) 03:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*::This is no more a good argument than it would be to state that the raison d'etre of X publication is to promote capitalism and the geo-political interests of the United States, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting.
*::I could apply that faulty argument to shitloads of mainstream US publications that are currently considered to be generally reliable. '']''<sup>]</sup> 05:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. Folks have said it well already so I won't belabor the point. I can't really imagine an occasion when I would cite ''Jacobin'', but I consider them roughly a left-wing equivalent of ''The Economist'' or ''Reason'' (also publications I'd be unlikely to cite –– all three of these are usually rather predictable and tend to offer shallow analysis). I wasn't sure how we list those other two so I checked RSP just now and saw that they're 1s. Yes, OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument, but I was more interested in getting a baseline on where the community draws the line between 1 and 2. With respect, I object to Crossroads' comparison to ''Quillette'', which leans heavily into platforming fringe ideas and displays little editorial oversight. (Interestingly, on a hoax published in ''Quillette'', revealing the latter's abysmal editorial practices, courtesy of ]) ] (]) 01:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Personally I don’t see Reason and Economist as equivalent, and was surprised to see Reason green flagged for the same reason that I don’t think Jacobin should be. That is, whereas Economist is mostly reporting and some opinion, both Reason and Jacobin are mostly opinion and some reporting. The Jacobin piece on the Quillette hoax looks good to me, but everything else they’ve published by that author wouldn’t be usable for facts as they’re pure op eds. I’d put the Spectator and National Review in the category as Jacobin and Reason. (Whereas Spiked and American Conservative are worse, red flag territory rather than amber.) ] (]) 15:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Additional considerations apply'''. As I indicated in the ] which I started, the mere fact that Jacobin thought it appropriate to publish a statement that ] "owns a third of US housing stock" indicates that they do not do adequate fact-checking before publishing articles. Therefore, one should attempt to corroborate any facts they publish with more reliable sources before relying on Jacobin to support any factual statements in articles. ] (]) 03:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. Our ] is explicit that {{tq|reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective}}. I may not personally love the political perspective of ''Jacobin'', but they don't go out of their way to platform disinformation that flatly contradicts academic consensus about reality. Regarding ''Jacobin'' as unreliable on the grounds of its bias would require evidence that said bias leads it to regularly publish misinformation and untruths. I haven't seen this established.{{pb}}Moreover, the error brought up that somehow has sparked this RFC was both A) corrected in a timely manner, which is what we ''expect'' from a reliable source; and B) a case where ], as the original source was a book review of several books written by Mark Fisher. If cited, it should be cited to warrant information about Fisher or his books or the genre he wrote in, etc. The Blackstone number was {{tq|Information provided in passing}}, and we already know that such info occasionally {{tq|may not be reliable}}, and so we use our best judgment as editors, citing and reading a wide variety of sources and going to the ]. For a topic like ], looks like ''Jacobin'' is a good resource. For Blackstone and housing, try from the journal '']''. Not every source is perfect at every subject, but when a source has a known editorial staff, issues corrections to publications, and is grounded in reality, it's reliable, even if I wouldn't personally enjoy talking politics with the editor.{{pb}}Finally, when a piece published in ''Jacobin'' is an opinion piece, we can just treat it as such, ]. ''The Economist'' and ''The Wall Street Journal'' publish a lot of opinion pieces too, yet GREL they've remained. As the perennial list says of ''The Economist'', {{tq|editors should use their judgement to discern factual content—which can be generally relied upon—from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources}}. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 06:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


* '''Option 3''' or '''Option 2''', long overdue for the reasons already set out in this thread. And frankly, the idea that a magazine whose name is derived from the people who instituted the ] was ever acceptable w/o issue is offputting by itself. ] (]) 23:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
== RfC: Is Paste a generally reliable source for politics-related topics? ==
*:For the record, the that in naming the magazine, he was thinking of '']'', a book about the ], not the French. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- ] 19:20, 29 December 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1893266455}}<!-- END PIN -->
*::Not that that is relevant anyway when assessing reliability. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
{{rfc|policy|pol|media|rfcid=9C8E9BE}}
*::''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)
Is '']'' a generally reliable source for politics-related topics?
*:::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)
- ]] 🖋 16:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


*'''Option 1*''' Jacobin is a biased source, something that should obviously be considered by anyone thinking of sourcing them for anything contentious, but their reporting has never been an issue in terms of establishing basic factual information about a situation. One writer for a book review making a dumb statement that was corrected by the source doesn't change that. ] (]) 04:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
For background, see the discussion above: ]
*'''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)
*Note: ] has it listed as a general reliable source. Not sure why subject matters after fact checking has been verified and accepted by a project.--]] 17:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Bad RfC''' As on . ] (]) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*: Sources can have different levels of reliability in different subject areas. See ] for more details. The scope of ] is musical topics, not general political topics. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 17:14, 26 December 2019 (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)
*::RSCONTENT says they may, it doesn't say they are defacto unreliable for that context.--]] 17:18, 26 December 2019 (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)
*::: It's not ''de facto'' reliable for politics, either. This RfC will determine what the consensus is. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 17:22, 26 December 2019 (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)
*::::That I won't argue, but its use is to cover the publication of articles and the negativity of these articles. Not for an actual factual statement regarding politics. Since we are discussing context, the manner in which it is being used is relevant.--]] 18:00, 26 December 2019 (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)
*'''No''' - Their political coverage is superficial, and very high on opinion and low on fact. They routinely quote mine other sources, add a bit of snarky commentary, and call it journalism. Most of their politics content is written by Shane Ryan, who seems to be a Bernie Sanders devotee and critic of mainstream media.. Paste's coverage of politics is on par with ], (defunct)], and ] (the later of which Shane Ryan previously wrote for). - ]] 🖋 17:16, 26 December 2019 (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)
**None of that disqualifies Ryan or the source per ] and ].--]] 17:20, 26 December 2019 (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)
***I believe it does, and I've listed several examples to indicate why it should not be used as a source for politics content.- ]] 🖋
*'''Option 1''' bias has nothing to do with reliability. Meanwhile, corrections are a strong signal of reliability. --] (]) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
****Well this is where you are going to need to list that. Because Ryan being a fan of any politician doesn't make the source less reliable nor does being involved in opinion content. If that was the case, there would be no reliable sources.--]] 04:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option 3/4:''' An encyclopedia should focus on high-quality, fact-driven sources. Not on ones that report the news with ''heavy'' political agendas, at least not without qualifying it. Using a highly politically charged source (of whatever political persuasion) inevitably leads to
*'''No''', and people saying it is are being silly. It's a specialist source, and that speciality isn't politics. Advocates trying to rules-lawyer RS guidance to push it through have fundamentally misunderstood Misplaced Pages sourcing - ] (]) 17:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
# '''Bias and lack of objectivity:''' Sources with extreme political leanings present information ''very selectively'' and often distort facts to support an ideological agenda. This can lead to biased or one-sided entries that undermine neutrality. It can also lead to including content that is not encyclopedic. See ].
*'''Yes''', per the comment of ]. I did not find discussion on Splinter or Root, but there was some on ], with no consensus achieved, and a recommendation for adding attributions to its statements. If their politics content is written by the same person/people, then they should have the same treatment. ] ] should not summarily be prohibited – not least because following such a guideline to a T would ban even so-called RS in politics such as CNN, (MS)NBC and ABC, given that they are for-profit entities with billion-dollar-scale political interests. Permit the political coverage of Paste Magazine, but attribute it as progressive or leftist in citations if such is the general sentiment of editors. As such, the discussion on this should probably not center around bias, but whether it can be trusted to be factual – and the fact that they ] in other topics tells me they shouldn't be assumed without evidence to be untruthful. ] (]) 18:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
# '''Erosion of credibility:''' Misplaced Pages is expected to provide balanced, factual, and well-researched content. Reliance on politically extreme sources can damage its reputation as a reliable and neutral reference.
* '''No.''' It should not be used for factual statements. There's nothing to indicate it has a reputation for fact-checking and reputable reporting in politics. It may be used for attributed statements if they meet ]. ] (]) 20:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
# '''Misinformation and inaccuracy:''' Sources like ''Jacobin'' often contain errors, conspiracy theories, or exaggerated claims that, when included in encyclopedia entries, could mislead readers and spread misinformation.
*'''Yes.''' It's already reliable for other articles on Misplaced Pages, thus I don't think it would publish falsehoods in other topics. It would be idiotic for their reputation for them to do that -- especially for a source that's been cited by WaPo, NYT and other RS. When looking at their politics page, I've seen similar analyses in different sources. Just with a quick look this article has subject matter that's been featured in many news articles by RS in the past few weeks. Another example would be this , I've read similar pieces/arguments in the Hill. So, I don't think that we should paint the source with a big brush due to bias -- even if the tone of some articles is snarky at times (which I don't particularly like). And as for bias, we've had sources with bias used on the site. So, in the case of bias, Paste should probably be attributed. So, in other words, the same conclusion that was given for Salon. I think that would be fair for consistency too. - ] (]) 22:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
# '''Cherry-picking evidence:''' Extreme political sources may ''omit contrary evidence'' or fail to represent the full range of perspectives. This results in incomplete or skewed coverage. Critical context is lacking.
*'''Yes:''' Obviously I find it reliable. Apart from Albums finding it reliable, which means that project has established credibility through factual accuracy, I'd like to point out a couple of things about the site. Particularly that CNN featured it during headlines and as per policy "The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them" which displays the viewpoint by CNN regarding Paste as a credible organization to lend time. Chicago Tribune has cited it and even listed it among the best magazines. The book American Directory of Writer's Guidelines has a section regarding the Paste editing behavior, including editorial content, fact-checking, and reliability. Paste was named "Magazine of the Year" by the PLUG Independent Music Awards in 2006, 2007 and 2008. In 2008, 2009 and 2010, Paste was nominated for a National Magazine Award in the category of General Excellence. Though they are minor awards, the organization is notable enough for an article. Washington Post, New York Post, and The Guardian have all covered Paste. To "reflect established views of sources" seems to be that Paste has a good reputation among sources or at least a reputable magazine. In fact, Guardian has employed Hari Ziyad for content and he has worked for Paste as well. Shane Ryan also writes for Paste and is the subject of the citation at stake. He is a New York Times bestselling author and written for ESPN The Magazine and Golf Digest in addition to Paste. These are just a little bit of the information I found through a simple google search. As for context regarding source, it appears Paste is moving beyond just music and film now as it has an official section for politics. Which means determining if it is fitting for this material. The policy says it may not be reliable but not that is automatically. I suggest the above material makes it reliable as is for all topics due to established factual accuracy as a generally reliable source in addition to other sources recognizing it and its editors as having credibility and reliability to do material of their own. Like before, the goal for RS is to reflect the views of the source. I feel the views regarding Paste and its editors is positive.--]] 23:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
# '''Harm to reputation of the field:''' Normalizing unreliable content can set a dangerous precedent here. Per Misplaced Pages policy, a fact worthy of entry in an encyclopedia would be covered by ''multiple'' reliable sources. It would be difficult to "counter" each instance of citing Jacobin with another source of equal repute but on the opposite political extreme covering the same story.
*:{{u|Wrestlinglover}}, you forgot to link to the Albums page. Here's the link : ]. ] (]) 22:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Further, ''Jacobin'' is mostly an '''opionion''' source. While it is not the worst source in the world, it hardly among top-quality reliable sources.
*'''Yes''' as per the coverage of it in other reliable sources as detailed above, imv ] (]) 02:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
The goal of Misplaced Pages, which prioritizes reliable ], is to present information with a sense of ]. There is no shortage of such sources, and those are the ones to use. --] (]) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', reasonable politics-related ] across the political spectrum in eg. , , , , , , , , . --] (]) 04:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
:* I checked five of those sources: four (N Yorker, Guardian, Vox x2) do not cite Paste magazine for factual statements, but for explicitly partisan punditry (in the same way that those sources might cite op-eds from the Daily Wire and Breitbart as a reflection of where conservatives stand on a topic). One (NYT) cited Paste for its reporting, but that was for its arts coverage. Here are the ways in which the four sources cite Paste: "the Chapo Trap House hosts have been lauded by Paste magazine as the “vulgar, brilliant demigods of the new progressive left”", "Paste magazine labelled “Chapo Trap House” the “vulgar, brilliant demigods of the new progressive left.”", " “This is classic Booker — stand out front on feel-good social issues, regardless of his past positions, and align with big money everywhere else,” wrote Walter Bragman at Paste Magazine." and ""The Democratic establishment doesn’t want a Democrat as president – it specifically wants Hillary Clinton as president," writes Brogan Morris in Paste Magazine." This is not a RS outside of its arts coverage. ] (]) 18:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
:*:When looking at the sources posted by {{u|Aquillion}}, three of them that you didn't mention cite Paste for its political coverage : , and . ] (]) 22:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
:::* This source quotes a statement made by a politician to Paste (which RS also do with non-RS). The Snopes piece does not cite Paste for factual information, it cites Paste because a person that they were fact-checking pointed them to a Paste article and they cite the website as part of a genesis of an unfounded conspiracy theory (just like they would with non-RS). The Fox News is by the hack Brian Flood in Fox News's "entertainment" section which is solely devoted to misleading smears about other nets outlets. So, in short, the only RS that has cited Paste for its politics reporting is a piece by Fox News (an outlet that I've for years argued is not a RS, it's also an outlet that would not hesitate citing all kinds of non-RS from our RS perennial list) attacking CNN. And the piece is petty as hell. CNN failed to mention that university students in the DC area who attended a Democratic primary townhall had also interned with liberal political groups? What is this: "Abena McAllister, who was described by Blitzer as “active in Maryland Democrat Party,” was listed by CNN’s chyron as a “mother of two.” However, she is apparently the chair of the Charles County Democratic Central Committee." It's exemplary of the kind of petty BS that Paste is used for on the ] page. ] (]) 23:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
:::*:I skimmed the 2nd one so I missed that, sorry. As for the first of those, I will have to disagree that still seems fine to me. As for the third one, Fox News' website is RS, so I don't see why Paste wouldn't be used, but this does re-affirm my belief -- which I mentioned above -- that Paste should be attributed though due to its bias (just like Salon). ] (]) 23:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
::::*" partisan punditry" = "partisan expert analysis". The point of RS is to establish to reputation of a source against secondary sources. Established sources crediting Paste in any way that is positive suggests they have a positive reputation regarding Paste which establishes credibility and reliability.--]] 04:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::* RS frequently cite the likes of the Daily Stormer, Breitbart News, Daily Wire, Gateway Pundit and InfoWars. Simply being cited is not what ] is about. It's about being cited for statements of fact. ] (]) 04:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
::::::*It clearly states the goal: "The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them." The problem with that argument is that the secondary sources list them with a negative reputation. These list Paste with a positive reputation. That is what makes one credible and the other just a child screaming into a bag.--]] 05:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::::* None of the sources, with the exception of one NYT piece on Paste's arts coverage and a Fox News piece, cite Paste in a positive way. I don't understand your need to not budge an inch on anything. ] (]) 13:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
::::::::*I don't have to when you don't read. Literally Vanity Fair, Vox, Vox again, New York Times, Fox News, The Colorado Independent, Snopes, The New Yorker, and The Guardian all referenced Paste in positive light, either using it as a factual source or as a source for opinions. None treated Paste as a bad source or pushed negativity towards it when referenced.--]] 17:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::* If that's your standard for positive light, then the Daily Stormer, Breitbart News, Daily Wire, Gateway Pundit and InfoWars have also been cited in a positive way in RS. ] (]) 17:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::*Have they? And sources?--]] 21:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::* Per this standard, here are some "positive" USEBYOTHERS for Breitbart:. ] (]) 23:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''No''' Couldn't find a corrections page on their site. ] (]) 11:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
*:{{u|Adoring nanny}}, why would that disqualify their reliability? Genuinely curious, since some sources only correct below the article and they're reliable (i.e. they don't have a '''corrections page'''). ] (]) 18:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
::: Do they do that? ] (]) 13:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure. I was just asking you a question regarding that point. ] (]) 19:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''No''' Paste Magazine is only an RS for music, not for politics. Others have correctly noted that their news coverage consists of a small handful of opinionated writers. For an outside opinion, I see that MediaBiasFactCheck also notes they are left-biased: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/paste-magazine/ --] (]) 02:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
**A bias doesn't negate reliability per ]--]] 04:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
**I'm seeing way too much conflation of bias and opinionatedness with unreliability. One does not automatically beget the other. If it did, CNN, MSNBC and Fox wouldn't be RS either (AT&T, Comcast and Fox Corp. have tremendous political interests – the difference is they purport themselves to be unbiased, while most leftist sites do not claim such). ] (]) 09:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
***Which is really upsetting because it is an attempt to discredit in such an invalid way while remaining ignorant to arguments against such position. It is a very disingenuous position that is brought on by an editors own inherent bias. All media sources have a bias. To claim bias that does not impact its factual capabilities as reason to deny reliability of a source, would basically level all of Misplaced Pages's ability to source statements. Even scholarly sources maintain biases simply by covering specific subjects.--]] 10:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
****You two are right that the outlet could still be given a “reliable but biased” rating; the issue is that it also has no reputation for reliability in politics coverage, as numerous others have noted.] (]) 14:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
****:The thing though is that as I mentioned above it was cited for its political coverage by Fox News (the reliable Fox News stuff not the Hannitys and whatnot) and another source ] (]) 16:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
*:{{u|MaximumIdeas}}, we don't use mediabias/fact check, it's considered unreliable. ] (]) 14:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
**], I’ve seen it cited in these discussions before. I know it’s not the end-all-be-all, but it seems to be an important voice and they have a staff of researchers looking into the outlets. Was there a formal decision I missed here that their ratings should not be mentioned at all? If so, please let me know. ] (]) 14:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
**:{{u|MaximumIdeas}}, I used to cite it too, but according to https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources it's unreliable ] (]) 15:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
***Thank you. ] (]) 15:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''No''' Doesn’t appear to have any credibility in the field of politics, especially in regards to factual reporting or journalism. '''] ]''' 15:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


:Well said. ] (]) 21:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==


===Discussion: ''Jacobin''===
We're seeing issues recurring at the talk pages of the articles regarding racial groups and intelligence. Some participants are repeating claims that there is reliable scientific evidence that certain racial groups may have inherently different levels of intelligence to each other. These are really just the same claims that were made by fringe ] researchers such as ] and have been used here at RSN as examples of unreliable sources, but it would be good to get a clear determination that these conclusions are explicitly unreliable. ] (]) 22:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
*Seeing as there's substantial disagreement in the pre-RfC section above, I've gone ahead and launched this RfC. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:In case it isn't clear what Onetwothreeip asking, the argument he's been making on this talk page is that certain sources can be judged as non-reliable based on the viewpoints they present, regardless of who the publisher is. Some of the sources being discussed there are the journal '']'', the journal '']'', and ]. (Both of those journals have published papers by Rushton, and Cambridge University Press has published books by other authors arguing in favor of Rushton's ideas.) Based on the comments by ] and ] at ], I don't believe it is consistent with RS policy to judge otherwise reputable journals and university publishers as non-reliable for this reason, but I suppose it'll be useful if this noticeboard could give some confirmation about this interpretation of policy.
*:Pings to {{yo|Feminist|The wub|Thebiguglyalien|Super Goku V|Simonm223|FortunateSons|Oort1|Burrobert|ActivelyDisinterested|Hydrangeans|Vanilla Wizard|Iljhgtn|Selfstudier|Horse Eye's Back|NoonIcarus|Harizotoh9|Springee}} who commented above. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Additional pings to {{yo|WMrapids|David Gerard|Bobfrombrockley|Shibbolethink|Crossroads|Herostratus|Dumuzid|Aquillion|Gamaliel|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d|BSMRD|Wugapodes|Ip says|King of Hearts|Chetsford|Tayi Arajakate|MPants at work|Jlevi|The Four Deuces|Grnrchst|Szmenderowiecki|Dlthewave|Jr8825|Thenightaway|Nvtuil|Peter Gulutzan|FormalDude|Volunteer Marek|FOARP|Sea Ane|3Kingdoms|Bilorv|blindlynx|Jurisdicta|TheTechnician27|MarioGom|Novemberjazz|Volteer1}} who commented in the ]. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I think you should also disclose that the previous RfC was initially closed by you (back then under the usernames ] and ]) and the discussions that followed at {{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 6#Jacobin (magazine)}} and {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340#Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability}} led to an overturn on grounds of it being heavily flawed and ostensibly a ], followed by a re-close afterwards. Especially considering your statement in the above section questioning that (re)closure now, which also partially forms the basis for this RfC. Those discussions might also answer your question on why it was (re)closed in the manner it was. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 20:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I've tried to ping everyone from the prior RfC and from the discussion above. This was done manually: I excluded 1 vanished account and I tried to ping people by their current usernames if they have changed names since then. If I missed someone, please feel free to notify them. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Per my prior comments about space constraints I've split this to its own section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I've just moved the RFC out of the discussion again. The RFC shouldn't be made a subsection of the prior discussion, due to ongoing issues with overloading on the noticeboard. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Comment''' Editors should bear in mind that reliability does not mean infallibility. It merely means we can use sources where applicable. In this case, the impeached article is a book review, which combines a description of a book and the reviewer's opinions. The only acceptable use of a book review - whoever wrote it and wherever it is published - is in an article about the book reviewed.
:] also is useful as background. ] (]) 23:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
::The discussion you have linked has nothing to do with reliable sources or with race and intelligence. Personal disputes do not belong here.
::Being published by well-known publishers obviously does not mean the work is reliable. These views are not endorsed by those publications, and Intelligence is not widely considered reliable either. The fact that publishers may publish certain views does not make the publishers unreliable, and their reliability is not in question here. This is about the reliability of fringe reearchers like Philippe Rushton and others associated with Pioneer Fund, for whom any cursory glance shows that they are unreliable researchers. They do not represent anything resembling a scientifically accepted study of psychology. ] (]) 02:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
:::Could you point to the specific sources that are being contested, and the claims they're being used to support? ] (]) 02:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
::::This isn't about sources being used to support claims, it's about both the sources (the authors) and the claims (inherent racial superiority/inferiority) being unreliable. The sources are sufficient enough to establish that these claims are being made by these people, but certainly not that these claims are either true or are sufficiently held in psychology, other than by a few fringe researchers. Claims like {{tq|Rushton and Jensen argue that long-term follow-up of the Head Start Program found large immediate gains for blacks and whites but that these were quickly lost for the blacks although some remained for whites.}} and {{tq|Rushton and Jensen have argued that unlike the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, these studies did not retest the children post-adolescence when heritability of IQ would presumably be higher}}. ] (]) 03:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
::::: Given that this is not about specific sources, I am not sure it belongs in a discussion here. If something is published in a respected academic journal (and not retracted), then that is a reliable source on any issue. If it is on a researcher's personal blog, then it's not. ] (]) 00:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::: Reliable sources are still reliable sources, and they don't stop being reliable because an editor considers certain ideas they publish as controversial. ] (]) 22:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::::The sources in this case are the researchers themselves. They are reliable sources for describing what their own fringe views are, but they aren't considered reliable in the context of mainstream psychology. They are only published as what these researchers claimed, not as any consensus view on the subject. ] (]) 21:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::::: Whether individual authors are “fringe” or “unreliable” is the job of the editors at the Cambridge University Press, etc, to determine. This policy is in place because it is not possible for Wiki to determine the credibility of every author among the millions who are out there. If Cambridge or another academic outlet or RS publishes some research, it should be treated as any other research they publish. (Absent retraction, RS reports that the paper was fraudulent, etc, which would of course be due to mention.) ] (]) 15:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
::::::::: Exactly as MaximumIdeas says. ] (]) 17:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::I agree with that as well, but in this case we have many reliable sources stating that these authors are unreliable. ] (]) 21:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::Onetwothreeip, You've been making this argument for about two weeks, first at ] and now here, and it has not received any support from other editors in either place. Please read this essay: ]. ] (]) 03:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
::::::::: {{tq|Whether individual authors are “fringe” or “unreliable” is the job of the editors at the Cambridge University Press, etc, to determine.}} This is not entirely true. Something published in a peer-reviewed journal form a reputable publication can still be fringe. From ]: {{tq|Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance by the scientific community. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Misplaced Pages as representing scientific consensus or fact. Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Misplaced Pages on notability grounds. Likewise, exceptional claims in Misplaced Pages require high-quality reliable sources.}} Peer-reviewed papers are useful, but the important question is overall acceptance by the scientific community. --] (]) 07:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::: Agreed, a single primary source is not necessary notable -- for it to be notable, one would want to see significant discussion of it within the scientific field; not just a one-off paper. ] (]) 16:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|MaximumIdeas}} {{ping|Loksmythe}} On the article talk page, Onetwothreeip is that "the writer of the publication is a source, and their unreliability makes the source unreliable". (This is referring to sources published by Cambridge University Press, in journals published by the APA, etc.) As a result, he won't allow the sources he removed for this reason to be added back to the article. This is the first time I've seen an editor ask a question at this noticeboard, and then refuse to accept the answer they've been given. Now that this is where things are, what should happen next? As long as he keeps making this same argument that the sources he removed can't be added back, will the same question have to keep being asked at this noticeboard again and again, while the edit warring over his removals continues indefinitely? ] (]) 15:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


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


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


] (]) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
While working on a media bio article, I wanted to verify and cite information that a previous editor added. This is the only web-site that confirms the info that I need but before using it I thought I'd pass by you guys.


