Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia 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 05:02, 25 October 2024 view sourceBon courage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users66,214 edits →Use of medical literature for claims about relative incidence of dog attacks by breed: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:05, 11 January 2025 view source Soibangla (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users26,490 edits →Discussion: The Heritage Foundation: ReplyTag: 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 = 454 |counter = 463
|minthreadstoarchivSee = 1 |minthreadstoarchivSee = 1
|algo = old(5d) |algo = old(5d)
Line 15: Line 16:
--> -->


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
== RFC Jewish Chronicle ==
{{atop
| status = Under review


== RFC Science-Based Medicine ==
| result = Closing this because it's a complicated close and could take a while, want to prevent two closers from duplicating each others' work. I'll update after I've finished reading, may be tomorrow. ] (]) 18:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
{{discussion top|There is a general consensus that at least some articles on this site can be considered self-published, and substantial disagreement over whether the site's editorial control is adequate, with even some partial supports acknowledging that material on the site may not be substantially reviewed if reviewed at all. As such, material from this site should be used with caution, probably with attribution, and should not on its own be used to support negative or controversial content in BLPs. Particular articles from the site may still be reliable on the basis of self-published sources by experts; those should be considered on an individual basis. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 10:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC) }}
}}
<!-- ] 02:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1736474472}}


Is the blog ] in whole or in part, a ]? ] (]) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- ] 10:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1730023269}}


*Comment for context: Note that a ] that Science-Based Medicine is considered ] and not considered ]. See ] for more details at ]. ] (]) 01:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
The reliability of the ] is:


:{{strikethrough|], is there a reason that you chose not to list this RfC on the Maths, science, and technology list? If not, would you mind adding that topic area to the RfC template? Thanks,}} ] (]) 19:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 1: ]'''
::Never mind, Raladic added it. ] (]) 20:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 2: ]'''
* '''Option 3: ]'''
* '''Option 4: ]'''


===Responses (Science-Based Medicine)===
, ] (]) 09:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Not SPS''' - Per the previous RfC, there seems to be no reason to rehash this. The editorial practices of SBM show that they do not act like an SPS and that has not changed since the prior RfC. So there appears to be no reason to deviate it from it now. What is the rationale for this repeat RfC other than to try to discredit it? SBM is one of the watchdog media that help keep ] science out of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 02:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)


*'''Comment''' {{summoned by bot}}, @] has there been in discussion of this on this noticeboard since the last RFC? '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
===Note (Jewish Chronicle)===
*:OP created different RFC here: ] which was closed as a bad RFC as it was not neutral and editors pointed out the lack of RFCBEFORE on a reasoning of why this needs to be rehashed. Given that that one was just closed and now this new one was immediately opened again without any RFCBEFORE discussion, it similarly appears to be looking for a problem without information as to why this RfC is here without any new evidence that should change the established consensus of the community. ] (]) 03:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Existing RSP entry is green with the following commentary:
*:There was a discussion from a few years ago listed on RSP that seemed very mixed as to whether SBM is a SPS ] (]) 14:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''SPS'''. Per what they wrote on their site: "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" If people are able to publish directly, by themselves, without being reviewed, then that meets the definition of SPS and we need to treat it that way for BLPs. Noting that this only means that it can't be used for direct statements about living people, but can still be used for statements about the truth (or, more often, otherwise) of views held by living people, the views of the authors about living people, and statements about fringe theories themselves. - ] (]) 03:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:You're citing a literal case where their editorial board retracted a published statement - that is literally acting like a non-SPS such as newspapers do and shows editorial oversight. This wasn't "random stranger published directly", it was a trusted author, and yet, their editorial board decided to retract the published article at the very link explaining their editorial oversight - {{tq|After careful review, the editors of SBM decided to retract this book review. Because we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness, occasionally corrections need to be made post-publication. In this case we felt there were too many issues with the treatment of the relevant science, and leaving the article up would not be appropriate given the standards of SBM.}}, so this looks like exactly what you'd expect from a non-SPS. You basically just made the case why they are not an SPS. ] (]) 03:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::In that case, they literally stated that they literally allow some people to self-publish on their site. That they might then retract the story if later they find a problem is a good thing. But it does not change how that article appeared there. Medium, for example, is a self-publishing platform, yet they can and do remove articles. This does not mean that we need to treat Medium as if it is not self published. SBM is definitely better than Medium, and I am confident that they have much higher standards. However, as they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs. - ] (]) 07:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::"''As they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs''". Which people though specifically? Where are the examples of this claim? Please list 5-10 authors at SBM who have self-published articles without any form of review. I do not see any good examples only one article from Harriet Hall that was retracted. Hall is now deceased. I would like to see the other examples. From what I can see none exist. ] (]) 13:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::It would seem that most of the content is self-published by only a small number (4) of writers, and yes, without any prior review as mentioned about by Bilby. The reliability is also debatable, but the self-publishing aspect of this blog seems as undeniable as ]. ] (]) 14:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::You haven't provided any evidence of self-publishing. Show us links to the self-published articles, I want to see them. Links and specific names please! ] (]) 14:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::This just seems like sealioning but here you go... ] (]) 14:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::You have linked to several articles by ]. Where does it claim on those articles they are self-published? David H. Gorski obviously reviewed those articles, he is listed in the link you cited below as the other editor. There are two editors so this isn't self-publishing. ] (]) 14:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Where are you seeing that? SBM seems to say the opposite, that Novella's articles are not checked by Gorski... Gorski also wouldn't be the publisher in that scenario, you're confusing an editor with the publisher. Novella's publisher would be Novella (either as founder and chief editor or as President of the society). ] (]) 14:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::The website says "''SBM is entirely owned and operated by the ]''" . So if you are after the publisher, not the editors it is that Society. Novella is listed as the current President of the New England Skeptical Society, he is not the publisher. We know that SBM has two current editors. The New England Skeptical Society that publishes SBM has 25 employees including its web manager Mike Lacelle. Its director is Jay Novella . This isn't a single man self-publishing house, an organization is behind it. ] (]) 15:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::Is Jay Novella related to Steven Novella? If so this is getting worse, not better. ] (]) 15:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Yes it's his son but he is not the web manager for the website so he is not the publisher. He is the Director of Marketing and Technology . My understanding is that all the websites owned by the Society are managed by Mike Lacelle who is listed as the web manager. So if you are looking for the specific man that actually publishes the articles after they are edited it would be him. Like I said the organization has 25 employees, there could be others involved. It's not just Steven Novella in his bedroom publishing this website. Novella is a very busy man, he wouldn't have time for that! ] (]) 15:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::No, Jay and Steve are brothers. --] (]) 16:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Thanks for the correction. The dude looks young for his age, fooled me. ] (]) 16:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::So between Jay, Steve, and Robert Novella it seems that we have a lot of relatives here. ] (]) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::What is your source for the organization having 25 employees? ] (]) 02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::{{Ping|Psychologist Guy}} you've claimed three times that the organization currently has exactly 25 employees... It is the core of your argument, but I don't think its true and I can't find it anywhere online... So how are you getting that number? ] (]) 18:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
#::::::::::::It's on a company check website that mentioned 25 employees, unfortunately such websites appear to be blacklisted on Misplaced Pages. However, another one less specific says 20-49 employees . I believe there are 4 full time employees - Jay Novella, Perry DeAngelis, Steven Novella, Evan Bertnstein and the rest are part timers. ] (]) 18:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