*'''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)
https://puzzups.com/
*: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)
Thanks] (]) 05:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
*:They issued a correction. This is what we expect of reliable outlets. Your personal characterization of the correction as "weaselly" is your personal opinion on tone and has nothing to do with any Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 19:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:I've got to say, that site looks pretty dubious to me. Their 'about us' page has no information about an editorial panel, just an anonymous e-mail address, and while the articles have bylines to authors, there is no information about who these authors are, or where the published information is coming from. I can't see any indication that this is anything other than a ] fan site, so I'd say it's not looking like ] to me. ]] 14:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
:::Did this correction at least state what the correct % was? Like, the correction itself tries to make it seem like a minor overstatement rather than, you know, a completely wild exaggeration that tried to take advantage of general innumeracy. “I’m a billionaire!”. “No you’re not”. “Ok that was an overstatement”. Come on. It’s quite disappointing to see how many people are fine with misinformation, weak sourcing and “alternative facts” as long as it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. Whats even more disappointing is when these are people who are claiming to be building a factual encyclopedia. Facts are facts and garbage is garbage, regardless of whether it come from the left or right.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Unreliable'''. The site looks ]. Additionally, it describes itself as {{tq|"CELEBRITY GOSSIPY BIO"}}, and should be avoided per ] and ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 19:14, 31 December 2019 (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)
* '''No''' As per the arguments that fellow editors mentioned, I vote no. Furthermore, I think more editors should vote against it, the unconfirmed information was probably added by other editors who in good faith, felt that a site like this was giving them good information. I wouldn't like it if that information came back with that citation, nor anyone else working on another media bio. However, if the web site ever notes this interaction and would prove that their content is legitimate research it could be revoked some of it could be use for personal, early life, and career section.] (]) 22:34, 2 January 2020 (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)
* There's a tremendous number of red flags here. The site itself is set up like a blog, with no obvious editorial oversight. The material is clearly scraped from other sources, or just "gossip" completely made up. Almost every article has contradictory information with images that were copied (and attributed) from copyrighted sources. Many "authors" appears to be fake names: "Tom Cruise", "Michael Jackson", etc. Others that have unique names have no other presence on the internet or any other information available for them. The address used to register the domain is fake and the e-mail is associated with several other junk scraper sites (biographyline.com, celebsblurb.com). Frankly, this site is just another in a wave of terrible blog content farms that are pretending to be "celebrity databases" - I would say it falls in the "not in any way reliable" category.] ] 00:37, 3 January 2020 (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)
* '''Unreliable''', for reasons already stated by other editors above. --] (]) 02:14, 3 January 2020 (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 ==
== RfC: ==
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- ] 19:21, 29 December 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1893266472}}<!-- END PIN --> <!-- ] 16:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739462471}}
{{Moved discussion to|WP:Requests for comment/The Heritage Foundation|2=Due to how large the discussion has become, and size constraints on the noticeboard, this discussion has been moved to it's own page. <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{rfc|media|pol|rfcid=F948FFD}}


== RfC: TheGamer ==
Which option best describes The New Republic?
{{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:''' Generally ] for factual reporting * Option 1: ]
*'''Option 2:''' Unclear or additional considerations apply * Option 2: ]
*'''Option 3:''' Generally ] for factual reporting * Option 3: ]
* Option 4: ]
*'''Option 4:''' Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be ]


]</s>
Thanks! --] (]) 12:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


<span style="font-family:Kurale; color:#ff0000;">]]</span> 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2:''' I am not seeing why this is unreliable, what am I missing?] (]) 12:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
* '''Bad RfC'''. While begun in good faith, this RfC is malformed. The opening statement is not {{tq|neutrally worded and brief}} as our ]. I would also ask why the ] about ''TheGamer'' available at the list maintained by ] isn't considered sufficient. If this is at root a page-specific concern about ], as the opening statement causes it to appear to be, the matter can surely be handled better at ]. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 02:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*Before we proceed - '''What is the reason for this RFC?''' - ] (]) 13:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Furthermore - '''speedy close as malformed RFC, started with no context for question''' - someone please? - ] (]) 17:18, 31 December 2019 (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)
::I agree we need to <u>stop these RfC's that are eliminating all ] that is of U.S. regime change efforts in Venezuela</u>. The same group of editors who dominate the Venezuela pages (e.g. ) have been eliminating these sources one-by-one with their !iVotes and often citing a connection to or supportive views of Maduro, e.g. ,, , , . I have good reason to believe this editor wants the New Republic eliminated to make it easier to delete material that is unfavorable to ] who he supported in this . --] (]) 13:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
{{abottom}}
:::::Tornheim, please have a close look at ] (an argument based on that is unlikely to be sound). I know you read the discussions of how my editcount is inflated by the way I edit, the amount of cleanup I do, and the amount of intra-article copying and moving of text I was the one to do, after discussion. I certainly know you know that I no longer participate in those articles (precisely because of false examples of editors succumbing to EDITCOUNTITIS to attempt to discredit my editing, when I was the one doing all of the cleanup and consolidating between articles). I do follow RSN, and I will continue to participate here when I see marginal and state-sponsored sources being used inappropriately. ] (]) 16:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


== Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer ==
::: The list includes:
::: Centre for Economic and Policy Research CEPR - RfC still running
::: Telesur deprecated in 2019
::: Grayzone - RfC still running
::: MintPress News deprecated in 2019
::: Venezuelanalysis deprecated in 2019
::: ] (]) 14:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
* '''Options 1 or 2.''' It should be attributed for controversial claims or for things that other RS have not covered. ] (]) 13:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Close as malformed RfC'''. The original poster has offered no evidence one way or the other. This constant series of RfCs trying to anoint or condemn sources without context needs to stop. The long term effect is for those with one POV to vote sources with opposing POVs "off the island". This is a bad practice and does not help make better articles. ] (]) 13:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
* In this case, UNDUE. As with all matters of RS, one size does not fit all, and reliability of a source depends on the text being sourced. In this case, the author is ], a ] cheerleader, who has not evidenced fact checking or journalistic principles wrt Venezuela, and has been shown to be factually wrong multiple times. I can't fit that into the "Options" formulation above, but Mark Weisbrot is highly biased on Venezuela, and inserting opinions from him is UNDUE. I suggest those who want to insert anything said by Weisbrot should try to find similar at NYT, WaPO, or any of the other left-leaning mainstream media. I have not formed an opinion on ''The New Republic'' in general, but if it is like other sources that feature(d) Weisbrot's work (e.g.; ''The Huffington Post''), we can look at ]. We perhaps have the same situation here-- a source that demonstrates little journalistic concern about contributor opinion it publishes. ] (]) 16:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
*: '''Option 2''', based on information below from ] and ], as well as the examples of fringe reporting from ], then we would place ''New Republic'' similarly to how we place '']''. Separately the Weisbrot-authored opinion would be UNDUE and '''Option 3''' according the scheme above. So, that yields '''Option 2 or 3'''. ] (]) 18:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


Is this sigcov , reliable for ]? ] (]) 09:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Can we please discus the source, and not each other?] (]) 16:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
:The first link goes to a summary of a detailed software review by Friedrich Blase, the “Innovator-in-Residence” of the Ontario Bar Association. It looks like Dr. Blase, whose references writings on legal technology, might qualify as a subject matter expert, so I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. The second link goes to a blog, which would not be a reliable source. ] (]) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
: Could someone please provide an example of what text is being proposed based on this source and at what article? In general, looking at the Weisbrot-authored article, an examination of all of the preposterous positions and demonstrably false claims (compared to more reliable sources) that it advances would be too lengthy to be of use here. What are the specifics so that DUE WEIGHT can be evaluated? ] (]) 16:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
::Ok, thank you very much. ] (]) 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


==''Pirate Wires''?==
::::I think a significant number of us have been fearing this sort of source-silencing for a long time. I certainly was worried, with Misplaced Pages being as omnipresent as a source of information, that there were nowhere near enough protections in place to keep it from being used by schemers and agendists for profit and power. Now we see a part of it happening here. <br>
'']'' as an "American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." It doesn't shout "reliable source" to me (feels more like a group blog), but could somebody else take a look at this and help me determine if (a) its articles, or (b) its claims about itself should be cited in articles or BLPs, ? — '''] &#124; ] &#124;''' 20:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
No. The New Republic is a good source. - ] (]) 17:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
:Wouldn’t this be an aboutself citation anyway? I would be more concerned about primary/OR here in that case.
:: {{u|Jack Sebastian}} I'm just pinging you to remind you to vote for which option you think is best. - ] (]) 18:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
:Regarding the source: they are likely to be pretty biased, but according to the page linked, they seems sufficiently reliable for this, unless someone can dig up large-scale issues I missed. Employees, proper funding etc. all seem to be fine. ] (]) 21:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Sorry. '''Option 1.''' - ] (]) 14:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
:: So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of {{talk quote inline|as of January 2025, his profile at the online publisher '']'' lists him as a senior editor|q=yes}}? I just wanted to make sure ''PW'' was something worth mentioning at all, or if it was more akin to 'he's the senior editor this super-serious blog' and name-dropping a site that bore no mention. — '''] &#124; ] &#124;''' 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 or 2''' ''The New Republic'' had a tumultuous time in the 2010s, but most of the coverage that I can find of it criticizes the publication's business and marketing decisions, not so much their actual journalistic quality . They've had managerial troubles, and our article for them documents a number of controversies involving individual writers and editors, but as of this year , even if they're not what they were in the 20th century. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 19:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
:::I’m not sure, but think being descriptive is fine for “articles about Misplaced Pages” and stuff, “critical“ is probably better coming from a specific source, even if it’s obvious. With everything else, it’s probably a question of DUE, not RS. ] (]) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think its fair to say that very few media outlets have survived the fake news bombardment unscathed (which is an utter shame). Yes, the NR has had its share of controversies, but here's the thing: they always end up being on the right side of a news story, and they have survived crises that would have detonated other news agencies. - ] (]) 19:17, 31 December 2019 (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. — '''] &#124; ] &#124;''' 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think that this is less due to fake news and more due to the general influence of the internet on news media. ''TNR''s trajectory over the past decade has mirrored ''Newsweek'' to an extent, with the caveat that ''TNR'' appears to have reversed some of their more disastrous decisions made 2014–2016 and now have new editorial leadership which seems to be less interested in picking up the clickbait market, whereas ''Newsweek'' took the full plunge.<sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 19:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::I think this is a case for ], but it seems like a reasonable option ] (]) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
: Contributor opinion (eg Weisbrot) is still distinguished from the source in which it is published (eg ''Huffington Post'' as a different example). To evaluate the contributor in this case, versus ''The New Republic'' in general, we still need to know what the proposed text is. In general, Weisbrot's writing often has demonstrable factual errors, but as a chavismo cheerleader, he is a good source on what Maduro/Chavez believe/state/think/do. Specifics, please? ] (]) 02:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
: Pirate Wires has a strong right wing "libertarian tech bro" bent to its coverage, unsurprising given its links to Peter Thiel. The way it frames events is often strongly slanted, sometimes to the point of being misleading. Take for instance the recent story claiming that the WMF had been taken over by "Soros-backed operatives" . I would argue that this framing is conspiratorial and hyperbolic. I think it might sometimes be usable with caution for uncontroversial facts, but more objective sources should be preferred. ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' A lot of New Republic pieces read like opinion pieces. For example, as of right now on their home page, we have "A Unified Theory of the Trumps' Creepy Aesthetic" which talks about Trump's "smirking melon-ball head", "impossibly accursed foods", and an aesthetic that is "always so shitty". I also couldn't find a corrections page on their site but did notice that they said corrections could be submitted as letters to the editor, which seems a little weird, but does also show some interest in correcting errors. So I can't exactly say that they are unreliable, but I can't really say they are reliable, either. ] (]) 11:54, 1 January 2020 (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 ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<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)
*'''Comment''' {{ping|David Gerard}}{{ping|Springee}} I'm a little confused regarding the malformation of the RfC, since from what I gather RfCs have to be started in a neutral manner, without including own's positions.
* ''Pirate Wires'' should be considered Generally reliable. The information that they publish, though perhaps from a libertarian or right wing political slant, is generally truthful/accurate and therefore should be considered ] unless someone is able to provide substantial evidence and examples that disprove this. ] (]) 16:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It's Mike Solana's blog. ] (]) 17:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Do you have an evidentiary basis for your claim? I ask because I was recently described in a Pirate Wires article as a member of a powerful pro-Hamas group, and while this was entertaining in its foolishness, the important point for RSN is that it was a factual error. The article contained many inaccuracies about various things, and it was clear that no attempt had been made to avoid errors and erroneous conclusions. So, using it for BLPs might be unwise, and the notion that it is "generally truthful/accurate" seem highly questionable. Of course, I only have one data point, so it could be an outlier, but I doubt it. ] (]) 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yeah. I was not happy about Pirate Wires being used for that whole fiasco. But as for the evidence look above at the link {{U|Selfstudier}} provided in which Mike Solana says, "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever." ] (]) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously ''his personal thing.'' ] (]) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. ] (]) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. ] (]) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::What "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" are you referring to? Can you cite specific examples please and quote from the source directly? Also, are there other reliable sources which then criticize PW for "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" or is that ] and/or your own conclusion being reached? ] (]) 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:Considering that comment and the fact that founder ] is the chief marketing officer of ], Pirate Wires has a major ] with all of the individuals and organizations associated with Founders Fund, and is a non-] source with respect to all related topics. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 03:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Pirate Wires is trashy far-right culture wars content. It is at best a group blog - ] (]) 10:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:Marginally reliable, there seems to be a pretty wide spread quality wise because they seem to allow their writer a loose leash. This means that some articles are very good and some are very bad. Personally I've found them solidly reliable for the more wonkish techy stuff but have a lot of issues when they start to cover politics or culture/society in general. Crypto seems to be the only blindspot within their otherwise area of expertise, their crypto coverage is just awful and should be avoided like the plague. When used I would attribute and I would strongly advise against any use for BLP not covered by ABOUTSELF. I agree that pieces by Solana should be treated as self published and that coverage by Pirate Wire is not to be considered independent of the Founders Fund. ] (]) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Need context before coming to RSN ===
:As it was suggested before, the source was recently added to the ] article, although I deeply regret that {{noping|David Tornheim}} used their comment to attack and accuse me and other editors about unrelated topics. Browsing through the noticeboard's archives, it seems that the outlet's reliability has not been discussed in the past, so I want to know the community's position. rates New Republic as having a left bias ''{{tq|based on story selection and editorial positions that frequently favor the left.}}'' and high factual reporting ''{{tq|due to proper sourcing of information and a clean fact check record.}}'', which is why I think attribution is needed and '''Option 2''' best describes the outlet, but I've seen we don't depend on Media Bias/Fact Check to determine source reliability, another reason why I thought the RfC was the best option.
At this point, the source is used in only 7 articles in mainspace. . in general, RSN really shouldn't be used to approve sources ahead of time, editors exercise their own discretion, debate merits of source in the talk page of article, and come here if the same source is debated over and over again, or if reliability is still at issue. ] (]) 16:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
* Per <s>{{U|Slatersteven}}</s> its founder describes it as a ] - it should be treated accordingly. ] (]) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Not me. ] (]) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Oh dear did I misread? OOPS should be per {{U|Selfstudier}} apologies. I will strike above. ] (]) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It is not ] and its founder merely said things along the lines of "I am not bought and paid for nor a mouthpiece for any billionaire" etc. Now I do not know the veracity of that statement for sure, but I do not see that Mike Solana declared Pirate Wires to be SPS or a blog. It has numerous other independent journalists and appears to run as a full-fledged journalistic organization like any other, with their own right leaning or right-libertarian bias of course. But bias is not a reason for a source to otherwise be deprecated or considered SPS or anything else, it is just the nature of nearly every source that some bias to one direction or another is to be expected. ] (]) 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::But they don't have any indication of editorial controls, or a fact-checking process, or any of the things that an ] would have; neither is there any reason to think they have a particular {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}. A statement like "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever" makes it pretty clear that it's not structured the way we'd expect a RS to be structured. I'm with the editors above who describe it as a blog - there's just nothing here that even has the ''shape'' of an RS. The fact that the person who runs it sometimes also includes guest posts by other people doesn't change the fact that there's no editorial board, no source of fact-checking, and most of all no reputation. Like... what makes you think that it's a ], according to the criteria we use? Where do you feel its reliability comes from? --] (]) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yeah by that criteria this is a SPS, one guys blog is still one guys blog even if they let their friends post. ] (]) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Usage in ] ===
:If needed, I can solve this issue, reopen the request for comment or close it, depending on the best option. Once again, many thanks in advance. --] (]) 12:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Is the Pirate Wires piece by ] a reliable source of claims for the ] article? Rindsberg has published other content about Misplaced Pages on Pirate Wires, including . —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 04:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{u|Jamez42}}, MediaBiasCheck is considered unreliable on wikipedia. See - ] (]) 18:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
::Not an attack. <u>Everything I stated here is completely verifiable</u> and has been observed by other editors in this RfC and about the needless elimination of sources with these unnecessary ]'s. <u>These sources cover things outside the scope of the ].</u>
::If you truly believe that what I stated above has no legitimacy, maybe it is best we take it to ]. Would that be better venue for you? I am happy to open up a section there about my concerns. --] (]) 13:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
:::Yes, take it to ANI or user talk pages, we do not discuss users here.] (]) 13:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|MikkelJSmith2}} I know, which is why I said that {{tq|we don't depend on Media Bias/Fact Check to determine source reliability}} and a reason of why I started the RfC. --] (]) 18:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Jamez42}}, oh sorry, I misread your paragraph. - ] (]) 18:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|MikkelJSmith2}} No worries, thanks for your input :) --] (]) 18:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
* '''Options 1 or 2.''' Pretty much agree with the arguments above. I would also like to add that interestingly this chart puts it in the same ballpark as the Daily Beast, The Intercept, Mother Jones, the Nation and Vanity Fair. I'm not treating it as gospel, but based on other information I know about the source, that seems correct. So, reliable but biased would be the assessment here I think. - ] (]) 18:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
* '''Option 3'''. The New Republic says in its own about section that "For over 100 years, we have championed progressive ideas."<ref>https://newrepublic.com/pages/about</ref> So they have a self-described left-agenda. Furthermore, they have no editorial policies separating their news from this editorial agenda. Given this, while it can be an RS for opinion or investigative reporting, it should be used with extreme caution when it comes to political reporting. Separately, am curious to hear from {{ping|David Gerard}}{{ping|Springee}} where in the guidelines it says that a description is necessary for an RFC. --] (]) 02:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 1:''' Generally reliable. Opinions should be attributed of course. ] (]) 05:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
*'''Options 2 or 3.''' Correct me if I'm wrong but it's purely opinion, no? I started reading through some articles and at first was put off by the fact that opinion wasn't labeled as such, until I did some research on the paper and found that it's purely opinion. This is even stated in its : "We don’t lament intractable problems; our journalism debates complex issues, and takes a stance. Our biggest stories are commitments for change." So in this light it should be treated like any other op-ed source. It most definitely has a point of view, its writings use persuasive rhetoric to argue for that point of view. ] (]) 06:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 1:''' per {{u|Burrobert}} "Generally reliable. Opinions should be attributed of course.", per {{u|Slatersteven}},{{u|Snooganssnoogans}}, {{u|Rosguill}}, and {{u|Jack Sebastian}}.
:Still as I noted above--and others have concurred--I find serious problems with having these RfC's, when a standard post following the rules of ] is all we needed in this case. I suggest we have a wider discussion about these RfC's and create limits on when they are launched and insist on a clear justification for them.
:Perhaps, simply requiring in advance that editors show clear and convincing evidence that an RfC is needed, and requiring them to first make a ''request'' to hold the RfC here at ]--one that gains approval before it is permitted to be launched. These RfC's--especially when few non-involved editors show up (not the case here)--can have huge negative impacts on sourced material from the past and into the future. It can also create a strong POV problem if sources with a particular bias (all sources, including NYT, CNN, etc. have systemic bias) are eliminated by editors who do not like that bias. We cannot follow our key guideline of ] if we continue to eliminate or deprecate publications that include opinions by experts, simply because the opinions have a particular bias that the editors who show up to the RfC do not happen to like, whether that bias is left, right, pro- or anti-nationalism, etc.
:Also, these "fact-checking" sites have strong biases, and these are often used to "discredit" a publication in these RfC's, sometimes because of a single incident I think these fact-checking sites may be even less reliable than the publications they are assessing. A single claim in one of these sites should not be the basis for deprecating a source. --] (]) 09:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
::I agree with David Tornheim. I haven't see anything to make me think this isn't a generally reliable source but that doesn't mean we should treat every article as automatically reliable etc. My primary concern is there are too many of these RfCs recently and it seems their objective is to either anoint as "good" or "bad" a particular source. David's concern about systematic bias if too many sources are voted off the island or enshrined is also a concern. When someone comes here with an open ended question about a source I think the question that should be asked is, ''why are you asking''? What have previous RSN discussions said? Can you provide an example of how this source is going to be used in an article? I don't recall ever working with/around the editor who opened this RfC nor do I recall dealing with The Nation as a source often enough to have an opinion on it (I had to look it up to see if it was left or right leaning!). Regardless, we simply need fewer of these blanket RfCs. It seems like far to many have come out since the Daily Mail was deprecated. Perhaps this noticeboard should have a rule stating that RS discussions must include context examples (what article is going to be used where) or have examples of previous RSN discussions before we can have a RfC to assign a stamp of good/bad on any general source. Perhaps we should spend a bit more time discussing if individual articles are making sound claims vs just assuming because it comes from "RS" it must be good. Either way, as it stands I'm opposed to RfCs such as this one. ] (]) 14:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 or 2'''. They're a complex case because their ownership and direction have shifted over time. On the whole they are generally reliable; they are often ], but the ''direction'' of that bias has swung back and forth over time, as our article on them discusses, so knowing the era a particular piece was written in and who wrote it is important if you need to determine if and how it's biased on the particular subject at hand. They have also occasionally published ] positions, especially ]'s views on race science. That was a bit of an outlier and on the whole they are probably reliable due to their established reputation and relatively few scandals that directly impugn their journalistic accuracy, but it's important to pay attention to who wrote a particular piece there and to use in-line citations when necessary. --] (]) 06:30, 4 January 2020 (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)
{{reflist-talk}}
::I don't even think its usable for that... Can't find anything that suggests that Rindsberg is a subject matter expert. ] (]) 18:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:Sources in that article should have some leeway, as Misplaced Pages is obviously going to be criticised by such sources. But I totally agree with Hemiauchenia that framing is key. This is the opinion of a hyper partisan source, framing it as fact is wrong. Whether it should be included or not is a discussion for the articles talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:It is more or less a group
:blog that mostly publishes opinion, including eg antisemitic Soros conspiracy theories. Any Misplaced Pages editor reading their coverage of this project will immediately spot multiple falsehoods and errors, and also personal attacks on names editors based on these inaccuracies. At best on a par with Quillette. In short, not reliable for this topic, and if this topic is a guide to how robust its general reporting is it’s probably not reliable for anything. ] (]) 16:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::Both unreliable and ]. Rindsberg's views on any topic are quite irrelevant to anything. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 06:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Agree fully. Unreliable and undue. ] (]) 14:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:almost certainly no. the article attacking[REDACTED] has falsehoods and even ignoring that and arguing its an opinion piece we could use with attribution , it goes at it from a very marginal POV … there are more useful opinion pieces from more reliable outlets out there.] (]) 07:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:How is it used by others or is it even used by others? If sources have cited their work then I think we can as well. However, I would be very cautious about using it as an independent reference. Very cautious to the point where I would generally say no. Perhaps in a case where it's spot on topic (ideological bias of Misplaced Pages) but then only with attribution. Speaking generally, these sort of sources are always difficult as they may provide very good information but other than editors reading the text and using their own common sense, OR, etc, we don't have a good way to judge the quality of the output. BTW, this is also why I think "use with caution" may not be specific enough. Some sources are more like "use with caution but probably OK" while others are more like "use with extreme caution but there is probably a case where it provides more than about self content". ] (]) 14:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:Pirate Wires itself is notable as it's had coverage in other notable outlets but its viewpoint about Misplaced Pages per se might not have been documented in RS yet. But I'm confused -- Why are some of these other media outlets' self-published viewpoints ] without them necessarily being considered RS themselves? ] (]) 13:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::The term '']'' refers to sources without adequate editorial oversight, which includes most ]. ] are not self-published sources. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 14:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Imo Having Misplaced Pages articles that discuss whether Misplaced Pages is reliable, biased, antisemitic, etc is silly. We're all too inherently conflicted as Misplaced Pages editors to give a sober assessment of these topics and what is/isn't due to include. These topics are best left to scholars. That said, Pirate Wires is a lot less established than these other publications you mention. ] (]) 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Outright rejecting ] because it's "right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages" and has "a very marginal POV" is the issue with ] that the piece is trying to critique. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 13:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::But it does affect ] weight (which requires balance between sources, and which is the real concern for something that, as a ] or a website with no reputation, would obviously be opinion at best.) The article already contains a large number of right-wing sources with a similar perspective; does this piece add anything to them? My feeling is that articles like this are subject to problems where editors try to do this nose-counting thing where they add dozens of opinionated or biased sources saying the same thing because they feel it's a ''really important'' perspective - but that's not how opinion is really meant to be used. If we have twelve sources that are fundimentially similar saying the same thing, they ought to be condensed down to a single sentence or so saying "a bunch of sources said X" (unless some of them are individually noteworthy on their own merits somehow, eg. if they're an opinion from a significant expert, but that obviously isn't the case here.) --] (]) 14:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] makes a perfectly valid point. ] (]) 14:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::It's being rejected because it's a random tech guy's blog - not because it's right wing. ] (]) 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::One thing @] said I half-agree with. The question of Misplaced Pages bias is one best answered by academics - which we should document appropriately and neutrally - the opinion of Ashley Rindberg on a blog with no editorial board is not a notable opinion, again, not because of its left-right bent but because <s>s</s>he's just some person with a megaphone. ] (]) 14:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It is your opinion that it is a blog. That itself would need evidence and probably an RfC. ] (]) 14:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Also, ] is a man. ] (]) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Evidence has already been provided. In this thread. The founder brags about having no editorial board on twitter dot com. ] (]) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Getting neither the gender {{tq|"she's"}} nor the spelling {{tq|"Ashley Rindberg"}} correct shows me you may not have looked into this very much. ] (]) 14:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Oh do stop. That's an awful lot to take from a bloody typo. ] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Here's a freebee for all the people looking to say Misplaced Pages has a left-wing bias. This is what a reliable source accusing Misplaced Pages of a left-wing bias looks like: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.2020.1793846 ] (]) 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Two can play that game. https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased ] (]) 14:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::The Manhattan Institute is a think-tank with no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it is obviously not a ]. --] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::This too, in addition to my comment below. Frankly I'm finding this interaction very strange. ] (]) 14:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I should add that the Manhattan Institute was discussed previously ]; the discussion was never closed or added to ] but by a quick nose-count the total unreliable + deprecate opinions outnumbered the "unclear" opinions almost two-to-one (and there were almost no people saying it was GREL.) --] (]) 14:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::What game? I literally provided a source accusing Misplaced Pages both of left-wing bias and of bias against women at the same time. ] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::*We don't actually require an RFC for every individual dispute; and sources certainly do not ''automatically default'' to reliable. Just doing a quick nose-count in this discussion suggests that it's extremely unlikely that an RFC on Pirate Wires' reliability would support your contention that it is reliable - numerous issues have been raised, especially regarding its lack of editorial controls and its lack of the {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}} that RS requires. We can pull it through an entire RFC if you really think it's necessary but I think your time would be better-spent looking for more clearly reliable secondary sources covering this, if you want it in the article. This would also turn things back to the more fundamental ] problem I mentioned above - this looks identical to dozens of similar pieces posted by people with similar opinions; given that it's published in what's ''at least'' a low-quality source compared to the ones already in the article, what makes this one significant enough to highlight? --] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:For disclosure, I originally wrote the ] article. I think the answer is ''no'' to this question specifically, and similar questions generally.<Br/>Pirate Wires is an advocacy media outlet. Its writing is in a punchy tone -- a tech-ish form of ] -- that blends opinion with explanatory reporting. They don't do spot news. So there's just no utility in using it for encyclopedia-writing.<br/>That's not to say it's either good or bad, merely that it doesn't serve the limited purposes for which we use sources here. (It ran a widely cited interview with ] and I don't think anyone believes they made-up the interview. But if we need to cite that interview in an article it can be referenced to any of the numerous RS that, themselves, cited it through précis', versus Pirate Wires directly.) In any case, anything it publishes that ''is'' encyclopedic will be covered in a second, more conventional RS and we should reference the second source. Anything not referenced in a pass-through outlet is probably undue. ] (]) 18:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


== CEIC data ==
== Are references of Modi response on his personal platform violating ContextMatters for section "Indian Government response" of Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 ? ==


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)
{{Box |
There is a section named "Indian Government Response" in this article ]. But surprisingly, it gives references for response of Modi from his personal platform (personal twitter handle) rather than any official Indian Government response ?


:It looks like just a big database. I would trust the first party sources for raw data more. ] (]) 10:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Just as there are individual opinions of Wiki editors and consensus opinion of Misplaced Pages, individual ministers may have individual opinions on an issue and there is consensus opinion of Indian Government. Based on consensus, Indian Government released FAQs on Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) on 19 December 2019 and later. This was widely reported by Indian media. Written statements are more reliable compared to speeches.<br>
::If in question use secondary sources.] (]) 02:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
(Some examples - <br>
1. https://www.livemint.com/news/india/citizenship-amendment-act-govt-busts-myths-11576477654256.html <br>
2. https://www.sentinelassam.com/top-headlines/government-clarifies-as-citizenship-amendment-act-stir-intensifies-across-the-country/ <br>
3. https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/government-clarifies-as-caa-stir-intensifies-across-india/1689279)


== Fantasy Literature ==
So, are the references of BBC link and Modi twitter link not out of context with respect to the section title and violating ] making them unreliable for this section ? Instead of Modi personal platform references, should there not be references and accompanying relevant text of media coverage on issue of FAQs on CAA released by Government of India ? Request to please give detailed reasons along with opinion.
|border color=#D1D1C7|padding=10px|wide=yes|inline=yes|CSS=background-color:#FFFFF0
}}
] (]) 12:24, 1 January 2020 (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)
:I would say that it can be used for what (attributed to him) Modi has said (per SPS), not for it being the official government stance.] (]) 12:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
::Thanks for your opinion. Request to also give your reasons for your opinion.
::] (]) 12:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
:::] allows us to use things like twitter (assuming this is a verified account) for the attributed opinions of the person. Thus I see no reason why this would fail that. However it is also not the official account of the Indian government, it is only Modi's own account. Whilst he may be PM, he still has his own views that may not accord with those of the government (which as a parliamentary democracy is not under the personal control of one man).] (]) 12:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
:::: {{U|Slatersteven}}, are you saying that the statement currently attributed to Narendra Modi should be removed from the section titled "Indian government response"? That seems to be the OP's concern here, as far as I can make out. -- ] (]) 14:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::Yes and no. As head of the Indian government (yes I know presidents and all that, legislative head) It can be argued it is a semi official statement. But it is also not an official government statement. All I am saying it is an RS for Modi saying this, where it goes is another (not really RS) matter.] (]) 14:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::: {{U|Slatersteven}} There is an official Government statement on this as issue as well. And that was covered widely in the Indian media. In your opinion, should that be covered in this section titled "Indian Government Response". One example of such a media coverage is https://www.livemint.com/news/india/citizenship-amendment-act-govt-busts-myths-11576477654256.html
::::::] (]) 16:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Yes of course official government statement should be, do they contradict what Modi has said?] (]) 16:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::: {{U|Slatersteven}} I do not see any contradiction between the two. This is tweet from personal twitter handle of Modi - https://twitter.com/narendramodi/status/1206492850378002432
::::::::] (]) 16:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::::: I think that FAQs for CAA released by Government ought to be put in this section. The given source links are secondary and reliable. And the personal response of Modi on this matter should be removed from this section. ] (]) 16:13, 2 January 2020 (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)
== Predatory open access journal tag? ==
::This is the terms its staff work under:
::Basically they're unpaid volunteers who become voting members of the staff. They are expected to review an unspecified but regular number of books in order to maintain their membership. It isn't clear that there's much in the way of editorial oversight beyond a pledge not to plagiarize review material. Considering their concentration on volume of reviews and appearance of loose editorial standards I'd be hesitant to use this group to establish the notability of a book. ] (]) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::So just for notability purposes it is unusable or is it something that should not be included on pages that are notable? ] (]) 22:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'd say unusable for notability purposes. I'd likely leave it off other pages unless it had something significant to say that better sources didn't. ] (]) 14:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:Not an RS. ] (]) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== Is “Zannettou, Savvas "A Quantitative Approach to Understanding Online Antisemitism". a reliable source for ] ==
Hopefully this is the correct place to ask this question. I have been going through and adding DOIs to ''already existing'' journal citations, and somehow triggered some sort of blacklist. The edit is . Can someone point me to the policy or blacklist that triggered this? I tried ], but it doesn't seem to explain the tag there. My assumption is there is a source somewhere on the page ] that is unreliable, but I'd like to find the blacklist so I can find the right one to remove. ] (]) 02:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
: Hi {{u|Forbes72}}, the following citation in that edit triggered ] {{efl|891}}:
{{bi|em=1.6|{{tq2|{{cite journal | last=Lee | first=Ji Yeong | last2=Kim | first2=Jin Soo | last3=Hyeok An | first3=Kay | last4=Lee | first4=Kyu | last5=Kim | first5=Dong Young | last6=Bae | first6=Dong Jae | last7=Lee | first7=Young Hee | title=Electrophoretic and Dynamic Light Scattering in Evaluating Dispersion and Size Distribution of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes | journal=Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology | publisher=American Scientific Publishers | volume=5 | issue=7 | date=2005-07-01 | issn=1533-4880 | doi=10.1166/jnn.2005.160 | pages=1045–1049}}}}
It looks like '']'' is on ]. Unfortunately, filter 891 doesn't identify which citation is the predatory one, so it takes a little bit of research. In the future, if you expand the citations one at a time in separate edits, filter 891 will only trigger on the predatory one. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 03:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
}}
::Thanks. I did try a control + f on Beall's list, but got no matches because the publisher was listed instead of the individual journal. Couldn't figure out what the issue was. I appreciate the explanation. ] (]) 04:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
::: No problem. And just to clarify, I identified the citation by going to ] and checking the list of ] that are being caught by the filter (defined in line 4 of the "Conditions", which begins with {{code|dois :{{=}}}}). {{bcc|Forbes72}}—&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 04:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
::::You could also expand the warning {{tl|Predatory open access source list}} that you had, and search for those DOIs prefixes and domains. Still a bit tedious to do. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 04:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


I can’t find evidence it’s been published. ] ] 19:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
== AnsweringMuslims.com ==
* {{duses|answeringmuslims.com}}
I saw usage of this source in ]. On that website, I saw some claims that seem to be written by either an uninformed person or someone who spreads propaganda or biased claims. I investigated the website and I found this in Southern Poverty Law Center, {{tq|"David Wood, who runs Foundation for Advocating Christian Truth* which is the organization behind AnsweringMuslims.com, a Christian-based, <u>anti-Muslim</u> and <u>anti-Islam</u> website."}} --] (]) 07:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
: In regards to issues, raised above related to criticism of Islam, and 'AnsweringMuslims.com', it might be worthwhile to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles BTW ], is "an American evangelical missionary known for his critique of Islam"
: The {{tq|above quote}}, taken from the SPLC website: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/06/05/anti-muslim-roundup-6518 is based on this interview of Daniel Scot, by David Wood: http://imi.org.au/ps-daniel-scot-interview/ ] (]) 08:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
: The same Wiki editor who added the 'AnsweringMuslims' citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Muhammad_in_the_Quran&diff=933643592&oldid=933639345 - one day later (above) denounces the same 'AnsweringMuslims' citation ??
* "The Ismlamoblog of Acts 17 apologists" does not identify its editorial process and clearly establishes that its purpose is Christian apologetics. It is not usable as a source on Islam. All these uses should be removed. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 09:16, 2 January 2020 (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)
== Airline fansites ==
::I should add that the Zannettou et al. citations that currently exist in the article are preprints, which generally are not RSs, per ]. The other citation was also subsequently in conference proceedings. Conference proceedings might or might not be reliable sources for specific content, depends on the conference and the content. ] (]) 22:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It's important to keep in mind that ''most'' of the preprints people link to as sources were eventually published; we just link to the preprints as courtesy links because they're usually what's available. PREPRINT even mentions this. --] (]) 15:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, but in that case, you still need the correct citation for wherever it eventually appeared, and if there's a link to that final version in full, then you should link to the full final version rather than a preprint draft. In this particular case, the citations themselves were not for the final version, and the final versions are both available in full elsewhere. ] (]) 15:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:What's the context for this question? Where is it being cited/do you want to be able to cite it? ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] I'm a bit confused by the question - did you look at the article? It's cited several times there and as I can't find evidence that it's been reliably published I don't think it should be used. ] ] 08:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Sorry; that's my bad. I was running on low sleep and shouldn't have been on Misplaced Pages, and I read your prose where you don't include a link but glazed past the header text where you did include a link. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:See https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/7343/7197 ] (]) 15:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Apologies, I missed another one, also apparently never published."Zannettou, Savvas, Tristan Caulfield, Jeremy Blackburn, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Michael Sirivianos, Gianluca Stringhini, and Guillermo Suarez-Tangil. "On the Origins of Memes by Fringe Web Communities." arXiv.org, September 22, 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.12512." ] ] 08:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


:I provided a link to the published version of that one in my second comment above. The citation is Zannettou, S., Caulfield, T., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Sirivianos, M., Stringhini, G., & Suarez-Tangil, G. (2018, October). On the origins of memes by means of fringe web communities. In ''Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018'' (pp. 188-202). There's an alternate citation at the top right of the copy where it says "ACM Reference Format." ] (]) 13:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
In cleaning up some spam I found a number of aviation-related fansites that do not appear to me to be reliable sources.
::@] 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)
* {{duses|7jetset7.com}} - see , non-authoritative aggregator, SPS, one man website.
:::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)
* {{duses|airliners.net}} - see , amateur-curated photo upload site, many links are to forums or other user-generated content.
::::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)
* {{duses|aviation-safety.net}} - see , group blog with two editors.
:::::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)
* {{duses|aviationanalysis.net}} - appears to be a domain squatter by now. says: "Started as a simple blog in 2010 out of my curiosity to learn aeronautics, continues its gradual pace to a professional website." Single editor, non-specialist.
::::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)
* {{duses|Aviation24.be}}, formerly {{duses|Luchtzak.be}} - see . Personal site and web forum, no indication of editorial review.
:::::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)
* {{duses|theaircurrent.com}} - no About page linked. Appears to be a personal project of .
::::::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)
* {{duses|air-and-space.com}} - "Air-and-Space.com is a one man operation. My name is Brian Lockett. I take most of the pictures, write the captions, create the pages, and make all the arbitrary editorial decisions."
* {{duses|aerialvisuals.ca}} - see . "The person behind the website Aerial Visuals, AV, is myself, Mike Henniger. I have a background in software engineering, and this website is a hobby site that I have used to develop skills in web services and applications."
* {{duses|aerospaceweb.org}} - see . May be RS, at least run by people with relevant expertise.
* {{duses|globalaviationlaw.com}} - 404 now and appears to have been a firm of plaintiffs' lawyers so a distinct POV.
* {{duses|b737.org.uk}} - spammed, blacklisted, one-man site run by Chris Brady, whose sole claim to authority is publishing the content of the site via vanity press Lulu.
* {{duses|pyrochta.ch}} - appears to be the personal site of Helmut Pyrochta, no evidence of review or reliability.


== ] ==
Does anyone consider any of these to meet RS? ''']''' <small>(])</small> 10:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
<!-- ] 19:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1751745462}}
Should we be using articles from the Hawar News Agency, especially in relation to the (geo)political side of Rojava? This also includes articles in the scope of the Syrian civil war. It has ties to the SDF, which means there is a significant conflict of interest here; <s>I should also add that the YPG/YPD/SDF , which raises concern over its reliability.</s> I want to get community consensus before I do anything, especially because the article in question (]) is related to a CTOP. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 19:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:(Copying this response from the talk page of the ]:) Of course we have to use Hawar, simply because it is one the most prominent news sites from Syria. It ''shouldn't'' be used as the sole source for contentious issues (unless it cites claims), but for basic facts such as local election results, regional policy decisions, etc. it is one of the only sources available. It is also used as a source by academic researchers such as in ''The Kurds in the Middle East: Enduring Problems and New Dynamics'', ''The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts'', ''Soldiers of End-Times. Assessing the Military Effectiveness of the Islamic State'', and ''Statelet of Survivors. The Making of a Semi-Autonomous Region in Northeast Syria''.<br>(The following part is new, written for RSN:) These are books written by experts on Syria, released by reputable publishers such as ‎ Oxford University Press, and they have seemingly deemed Hawar to be a partisan, but useable source. Speaking from experience as an editor who has been active in editing articles on the Syrian civil war for ten years, I would also note that Hawar was previously discussed by editors and similarily assessed, as it is fairly reliable though should be used with caution in especially problematic fields such as casualty numbers (where partisanship becomes a major problem). ] (]) 20:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:Having read through the article you linked it doesn't show that media is heavily censored. A relevant sentence would appear to be: <br>{{tq|"In the current situation, the journalists we interviewed usually stress that, on the one hand, they enjoy relative freedom of expression. The PYD did not forcefully close those it considers as antagonistic media. Reporters can move freely in the region and cover a wide array of issues. Additionally, journalists from international or regional media are also generally allowed to operate freely. However, they also say that there is always a tension with the authorities in power and there are red lines that cannot be crossed."}}<br>As well as:<br>{{tq|"Gradually, they seem to have adopted an editorial line that is less critical, if not supportive, of the political system in Rojava. This support, according to some local journalists, is not due so much to direct imposition from the authorities, but rather to their own convictions and, even more important, to the feeling that doing otherwise would be very unpopular in a conflict-ridden context."}}<br>So it doesn't sound like they have the most freedom of media, but it appears a long way from heavily censored. Restrictions on reporting matters that could effect security are common in areas of conflict (and even outside of them).<br>Hawar News Agency has some ] and would probably be covered by ]. Issues of bias (]) and opinion (]) don't immediately make a source unreliable. In general I would agree with Applodion, reliable but caution should be taken for issue where it's bias or censorship of security matters may effect it's reporting. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:Agree with above, helpful to understand its bias, but this means to use with caution and understanding rather than preventing use. ] (]) 00:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:Agree with the above. If we are citing it for contentious claims, then it's better we provide attribution. Unless OP or someone else can come up with credible sources that ] the reliability of ''Hawar'', I don't see any reason to worry about its inclusion. Looking over the article, it seems most of the citations to it are for easily verifiable facts (i.e. changes in AANES leadership, recognition by the Catalan parliament, etc.), rather than anything contentious. --] (]) 10:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:If we consider TRT sub-optimum in relation to Rojava and the Syrian war because of its affiliation to the Erdogan government (see above on this noticeboard), the same should apply to Hawar. It’s fine for reporting the statements by AANES/PYD/SDF or uncontentious facts, but it should always be attributed and triangulated for anything at all contentious. I’d rate it above Al-Masdar and below the SOHR for reporting facts about eg battles in the Syrian war, but like them is a weak source. ] (]) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::Is there anything to show that Hawar is not independent of the SDF? I couldn't find anything making an explicit link. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}} from the ]: "On Thursday, the group held funerals for 17 of its fighters in the border town of Tal al-Abyad, the '''SDF-linked''' Hawar news agency said...". 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 22:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::That would indicate a need for caution. Whether to the level of TRT I couldn't day. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 01:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::The difference between Hawar and TRT seems to be how they are treated by independent academics and subject experts; as far as I know, TRT has been repeatedly accused of spreading outright falsehoods (), whereas Hawar is seemingly deemed to be mostly reliable despite its connections to the PYD and SDF. ] (]) 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
* Being censored is a ] issue and a reason to use a source with caution (with attribution for anything remotely contentious), but it doesn't automatically render them completely unreliable. The big question is whether they're yielding to pressure to publish things that are actually inaccurate rather than just one-sided. If not, they can still be used with caution - we'd want to cite better sources when possible and avoid giving ] weight to a source with a clear bias, but there's some advantage to having sources that are close to conflicts. And a major problem with removing sources simply for being subject to censorship is that it could produce systematic bias by removing every source from a particular region; I'm not familiar with the Syrian press specifically, but in other regions with similar censorship, there's still a difference between sources that carefully report as much as they can get away with and as accurately as they can within the restrictions of government censors, and sources that full-throatedly broadcast misinformation to support the party line. --] (]) 15:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== RfC: LionhearTV ==
: ''Airliners.net'' is primarly a photo hosting website, so a lot of the uses are actually using photos as references - as discussed ] on WP:Aircraft (although without a conclusion as the discussion devolved into insults and finger pointing. Some uses, however, are using technical data & specs like , which appears to have been copied with permission from a reliable source. I would think that the last example is probably OK if not ideal (we would clearly prefer to directly reference the original source), but using photos from Airliners.net as references probably isn't.] (]) 11:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
{{Moved discussion from|Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Sources#RfC: LionhearTV|2= Royiswariii, 19 January 2025 00:55 (UTC)}}<!-- ] 11:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740135721}}


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:
:: Exactly. The forum and photo sharing parts can't be RS, but the aircraft data is based on ''The International Directory of Civil Aircraft'' by ''Gerard Frawley'' and seems reliable, I use it in cite templates with ''Airliners.net'' in the ''via'' field.--] (]) <small>but pretty pictures!</small>


* '''Option 1: ]'''
: ''Aviation-Safety.net'' is part of the which appears to be a long-established non-profit organisation supported by the aviation industry according to . In general most of ASN (like the should be reliable, although it also contains a for accidents which aren't in the main database - the Wikibase sould not be treated as reliable as it is user-editable.] (]) 11:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
* '''Option 2: ]'''
* '''Option 3: ]'''
* '''Option 4: ]'''


] ] 10:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:: The Flight Safety Foundation reputation is excellent, and ASN is one excellent source for accidents. (but indeed the Wikibase should not be viewed as reliable) --] (])


:'''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)
:I am a regular contributor to two of them:
* '''Comment''': For better understanding and context, especially for editors unfamiliar of this topic's origin:
::* ''aviation-safety.net'' scores quite high as an encyclopedical reference in my very personal observation, very open to contributions, and usually checks them carefully before adding them to published content; all of which happens quite fast.
::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 .
::* ''Aviation24.be'' is an interesting chat site but its encyclopedical value is questionable; editorial articles have been known to copy releases from airlines or aircraft builders with few if any critical comment; whereas forum discussion often remains at "fan" level.
::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.
:: fwiw, ] (]) 11:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
::A discussion about LionhearTV’s reliability as a source took place on the ] talk page in September 2024 (see ]). The issue was subsequently raised on the Tambayan Philippines talk page (]) and the ] (]). However, these discussions did not yield a constructive consensus on whether LionhearTV can be considered a reliable source. The discussion at Tambayan deviated into a debate about ], which was unrelated to the original subject. Meanwhile, the sole respondent at the RSN inquiry commented, {{tq|It may come down to how it's used, it maybe unreliable for contentious statement or comments about living people, but reliable for basic details.|quotes=yes}}
::At this moment, LionhearTV is listed as '''unreliable''' on ] as result of the no consensus discussion at RSN.
:<span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 13:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::Lionheartv is one person operation. How can there be editorial discretion on that case? ] (]) 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm more surprised on how a single person actively manages three blog sites and one accolade, with the accolade even giving out physical trophies to its winners. Like, how is he/she funding and doing all of these? <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 14:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It's immaterial on how we determine ]. What could be very important that other ] missed out on that only this blog carries? If it's only this blog that carries articles about something, it's not very important. This blog is the very definition of ]. I'm surprised we're having this conversation. A blacklist is needed. ] (]) 02:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Option 3'''. There's something about its reporting and organizational structure that is off compared to the regular newspapers. ] (]) 14:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::Though, I find it strange and concerning that reputable sources copypasted some of LionhearTV's articles:
::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts/ (December 8, 2024)<br/>Sunstar: https://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts (December 10, 2024)
::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2025/01/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 11, 2025)<br/>Manila Republic: https://www.manilarepublic.com/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 14, 2025)
::These are two instances I found so far where other sources copypasted from LionhearTV. But I saw other instances where LionhearTV is the one who copypasted from other sources, such examples include:
::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-im-okay-to-cinemas/ (December 30, 2024)<br/>Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/showbiz/music/2024/12/29/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-i-m-okay-to-cinemas-0948 (December 29, 2024)
::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/06/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game/ (June 27, 2024) <br/>Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/starmagic/articles-news/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game-22637 (June 24, 2024)
::I honestly don't know about these editors, they just copying each other's works. Probably cases of ]. <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Option 3''' - As much as possible, LionhearTV and its sibling sites under the eMVP Digital should not be used as sources when more reliable outlets have coverage for a certain event, show, actor and so on. Even if a certain news item is exclusive to or first published in a eMVP Digital site, other journalists will eventually publish similar reports in their respective platforms (refer to some examples posted by AstrooKai). -] @ 15:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::What I fear in these kinds of low quality sources is that people will find something very specific about someone, e.g. "This person was seen in a separate engagement vs. the others in their group," and this low quality source is the only source that carried this fact, and since this it is not blacklisted, this does get in as a source, and most of the time, that's all that's needed. We don't need articles on showbiz personalities tracking their every movement as if it's important. Blacklist this. ] (]) 01:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hat|Discussion about moving RFC to RSN}}
:::@], @], @], if you don't mind we can move this discussion to ] to get more opinions and votes on other experienced editors. ] ] 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::'''Support'''. ] (]) 16:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::'''Support'''. Though, I suggest finishing or closing this discussion so that we don't have two running discussions that tackles the same thing. If we want to construct a consensus, we better do it in one place. Alternatively, we first seek consensus from the local level first (by finishing this discussion) before moving one level up (the RSN). <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 16:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
*'''Option 3'''It's a blog. That means ] applies. This means it might be contextually reliable for ] or under ] (with the usual condition that SPSEXPERT prohibits any use of SPS for BLPs) and so I don't see any pressing need for deprecation, but this is very clearly a source that is not generally one we should use. ] (]) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:FWIW, the person behind this blog is not a subject matter expert. Like, we don't even know who this is. (One subject matter expert in Philippine showbusiness that I know of that runs a similar blog is , and I event won't even use the blind items as sources there lol) As explained above, once this gets to be used as a source, it won't be challenged and people just accept it as is. This is a low quality source that has to be blacklisted. ] (]) 01:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Yeah that's fine. I was just saying that, in general, those are the only two avenues to use someone's blog. ] (]) 20:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 4''' Their reportings are obviously flawed and a per example above copypasting is a not a good look nor a good indication for "reliability" and it is often used in BLP, yikes. '''''Warm Regards''''', ] (]) (]) 12:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== Hatebase.org ==
: ''theaircurrent.com'' is run by Jon Ostrower, an experienced journalist who went through CNN, WSJ and Flightglobal. Should be kept as RS.--] (])
:: Right, but it's a self-published source, so fails RS except for ABOUTSELF. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 11:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
: The other domains seems like fan blogs or forums, not RS I think.--] (]) 14:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
* Treat all except the fan blogs and forums as generally reliable unless evidence is found that they are unreliable, imv ] (]) 16:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
*Any website that is editable by anyone cannot be considered reliable.--''']'''&nbsp;''{{sup|]}}'' 20:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


Is a reliable source? ] (]) 19:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
==IslamQA==
{{duses|islamqa.info}}


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


== LaserDisc Database? ==
{{tq|The website was banned in Saudi Arabia because it was issuing independent fatwas.}} The founder of ] is possibly in jail.