#::::::::::::::Their website lists the full time employees, there are actually probably 6 full time including the web manager Mike Lacelle. ] (]) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
#:::::::::::::::{{Reply|Psychologist Guy}} Those company check websites are hilariously bad, I don't know anyone who would actually take them at face value like that (we all had a good laugh when one listed the twenty odd person consulting group I was working for as "1,000-10,0000 employees"). The NESS website lists associated people but it doesn't appear to make any claim about their employment (volunteer vs paid or part vs full time). It also only lists six people total, a few of which we know have day jobs so they can't be full time employees and one (Perry DeAngelis) is almost two decades DEAD. Six doesn't seem to be any more legitimate a number than 25. ] (]) 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
#::::::::::::::::I have contacted someone who should know about this; hopefully they get back to me and I can let you know what the current figure of their employees is with documentation if possible. ] (]) 19:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
#:::::::::::::::::{{Reply|Psychologist Guy}} it has been a week, did you find out anything useful? ] (]) 17:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Not SPS''' This isn't a self-published source, the articles are reviewed before being published by an editorial board. The four current editors are: Steven P. Novella, David H. Gorski, Kimball C. Atwood, Mark Crislip. Guest editors can submit articles to the website, all of which are reviewed before publication. Critics of SBM are jumping a single retracted article that this is an SPS. Seems like a bad case of cherry-picking. There is no good evidence this is an SPS. '''Update''' There are two editors not four my mistake. The publisher is the ]. ] (]) 13:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::That doesn't match what is currently on their website, they appear to only have two current editors who are also the main writers (thats where we get into SPS territory). One of those editors also appears to be the leader of the organization which publishes these two blogs, thats how we get even deeper into SPS territory. ] (]) 14:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the update. So they have two editors currently. If they have two editors they are not self-published. ] (]) 14:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Who is Steven P. Novella's publisher if not Steven P. Novella? ] (]) 14:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::The link you cited says Steven Novella, MD — Founder and Executive Editor and David H. Gorski, MD, PhD — Managing Editor. They clearly review each others articles, this means it isn't self-published by a single individual. There used to be more editors in the past but some of them died. ] (]) 14:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::In this case it does appear to be self-published by a single individual, hiring your friends as editors doesn't make your blog not your blog. Also just to be clear what SBM actually say is "we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" so they clearly don't review each other's articles as a matter of course. ] (]) 14:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It's much more than a single man. The SBM website is published by ], it says at SBM that they are "entirely owned and operated" by the Society. They have 25 employees currently. At SBM it doesn't claim that Steven Novella is the publisher it just says he is the "Founder and Executive Editor". If you want the exact publisher, it would be the New England Skeptical Society. As stated above, I am not convinced this fits the definition of self-publishing. ] (]) 15:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The New England Skeptical Society, of which Novella is founder and president. ] (]) 21:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::Their own statement was "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" Given that, it is clear that in at least some cases, people can publish directly on SBM without being reviewed before publication. - ] (]) 20:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''SPS''', seems to be pretty cut and dried at least when it comes to Novella's pieces (remember SBM claims to be a blog, its generally presenting personal opinions... When its two expert editors want to publish their actual work they do not publish it there but in real journals). I would also note that this discussion should include the sister blog NeuroLogicaBlog. If anyone wants to disagree with me they can lay out what editorial checks and balances would apply to Novella. ] (]) 14:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Neurologica is an obvious self-published blog authored entirely by Novella such that I do not think further discussion on that issue is necessary. ] (]) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Science-Based Medicine and Neurologica have the exact same publisher. ] (]) 02:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Neurologica's writer is the same as the head of the New England Skeptical Society. It's obviously Steven Novella's personal blog, similar to Gorski's own . There's no reason to think it's not a self-published source, unlike SBM which has several editors and apparently does review of at least some of what it publishes (though apparently not all), which is why we are having this discussion. ] (]) 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Is it two or several? ] (]) 03:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:(How) does the following factor into your assessment that it's an SPS? In their of "Why Dr. Harriet Hall’s review of Abigail Shrier’s ''Irreversible Damage'' was retracted," they note that "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing," and that they "have mechanisms of quality control" for articles that are posted without prior review, including "clarification in the comments" and "corrections to the original text of the article." Their about outside submissions says in part "The volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using an informal peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a 'rough and ready' peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission." ] (]) 16:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella) this feels like inaccurate or outdated info and so high time for a review. GREL, sure, but as a group blog still an SPS, with seemingly no consistent publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. ] (]) 17:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I was asking ], in part because they wrote "at least when it comes to Novella's pieces" and "it does appear to be self-published by a single individual," which suggests that perhaps they don't consider it SPS for other authors. I'm wondering this for ] as well, as they'd previously said "I think guest authors can be assumed not to be self-published." ] (]) 21:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::With Quackwatch we came to a similar position - articles published by the editor are self published, but articles on the site by other authors are not. I'm ok with something similar here. The only problem is that all they say is "trusted authors" can post directly. I would read that as