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)
In regards to IslamQA issues and criticisms, it might be worthwhile to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles


: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)
IslamQA says its "answers are supervised by Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid" - otherwise it does not identify its editorial process and clearly establishes that its purpose is Muslim apologetics. It is not usable as a source in Misplaced Pages. All these uses should be removed. ] (]) 14:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
*'''Self-published source'''. I don't see any of their articles having oversight or been peer reviewed. ] (]) 01:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC) ::oops, I missed that. Thank you for the advice. I'll use WorldCat if I can't find a news article. ] (]) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*''']'''. I agree with {{np|Feminist}}. IslamQA is ] by ], and was banned in Saudi Arabia because it issues ] independently of the country's ]. As the site is equivalent to the opinion blog of a single person, it can only be used with ] under ] to describe Al-Munajjid's own views where ], and should not be used as a source of facts to make claims about the ] in Misplaced Pages's voice. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 07:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


== Usage of AirPlay Direct for music articles ==
== Is this RAND report being used accurately to make a claim on behalf of Human Rights Watch? ==


Is reliable for use in articles about music (such as songs, albums, artists, etc.) ] (]) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
This says:


: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)
{{talk quote|"The cult characteristics described in this appendix have been widely reported by former MEK members and by Human Rights Watch."|}}


== Global Defense Corp ==
This source/statement is being used in the lede section of the article ] to make the claim that Human Rights Watch says it {{tq|"describes"|}} this group as {{tq|"a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi."}}


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
Is this an accurate representation of what RAND is stating? ] (]) 16:08, 2 January 2020 (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.
== Question about a source used on Nick Gehlfuss ==


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.
Hi,


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.
On ], the reference for his birthdate is http://birth-records.mooseroots.com/l/12392558/Nicholas-Alan-Gehlfuss which is both dead, and I suspect not a reliable source. What steps should I take, because this is the only reference for his birthdate?


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 .
Thanks ] (]) 00:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
:<p>{{reply|Redfiona99}} IMO this would be better dealt with at ] even if it concerns the reliability of sources. That said, I'll keep it here rather than moving it. That source is almost definitely not suitable for a birth date since it sounds like it's a violation of ], some sort of birth record e.g. from a hospital or US state or something. It's therefore also a violation of ] since we require that the birth date is either widely published, or appears in sources linked to the subject such that we can infer they don't mind it being public. </p><p>Given this, you can simply remove the birth date until an acceptable source comes along. To avoid complaints, it may be worth having a quick search to see if you can find acceptable sources. But as I was going to remove it, I did, and I only found and other worse sources. There's also which I'm fairly sure is not an RS as well and only gives the date not the year.</p><p>To be clear, if you can't be bothered looking for better sources, it's generally better to remove the date anyway, to avoid ] etc. Ultimately for that kind of thing in a BLP, it's the ] of anyone who wants to add (back) the info to find a suitable source. </p><p>BTW, the dead link issue tends to be less important unless you have doubts about the source that you cannot assess. Per ], if the source is acceptable, then we generally leave it until it's repaired. Admittedly in this case, it doesn't look like it's actually archived so that may be quite difficult. Still even in a BLP, I wouldn't removed sourced content just because of a deadlink, unless there is some other reason to. (E.g. I suspect the dead link is not an RS, or think it may have been misinterpreted.) </p><p>As an aside, if the common solution which doesn't seem to apply here, is if we have some RS on the birthdate, but it doesn't seem widely published, is to only include the year. </p><p>] (]) 12:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)</p>
::<p>{{reply|Nil Einne}} Thanks. It was more the procedure I was asking about so this answered my question completely. Thank you very much. ] (]) 20:18, 4 January 2020 (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.
== The Metal Onslaught ==


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.
This is the first of two heavy metal music "zines": https://www.themetalonslaught.com/about-us From this about us page, it seems clear that it's a site for fans by fans, but it does not appear to meet some of the hallmarks required for being a reliable source: there is no editorial oversight policy, the founder has no journalistic background, and this site seems to sell what it reviews so is motivated to provide good reviews. This site is used on many articles. Can it be considered a reliable source? ] (]) 05:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Sources
1.https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/02/01/turkey-exposed-fatal-flaws-in-russian-made-s-400-surface-to-air-missile/


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


3. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/12/28/russian-su-57-will-carry-four-missiles-in-the-internal-weapons-bay/
This is the second of two heavy metal music "zines": http://mauce.nl/site/ There is no "about us" page, but individual reviewers do get entries and the founders are not journalists. Their mission statement, http://mauce.nl/site/mission-statement/, is interesting but makes it clear they just want to inform readers but do not claim to be journalists. The individual "editor" pages don't support journalistic experience of any of the writers and again, no editorial oversight policy. This site is used on many articles. Can this be considered a reliable source? ] (]) 05:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


4. Radar Horizon. (n.d.). www.ssreng.com. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www.ssreng.com/pdf/Radar_Horizon.pdf
== Les Vicomtes du Mans et La Maison de Belleme ==


5. Butowski 2021, pp. 78–82
Does anyone have information pertaining to the author of this book, M. J. Depoin? I have been unable to find information on this person.--] (]) 06:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


6. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2022/01/24/sukhoi-su-57s-x-band-n036-byelka-and-n036l-1-01-l-band-radars-are-not-what-you-think/
:{{ping|Kansas Bear}} Not the most reliable source, but according to Google Books this is possibly the same as Joseph Depoin, a historian (see and ). Wikidata has a record about him . The usual disclaimers apply, I have not researched the issue in more detail. ] (]) 18:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
::Thank you very much. That is more than I had. --] (]) 18:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
:::Compare also these 2 records for more evidence: and - both publishing via the Societe historique in Pontoise. Hope this helps a bit with your research - I like that digging around in old sources :). ] (]) 18:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
:::M. Depoin is a red link on frwiki in ]. &ndash;] (]) 18:46, 4 January 2020 (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/
== specialforcesroh.com ==


8. When Israel bombs Syria, Russia turns a blind eye. (2022, January 3). thearabweekly.com. Retrieved January 22, 2025, from
Previously discussed at ].
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 ==
http://www.specialforcesroh.com/ is being used in a lot of articles, and in my opinion is quite obviously an unreliable self-published source. My removal of it was reverted from ], so thought it best to get a definitive answer before proceeding. ] (]) 21:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


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


"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."
I'm curious to hear thoughts about using to source the claim that lively forum discussion pre-existed media interest in the Science of Identity foundation on ]'s BLP. The relevant discussion is at the talk page (diffs and ). (NB: the question of Grube's article (also in Civil Beat) is not my primary question, though I would be interested in hearing whether that article is admissible). I gather Civil Beat is an Omidyar initiative. I don't know if there's a general en.wp rule/decree/etc. for Omidyar media initiatives at perennial sources? ^^


The question is should we trust it?
{{u|MrX}}, {{u|Xenagoras}}, pinging you both since you're in the starring diffs. (sorry) 🌿 ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 22:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


Plus, why do pages about gamers and vloggers place so much emphasis on what appears to be arbitrary, trivial information that is prone to fluctuation?]] 15:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
There has been media interest in the Science of Identity Foundation and/or Chris Butler's nexus to politics since 1976 (see Independents for Godly Government). The media reported on it in relation to state senator Rick Reed as well as Gabbard's parents. It is well known in certain communities in Hawaii and has existed independently of online forum discussion. It received renewed interest with regard to Gabbard when she herself referenced her "guru dev" in an August 2015 YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-GLgGw6ujU&t=150s). It would, however, be interesting to know whether Civil Beat articles are admissible, as they contain useful information. ] (]) 00:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
:I'm not sure that Honolulu Civil Beat ranks high on our scale of reliability. I'm not aware that they have a reputation for fact checking. Their policy on corrections seems to be non-existent: . More importantly, I believe that this minor source should not be used to rebut reportage in far better sources like The New Yorker, The New York Times, New York Magazine, and The Guardian. Here is the wording :
:{{tq2|In March 2015, after study of extensive forum postings and the public record, Honolulu Civil Beat "found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is — or ever was — a Butler devotee" and "could find no record of her ever speaking publicly about it".|source=}}
:Finally, the 2015 Honolulu Civil Beat article is comically out of date. All of the articles cited to support the material (see collapsed section below) about Gabbard's involvement with the Science of Identity Foundation are far more recent and the publishers are far more reputable.
:{{cot|Science of Identity Foundation content}}
:Tulsi Gabbard was raised in part on the teachings of the ] (SIF) religious community and its spiritual leader, Chris Butler.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-race.html|title=Tulsi Gabbard Thinks We’re Doomed |last=Bowles|first=Nellie|date=August 2, 2019|newspaper=]|access-date=December 9, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/donald-trumps-america/114665278/meet-the-guitarstrumming-kiwi-surfer-dude-whos-become-us-presidential-candidate-tulsi-gabbards-secret-weapon|title=Meet the guitar-strumming Kiwi surfer dude who's become US presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard's secret weapon|last=Hurley|first=Bevan|date=August 4, 2019|access-date=December 9, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/18/tulsi-gabbard-2020-progressive-steve-bannon-right|title=Who is Tulsi Gabbard? The progressive 2020 hopeful praised by Bannon and the right|last=McCarthy|first=Tom|date=March 19, 2019|access-date=December 16, 2019}}</ref> Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-race.html|title=Tulsi Gabbard Thinks We’re Doomed|last=Bowles|first=Nellie|date=August 2, 2019|access-date=December 16, 2019}}</ref> and in 2015 Gabbard referred to Butler as her spiritual master.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe|title=What Does Tulsi Gabbard Believe?|last=Sanneh|first=Kelefa|date=October 30, 2017|newspaper=New Yorker|access-date=January 13, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-campaign.html|title=Tulsi Gabbard Had a Very Strange Childhood|last=Howley|first=Kerry|date=June 11, 2019|newspaper=]|access-date=January 13, 2019|quote=When The ''New Yorker'' asked her if she had a spiritual teacher, she said she had had “many different spiritual teachers,” that none was more important than the others, and that she has never heard Chris Butler say an unkind thing.}}</ref> Gabbard's husband and ex-husband have also been part of the community.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-campaign.html|title=Tulsi Gabbard Had a Very Strange Childhood|last=Howley|first=Kerry|date=June 11, 2019|newspaper=]|access-date=January 13, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/donald-trumps-america/114665278/meet-the-guitarstrumming-kiwi-surfer-dude-whos-become-us-presidential-candidate-tulsi-gabbards-secret-weapon|title=Meet the guitar-strumming Kiwi surfer dude who's become US presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard's secret weapon|last=Hurley|first=Bevan|date=August 4, 2019|access-date=December 9, 2019}}</ref> Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about the SIF.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/18/tulsi-gabbard-2020-progressive-steve-bannon-right|title=Who is Tulsi Gabbard? The progressive 2020 hopeful praised by Bannon and the right|last=McCarthy|first=Tom|date=March 19, 2019|access-date=December 16, 2019}}</ref>
{{reflist talk}}
{{cob}}
:- ]] 🖋 01:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
:::Unsurprisingly, MrX fails to cite the full context. The following line of proposed text was the following: {{tq2| Five months later, Gabbard referred to ] as her guru dev (teacher), in the context of a celebration of ]'s trip to the United States.<ref>{{cite web|title=Tulsi Gabbard: an American politician Message for Srila Parbhupada's Journey to USA|work=Hare Krsna TV -- Iskon Desire Tree|publisher=youtube|author=Tulsi Gabbard|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-GLgGw6ujU|date=August 19, 2015|at=3:38}}</ref> }}
{{reflist-talk}}
:::The above video is the source for the articles he cites, yet he does not believe it should be included, only the sources making a big, big, deal out of a passing mention in this video (obviously without linking to the source, because that would show just how passing a mention it is: 3 seconds out of 5 minutes)... 🌿 ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 02:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
::],Please do not ]. You have a habit of doing that, e.g against ]'s writing in ] if that writing is ''non''-hostile towards Gabbard or Russia (, , ). You claimed a ''widespread perception'' that Gabbard were ] with Russia () 5 months ''before'' Gabbard's opponents (Clinton et.al.) began making a similar claim by defaming her as "Russian ]" and 4 months before the same rhetoric of "quid pro quo" was used to justify impeachment inquiry against Trump. Your most blatant disregard for the ] policy regarding sources for Gabbard-articles can be read here: You are ] and reject sources if their writing is ''non''-hostile towards Gabbard (or Russia). This constitutes a pattern of systematic ] policy violation towards a BLP. Also, do not argue about the number of citations by the sources as you did there:. ] (]) 22:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
:::Simmer down {{u|Xenagoras}}. This is not the place to ] things wrote I did that you disagree with. I stand by everything I have written about Gabbard and about the quality of sources. Believe it or not, editors are allowed to to have differing opinions. Right now, we're discussing whether this Honolulu news website is reliable, not other things. - ]] 🖋 23:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


If there is a dispute between one 2015 article by an obscure local news site and multiple more recent articles by multiple high-quality RS, then we opt for the language and content from the latter. ] (]) 02:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC) :It is ] - I don't think ] applies since it is drawing its data out of an API but I'd say it's a marginal source. ] (]) 16:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::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 ==
:According to the Intelligencer (New York) article: {{tq|When The ''New Yorker'' asked her if she had a spiritual teacher, she said she had had “many different spiritual teachers,” that none was more important than the others, and that she has never heard Chris Butler say an unkind thing.}} 🌿 ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


<!-- ] 23:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740610876}}
: {{reply|MrX}} ] (]) 04:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
{{rfc|prop|pol|rfcid=11A50DD}}
*'''Generally reliable''' as a local source with corrections policy shown in above link, but national rs such as NYT would take precedence, imv ] (]) 11:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


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.
::I checked yesterday to see if our article (and Xenagoras' statement) was correct about '']'' regularly winning Best online news site in Hawaii from the Society of Professional Journalists. It appears to be correct as the references in the en.wp entry confirm.


In light of all this, how would you rate the EurAsian Times?
::In sum, if ''Civil Beat'' is considered '''generally reliable''' there should be no problem with using it to state that the long forum campaign conducted to suggest that Chris Butler is a "nefarious influence" on Tulsi Gabbard has failed to provide any evidence: {{tq|By and large, this question is met with a collective head-scratching. Beyond the vague notion of transparency, none of the people ''Civil Beat'' has interviewed, or even the Gabbard skeptics on the Cult Education forum, can point to any nefarious plot being concocted by Butler or offer an articulate explanation as to why Gabbard’s constituents should be alarmed by Butler’s potential influence on the congresswoman. But that hasn’t stopped them from looking for evidence of a secret agenda}}


* '''Option 1: ]'''
::Cf. the of Gabbard's BLP. 🌿 ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 13:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
* '''Option 2: ]'''
:::The concerns about it being outdated and fringe still apply. You will have to get consensus on the talk page to include it. - ]] 🖋 13:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)$
* '''Option 3: ]'''
* '''Option 4: ]'''


Thank you. '''''<span style="color:#503680">] ] ]</span>''''' 22:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) <small>PS: it is the first time I create an RFC, I hope it is not malformed</small>
::::Weird that you call a paper that has won the SPJ award 9 years in a row for best online news site in Hawaii, fringe. I reject this argument as baseless.


===Survey (EurAsian Times)===
::::Could you provide more recent information published in an RS contradicting the claim above? I've never read anything showing there was some sort of "nefarious plot being concocted by Butler" or demonstrating that his "potential influence" should alarm people? You would need to show something directly contradicting the claim. Also, why don't you want info about the forum campaign mentioned, MrX? 🌿 ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 14:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::I'm not going to take a deep dive into the content on this noticeboard. I've already made my case on the article talk page, where the content is properly discussed. - ]] 🖋 14:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
::{{re|Atlantic306}} Did you actually ''look'' at the corrections page? It looks blank to me. - ]] 🖋 13:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
:::I followed this link , also if theyve won journalism awards that is another point in their favour, imv ] (]) 13:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
::::Oh, you found an old version of their website that ''had'' a corrections policy. Notably, their ''current'' website does not. - ]] 🖋 14:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
:::To be fair on the publication, the link above is not ''necessarily'' where I would expect a corrections policy to be. It is to a list of articles tagged with the topic "Civil Beat Policy on Corrections". The general topics page says this should include one article; but it does not, for some reason. I do, however, find this article, on the publication of the Corrections Policy, seemingly misplaced under the topic "Civil Beat Policy on Anonymous Sources"; and would think it more likely to have been mis-tagged than non-existent. No comment as to the broader reliability of the publication. - ] <sup>]</sup> 21:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


*
::::Thanks for looking into it, that did seem strange. Someone could email them and suggest they fix it. ^^ 🌿 ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 21:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
* ''Generally reliable''. It is also likely more reliable than national RS outlets when it comes to Hawaii specific issues. ] (]) 01:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


===Discussion (EurAsian Times)===
* '''Points of information''' for all. I wrote HCB to report the blank page. (They promptly fixed it and said it was a glitch in the upgrading of their content management system.)
* 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)
:*'''Honolulu Civil Beat policies''': See where there are links to their and .
*: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)
:*'''Honolulu Civil Beat awards''': Civil Beat has — national (including a 2019 general excellence award from the ]) and regional as well as local. ] (]) 02:22, 6 January 2020 (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)
* '''Generally reliable'''. I point to my detailed explanation from the article talk page. ] is a ], it is an investigative news website that practices ]: fact-checking, interviewing, beat reporting and investigative journalism. Honolulu Civil Beat has been awarded ''best news site in Hawaii'' by the Society of Professional Journalists each year since 2011. ] publishes and finances the ]. He also finances ]. Both news outlets have published many very critical articles about Gabbard. The specific you are interest in shows that Honolulu Civil Beat did a lot of original research on Gabbard. It stems from a time before she resigned from the DNC to oppose Hillary Clinton and before she announced her 2020 presidential campaign. As for every source, general policies apply, as I explained here. ] (]) 22:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


== flightconnections.com ==
== "Empires and Exchanges in Eurasian Late Antiquity" ==


I wonder if flightconnections.com is a reliable source. Examples of it use are on and . In both cases ] asks for {{tq|airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet ]}}. I have doubt if flightconnections qualifies as reliable. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 02:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Is this book reliable? An user reverts my edit on ] saying it is disputed although he does not put any counterargument. ] (]) 16:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
:Publisher looks OK. Reliable until proven otherwise. However, I would rather reference direct page of that quotation, not only the entire chapter (pp. 269-418). I think the editor in question (]) could explain their concerns here (there is nothing on the article talk page about this book), so I invite them to this discussion. ] (]) 08:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
::The full text is ''"Mythology employing shamanic symbolism along with references to the sky-god Tengri were, evidently, tools to strengthen the Türk ruler's legitimacy, and some scholars see this practice as amounting to a state religion, “Tengrism,” in which the ruling Ashina family gained legitimacy through its support from Tengri."''<ref>Empires, Diplomacy, and Frontiers. (2018). In N. Di Cosmo & M. Maas (Eds.), Empires and Exchanges in Eurasian Late Antiquity: Rome, China, Iran, and the Steppe, ca. 250–750 (pp. 269-418). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref> I used this as reference that their religion was ], {{ping|Hunan201p}} disagree. It's chapter 20: Infrastructures of legitimacy in inner Asia: the Early Turk Empires, by Michael R. Drompp, but I can't find the book online. ] (]) 17:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


:I can't find any information about who runs the site or where it gets it's information from. There are quite a few articles promoting it or about how to use it, but that is unsurprising as it operates an affiliate programme. From a Google book search it has some extremely limited USEBYOTHERS (note several of the results are not reliable sources), but not enough to be meaningful. I couldn't get any useful results from Google Scholar. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
{{reftalk}}
:I do see it as reliable. They are from one of the large brokers (likely either Cirium or OAG, I wish they said who) and simply providing a wrapper to explore that data, and selling ads and subscriptions to pay for the extremely expensive subscription the brokers charge. ] (]) 19:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== Pegging ==
== Minority of feminists at TERF article ==


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.
We have been having a protracted debate over whether we can say that TERFS is used to describe a minority of feminists. My general feeling is that the statement is most likely the Truth, but the level of sourcing found so far has been sub par. It would be nice to get some outside opinion on this from some sourcing experts who do not have much of a dog in the fight. The article is ] and the sentence is {{tq|It was used to describe a minority of feminists...}} in the body and the similar {{tq|It was originally applied to a minority of feminists}} in the lead. I haven't included the last part as that particular wording was decided through an RFC (]) and it didn't discuss the minority part. The main sources that I have seen used for this are:
* (in article)
* (in article)
* (previously in article)
* (discussed prominently on the talk)
I guess it would be good to know if the sourcing is strong enough to say this in wikivoice, with attribution, or not at all. There have also been discussions about whether qualifying TERF as a minority is useful or whether doing so is undue weight as many sources use other words to distinguish between the two groups, but that may be beyond the scope of this board. The two most recent discussion are at ] and ]. ]&nbsp;] 07:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
:this is not an RS matter.] (]) 12:44, 7 January 2020 (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.
== Sourcing at ] ==


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.
There has been an ongoing debate as to the usability of certain sources for certain content at ] since mid-November. Specifically:
* for the text {{tq|Mottainai'' has been referred to as "a part of the Japanese religious and cultural heritage."''}};
* for the text {{tq|Mottainai'' originated as a Buddhist term, though this fact is not common knowledge even in Japan.''}};
* (or -- they are functionally very similar) for the text {{tq|''According to historian Yamaori Tetsuo, ''mottainai'' is "inseparable from Buddhist ideas about the transience and evanescence of life".''}}; and
* for the text {{tq|''One of the earliest appearances of the word ''mottainai'' is in the book '']'' (''A Record of the Genpei War'', ca. 1247). This early use of the word appears in a story about ]. Yoshitsune dropped his bow into the sea, and a ] used the word ''mottainai'' in admonishing Yoshitsune that he should have considered his own life more valuable than even a worthy bow.''}}


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.
(Note that in some cases, the "facts" may be verified by the sources, but the neutrality/relevance is in dispute, as the authors of our cited sources appear to disagree with the matter asserted.) An RFC was opened, but very few outside editors have expressed interest. Some more third-party opinions would be appreciated.


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.
] (<small>]]</small>) 05:12, 7 January 2020 (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.
* Trying to make this a bit clearer, i.e. by naming sources (for clarity: all of these quotes and refs, apart from parenthetical convenience links, occur in of ]):
*# '''Source''': {{cite journal |last1=Shuto |first1=Toshimoto |last2=Eriguna |year=2013 |title=Kindergarten Children's and Teachers' Cognitions of 'Mottainai' and Their Socio-Moral Judgments about Environmental Deviancy |journal=Journal of Saitama University. Faculty of Education |volume=62 |issue=1 |pages=25–36 |publisher= |doi= |url=https://sucra.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=pages_view_main&active_action=repository_view_main_item_detail&item_id=17644&item_no=1&page_id=26&block_id=52 |accessdate=24 July 2013}}<br />'''Content''': ''Mottainai'' has been referred to as "a part of the Japanese religious and cultural heritage."
*# '''Source''': {{cite journal |last=Sato |first=Yuriko |year=2017 |title=Mottainai: a Japanese sense of anima mundi |journal=Journal of Analytical Psychology |volume=62 |issue=1 |pages=147–154}} ()<br />'''Content''': ''Mottainai'' originated as a Buddhist term, though this fact is not common knowledge even in Japan.
*# '''Source''': {{cite journal |first = Eiko Maruko |last = Siniawer |journal = The Journal of Asian Studies |number = 1 |pages = 165–186 |publisher = Cambridge University Press, Association for Asian Studies |title = 'Affluence of the Heart': Wastefulness and the Search for Meaning in Millennial Japan |volume = 73 |date = 2014 |jstor = 43553399 |doi = 10.1017/S0021911813001745}} (or: {{cite book|first = Eiko Maruko |last = Siniawer |title = Waste: Consuming Postwar Japan |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=bCVjDwAAQBAJ |date = 2018 |chapter = We Are All Waste Conscious Now |chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=bCVjDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA241 |page = |publisher = Cornell University Press |isbn = 9781501725852 }})<br />'''Content''': According to historian Yamaori Tetsuo, ''mottainai'' is "inseparable from Buddhist ideas about the transience and evanescence of life".
*# '''Source''': Taylor, Kevin. "Material Flows: Human Flourishing And The Life Of Goods". ''A World In Discourse: Converging And Diverging Expressions Of Value'' (2015) pages 74-75. (convenience links: pp.&nbsp;–, and endnote&nbsp;12 p.&nbsp;)<br />'''Content''':One of the earliest appearances of the word ''mottainai'' is in the book '']'' (''A Record of the Genpei War'', ca. 1247). This early use of the word appears in a story about ]. Yoshitsune dropped his bow into the sea, and a ] used the word ''mottainai'' in admonishing Yoshitsune that he should have considered his own life more valuable than even a worthy bow.
:--] (]) 06:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC) — minor tweaks to sources in the above list (journal ref in #2 per current version of that reference in the Mottainai article; precision of endnote link in #4). --] (]) 12:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
::Not sure what good listing the publisher and publication titles on this noticeboard accomplishes, or how the above is "a bit clearer" than my "Source X for Text Y" approach, but whatever. (I might as well also point out that Taylor cites a source, , who was one of the best-regarded scholars and translators of classical Japanese literature outside Japan throughout her career, but that ''mottainai'' appears in the text, and the original Japanese text she used . (It is my intention to contact Taylor in the near future to ask if he can remember where he got the information, since it seems very likely he ], which was with no source and an obvious chronological error in the edit summary -- 1247 is around a half-century after the end of the Heian era.) ] (<small>]]</small>) 07:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
::I've fixed the Shuto/Eriguna links in both my and Francis's posts; I had forgotten that the text presented as "version A" in the RFC contained a broken link. ] (<small>]]</small>) 07:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


https://peggingparadise.com/ (my original website)
== Carey Sublette and ] ==


https://www.theartofpegging.com/ (my educational and patron platform)
I have been looking at the ] article and I'd like some advice / help. The current reference two is misformatted but says
::{{cite web | last = Sublette | first = Carey | authorlink = | title = Types of nuclear weapons | work = FAQ | date = July 2007 | url = http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq1.html#nfaq1.6 | format = | doi = | accessdate = 2010-02-13}}
and links to <nowiki>http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq1.html#nfaq1.6</nowiki>, a site that I was not sure qualifies as an ]. It doesn't seem to me to establish who Carey Sublette is or why he's qualified to write on this topic. In looking around, however, I found that:
* Sublette's Nuclear Weapons Archive by the ], which suggests to me fact checking and accuracy, especially as he is ''The High Energy Weapons Archive: A Guide to Nuclear Weapons'' that is listed in Google Books and which was published by the FAS in 2000.
* Sublette has been discussed on WP a few times, including:
**The 2017 FAC that led to the article ] being promoted to FA. In ], {{u|Ealdgyth}} asked "What makes <nowiki>http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Home.html</nowiki> a high quality reliable source?" Nominator {{u|Hawkeye7}} replied that Sublette "is generally regarded as an expert in the field" and that he has been quoted in books including:
***]'s ''Plutonium: A History of the World's Most Dangerous Element'' (2009), and in another of his books, (2008), where Sublette's site was included as potential additional reading and in which Sublette is also acknowledged / thanked in a few places.
***]'s ''The Longest August: The Unflinching Rivalry Between India and Pakistan''
***Myra MacDonald's ''Defeat is an Orphan: How Pakistan Lost the Great South Asian War''
***Bhumitra Chakma's ''The Politics of Nuclear Weapons in South Asia
***Bruce Cameron Reed's ''The Physics of the Manhattan Project''
**In ] in 2005 of the article ], in which {{u|Georgewilliamherbert}} argued based on his own experience and Sublette's work that a source being used was in error and that the text needed correction.
**On the ] in June 2006 when {{u|Robert Merkel}} commented that "ne of the best-known sources on nuclear weapons in the open literature is Carey Sublette's nuclear weapons FAQ."
*His work / site are described positively by others, such as by Gregory Walker's and by Glen Elert's .
*His work is used as a reference on other WP articles &ndash; my in article space returned 142 hits.
It was coming to the conclusion that Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons Archive is an RS, though possibly self-published and not suited for BLPs... but I then noticed that the content of is nearly identical to the content of the article's first reference,
::{{cite book | last1 = Bhushan | first1 = K. | first2 = G. | last2 = Katyal | title = Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Warfare | chapter = Types of Nuclear Weapons &ndash; Cobalt Bombs and Other Salted Bombs | publisher = ] | year = 2002 | location = New Delhi, India | pages = 75–77 | chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=JelgwgVx-P0C&pg=PA75| isbn = 9788176483124}}
The FAQ is dated 1998 and the book in 2002 (but as a reprint) so it could be that Sublette's work has just been plagiarised. We have no article on the book's publisher (and I know some publishers are blatantly violating copyright), nor do any of the authors have wikibios that I can find. So...
#Is Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons Archive an RS, and if so, is all of it or just the FAQ?
#Should I use the Sublette archive as a source and drop the book for the ] article? If so, should this book be deprecated as a source due to suspected copyright infringement? It is presently used on ], ], ], ], ], and ].
#Should I use the book as a source and drop the archive for the ] article?
#Should I drop both and seek alternative sources?
Sorry for the length but I thought explaining would be helpful. Any and all comments / suggestions / criticisms / etc welcome. Thanks. ] (]) 07:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


https://pegging101.com/ (pegging with no kink for the vanilla people)
talk:EdChem|talk]]) 07:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
:# Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons Archive a RS, all of it. Sublette is a widely-respected expert on nuclear weapons, although he doesn't have a nuclear (as opposed to chemical) weapons security clearance. (If he did, he wouldn't be able to write about it.) I would like to tell you more, but one of our rules gets in the way.
:# Use the Sublette as your source in the salted bomb article. It remains our best source, although some information in it is dated. It is 20 years old.
:# The book plagiarises Sublette. For our purposes though, that doesn't maker it unreliable.
: ] ] 10:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
:::ty, {{u|Hawkeye7}}... if the book plagiarises Sublette, isn't linking to it a problem as a copyvio? ] (]) 10:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC) <small>Edited to fix typo in ping and re-sign. ] (]) 10:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)</small>


With Respect For All That You Amazing People Do,
== Yomedan-chii.jp blog in ] ==
Ruby Ryder ] (]) 05:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


:Ms. Ryder,
] is a topic about crossdressing in Japan. At , {{user|Trappy-chan}} argues that the Japanese-language blog entry http://yomedan-chii.jp/archives/18333797.html is an appropriate source for this article, including for claims about gender identity issues, because, according to Trappy-chan, it was written by an expert in the field. I have serious doubts about that.
:What would help here is if you could point us to either reliable, independent sources citing your work, or of you writing for publications that you don't publish yourself.... something that helps us see that, as you say, "in sex educations widely known as a go-to expert." I fully believe that you are.
:The problem with someone using your sources as a reference has to do with Misplaced Pages's rules on using self-published sources, which your websites, videos, etc, count as. We can use such sources as reference (if within some limits), but only if we can see that the creator is a ''recognized'' expert in the field... and by recognized, that means either cited by or hired to write on the topic by reliable sources. I know that it seems like your voluminous experience and the visible quality of your materials should count for something here, but alas it does not. I don't think we'd be expecting, say, the New York Times or the Journal of the American Medical Association in this case, just some recognizable source that takes such sexual matters seriously. It doesn't even have to be material that is online (although that would help.) Articles that quote you or recommend your sites or training services would really help. Can you point us to such citations? -- ] (]) 06:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:I appreciate the work that you do. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages editors cannot use their own judgement to assess the expertise of someone. There are people who research topics and work in a field their entire lives who become experts in those fields and publish their work on their own websites. But there are also pseudo-experts who do the same thing. Editors on Misplaced Pages are not allowed to use their own judgement to discern the difference between the two, but must rely on a third party to establish their expertise. If you have ever given an interview on pegging for a newspaper or a magazine, or had your website cited by a sexologist or another recognizable sex expert as a good resource on pegging, for instance, then that would allow us to recognize the reliability of your site for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:Could you comment on and notify the article talk page you want to edit? We really cannot help without context around what changes you want to include.
:that conversation from 2017 is old. I have no clue if that is what Misplaced Pages editors believe today, nor the state of the article you want to change. ] (]) 19:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::I am highly confident that ] is the main article on the topic. ] (]) 19:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I would concur. ] (]) 19:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Their comment wasn't asking which page the 2017 discussion was on (which is linked to), but was asking RubyRyder to leave a comment on the talk page of that article. ] (]) 20:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::* Is the only reason we want to include this information because its from RubyRyder and it would be good publicity? or is there a specific bit of info that they want to include that is missing?
::::* have they tried including it and seeing what happens? (see ]) Are regulars who wrote and watch the pegging article notified that this debate is happening?
::::* This post seems mostly like rehashing and trying to start up an argument from 2017 for the sake of a debate. would like info on what we are doing here, exactly, and what the debate is?
::::] (]) 20:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== NationalWorld.com ==
I cannot read Japanese, and I do not know anything about the blog's author, but: The blog has an informal, "cute" layout that is at odds with how a serious academic researcher would present their writings. And for gender identity issues in particular, I think that ] sourcing is preferred, or at any rate editorially reviewed sources, but certainly not self-published sources.


What do we think about being used for ]'s month of birth? Courtesy ping to {{yo|Diademchild}}.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 19:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
What do others think? And for those who read Japanese, does this blog post even support the added content? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
* '''Unreliable'''. The blog is a ] authored by Chii. Chii published '''', an autobiography in the style of a ]. It is not an ] source and it absolutely does not establish the author as a ] in ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 10:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


:Based on ], not necessarily crap. ] (]) 21:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
* The "blog" is by internationally published author Chii, who made autobiographical and educational "The Bride Was a Boy", a published work available in many languages that tackles on the many aspects of japanese transgender cultures. According to Misplaced Pages's guidelines, this an estabilished expert and thus a reliable source. Furthermore, this blog is not used by itself to backup claims on gender identity, as there are other sources from news websites that corroborate the information being provided in the page. The blog is only used as a stand-alone source to explain the connection between the slangs 男の娘 (male girl) and 女装子 (male crossdresser).] (]) 10:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
*: The blog is self-published by Chii. ] states that self-published sources {{tq|"are largely not acceptable as sources"}}, but {{tq|"may be considered reliable when produced by an ] on the subject matter, whose work '''in the relevant field''' has previously been published by ], independent publications"}}. ''The Bride was a Boy'' is a ]-styled autobiography published by ], which is neither academic nor ], and does not qualify Chii as a subject-matter expert. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 11:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
*: The argument on whether or not Chii is considered an "expert" is, first off, not relevant since there are journalistic references on the subject of how gender identities and sexualities are irrelevant to 男の娘 culture in the article, which is what was previously being complained about. Chii's post only corroborates with what's already there. Chii's is only being referenced by itself in relation to the other common slang, 女装子 (crossdresser). Furthermore, I feel like there is a bad faith argument going on here since Chii's internationally published work is commonly found discussed in independent and journalistic publications, as any piece of culturally relevant media, but this is being completely ignored. It is one of the few and biggest educational LGBT publications on trans cultures to ever come out of Japan. If, in any case, this still feels insufficient for discussing the relation between 男の娘 and 女装子, we can put more effort into expanding that section of the article. However, I do not feel it should be excluded since crossdressing is such a major part of 男の娘 culture (such that it is left as the short description for 男の娘 itself, for the sake of clarity, which some may find improper). As a final note, again, the information in the article that addresses the definition of 男の娘 and its relation to gender identities and sexualities must not be excluded as they are properly sourced with multiple non-conflicting references including references from Japan itself. If anything, this should only be reformatted, if necessary, or added to, with the proper sourcing. Undoing these revisions to the article would be improper.] (]) 13:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:31, 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
    Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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


    Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

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

    Additional notes:

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

    RfC: NewsNation

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

    What is the reliability of NewsNation?

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


    Survey (NewsNation)

    • Option 2: Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light).
      • NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
        • In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the 2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings, Coulthart said "... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"! . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including Jamey Jacob and Mick West, all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects.
        • Writing in The Skeptic, Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: "Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."
        • He wrote a UFO book titled Plain Sight which Jason Colavito described as a "conspiracy narrative" and a "slipshod summary".
        • The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for “espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”
        • The Australian Broadcasting Corporation did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking "Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary? while strongly implying the former.
        • The Sydney Morning Herald has described him as a "UFO truther" with "little appetite for scrutiny".
        • Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked 60 Minutes (Australian TV program) investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians.
      • Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs:
        • In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the Washington Post: ), the channel "was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health".
        • In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said "... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing". The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to Mick West's analysis, a Boeing 737 .
    Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    Discussion (NewsNation)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. This also seems to be a relevant document. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle
    WP:AGE MATTERS?
    citing Portuguese records
    That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above Abo Yemen✉ 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    One example of another secondary source comparing the accounts (after C. F. Buckingham) is Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1997). The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama. pp. 290-291. (link) GordonGlottal (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?Abo Yemen✉ 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. The Independent is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the Quaiti Sultanate was a thing according to a Facebook post made by a high school that he attended). He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others . He also published a book about the city of Shihr . He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023

    References

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

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

    Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.GordonGlottal (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the Special:diff/1266430566#Background Special:diff/1266430566#Losses and Special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city Internet Archive a txt version of the book that can get machine translated can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) Abo Yemen✉ 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. Javext (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Javext If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in this letter, which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from the catalog description but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! GordonGlottal (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hi, @GordonGlottal. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this:
    "Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India , his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." Javext (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    capturing Al-Shihr
    hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? Abo Yemen✉ 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder.
    I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. Javext (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city Abo Yemen✉ 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. Javext (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    "Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, (Never happened btw) and how important it would be to conquer Diu."
    Abo Yemen✉ 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    "Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? Abo Yemen✉ 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned Abo Yemen✉ 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    capturing a city != sacking it
    your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here Abo Yemen✉ 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. Javext (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Now show me where in your sources does it say that Abo Yemen✉ 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    You were just denying that this happened after I showed you the sources, why are you asking this now? Didn't I just give them above? Javext (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    What sources about capturing a city did you show me? Those letters clearly show that the portuguese wanted to capture the city and they failed as we have no proof of them being there after the battle was over. But did they lie to whoever they sent this letter to? Abo Yemen✉ 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Look bro, the letter doesn't state they failed, it states the Portuguese captured the city and then sacked it. For the fourth time, this DOES NOT mean they retained control of the city. Javext (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    @GordonGlottal so we can finish with and archive this, can we use those sources in anything other than the battle section? like the other sections that I've mentioned being deleted here #c-Abo_Yemen-20250108072200-GordonGlottal-20250107223800 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    In general I think we've established that there is currently no way of including any claim which cannot be directly traced to the 16th-century Portuguese histories or the Hadrami chronicles (which agree). This is because no source cites any other form of evidence, and because it represents the approach of English-language academic books. I have not reviewed the details and I do not know which claims qualify, but you're free to add anything you can find in an appropriate source. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    not even a legacy section like the one you proposed? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu

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

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

    • A: Geni.com
    • B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
    • C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav
    Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.
    They should be:

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

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

    Preliminaries

    Probably need to add the website Genealogics.org to the list of unreliable sources. It also uses Misplaced Pages articles which would be WP:CIRC. --Kansas Bear 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK. But it could be a good follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. NLeeuw (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. NLeeuw (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see WP: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#RfC: Universe Guide. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Read Background: B. NLeeuw (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Survey A: Geni.com

    Deprecate. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. JoelleJay (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Deprecate.Question. Isn't it already deprecated?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Deprecate A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Unsure. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Deprecate. Really bad. Needs to go away.—Alalch E. 00:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley

    Deprecate, per background discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Comment. I think this source has been often discussed in a superficial way, together with other sources, which does not always lead to a clear perspective. This is not like the other two. It collects a lot of useful extracts from primary sources than can be helpful for getting a grip on a topic. Although it is basically the work of one editor, this editor was assigned to do this for an organization which does make some efforts to maintain a reputation for quality. (The FMG publishes a journal, and it posts some online corrections to Keats-Rohan's reference works for the 11th and 12th century, and she has noted those helpful efforts in print.) On the other hand, Medlands does not use secondary material very much, so it is normally not going to the type of source we would use on WP on its own for anything non-obvious. I note these complications because I see that sources like Ancestry.com and Findmypast also have special notes about how they can sometimes have useful primary materials. To give a practical example of what might go wrong, what I saw in the past whenever this source was discussed, is that it was even deleted from external links sections and so on. I think this is a source that can be used for external links at the very least. I feel hesitant to say that it should NEVER EVER be used even in the main body to be honest, although I don't use it on WP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Deprecate Crawley has no academic background in history and MedLands is self-published. It is not published by FMG only hosted by them. That it contains a lot of useful information is not the same as it having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, something it doesn't have. Deprecation isn't blacklisting, editors are warned against adding it not blocked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    @ActivelyDisinterested: I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "the source is generally prohibited". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Editors who know the fine print will be the ones using the source correctly, and will know how to handle the situation. The issue is that editors who don't know keep adding this as a reference to support content, and the many discussions on the source show they isn't support for that. Adding a warning when editors post will at least get editors to ask why they are getting the warning, and help them understand the situation.
    Deprecation of this source will reduce the pointless pseudo-legal debates, by reducing the problem of the source being repeatedly readded. Editors should use their own good judgement, but as repeated discussion about this source have shown that isn't happening. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes the cost of not having to continuously patrol for this source and have the same discussion about it's reliability again and again.
    Separately before the two of us fill the survey section with our disagreement (mea culpa), should we move this discussion to the Discussion section? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Generally unreliable. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) Generally unreliable is the one which says this: "questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published" I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would only allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be prohibited. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at the May 2023 MedLands RSN shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he knows may be of little factual significance at face value just because he finds them "interesting" (but is reproduced by way of interest), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't verify. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. NLeeuw (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the Generally unreliable category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then only as far as we have to. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Generally reliable, in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. Ghirla 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Deprecate per ActivelyDisinterested.—Alalch E. 00:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Deprecate. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. JoelleJay (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as genealogy.eu and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). NLeeuw (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Deprecate. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Deprecate. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Lancaster (talk • contribs) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Comment. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the Europäische Stammtafeln, Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. Ghirla 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". NLeeuw (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Deprecate. WP:SPS. Deprecation will have a positive effect. And while it's always possible that someone in the know, who's really into genealogy, has the ability of figuring out out how the operator of this website makes it have the content that it has, that's not useful for determining reliability.—Alalch E. 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    Although I disagree I can understand you position. It's to easy to get stuck in disagreement spirals are part of RFCs. Let's see if anyone else brings any new ideas. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I previously commented that a seperate warning for generally unreliable sources would be helpful, for ones that are problematicly readded on a regular basis would be useful. That way a warning would appear but wouldn't come with the baggage of deprecation. At the moment deprecation is the only resource available, but it is a somewhat blunt hammer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    @ActivelyDisinterested Thanks for restoring the discussion from the archive; it evidently was not yet closed. It would seem that we've got a clear result though. Should I request a third party to formally close it with a conclusion, or how does this go with RfCs? NLeeuw (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    The {{RFC}} tag was missing, which would have added "DoNotArchiveUntil.." to the header to stop it from being archived. I've add the RFC tag which will list in for every to see (not just those to happen across it on RSN). I suggest waiting and seeing if any more comments come in, as they editors have taken part yet. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    RfC: Jacobin