safe to assume people who do not regularly have articles posted on the site would not be trusted, but it doesn't say only the editors are trusted to publish without prior review. Thus there may be some gray area between the two. - ] (]) 21:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::The others are more a grey area for me, most of what we are currently using on wiki is pieces by Gorski and Novella... And we have discussions elsewhere about some guest authors like Harriet Hall not producing work of the same quality/rigor as Gorski and Novella. Its a bit of an odd situation, normally the editors are not also the authors and even when they are they're normally not the primary and most reliable authors. Its made extra odd because most of the editors/authors are subject matter experts so usable under EXPERTSPS no matter where we come down on general reliability. ] (]) 03:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''SPS'''. It's a group blog with some guest authors. Having multiple contributors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Having guest authors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Retracting a post does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. This language in ] is particularly relevant: "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". As a pro-SBM editor argued in the aborted RfC, the need for SBM in Misplaced Pages is to enable wikivoice accusations of "grift, fraud and quackery" ''that cannot be sourced otherwise''. In other words, the reason this group blog has been elevated to a reliable source is to work around NPOV. - ] (]) 17:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I don't see any evidence presented to back up the claim that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." It's not even clear to me how someone would go about studying that. Do you have any evidence that it's true? (And FWIW, the question of whether something is an SPS is distinct from whether it is independent or reliable.) ] (]) 17:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::That is a direct quote from ]. - ] (]) 17:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Yes, I'm aware of that. That someone added it to the WP:SPS text doesn't make it true, and since you're the one who chose to quote it, I'm asking you whether you have any evidence that it's true. For that matter, I'd be interested if you have thoughts about how one would go about studying it. ] (]) 21:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::If you have a problem with WP:SPS the appropriate venue is ] - ] (]) 21:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Comment'''. Do some people !voting here have a connection to the source? I see one editor referring to Steven Novella as "Steve" and another who may be affiliated with the New England Skeptical Society. I have seen some surprising interpretations of WP:COI in the past so I'm not sure if this is important, but thought it was worth noting. - ] (]) 18:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:That is also a great point and worth investigating as part of any close here. Looks sus at the very least... ] (]) 01:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''SPS'''. I personally think this source is fine to use on BLPs, but there is no way to honestly read our (convoluted, strange) SPS guidelines and not come to the conclusion that it is one. It is a small group of people most of whom publish without prior review on a blog. That they make arguments we like does not make it not a blog. ] (]) 18:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''SPS'''. It's a group blog, but still a blog. Group blogs are specifically called out on ]. As noted above, SBM "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness". The fact that they later retracted one article doesn't negate that the norm for "trusted authors" (probably including regulars, and definitely including the owners of the site such as Gorski and Novella) is to publish without any editorial review of the author's work. Hence, it is clearly by and large an SPS.
:The claim that we need this to not be an SPS to effectively fight fringe and quackery is often made but I've never seen it backed up with an example of a fringe topic whose Misplaced Pages article would become credulous to pseudoscience without it. There are plenty of published and even academic sources that stuff like homeopathy is pseudoscientific, quackery, etc.; we are perfectly capable of sourcing something like "John Smith is an advocate of homeopathy, a pseudoscientific practice" in just about any case it is needed. SBM being an SPS also doesn't preclude its use in cases of ], as pro-fringe sources themselves are often SPS or otherwise poor. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 23:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::The ] article relies a decent amount on SBM. There are other sources, but until recently there wasn't much critical attention towards that strain of fringe, with SBM having been 10+ years ahead of the curve on describing the contours of its recent resurgence in alt-med communities. In the past few years others such as BBC News, Science Feedback, and Snopes discussed it, though often missing details such as its direct relation to the anti-vaccination movement. Don't know how much this as example changes the overall equation, but was the first to come to mind. ] (]) 14:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::There's no shortage of reliable sources establishing that the germ theory was a huge advance in medicine and that we have basically incontrovertible proof of it for maybe thousands of diseases.
::: - ] (]) 19:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::But using any of those sources to draw conclusions about the specific claims of a particular germ theory denialist would be ]. ] (]) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>'''Reliable SPS'''</s> - can be used to describe fringe theories proposed by people as discredited or as quackery, including on a bio... should not be used to describe people themselves as quacks. ] (]) 00:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*:'''Partial SPS''' - saw some of the info of arguments below from CoffeeCrumbs, and FactOrOpinon. I think the partial peer-review for some articles is... frustrating for a direct answer, but if there is peer-review on an article, it should stand as non-SPS material. ] (]) 01:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''SPS''' - We see at ] that an SPS has clear rules and restrictions, such as not being used '''ever''' for a ], absolutely '''never'''. Some seem to be arguing that this obvious SPS should for some reason be granted an exception to the clear language of "'''never'''" and should be allowed on biographies of living persons in some cases (or in many). There are many reasons why that is not allowed generally, but we have now learned that this source is essentially the soapbox of primarily only ''two individuals'', and most importantly, is not part of a media outlet or organization or inclusive of any external (or even further internal vetting). No, rather, it is a '''blog'''. An SPS '''blog'''. One perhaps run by scientists, two scientists, but a blog, nonetheless. Again, quoting directly from WP:SPS, "{{tq|'''Never''' use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.}}" So here we have this source, which is obviously beyond ] a blog and a self-published source, we must then at the very least