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

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

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


    Survey: Jacobin

    • Option 2 I am opposed to the use of WP:GREL and think that no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2. With that being said, I would list New York Times or the CBC in precisely the same way and I don't believe that any of the complainants have demonstrated in any way that Jacobin is less reliable, per Misplaced Pages's standards, than any other American news media outlet. I am deeply concerned that many of the complaints are about "bias" when reliability does not include a political compass test. This is not grounds to treat a source as unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2/3, bias is one thing, getting things down right incorrect is another. As was demonstrated in the pre-discussion, the notion around the housing stock was truly an egregious error. This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts. When that happens, "Generally unreliable" or at minimum, "Additional considerations" makes sense as the guidance when using this source. I do not think further deprecation is warranted though since the reporters seem to be of a mixed quality, some are more diligent than others and the bias merging into wanton disregard for facts varies there too. The problem is, we rate sources, not just individual writers, and therefore as far as a source rating goes, "Option 2" or "Option 3" then makes the most logical sense. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      It was corrected. Your entire case is based on a single incident where a single writer made a single mistake. And it was fixed. There is absolutely no grounds for "Generally unreliable" on the basis of presented evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      It was corrected only after significant outside pressure and even then the correction was weak and inaccurate. The guy who wrote the article was explicitly mocking the people who pointed out his error and accusing them of something along the lines of being corporate shills. It also wasn’t a single incident as they publish nonsense regarding Russia and Ukraine, including and up to outright conspiracy theories, pretty regularly. It simply is not a reliable source, however much one agrees with their editorial stance. Volunteer Marek 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      So you agree with Iljhgtn's conspiracy theory that this was the purposeful result of pushing bias not an error? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      • I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including User:Iljhgtn and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? Volunteer Marek 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
        You misquote the editor (to your benefit), for someone so interested in errors supposedly motivated by bias that seems odd... In context its clearly stronger than that "This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." when nothing suggests that this was the result of narrative pushing (thats how you push a narrative either, as you've pointed out although lingusitically similar its an embarrassing and obvious error). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
        • You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome. Volunteer Marek 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
          You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
          No , I’m not. I’m simply asking you to refrain from trying to falsely characterize other people’s comments as “conspiracy theories” in a cheap attempt to delegitimize them since they’re clear nothing of the sort. Not everything you disagree with is a “conspiracy theory”. In this particular case, the article clearly had false info in it. No one has ever said that “information was changed” (as if on purpose) so please stop pretending otherwise. What was said was that “bias creeped in” which I think is a fair characterization. So please quit it with the strawman’ing. Volunteer Marek 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
          I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we WP:FOC. I believe @Horse Eye's Back is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
          Its you who needs to provide a source to substantiate your allegations against a living person. ""This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." is a BLP violation unless a source is provided or the author drops dead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      And what is your source for that? Nobody else is saying that this was the result of bias, the sources say that "third largest corporate owner of housing" became "owns a third of housing" which is a very understandable mistake. You appear to have constructed your own conspiracy theory around this incident. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Im sorry but “third largest owner” turning into “owns one third of all housing stock” is NOT an “understandable mistake”. It misstates the actual fact by a factor of 500. Maybe if this was like a student in some freshmen class using AI to write a paper that would be “understandable” (and still get an F) but this is supposed to be a professional, who’s job it is to get this stuff right and this is supposed to be a serious organization that has an editorial board that does fact checking. Which they obviously didn’t do. Volunteer Marek 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Whats “not math”? The difference between .0006 and .33? You sure? Volunteer Marek 01:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      And let’s see these “every major and minor publications” that make these kinds of error. Volunteer Marek 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      I note the failure to provide the requested source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      • Right back at you. Volunteer Marek 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
        , your turn and no stonewalling now provide the source or go away. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
        • Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that. Volunteer Marek 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
          Your source that this was "exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative" and not simply an error is what? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      I have to say I question your judgment in supporting option 3 "generally unreliable" over Jacobin publishing and then retracting a single erroneous sentence, and for having a bias/narrative/agenda, when you also !voted option 1 "generally reliable" for The Heritage Foundation which routinely publishes fabricated information without retraction. Could you kindly articulate how an admittedly biased outlet with a team of fact checkers is apparently significantly worse than a think tank that churns out misinformation and disinformation (and has a team of paid staff working around the clock to target, dox, and threaten Misplaced Pages editors)?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 A screenshot of a tweet documenting an already corrected error is insufficient to depreciate a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs) 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Gamaliel: Mostly Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin and at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine). Kind regards,
    Thank you for the links. I will repost once I've read through those discussions. Gamaliel (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 at the very least, change current assessment. It might be easier to comment if editors agree or not to change the current category. My position is based on coverage that mixes opinion with facts and its use of unreliable sources, some of which have been deprecated by this noticeboard (like The Grayzone). I went into more detail about this at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin and at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine). --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 (intext attribution) WP:RSBIAS and WP:RSOPINION cover most of the points here. Jacobin publishes opinions peice that should have intext attribution. This is how they are used in the large amount of WP:USEBYOTHERS that Jacobin also has. I may not like Jacobin very much but bias, opinion, or minor mistakes do not make a source unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 Context matters: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." The example given was a mistake in a book review, cubsequently corrected, about how much housing stock Blackstone owned. No reasonable editor would use this review as a source for an article on housing or Blackstone and more than one would use a reliable source on U.S. housing for an article about 19th century French poetry. TFD (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1-ish Jacobin are clearly a biased source but they are also clearly as reliable for facts as any other major WP:NEWSORG. When they make mistakes, they correct themselves, and that improves their reliability, it doesn't hurt it. Loki (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2: additional considerations/bad RFC - based on the discussion above, evidently there's some kind of social media uproar about some thing that Jacobin published and later corrected. It's poor timing to hold an RFC on reliability both when emotions are high and when it's in response to an isolated incident, both of which are true here. But ignoring that, it seems (again from the discussion above) that Jacobin published something that was egregiously incorrect, then retracted or corrected it. That's pretty much the standard we expect of reliable publications: errors are compatible with reliability, it's how the publication responds to and corrects errors that determines reliability in this context. Media Bias/Fact Check gives Jacobin a "high" reliability score of 1.9 (out of 10, lower scores are better), which is in the ballpark of the New York Times (1.4) and Washington Post (2.1). However, they also give it a "left bias" rating of -7 (a 20-point scale with 0 as completely unbiased), which is on the edge of their extreme ratings. Editors should consider attribution, and/or balancing this source's POV against publications more to the right. Ivanvector (/Edits) 17:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2/3 While BIAS usually covers issues like, it may not be entirely sufficient for advocacy media, which includes Jacobin. While Jacobin is a fine publication and I've sourced it myself, the reality is it does not usually report Who/What/Why but almost exclusively publishes explainers and analysis pieces that have a designed structure. For instance, How Biden Embraced Trump’s Terror Smear Against Cuba is not an editorial or opinion piece, it's presented as straight news reporting in the form of an explainer article. But, as an encyclopedia, we obviously can't start injecting artistic wordsets like "terror smear" into articles. So merely saying that BIAS can cover the case of Jacobin is not sufficient. For the purposes of encyclopedia writing, there will never be anything chronicled by Jacobin that is appropriate for WP which we can't find a superior source for elsewhere. They don't do spot news, data journalism, or investigative reporting, which are the three ways we use newsgathering media to reference articles. Simply looking at the current issue, I don't see a single story that is actually reporting things. Each article is an opinion piece lightly packaged as an explainer. So, while I don't think Jacobin is "unreliable" per se, I don't see any value of using it for the very scope-limited purpose of encyclopedia-writing. Chetsford (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 for facts and 2/inline attribution otherwise for articles that are mainly opinion. The hoohah over an article that was actually about Mark Fisher and since corrected such that it doesn't even mention Blackstone seems like a one off. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Nothing in the above discussion or that I've seen in the last year leads me to deviate from my !vote in the previous RfC which was this: Option 2: mostly a partisan opinion source usable with attribution if noteworthy, but occasionally publishes well-researched pieces by experts in their fields, on topics that might not be covered in more mainstream sources, in particular on the history of the left or on socialist theory. I also think that the closing of the last RfC, and in particular green flagging on RSP, did not reflect the consensus of the discussion, as I argued when this came up on this board in 2023: I have long been unhappy with the RSP summary of the many RSN discussions of this source, where the consensus has clearly been much more negative than the summary. It is clear that several editors have major issues with its use in specific areas (e.g. Russia/Ukraine, Venezuela) and that this should be flagged, and that it publishes content by a few conspiracy thinkers (Branko Marcetic was mentioned in the last discussion, McEvoy flagged here) and again this isn't highlighted in RSP. So I'd favour a rewrite of the RSP and possibly a change from green to yellow as a better reflection of the community consensus. In short: I think we need to approach it in a much more case by case basis. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 My assessment hasn't changed from last time, jacobin publishes mostly opinion so this is largely a moot point and the rest of what they publish often contradicts itself—blindlynx 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • 1 or 2, I think that most of the time they should be used with attribution but they're generally reliable enough that I don't think we should be requiring attribution. I also question the need for a new RfC... It doesn't seem like there has been anything substantial since last time so this shouldn't have been opened. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Weak option 2 per above voters (especially AD and Bob), but I won't die on that hill if the consensus ultimately feels differently. Strong oppose option 3, though, for somewhat obvious reasons. The Kip 18:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1/2 - I don't like Jacobin. They read to me like the socialist equivalent of Christian rock. But they have an editor, publisher and corrections, and I'm reasonably sure they're not actually liars. It's an opinion outlet, like a leftist analogue of Reason. I'm not convinced coverage in Jacobin connotes notability. So I'd give them a strong "considerations apply" - attribute, not ideal for notability - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1/2 Jacobin's fine. It's left-leaning, but it doesn't cook up facts or make shit up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3 or 4 They publish outright falsehoods and when they issue corrections these are weak and weaselly. The recent completely absurd claim in one of their articles that Blackstone owns 33% of US single family housing stock is an example (it’s actually 1/10 of 1%). Whether you’re sympathetic to their editorial position is irrelevant. Garbage is garbage and facts are facts and as an encyclopedia we can’t rely on click bait nonsense for sources. Volunteer Marek 19:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1, with attribution for analysis and opinion pieces. The Blackstone mistake was bad, and the author's petulant attitude upon being corrected leaves much to be desired. But the error was corrected relatively promptly, and they have an editorial team on staff. I'm not in favor of downgrading a source based on a single mistake. However, Jacobin has an explicit editorial stance that informs nearly all of its articles, and if it's used for more than straightforward facts, it should probably be attributed as e.g. "the socialist magazine Jacobin". I'm open to changing my view if others can demonstrate a more sustained pattern of errors or falsehoods. Astaire (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 (with caveats) due to the lack of developments since the last RfC which could actually change the conclusion of general reliability, as opposed to demonstrating fallibility or bias. I do have some sympathy with the no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2 position articulated above, but I think that comes down to how we interpret "generally reliable" in practice. In other words, "additional considerations" always apply, in principle. The difference between option 1 and option 2 comes down to how likely we expect those "additional considerations" to be of practical relevance, and how exactly we should address them. XOR'easter (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1, it doesn't seem anything has changed since the last RfC. Corrections and retractions is what a reliable source is expected to do and is a sign of reliability. Mistakes which are far greater than this are commonplace across the array of reliable sources (what matters is whether there are corrections or not) nor does partisanship equate to unreliability. Here the error appears to be about what's more or less a single sentence, an ancillary point or side-note in an opinion piece which has been corrected since. It should be treated no different a manner than any other openly partisan neworgs such as Reason (RSP entry). There is no requirement for reliable sources to be "neutral" or for the matter any standard that suggests newsorgs with an explicitly stated ideological position are any better or worse in matters of reliability than newsorgs that don't have an explicitly stated ideological position. WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASED are quite clear. 
    Though the standard disclaimers apply which are to check for whether what they publish has due weight for inclusion (not an issue of reliability), use in-text attribution with their political position made apparent when quoting opinion and that the context always matters. That there is a subreddit post critical of a error that was corrected is no basis for determining reliability of sources on Misplaced Pages or starting an RfC, so this is also a Bad RfC. This discussion has been had at a much greater depth in the previous RfC where it was shown that the magazine in question has quite significant use by others and affirmatory coverage from reliable secondary source demonstrating that they generally have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" which doesn't needs to be rehashed. Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Option 1: Bad RfC + L + Ratio Creating this RfC immediately after some sort of ostensible social media outrage (ex. I nominated David Joyner (business executive) for deletion not long after the Killing of Brian Thompson, and people got so upset that they brigaded it via external social media) seems like a bad idea. It's been made clear in the past that Jacobin has a perspective (like literally any media outlet) but don't sacrifice factual accuracy to get there. My previous vote remains true: "While it wears its political perspective on its sleeve, it has proven itself time and again in its robust fact-checking. The issue with conservative and reactionary sources on the WP:RSP isn't that they have a bias – it's that they constantly express said bias through the use of provable mis- and disinformation. Jacobin does not sacrifice factual accuracy for the sake of a bias."
    I would say the same of any other outlet whose perspective coexists peacefully with actual facts. The sort of neoliberalism adopted by American news outlets which we categorize as generally reliable (correctly so) isn't some sort of default worldview that needs to be treated as sacred and less biased than any other. If we're allowed to point to a single incident, then I could just as easily (but wouldn't, because I'm acting in good faith) point to the NYT's 2002–2003 reporting about Iraq and WMDs which was so unbelievably mistaken and grounded in literally nothing that we spend a paragraph attributing it to falsely luring Americans into supporting an illegal invasion based on lies, yet Misplaced Pages (even in the days when that story was reasonably fresh) would balk at the idea of calling them 'marginally reliable', let alone 'generally unreliable'. Meanwhile, this one is literally just a typo in a single article – a bad typo, but one anyone with a brain could understand didn't reflect reality and which was quickly corrected. Reading some of the stories on the front page right now, they report on events similar to what would be covered in a magazine like the generally reliable New York and contain no obvious factual errors. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2, mainly per u:BobFromBrockley. The Blackrock error was quickly corrected, so I don't hold it against them. Consider this quote from CANZUK Anglo-conservatives sometimes fantasize about reuniting the dominions ... where workers could be exploited freely. A not-insignificant percentage of the content supported by Jacobin is of similar nature. Alaexis¿question? 21:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 A screenshot from Reddit detailing an error which was corrected is not reason to lower our consideration of the reliablity of the publication. WP:GREL is generally reliable, not always reliable. Admittedly the publication does contain a lot of opinion peices, however that is already covered by WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL. Notably, The Economist is similarly heavy on opinion pecies and community consensus is that it is WP:GREL. TarnishedPath 22:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 Jacobin is basically the left-wing equivalent to the right-wing British Magazines Spiked and The Spectator. Like these publications, most of its content is opinion orientated, and citing less opinion-focused sources should be preferred. It's clear that the current "generally reliable" rating is suggesting to readers of RSP that Jacobin's opinionated content is usable carte blanche without caveat, which I do not think is accurate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Some Jacobin pieces have openly pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories , as well as conspiracy theories about the Euromaidan which have not been retracted. The Green RSP rating has mistakenly led people to believe these pieces were reliable , Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    You should probably read farther than the headline. Simonm223 (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The pieces (which are both by staff writer Branko Marcetic) are strongly slanted, but you're perhaps right that saying they are "pushing conspiracy theories" is going a bit far. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    "The CIA bungled intel pre-9/11" is somewhat the opposite of a conspiracy theory since it literally attributes to incompetence what conspiracists attribute to malice. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • (Summoned by ping in this thread) Bad RFC / No listing just as in 2021. Or Option 2, it is a liberal analysis magazine, to be considered frequently as WP:RSOPINION. See you at the next 1-day social media hysteria. MarioGom (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but Jacobin is not remotely liberal. It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. MarioGom (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      I find it really funny when Americans see somebody holding mainstream social democratic politics and start calling them extreme. Simonm223 (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1. Correcting a mistake is a sign of reliability. The normal caveats about bias/opinion and attribution apply, but not seeing enough to move it down to 2. -- Patar knight - /contributions 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 The current summary at WP:RS/P acknowledges that Jacobin is biased and that editors should take care when using it, which is exactly how it should be. Bias and adherence to factual accuracy are two different things; neutrality is not objectivity and vice versa. We do not need to demote it purely for being biased. Agree with others that an RfC being started based on a Reddit thread of a screenshot of a tweet of an editor who made a mistake which was ultimately corrected is a bit silly.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 as per the analysis by Selfstudier, XOR, and Tayi. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 WP:GREL already has certain considerations and it doesn't mean that 100% of what is published can make it to WP. Editors are expected to use their judgement. The article in question is a WP:NEWSBLOG. I don't see any reason for downgrading them based on a reddit thread. Lf8u2 (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 This entire RfC appears to be politically motivated and is predicated on a correction of a sentence that mixed up "third largest" with "a third of". Many other mainline newspapers have made similar, if not worse, errors before. The question is whether corrections were made when such errors were pointed out. And the correction was made here, meeting requirements of reliability. This is likely also about an opinion article, which makes this even more pointless. Silverseren 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      Weapons of mass destruction from the New York Times? Was that ever retracted? TarnishedPath 11:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • 3. If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than Jacobin to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it.
    It's not a matter of some particular instance about mistakes regarding mixing up "third largest" with "a third of" or whatever. Heck everybody does stuff like that. The NYTimes has has published more (unintentionally) misleading or plain-wrong charts than I've had hot meals. I mean, here we've got Nature finding that "among the 348 documents that we found to include the are 186 peer-reviewed journal articles, including some in BioScience, The Lancet Planetary Health, and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and 19 news articles targeted at a specialist audience." Imagine that. I would guess that that's largely because "puts indigenous peoples in a good light" trumps "is true" in the emotional hind-brain of the leather-elbow-patch set. It's not a lefty thing in particular, right-wingers are just as bad I'm sure.
    Which just strengthens my point, there're no blinders like ideological blinders, so its not so much a matter of how many fact-checkers you have as in how you maybe are presenting facts which, while individually true, are cherry picked or incomplete or out of context or one-sided or otherwise misleading. It might not even be intentional, exactly. Mind-sets are like that. Better to stick with Time or other people who are more into just blandly attracting a broad readership rather than with people who have points to make.
    They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine. As long as we include the qualifier. Herostratus (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Herostratus: not to backseat comment but if "They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine." isn't that a 2? I'm in much the same boat and offered a split 1/2, my understanding is that a 3 shouldn't be used for opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Backseat comments are totally fine. I live for them. I'm not sure about the details of our rule, but aren't all publications are completely reliable for their contents? If the News of the World says "the moon is made of green cheese" we can certainly say "According to the News of the World, the moon is made of green cheese" if for some reason that was useful. The ref is just so the reader can check that they did indeed print that. Similarly for any opinion or other statement. Since all entities are reliable for their own contents, I assume we are not talking at all about that. Why would we.
    What we are talking about is: if entity X says "FBI stats say that African-American violent crime was up 50% in Los Angeles in 2024", can we say that in our own words because we can be confident that it is true because we know that entity X has a good fact-checking operation? Can we be very very sure that entity X would also point out if violent crime for all races was also up 50%? Can we be very very sure that this increase is not because the FBI started using a new definition of "violent crime", because entity X would surely point that out? Can we be very very sure that violent crime in the city of Los Angeles is steady and the increase is purely from Los Angeles County (or whatever), because entity X would surely point that out? In other words -- can we be very very sure that entity X would not cherry-pick some facts and leave out others because they are here to make points? We want to be careful about being led by the nose by these people. Herostratus (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think the thing is our due weight policy says that due weight (noteworthiness) is apportioned based on the amount of attention given in reliable sources. I take that to mean opinion in generally reliable sources is worth reporting; opinion in generally unreliable sources isn’t. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    The Daily Mail is not reliable for its own contents, having doctored its archives. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 The author's attitude certainly leaves much to be desired... but I don't think a single mistake that was quickly fixed – in a blog piece, which generally wouldn't even be cited except in very limited circumstances and with attribution per WP:NEWSBLOG – is a good enough reason to downgrade their reliability. Smallangryplanet (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 My opinion is unchanged from the previous RfC. It is absurd that we've opened up another RfC over a minor issue that was quickly corrected, all because a few neoliberal redditors got mad about it. I think citations to Jacobin should require attribution, but trying to tar them as unreliable over this one case is ridiculous. Log off Reddit, there is nothing worthwhile to be found there. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2. I concur with other editors that this RFC should never have been opened. Please be more considerate of your fellow editors' time. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 possibly Option 3. I don't see that the source is any better than it was in 2021. Per Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d's previous comments and references from the 2021 RfC copied below as well as this recent incident. Yes, making a mistake and correcting it is good but when the mistake is so egreious and the author attacks people who note the error how much faith should we put in the source? Last time I also noted that per Adfont's media review (not a RS but still worth a look) this source is more biased than Breitbart!
    Normally, we put these extremely ideological sources in the Option 2 category (e.g., Salon (RSP entry), Townhall (RSP entry)). Jacobin obviously doesn't report straight news, so it (i) always needs to be attributed and (ii) check to see if it complies with WP:WEIGHT. However, Jacobin has additional issues. Its stated political mission is to: centralize and inject energy into the contemporary socialist movement . So it is more in line with an advocacy group than a news source. Also, it has pretty fringe views. James Wolcott identifies Jacobin as part of the alt-left . It's pretty fringe-y on topics concerning Venezuela , the USSR/Communism , and anti-semitism , . I would avoid using Jacobin for those topics. But if you need a socialist/Marxist opinion on something, then Jacobin is definitely a good source to use. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Based upon Noonlcarus's comment, Jacobin does seem to frequently use deprecated/unreliable sources for facts. Some examples include Alternet (RSP entry) , Daily Kos (RSP entry) , Raw Story (RSP entry) , The Canary (RSP entry) , and the Electronic Intifada (RSP entry) .Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    As I mentioned above, when a source is this biased we have to ask if that level of bias is going to have too great an impact on both the weight they give various facts thus leading to questionable conclusion and their ability to verify otherwise factual claims as we saw here. I think that puts the source deep into the use with caution territory Springee (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    And yet you rated the Heritage Foundation at 2/3 below and didn't find any problem with their extreme ideological bent, saying in their defense that deprecating the foundation would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge. This is a group that is regularly equated in academic best sources with fascism such as in:
    1. Neo-fascist trends in education: neo-liberal hybridisation and a new authoritarian order Díez-Gutiérrez, Enrique-Javier, Mauro-Rafael Jarquín-Ramírez, and Eva Palomo-Cermeño, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS). Sep2024, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p125-169
    2. Pandemic abandonment, panoramic displays and fascist propaganda: The month the earth stood still. By: McLaren, Peter, Educational Philosophy & Theory, 00131857, Feb 2022, Vol. 54, Issue 2
    3. THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY THINK TANK. By: Stewart, Katherine, New Republic, 00286583, Sep2023, Vol. 254, Issue 9 (note that the think tank that they call "The West Point of American Fascism" in this article is the Claremont Institute but that they refer to Heritage as participating in Claremont events.)
    4. The Road Ahead Fighting for Progress, Freedom, and Democracy, Weingarten, Randi, American Educator. Fall2024, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p2-9. 8p.
    So I guess my question is one of consistency: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the fascist-adjacent Heritage foundation? If not why do you believe that the Heritage Foundation is more valuable to the "goal of collecting knowledge" than Jacobin? Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are missing a major difference. HF isn't a media source, they are a think tank. Jacobin is a media source, not a think tank. I've argued that all think tanks should be used with great care and in particular we should generally not cite them unless an independent RS points to their work. So the question is can we cite HF when a RS mentions the views/claims/etc of HF with respect to the article topic. In that regard I'm suggesting we treat them more like a primary source vs a RS. Jacobin is different and the relevant question is can we treat them like a regular RS as we do with many other news media sources. If Jacobin publishes a claim about an article subject should we cite them? I argue they should be evaluated by the same standards we use for news media sources. By that standard it's strong bias etc means we should use it's claims and reports with caution and should question if they have weight to justify inclusion. In your post above you provided a list of texts but absent links I can't see what they say nor if their arguments are sound or crap but they don't impact the distinction I've made. Springee (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The list of texts are available via Misplaced Pages library which is why I provided bibliographical information rather than links as links to material on WP library don't work. With the exception of New Republic all are academic journals. And now please answer my original question: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the Heritage Foundation? Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you want to cite those sources to support an argument you should tell us what they say or at least why you think they support your position. As for your question, I already answered. It doesn't matter if the HF is more or less compromised because the purpose of each is different. When it comes to topics of automobiles Honda is more compromised than the AP but they also might be a better source if we are asking about stratified charge combustion in automobile engines. Springee (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    On this charge I will defend Springee. I don't necessarily agree with them but I'm not seeing the dissonance in their arguments, especially as they seem to be going 2/3 on both (there is not formal vote here but that seems to be the upshot of what they're saying). Their slighlty idiosyncratic argument about the purspose of the source being primary is also one which they've been making consistently for years. With all due respect I think you're being too hard on Springee. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I take the idea that a publication being openly social democratic is too biased to be reliable personally offensive. Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. But I will concede that Springee is being consistent. And I actually agreed that think tanks should be treated as primary sources. Frankly, were Springee to be more reasonable on the "political bias" overreach, we might otherwise be agreeing. Simonm223 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    We may not be disagreeing at all given we both are giving them a "2". I'm arguing that their bias is too much to make them a 1. The possible 3, the same score I gave them last time, is a concern regarding things like the issue that started the recent discussion. I was about to post something about really disliking the RSP's simplistic bucketing. It's really not a good system as we really should put more effort into asking if a source is appropriate for the claims being supported and when an encyclopedia should be citing strongly biased sources in general. If we need to use such a strongly biased source is the information DUE? Springee (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    We do agree on disliking the RSP bucketing system. My personal opinion is no news media source should be treated as a blanket "generally reliable" because reliability is contextual. However I do think that Jacobin is, from a global perspective, not in any way ideologically extreme. Social democracy is a normal left-of-center political position. The extreme-right shift of US politics over the last few decades makes them seem like outliers but that's the real bias problem right there. Simonm223 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their About Us page states they offer socialist perspectives and approvingly includes quotes describing them as supporting radical politics and very explicitly on the radical left, and sort of hostile to liberal accommodationism. Crossroads 22:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would strongly advise against getting too side-tracked by having a conversation about "social democracy" vs "democratic socialism" (same goes for any arguments over distinctions between "left" vs "liberal" in this thread). I can say from experience that these semantics rabbitholes are shockingly deep, and they're not at all necessary or helpful for this RfC. All I'll say is that these terms are commonly used as synonyms by at least some people, and the "Ideology and reception" section of Jacobin (magazine) notes the political diversity of contributors, incorporating "everyone from social democratic liberals to avowed revolutionaries", so I don't think either you or Simonm223 are wrong on this. Different people are gonna use different terms and apply different meanings to each of them.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. Where outside the United States are you talking about? The world where barely 20% of countries recognize same-sex marriage? Where sixteen countries have banned the burqa? Is it Japan, where the conservative Liberal Democratic Party has been in power since 1955? Or China, where a media outlet that is as critical of the Chinese Communist Party as Jacobin is of the Democratic Party would have long been banned, and their writers arrested? I think we all need a reality check here, especially if we want to represent reality in our articles. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    While I can't speak for them, I'm guessing they probably had in mind specifically other western democracies, as it's common for European countries to have a mainstream Socialist Party with an ideology listed as social democracy (to name a few: Spain, Portugal, France, Albania, etc).
    I'm comfortable speculating this is their argument because it's one that's often repeated in American progressive-left circles. This argument is usually presented as follows: Bernie Sanders is viewed as the furthest left one can go in America, the things his supporters want are not radical to other developed countries (paid time off, universal healthcare, etc), therefore what is far left in America is only moderately left elsewhere.
    Not saying I entirely agree or disagree with that argument, either how Simonm223 phrased it or how I interpreted it. Just saying I think they had in mind comparable democracies, not the entire world.
     Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah. I don't feel the need to put a million qualifiers on a comment on a WP discussion board when all I really need to say is that the United States has an abnormal political compass compared to its peers. But also there used to be lots of socialists, for instance, throughout the Middle East. American allies killed most of them. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    This has become a discussion about Overton windows rather than the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3 or 2 - Right-wing outlets that mix opinions in their articles, selectively choose facts to promote a political agenda, or sloppily misrepresent the truth have rightly been marked as unreliable ages ago. There is no reason to have a different standard for other political positions. And regardless of that, outlets that do that cannot be relied on (i.e. are unreliable) to present an accurate picture of the facts on a given topic, nor are their writers' opinions noteworthy in our articles. Op-eds from even mainstream papers like NYT, WaPo, etc. are routinely removed as sources; outlets like Jacobin that consist entirely of such articles should likewise not be used (and we have already done this for right-wing opinion outlets like Quillette). The green checkmark at RSP misleads editors into thinking opinions and claims published in Jacobin are more noteworthy than they really are. Crossroads 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      Jacobin's raison d'etre is to promote socialism, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting. However, it may be used with caution for topics within its area of expertise (such as the theory and history of socialism, labor movements, and socialist cultural commentary), provided proper attribution and corroboration from neutral sources are applied. 2601:340:8200:800:30C1:6FF8:F57B:FCF8 (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
      This is no more a good argument than it would be to state that the raison d'etre of X publication is to promote capitalism and the geo-political interests of the United States, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting.
      I could apply that faulty argument to shitloads of mainstream US publications that are currently considered to be generally reliable. TarnishedPath 05:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1. Folks have said it well already so I won't belabor the point. I can't really imagine an occasion when I would cite Jacobin, but I consider them roughly a left-wing equivalent of The Economist or Reason (also publications I'd be unlikely to cite –– all three of these are usually rather predictable and tend to offer shallow analysis). I wasn't sure how we list those other two so I checked RSP just now and saw that they're 1s. Yes, OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument, but I was more interested in getting a baseline on where the community draws the line between 1 and 2. With respect, I object to Crossroads' comparison to Quillette, which leans heavily into platforming fringe ideas and displays little editorial oversight. (Interestingly, here's some solid reporting by Jacobin on a hoax published in Quillette, revealing the latter's abysmal editorial practices, courtesy of this past RSN discussion.) Generalrelative (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      Personally I don’t see Reason and Economist as equivalent, and was surprised to see Reason green flagged for the same reason that I don’t think Jacobin should be. That is, whereas Economist is mostly reporting and some opinion, both Reason and Jacobin are mostly opinion and some reporting. The Jacobin piece on the Quillette hoax looks good to me, but everything else they’ve published by that author wouldn’t be usable for facts as they’re pure op eds. I’d put the Spectator and National Review in the category as Jacobin and Reason. (Whereas Spiked and American Conservative are worse, red flag territory rather than amber.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Additional considerations apply. As I indicated in the discussion above which I started, the mere fact that Jacobin thought it appropriate to publish a statement that Blackstone Inc. "owns a third of US housing stock" indicates that they do not do adequate fact-checking before publishing articles. Therefore, one should attempt to corroborate any facts they publish with more reliable sources before relying on Jacobin to support any factual statements in articles. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1. Our guideline on reliable sources is explicit that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. I may not personally love the political perspective of Jacobin, but they don't go out of their way to platform disinformation that flatly contradicts academic consensus about reality. Regarding Jacobin as unreliable on the grounds of its bias would require evidence that said bias leads it to regularly publish misinformation and untruths. I haven't seen this established.Moreover, the error brought up that somehow has sparked this RFC was both A) corrected in a timely manner, which is what we expect from a reliable source; and B) a case where context matters, as the original source was a book review of several books written by Mark Fisher. If cited, it should be cited to warrant information about Fisher or his books or the genre he wrote in, etc. The Blackstone number was Information provided in passing, and we already know that such info occasionally may not be reliable, and so we use our best judgment as editors, citing and reading a wide variety of sources and going to the best sources. For a topic like Mark Fisher, looks like Jacobin is a good resource. For Blackstone and housing, try an article from the journal Urban Studies. Not every source is perfect at every subject, but when a source has a known editorial staff, issues corrections to publications, and is grounded in reality, it's reliable, even if I wouldn't personally enjoy talking politics with the editor.Finally, when a piece published in Jacobin is an opinion piece, we can just treat it as such, per our guideline about opinion pieces in reliable sources. The Economist and The Wall Street Journal publish a lot of opinion pieces too, yet GREL they've remained. As the perennial list says of The Economist, editors should use their judgement to discern factual content—which can be generally relied upon—from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3 or Option 2, long overdue for the reasons already set out in this thread. And frankly, the idea that a magazine whose name is derived from the people who instituted the Reign of Terror was ever acceptable w/o issue is offputting by itself. Just10A (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      For the record, the founder has said that in naming the magazine, he was thinking of The Black Jacobins, a book about the Haitian Revolution, not the French. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      Not that that is relevant anyway when assessing reliability. TarnishedPath 01:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      The Black Jacobins is named so because the author analogizes the actions of the Haitians to that of the French Jacobins. It's just adding an extra step (not to mention that the word has a known meaning on it's face, so it's mostly irrelevant.). Regardless, it's clearly derived, and it's frankly silly to even argue semantics. Just10A (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      Just to be clear your argument about the name being relevant to reliability is literally arguing semantics. Your objection doesn't make any sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      I was referring to the semantics of what counts as "derived from." And no, while the name clearly doesn't inherently reflect relevance. If a source called "The KGB Times" came up on the noticeboard for reliability, it's perfectly reasonable for a person to point out "Hey, I don't think it's reliable for reasons x,y, and z, andddd the name also doesn't exactly inspire confidence." That's all I'm saying. Don't twist my statement into something it's not. Just10A (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      That is arguing semantics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      If that's your benchmark, then practically everything is arguing semantics, including this whole thread. "Jacobin publishes words -> what are the meaning of those words? (semantics) -> can we qualify those meanings as 'reliable?'" Clearly distinguishing factors, and I'm not interested in arguing semantics about the word "semantics" with you like a 12 year old. My vote's been explained, get over it. Just10A (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1/Keep the current RSPS summary I think a few people arguing for additional considerations are misremembering the current RSPS legend. Additional considerations doesn’t refer to things like weight, or bias, or that you need to attribute opinion pieces because those are all standard considerations that apply to all sources. The current RSPS summary already says (in part) Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'. I can't find anything that indicates that's not still a perfectly good summary. CambrianCrab (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1* Jacobin is a biased source, something that should obviously be considered by anyone thinking of sourcing them for anything contentious, but their reporting has never been an issue in terms of establishing basic factual information about a situation. One writer for a book review making a dumb statement that was corrected by the source doesn't change that. BSMRD (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1: Nothing of substance has been presented to suggest that this source is not GREL. Most of the reasons being presented for MREL appear to be about bias, but that is not of direct relevance to reliability unless it can be shown that any bias directly impinges somehow on its reliability. That it provides a perspective from a rarefied position on the political spectrum is a moot point in terms of reliability. Arguably it is good to have sources from all different positions on the political spectrum for the purposes of balance, but that is, again, irrelevant to its reliability. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1/2: generally reliable, they have a correction policy. Bias for opinion pieces and essays should be taken into account, attribute accordingly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Bad RfC As on 25 July 2021. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 I previously commented in the 2021 RfC based on our guideline for use of biased sources. In particular I found this 2019 assessment by the Columbia Journalism Review persuasive. Most recently this January 4, 2025 article from the Columbia Journalism Review cites a Jacobin article from November 2024 positively. A major trade publication in the field of journalism still seems to find Jacobin worth citing as "demonstrat convincingly" how Harris lost the pro-labor vote in the 2024 election. Why should we not follow CJRs lead? The arguments seem to be (1) Jacobin recently issued a major retraction and (2) Jacobin has a left-wing bias. I could buy into (1) if they constantly issued retractions, but no one has shown that that is the case. (2) is contrary to WP:BIASED. Altogether, I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently from reliable but right-of-center-biased publications like The New Criterion or The Atlantic Monthly. — Wug·a·po·des 07:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 or Option 3: Not only is Jacobin an extremely biased, ideologically charged source, but their reporting has been called into question multiple times. At the very least, additional considerations do apply. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2. This is not a WP:NEWSORG. Its stated purpose is "to foster class consciousness and build the institutions that can tame and eventually overcome capital". Compare to the missions of the NYT: "We seek the truth and help people understand the world."; or the BBC: "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain". The NYT and the BBC are both biased (every source is biased), but they do at least aim to deliver reporting. Jacobin, on the other hand, is an advocacy organisation. That doesn't make it automatically unreliable, nor does that make it solely a source of opinions, but that does makes it qualitatively different from the newspapers that others have compared it to - and that is an important additional consideration worth noting. For the record, I disagree that one incident of inaccuracy is enough to downgrade a source, particularly one that was corrected. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Just because I note that my earlier !vote wasn't posted in to this section, for the avoidance of doubt, whilst I think this is a Bad RFC because there's no reason for initiating it, I support Option 2 or Option 3 because it is strictly an opinion site and not one that should be relied on for statements of fact about anything but itself. FOARP (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 – Jacobin may be biased, but that has no bearing on reliability. They have many well-respected articles that have been cited by other reliable sources, have transparent editorial controls, and a demonstrated process for retraction and correction. I see a couple complaints above that Jacobin isn't a news organization; however, this isn't relevant to reliability. Just like The Economist, Jacobin publishes more retrospective, interpretive articles which for certain subjects can often be better than using contemporaneous news articles. Overall this is a very bad RfC given the creator's undisclosed connection to the previous overturned RfC (see comment by Tayi Arajakate) and a complete lack of any examples of actual uses on Misplaced Pages where the reliability is questioned. This is as far as I can tell a knee-jerk reaction to a single example of an error on an unrelated topic in an offhand remark inside a book review, and which wasn't even used on Misplaced Pages. An absurd reason to open an RfC. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 per Silver seren and Wugapodes (and thank you for providing actual reported information on their editorial process rather than speculation, heavy irony in this whole discussion). This whole saga is based on one correction? Really? Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 bias has nothing to do with reliability. Meanwhile, corrections are a strong signal of reliability. --Pinchme123 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3/4: An encyclopedia should focus on high-quality, fact-driven sources. Not on ones that report the news with heavy political agendas, at least not without qualifying it. Using a highly politically charged source (of whatever political persuasion) inevitably leads to
    1. Bias and lack of objectivity: Sources with extreme political leanings present information very selectively and often distort facts to support an ideological agenda. This can lead to biased or one-sided entries that undermine neutrality. It can also lead to including content that is not encyclopedic. See Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not.
    2. Erosion of credibility: Misplaced Pages is expected to provide balanced, factual, and well-researched content. Reliance on politically extreme sources can damage its reputation as a reliable and neutral reference.
    3. Misinformation and inaccuracy: Sources like Jacobin often contain errors, conspiracy theories, or exaggerated claims that, when included in encyclopedia entries, could mislead readers and spread misinformation.
    4. Cherry-picking evidence: Extreme political sources may omit contrary evidence or fail to represent the full range of perspectives. This results in incomplete or skewed coverage. Critical context is lacking.
    5. Harm to reputation of the field: Normalizing unreliable content can set a dangerous precedent here. Per Misplaced Pages policy, a fact worthy of entry in an encyclopedia would be covered by multiple reliable sources. It would be difficult to "counter" each instance of citing Jacobin with another source of equal repute but on the opposite political extreme covering the same story.

    Further, Jacobin is mostly an opionion source. While it is not the worst source in the world, it hardly ranks among top-quality reliable sources. The goal of Misplaced Pages, which prioritizes reliable secondary sources, is to present information with a sense of detachment. There is no shortage of such sources, and those are the ones to use. --Precision123 (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Discussion: Jacobin

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

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

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

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

    • Bad RFC because we should not be rating things just for the sake of rating things, but since we're doing this: Jacobin is clearly an opinion outlet, not a news outlet. We shouldn't be relying on them for statements of fact for that reason alone. FOARP (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Notwithstanding my !vote above I do agree this is a bad RFC because there's not ever been an example presented of Jacobin being used to source anything even remotely questionable during the RFCBefore discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Well, there was one example that generated the 2023 discussion which was Jacobin being used to source a description of the 2014 Maidan Revolution as "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests", so that's one occasion of it being used to source something questionable. It was also used by the same editor on the 9/11 attack page to source the claim that the CIA facilitated the attacks and intentionally withheld information that could have stopped the attacks.
      That editor is now blocked (because of their conduct on this noticeboard I think?) but they used the green flag at RSP to justify their edits. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      Absolutely a bad RfC, I rolled my eyes when I was pinged about this. Nothing fundamental has changed about Jacobin's editorial line or policy since the last RfC was opened four years ago. I can't believe we're hashing this out again because of a single reddit post. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • The Jacobin author who wrote the nonsense claim that Blackstone owns 1/3 of US housing stock literally mocked the people who tried to correct him and the correction - which itself was inaccurate and weaselly - was issued only after social media pressure. This is an outlet that very obviously does not care one bit about fact checking if it gets in the way of producing click bait pieces. It’s exactly the kind of source we should NOT be using, especially as the whole media landscape is shifting that way. Volunteer Marek 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      They issued a correction. This is what we expect of reliable outlets. Your personal characterization of the correction as "weaselly" is your personal opinion on tone and has nothing to do with any Misplaced Pages policy. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Did this correction at least state what the correct % was? Like, the correction itself tries to make it seem like a minor overstatement rather than, you know, a completely wild exaggeration that tried to take advantage of general innumeracy. “I’m a billionaire!”. “No you’re not”. “Ok that was an overstatement”. Come on. It’s quite disappointing to see how many people are fine with misinformation, weak sourcing and “alternative facts” as long as it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. Whats even more disappointing is when these are people who are claiming to be building a factual encyclopedia. Facts are facts and garbage is garbage, regardless of whether it come from the left or right. Volunteer Marek 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes facts are facts and garbage is garbage but as long as we allow garbage like New York "Iraq has WMDs" Times to be treated as a reliable source I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently. Jacobin is compliant with Misplaced Pages's requirements. If you want to talk about tightening those requirements I'd be open to the discussion at WP:VPP. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Was the weapons of mass destruction bit ever retracted by New York Times? As far as I'm aware it wasn't. Perhaps we should be wasting community time and having a discussion about them? TarnishedPath 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah my point is just that a lot of editors are establishing a double standard where Jacobin is being held to a higher standard than what Misplaced Pages generally expects from news organizations. I would like it to be measured against the same standard as anyone else. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed. I'm not the biggest fan of them because there's so much oped stuff but we've never thought that reason to downgrade The Economist. TarnishedPath 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Exactly. And that is kind of what I was getting at when I suggested the right venue for what Volunteer Marek was concerned about was WP:VPP. If we allow these kinds of sources then we allow these kinds of sources. I would be happy to restrict these kinds of sources more than we do but it has to be handled at a policy level rather than via exceptions to present policy. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    It is not the case that a book review can only be used in an article about that specific book. For example, they are frequently cited in biographies of authors, in order to demonstrate that those authors meet the relevant wiki-notability standard. And an article about the pedagogy of some subject could cite reviews of textbooks about that subject. XOR'easter (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    The Heritage Foundation

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

    RfC: TheGamer

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

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

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

    Link to previous discussion

    Kaynsu1 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer

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

    The first link goes to a summary of a detailed software review by Friedrich Blase, the “Innovator-in-Residence” of the Ontario Bar Association. It looks like Dr. Blase, whose LinkedIn profile references writings on legal technology, might qualify as a subject matter expert, so I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. The second link goes to a blog, which would not be a reliable source. John M Baker (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ok, thank you very much. HelixUnwinding (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    Pirate Wires?

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

    Wouldn’t this be an aboutself citation anyway? I would be more concerned about primary/OR here in that case.
    Regarding the source: they are likely to be pretty biased, but according to the page linked, they seems sufficiently reliable for this, unless someone can dig up large-scale issues I missed. Employees, proper funding etc. all seem to be fine. FortunateSons (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of as of January 2025, his profile at the online publisher Pirate Wires lists him as a senior editor? I just wanted to make sure PW was something worth mentioning at all, or if it was more akin to 'he's the senior editor this super-serious blog' and name-dropping a site that bore no mention. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I’m not sure, but think being descriptive is fine for “articles about Misplaced Pages” and stuff, “critical“ is probably better coming from a specific source, even if it’s obvious. With everything else, it’s probably a question of DUE, not RS. FortunateSons (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd eschew calling out any of his particular articles over others, since there's... no reason to, right? Without reliable third-party sourcing, they're no more notable or inclusion-worthy than his others. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think this is a case for BRD, but it seems like a reasonable option FortunateSons (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Pirate Wires has a strong right wing "libertarian tech bro" bent to its coverage, unsurprising given its links to Peter Thiel. The way it frames events is often strongly slanted, sometimes to the point of being misleading. Take for instance the recent story claiming that the WMF had been taken over by "Soros-backed operatives" . I would argue that this framing is conspiratorial and hyperbolic. I think it might sometimes be usable with caution for uncontroversial facts, but more objective sources should be preferred. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Here's a Business Insider story on Pirate Wires that gives a good sense of its ethos . Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Invoking George Soros conspiracy theories to attack an organization is not a good start for Pirate Wires, a new publication that does not have much of a reputation at this point. Definitely not generally reliable, and I would avoid using this publication for claims about living people. — Newslinger talk 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I wouldn't call it a "group blog", it just has a niche audience in the tech industry. It is certainly more factually based than Fox News. The article you linked is using it problematically though. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Solana is the founder and operator of Pirate Wires, so maybe it's wise to consider his pieces in particular self-published. No idea the level of editorial rigour other contributors are under though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Do you have an evidentiary basis for your claim? I ask because I was recently described in a Pirate Wires article as a member of a powerful pro-Hamas group, and while this was entertaining in its foolishness, the important point for RSN is that it was a factual error. The article contained many inaccuracies about various things, and it was clear that no attempt had been made to avoid errors and erroneous conclusions. So, using it for BLPs might be unwise, and the notion that it is "generally truthful/accurate" seem highly questionable. Of course, I only have one data point, so it could be an outlier, but I doubt it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah. I was not happy about Pirate Wires being used for that whole fiasco. But as for the evidence look above at the link Selfstudier provided in which Mike Solana says, "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever." Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously his personal thing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    What "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" are you referring to? Can you cite specific examples please and quote from the source directly? Also, are there other reliable sources which then criticize PW for "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" or is that WP:OR and/or your own conclusion being reached? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Considering that comment and the fact that founder Mike Solana is the chief marketing officer of Founders Fund, Pirate Wires has a major conflict of interest with all of the individuals and organizations associated with Founders Fund, and is a non-independent source with respect to all related topics. — Newslinger talk 03:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Pirate Wires is trashy far-right culture wars content. It is at best a group blog - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Marginally reliable, there seems to be a pretty wide spread quality wise because they seem to allow their writer a loose leash. This means that some articles are very good and some are very bad. Personally I've found them solidly reliable for the more wonkish techy stuff but have a lot of issues when they start to cover politics or culture/society in general. Crypto seems to be the only blindspot within their otherwise area of expertise, their crypto coverage is just awful and should be avoided like the plague. When used I would attribute and I would strongly advise against any use for BLP not covered by ABOUTSELF. I agree that pieces by Solana should be treated as self published and that coverage by Pirate Wire is not to be considered independent of the Founders Fund. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Need context before coming to RSN

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

    • Per Slatersteven its founder describes it as a WP:SPS - it should be treated accordingly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
      Not me. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
      Oh dear did I misread? OOPS should be per Selfstudier apologies. I will strike above. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
      It is not WP:SPS and its founder merely said things along the lines of "I am not bought and paid for nor a mouthpiece for any billionaire" etc. Now I do not know the veracity of that statement for sure, but I do not see that Mike Solana declared Pirate Wires to be SPS or a blog. It has numerous other independent journalists and appears to run as a full-fledged journalistic organization like any other, with their own right leaning or right-libertarian bias of course. But bias is not a reason for a source to otherwise be deprecated or considered SPS or anything else, it is just the nature of nearly every source that some bias to one direction or another is to be expected. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    But they don't have any indication of editorial controls, or a fact-checking process, or any of the things that an WP:RS would have; neither is there any reason to think they have a particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A statement like "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever" makes it pretty clear that it's not structured the way we'd expect a RS to be structured. I'm with the editors above who describe it as a blog - there's just nothing here that even has the shape of an RS. The fact that the person who runs it sometimes also includes guest posts by other people doesn't change the fact that there's no editorial board, no source of fact-checking, and most of all no reputation. Like... what makes you think that it's a WP:RS, according to the criteria we use? Where do you feel its reliability comes from? --Aquillion (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah by that criteria this is a SPS, one guys blog is still one guys blog even if they let their friends post. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Usage in Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages

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

    It's at best, usable for the attributed opinion of Rindsberg only, but even then, it's obviously polemical and partisan. There's lots of right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages that I personally find disingenuous, but inevitably an article on "Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages" is going to have to include some partisan sourcing, but not framing it as fact is essential. I am unsure whether Pirate Wires is prominent enough a publication that it would be due to mention in any capacity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't even think its usable for that... Can't find anything that suggests that Rindsberg is a subject matter expert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sources in that article should have some leeway, as Misplaced Pages is obviously going to be criticised by such sources. But I totally agree with Hemiauchenia that framing is key. This is the opinion of a hyper partisan source, framing it as fact is wrong. Whether it should be included or not is a discussion for the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    It is more or less a group
    blog that mostly publishes opinion, including eg antisemitic Soros conspiracy theories. Any Misplaced Pages editor reading their coverage of this project will immediately spot multiple falsehoods and errors, and also personal attacks on names editors based on these inaccuracies. At best on a par with Quillette. In short, not reliable for this topic, and if this topic is a guide to how robust its general reporting is it’s probably not reliable for anything. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Both unreliable and WP:UNDUE. Rindsberg's views on any topic are quite irrelevant to anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agree fully. Unreliable and undue. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    almost certainly no. the article attacking[REDACTED] has falsehoods and even ignoring that and arguing its an opinion piece we could use with attribution , it goes at it from a very marginal POV … there are more useful opinion pieces from more reliable outlets out there.Bluethricecreamman (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    How is it used by others or is it even used by others? If sources have cited their work then I think we can as well. However, I would be very cautious about using it as an independent reference. Very cautious to the point where I would generally say no. Perhaps in a case where it's spot on topic (ideological bias of Misplaced Pages) but then only with attribution. Speaking generally, these sort of sources are always difficult as they may provide very good information but other than editors reading the text and using their own common sense, OR, etc, we don't have a good way to judge the quality of the output. BTW, this is also why I think "use with caution" may not be specific enough. Some sources are more like "use with caution but probably OK" while others are more like "use with extreme caution but there is probably a case where it provides more than about self content". Springee (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Pirate Wires itself is notable as it's had coverage in other notable outlets but its viewpoint about Misplaced Pages per se might not have been documented in RS yet. But I'm confused -- Why are some of these other media outlets' self-published viewpoints included without them necessarily being considered RS themselves? Manuductive (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    The term self-published refers to sources without adequate editorial oversight, which includes most group blogs. Well-established news outlets are not self-published sources. — Newslinger talk 14:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Imo Having Misplaced Pages articles that discuss whether Misplaced Pages is reliable, biased, antisemitic, etc is silly. We're all too inherently conflicted as Misplaced Pages editors to give a sober assessment of these topics and what is/isn't due to include. These topics are best left to scholars. That said, Pirate Wires is a lot less established than these other publications you mention. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Outright rejecting Pirate Wires because it's "right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages" and has "a very marginal POV" is the issue with WP:RSN that the piece is trying to critique. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    But it does affect WP:DUE weight (which requires balance between sources, and which is the real concern for something that, as a WP:SPS or a website with no reputation, would obviously be opinion at best.) The article already contains a large number of right-wing sources with a similar perspective; does this piece add anything to them? My feeling is that articles like this are subject to problems where editors try to do this nose-counting thing where they add dozens of opinionated or biased sources saying the same thing because they feel it's a really important perspective - but that's not how opinion is really meant to be used. If we have twelve sources that are fundimentially similar saying the same thing, they ought to be condensed down to a single sentence or so saying "a bunch of sources said X" (unless some of them are individually noteworthy on their own merits somehow, eg. if they're an opinion from a significant expert, but that obviously isn't the case here.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Chess makes a perfectly valid point. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's being rejected because it's a random tech guy's blog - not because it's right wing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    One thing @Hemiauchenia said I half-agree with. The question of Misplaced Pages bias is one best answered by academics - which we should document appropriately and neutrally - the opinion of Ashley Rindberg on a blog with no editorial board is not a notable opinion, again, not because of its left-right bent but because she's just some person with a megaphone. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    It is your opinion that it is a blog. That itself would need evidence and probably an RfC. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, Ashley Rindsberg is a man. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Evidence has already been provided. In this thread. The founder brags about having no editorial board on twitter dot com. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Getting neither the gender "she's" nor the spelling "Ashley Rindberg" correct shows me you may not have looked into this very much. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oh do stop. That's an awful lot to take from a bloody typo. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Here's a freebee for all the people looking to say Misplaced Pages has a left-wing bias. This is what a reliable source accusing Misplaced Pages of a left-wing bias looks like: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.2020.1793846 Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Two can play that game. https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased Iljhgtn (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    The Manhattan Institute is a think-tank with no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it is obviously not a WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    This too, in addition to my comment below. Frankly I'm finding this interaction very strange. Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I should add that the Manhattan Institute was discussed previously here; the discussion was never closed or added to WP:RSP but by a quick nose-count the total unreliable + deprecate opinions outnumbered the "unclear" opinions almost two-to-one (and there were almost no people saying it was GREL.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    What game? I literally provided a source accusing Misplaced Pages both of left-wing bias and of bias against women at the same time. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • We don't actually require an RFC for every individual dispute; and sources certainly do not automatically default to reliable. Just doing a quick nose-count in this discussion suggests that it's extremely unlikely that an RFC on Pirate Wires' reliability would support your contention that it is reliable - numerous issues have been raised, especially regarding its lack of editorial controls and its lack of the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that RS requires. We can pull it through an entire RFC if you really think it's necessary but I think your time would be better-spent looking for more clearly reliable secondary sources covering this, if you want it in the article. This would also turn things back to the more fundamental WP:DUE problem I mentioned above - this looks identical to dozens of similar pieces posted by people with similar opinions; given that it's published in what's at least a low-quality source compared to the ones already in the article, what makes this one significant enough to highlight? --Aquillion (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    For disclosure, I originally wrote the Mike Solana article. I think the answer is no to this question specifically, and similar questions generally.
    Pirate Wires is an advocacy media outlet. Its writing is in a punchy tone -- a tech-ish form of gonzo journalism -- that blends opinion with explanatory reporting. They don't do spot news. So there's just no utility in using it for encyclopedia-writing.
    That's not to say it's either good or bad, merely that it doesn't serve the limited purposes for which we use sources here. (It ran a widely cited interview with Jack Dorsey and I don't think anyone believes they made-up the interview. But if we need to cite that interview in an article it can be referenced to any of the numerous RS that, themselves, cited it through précis', versus Pirate Wires directly.) In any case, anything it publishes that is encyclopedic will be covered in a second, more conventional RS and we should reference the second source. Anything not referenced in a pass-through outlet is probably undue. Chetsford (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    CEIC data

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

    It looks like just a big database. I would trust the first party sources for raw data more. EEpic (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    If in question use secondary sources. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Fantasy Literature

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

    It has the appearance of a blog. It has a sort-of staff:. I'd be hesitant to use it for WP:N purposes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is the terms its staff work under:
    Basically they're unpaid volunteers who become voting members of the staff. They are expected to review an unspecified but regular number of books in order to maintain their membership. It isn't clear that there's much in the way of editorial oversight beyond a pledge not to plagiarize review material. Considering their concentration on volume of reviews and appearance of loose editorial standards I'd be hesitant to use this group to establish the notability of a book. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    So just for notability purposes it is unusable or is it something that should not be included on pages that are notable? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd say unusable for notability purposes. I'd likely leave it off other pages unless it had something significant to say that better sources didn't. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    I'm not up for reading it right now, but it's been published, and the correct citation is: Zannettou, S., Finkelstein, J., Bradlyn, B., & Blackburn, J. (2020, May). A quantitative approach to understanding online antisemitism. In Proceedings of the International AAAI conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 14, pp. 786-797). Google Scholar shows a few places where it can be accessed. If it's kept, the references to it in the Notes section should change "Savvas" to something like "Zannettou et al." FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I should add that the Zannettou et al. citations that currently exist in the article are preprints, which generally are not RSs, per WP:PREPRINT. The other citation was also subsequently published in conference proceedings. Conference proceedings might or might not be reliable sources for specific content, depends on the conference and the content. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's important to keep in mind that most of the preprints people link to as sources were eventually published; we just link to the preprints as courtesy links because they're usually what's available. PREPRINT even mentions this. --Aquillion (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, but in that case, you still need the correct citation for wherever it eventually appeared, and if there's a link to that final version in full, then you should link to the full final version rather than a preprint draft. In this particular case, the citations themselves were not for the final version, and the final versions are both available in full elsewhere. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    What's the context for this question? Where is it being cited/do you want to be able to cite it? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Hydrangeans I'm a bit confused by the question - did you look at the article? It's cited several times there and as I can't find evidence that it's been reliably published I don't think it should be used. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry; that's my bad. I was running on low sleep and shouldn't have been on Misplaced Pages, and I read your prose where you don't include a link but glazed past the header text where you did include a link. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    See https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/7343/7197 GordonGlottal (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I provided a link to the published version of that one in my second comment above. The citation is Zannettou, S., Caulfield, T., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Sirivianos, M., Stringhini, G., & Suarez-Tangil, G. (2018, October). On the origins of memes by means of fringe web communities. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018 (pp. 188-202). There's an alternate citation at the top right of the copy where it says "ACM Reference Format." FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    @FactOrOpinion ACM is reputable, but I seem to have forgotten that we can use published conference papers, but not papers simply presented at a conference. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that I'm following. Both papers were published in conference proceedings. FWIW, even preprints are published in WP's sense of this term, which is only "a source that is made available to the public in some form." Even if there are no conference proceedings, it's possible to use a conference paper that was presented, as long as the presenter has made it publicly available (e.g., via something like arxiv.org). But all of this only establishes that the paper is published and therefore verifiable, not that it's a RS for the content in question. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry, I mean when is a paper submitted to a conference run by a reliable organisation an RS? When submitted? If published as part of the publication of the conference papers? Doug Weller talk 15:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    A paper that's been submitted to a conference should be treated like a preprint. A paper that appears in conference proceedings is more likely to be an RS, but that will depend on whether the conference is one that reviews all papers in a way that's similar to peer-reviewed journals, and — as always — on the WP content that it's being used as a source for (a paper can be an RS for some content and not for other content). Assuming that the papers do substantiate the WP text, I'm guessing that they're RSs (Google Scholar indicates that they've been cited over 200 times). FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    It is published, Conference proceedings of Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), volume 14. AAAI has been around since 1979 with respected associations. Submission to a conference is not sufficient to meet any standards. Acceptance by a reputable conference after peer review (some conference talks are invited and not peer reviewed) is a good indicator of reliability though not a guarantee (the conference paper may well be revised between acceptance and publication in a proceedings and even then might in the long run not be considered reliable). As it stands, I would say reliable for the use of Happy Merchant online unless other sources can be found undermining its reliability. Erp (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would consider a paper published in the proceedings of a respected conference a reasonably reliable source. If it was contradicted by peer-reviewed research or, even better, a peer-reviewed meta-analysis of available literature I would give it a bit less due than those sources. But I'd say that yes, at its base, this looks reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks all. I'm really cross with myself for not checking on Google Scholar - ironically I've just done that with another paper. I would have saved you all a lot of time if I had done that. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Hawar News Agency

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

    (Copying this response from the talk page of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria:) Of course we have to use Hawar, simply because it is one the most prominent news sites from Syria. It shouldn't be used as the sole source for contentious issues (unless it cites claims), but for basic facts such as local election results, regional policy decisions, etc. it is one of the only sources available. It is also used as a source by academic researchers such as in The Kurds in the Middle East: Enduring Problems and New Dynamics, The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts, Soldiers of End-Times. Assessing the Military Effectiveness of the Islamic State, and Statelet of Survivors. The Making of a Semi-Autonomous Region in Northeast Syria.
    (The following part is new, written for RSN:) These are books written by experts on Syria, released by reputable publishers such as ‎ Oxford University Press, and they have seemingly deemed Hawar to be a partisan, but useable source. Speaking from experience as an editor who has been active in editing articles on the Syrian civil war for ten years, I would also note that Hawar was previously discussed by editors and similarily assessed, as it is fairly reliable though should be used with caution in especially problematic fields such as casualty numbers (where partisanship becomes a major problem). Applodion (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Having read through the article you linked it doesn't show that media is heavily censored. A relevant sentence would appear to be:
    "In the current situation, the journalists we interviewed usually stress that, on the one hand, they enjoy relative freedom of expression. The PYD did not forcefully close those it considers as antagonistic media. Reporters can move freely in the region and cover a wide array of issues. Additionally, journalists from international or regional media are also generally allowed to operate freely. However, they also say that there is always a tension with the authorities in power and there are red lines that cannot be crossed."
    As well as:
    "Gradually, they seem to have adopted an editorial line that is less critical, if not supportive, of the political system in Rojava. This support, according to some local journalists, is not due so much to direct imposition from the authorities, but rather to their own convictions and, even more important, to the feeling that doing otherwise would be very unpopular in a conflict-ridden context."
    So it doesn't sound like they have the most freedom of media, but it appears a long way from heavily censored. Restrictions on reporting matters that could effect security are common in areas of conflict (and even outside of them).
    Hawar News Agency has some WP:USEBYOTHERS and would probably be covered by WP:NEWSORG. Issues of bias (WP:RSBIAS) and opinion (WP:RSOPINION) don't immediately make a source unreliable. In general I would agree with Applodion, reliable but caution should be taken for issue where it's bias or censorship of security matters may effect it's reporting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agree with above, helpful to understand its bias, but this means to use with caution and understanding rather than preventing use. CMD (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agree with the above. If we are citing it for contentious claims, then it's better we provide attribution. Unless OP or someone else can come up with credible sources that question the reliability of Hawar, I don't see any reason to worry about its inclusion. Looking over the article, it seems most of the citations to it are for easily verifiable facts (i.e. changes in AANES leadership, recognition by the Catalan parliament, etc.), rather than anything contentious. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    If we consider TRT sub-optimum in relation to Rojava and the Syrian war because of its affiliation to the Erdogan government (see above on this noticeboard), the same should apply to Hawar. It’s fine for reporting the statements by AANES/PYD/SDF or uncontentious facts, but it should always be attributed and triangulated for anything at all contentious. I’d rate it above Al-Masdar and below the SOHR for reporting facts about eg battles in the Syrian war, but like them is a weak source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Is there anything to show that Hawar is not independent of the SDF? I couldn't find anything making an explicit link. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    @ActivelyDisinterested: "Misdirected US strike killed 18 allied fighters in Syria" from the Associated Press: "On Thursday, the group held funerals for 17 of its fighters in the border town of Tal al-Abyad, the SDF-linked Hawar news agency said...". 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 22:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    That would indicate a need for caution. Whether to the level of TRT I couldn't day. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    The difference between Hawar and TRT seems to be how they are treated by independent academics and subject experts; as far as I know, TRT has been repeatedly accused of spreading outright falsehoods (such as here), whereas Hawar is seemingly deemed to be mostly reliable despite its connections to the PYD and SDF. Applodion (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Being censored is a WP:BIASED issue and a reason to use a source with caution (with attribution for anything remotely contentious), but it doesn't automatically render them completely unreliable. The big question is whether they're yielding to pressure to publish things that are actually inaccurate rather than just one-sided. If not, they can still be used with caution - we'd want to cite better sources when possible and avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to a source with a clear bias, but there's some advantage to having sources that are close to conflicts. And a major problem with removing sources simply for being subject to censorship is that it could produce systematic bias by removing every source from a particular region; I'm not familiar with the Syrian press specifically, but in other regions with similar censorship, there's still a difference between sources that carefully report as much as they can get away with and as accurately as they can within the restrictions of government censors, and sources that full-throatedly broadcast misinformation to support the party line. --Aquillion (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    RfC: LionhearTV

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

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

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

    Deprecate. The Philippines has plenty of WP:RS to choose from. If you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find refs for something or someone and have to use this, I'd say consider against and don't add it to the article. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment: For better understanding and context, especially for editors unfamiliar of this topic's origin:
    LionhearTV is a blog site, as described on its "About Me" page, established in 2008 and functioning primarily as a celebrity and entertainment blog. The site is operated by eMVP Digital, which also manages similar blog sites, such as DailyPedia and Philippine Entertainment.
    In addition to these blogs, LionhearTV organizes the RAWR Awards, which recognize achievements in the entertainment industry. This accolade has been acknowledged by major industry players, including ABS-CBN and GMA Network. Like other awards, the RAWR Awards present physical trophies to honorees.
    A discussion about LionhearTV’s reliability as a source took place on the Bini (group) talk page in September 2024 (see Talk:Bini (group)/Archive 1 § LionhearTV as a reliable source). The issue was subsequently raised on the Tambayan Philippines talk page (Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 52 § Lionheartv) and the WP:RSN (Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 452 § LionhearTV). However, these discussions did not yield a constructive consensus on whether LionhearTV can be considered a reliable source. The discussion at Tambayan deviated into a debate about SMNI, which was unrelated to the original subject. Meanwhile, the sole respondent at the RSN inquiry commented, It may come down to how it's used, it maybe unreliable for contentious statement or comments about living people, but reliable for basic details.
    At this moment, LionhearTV is listed as unreliable on Misplaced Pages:New page patrol source guide#The Philippines as result of the no consensus discussion at RSN.
    AstrooKai (Talk) 13:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Lionheartv is one person operation. How can there be editorial discretion on that case? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm more surprised on how a single person actively manages three blog sites and one accolade, with the accolade even giving out physical trophies to its winners. Like, how is he/she funding and doing all of these? AstrooKai (Talk) 14:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's immaterial on how we determine WP:RS. What could be very important that other WP:RS missed out on that only this blog carries? If it's only this blog that carries articles about something, it's not very important. This blog is the very definition of WP:RSSELF. I'm surprised we're having this conversation. A blacklist is needed. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Option 3. There's something about its reporting and organizational structure that is off compared to the regular newspapers. Borgenland (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Though, I find it strange and concerning that reputable sources copypasted some of LionhearTV's articles:
    1. LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts/ (December 8, 2024)
      Sunstar: https://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts (December 10, 2024)
    2. LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2025/01/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 11, 2025)
      Manila Republic: https://www.manilarepublic.com/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 14, 2025)
    These are two instances I found so far where other sources copypasted from LionhearTV. But I saw other instances where LionhearTV is the one who copypasted from other sources, such examples include:
    1. LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-im-okay-to-cinemas/ (December 30, 2024)
      Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/showbiz/music/2024/12/29/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-i-m-okay-to-cinemas-0948 (December 29, 2024)
    2. LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/06/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game/ (June 27, 2024)
      Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/starmagic/articles-news/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game-22637 (June 24, 2024)
    I honestly don't know about these editors, they just copying each other's works. Probably cases of churnalism. AstrooKai (Talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Option 3 - As much as possible, LionhearTV and its sibling sites under the eMVP Digital should not be used as sources when more reliable outlets have coverage for a certain event, show, actor and so on. Even if a certain news item is exclusive to or first published in a eMVP Digital site, other journalists will eventually publish similar reports in their respective platforms (refer to some examples posted by AstrooKai). -Ian Lopez @ 15:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    What I fear in these kinds of low quality sources is that people will find something very specific about someone, e.g. "This person was seen in a separate engagement vs. the others in their group," and this low quality source is the only source that carried this fact, and since this it is not blacklisted, this does get in as a source, and most of the time, that's all that's needed. We don't need articles on showbiz personalities tracking their every movement as if it's important. Blacklist this. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Discussion about moving RFC to RSN
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    @AstrooKai, @Borgenland, @Howard the Duck, if you don't mind we can move this discussion to Noticeboard to get more opinions and votes on other experienced editors. Royiswariii Talk! 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support. Borgenland (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support. Though, I suggest finishing or closing this discussion so that we don't have two running discussions that tackles the same thing. If we want to construct a consensus, we better do it in one place. Alternatively, we first seek consensus from the local level first (by finishing this discussion) before moving one level up (the RSN). AstrooKai (Talk) 16:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3It's a blog. That means WP:SPS applies. This means it might be contextually reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF or under WP:EXPERTSPS (with the usual condition that SPSEXPERT prohibits any use of SPS for BLPs) and so I don't see any pressing need for deprecation, but this is very clearly a source that is not generally one we should use. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
      FWIW, the person behind this blog is not a subject matter expert. Like, we don't even know who this is. (One subject matter expert in Philippine showbusiness that I know of that runs a similar blog is Fashion Pulis, and I event won't even use the blind items as sources there lol) As explained above, once this gets to be used as a source, it won't be challenged and people just accept it as is. This is a low quality source that has to be blacklisted. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yeah that's fine. I was just saying that, in general, those are the only two avenues to use someone's blog. Simonm223 (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 4 Their reportings are obviously flawed and a per example above copypasting is a not a good look nor a good indication for "reliability" and it is often used in BLP, yikes. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Hatebase.org

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

    Is there an WP:RFCBEFORE for this? And/Or some context for the use case? FortunateSons (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have checked and I can't find any previous discussion, hence why I opened this one. There is an article about the site. I intend to use it to expand list of slurs articles. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I’m not making a statement on the source, as I’m not familiar with it .Then this doesn’t require an RfC, just a normal source discussion, if you’re concerned about reliability. Do you mind removing the descriptor from the title? And best of luck! :) FortunateSons (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Okay, I just added it because I saw some of the other discussions had it. I am removing it from the title. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    That happens, don’t worry about it! Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    used in 4[REDACTED] articles, seems highly premature. use best judgement until it can't be resolved in an article's talk page between editors, and needs wider[REDACTED] community feedback. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I wish this were otherwise because it looks like a really interesting website but it uses user-generated content. Which is a problem from an RS perspective. Simonm223 (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    None of the uses are for anything other than Hatebase itself, and as the site was been retired since 2022 it's unlikely it will see much more use ('retired' as it's been closed to editing, all user data deleted, and may go offline at any point, so not quite closed but very close). As most of the supporting data is gone, and what there was was user generated, I don't think it could be used as an RS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    LaserDisc Database?

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

    The bottom of the page has "Disclaimer: The data on this webstite is crowd-sourced..." and from the page you linked it's unclear what amount of checking is done before any submitted updates happen. Worldcat is the better option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    oops, I missed that. Thank you for the advice. I'll use WorldCat if I can't find a news article. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Usage of AirPlay Direct for music articles

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

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

    Global Defense Corp

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    5. Butowski 2021, pp. 78–82

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

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

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

    Do we use them? Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    The S 400 Misplaced Pages page has 20 citations from them and the su 57 Misplaced Pages page has four. Madnow2 (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree that they're generally unreliable but I'm not so sure I'd chalk it up to bias rather than incompetence. They seem to be suggesting that the news they publish is a sideline to their core business of international security consulting... But they're spamming the cheapest ads on the internet alongside that content suggests that this is their primary income. To me it looks like a vanity site, I also suspect they are ripping stories off or using generative AI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I will agree with you that they are incompetent But I think you can be incompetent and bias, some mistakes they've made such as having a image of the SU57 that is CGI on the web page and claiming it was a picture taken by Sukhoi I could see that being a result of incompetence but stuff like claiming Turkey accused Russia of Fraud over the S 400 because its range decreased against objects at lower altitude I have a harder time believing is just incompetence specially since the mistakes that they made seemed to always understate Russian equipment’s capabilities I have never been able to see and correct me if I'm wrong any incidents where they have overstated a piece of Russian equipment’s capabilities and yet I have seen dozens of mistakes in the opposite direction which suggests to me it is not random error. but quite frankly if their biassed or not I think is irrelevant even if we somehow conclude that they do have a neutral point of view there is still no way they could be considered a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards as they do not meet the other criteria mainly the one which is in quote ‘Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy’ there is no universe where they pass that one and as a result they cannot be considered a reliable source something which you agree with this alone should be enough to get the website Deprecated irrespective of if their bias or not. Madnow2 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think the one thing that seems to be universally agreed on is that this is not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would agree, that regardless of whether it's bias or incompetence, it all adds up to unreliability. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Should we trust Social Blade for statistics

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

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

    The question is should we trust it?

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

    It is WP:PRIMARY - I don't think WP:SELFPUB applies since it is drawing its data out of an API but I'd say it's a marginal source. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    It certainly isn't a source that I would trust but it is frequently cited in certain articles to populate value statement parameters such as subscriber count, view count, like count etc in this template. My understanding is that WP:PRIMARY sources shouldn't be used to verify value statements? 𝔓𝔓 17:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Prior discussions for reference; Aug 2021, Jan 2024, June 2024, RFC June 2024. The general opinion appears to be that it's marginal at best. Personally I doubt how reliable their data is, if it's available from the original source that should be used and if it's not available from the original source I wouldn't trust it. They also have 'rankings', which are worthless for anything other than the opinion of Social Blade. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    RfC: EurAsian Times

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

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

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

    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)

    flightconnections.com

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

    I can't find any information about who runs the site or where it gets it's information from. There are quite a few articles promoting it or about how to use it, but that is unsurprising as it operates an affiliate programme. From a Google book search it has some extremely limited USEBYOTHERS (note several of the results are not reliable sources), but not enough to be meaningful. I couldn't get any useful results from Google Scholar. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I do see it as reliable. They are buying the data from one of the large brokers (likely either Cirium or OAG, I wish they said who) and simply providing a wrapper to explore that data, and selling ads and subscriptions to pay for the extremely expensive subscription the brokers charge. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Pegging

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ms. Ryder,
    What would help here is if you could point us to either reliable, independent sources citing your work, or of you writing for publications that you don't publish yourself.... something that helps us see that, as you say, "in sex educations widely known as a go-to expert." I fully believe that you are.
    The problem with someone using your sources as a reference has to do with Misplaced Pages's rules on using self-published sources, which your websites, videos, etc, count as. We can use such sources as reference (if within some limits), but only if we can see that the creator is a recognized expert in the field... and by recognized, that means either cited by or hired to write on the topic by reliable sources. I know that it seems like your voluminous experience and the visible quality of your materials should count for something here, but alas it does not. I don't think we'd be expecting, say, the New York Times or the Journal of the American Medical Association in this case, just some recognizable source that takes such sexual matters seriously. It doesn't even have to be material that is online (although that would help.) Articles that quote you or recommend your sites or training services would really help. Can you point us to such citations? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I appreciate the work that you do. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages editors cannot use their own judgement to assess the expertise of someone. There are people who research topics and work in a field their entire lives who become experts in those fields and publish their work on their own websites. But there are also pseudo-experts who do the same thing. Editors on Misplaced Pages are not allowed to use their own judgement to discern the difference between the two, but must rely on a third party to establish their expertise. If you have ever given an interview on pegging for a newspaper or a magazine, or had your website cited by a sexologist or another recognizable sex expert as a good resource on pegging, for instance, then that would allow us to recognize the reliability of your site for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. Photos of Japan (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Could you comment on and notify the article talk page you want to edit? We really cannot help without context around what changes you want to include.
    that conversation from 2017 is old. I have no clue if that is what Misplaced Pages editors believe today, nor the state of the article you want to change. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I am highly confident that Pegging (sexual practice) is the main article on the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would concur. Simonm223 (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Their comment wasn't asking which page the 2017 discussion was on (which is linked to), but was asking RubyRyder to leave a comment on the talk page of that article. Photos of Japan (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Is the only reason we want to include this information because its from RubyRyder and it would be good publicity? or is there a specific bit of info that they want to include that is missing?
    • have they tried including it and seeing what happens? (see WP:BRD) Are regulars who wrote and watch the pegging article notified that this debate is happening?
    • This post seems mostly like rehashing and trying to start up an argument from 2017 for the sake of a debate. would like info on what we are doing here, exactly, and what the debate is?
    Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    NationalWorld.com

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

    Based on National World, not necessarily crap. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic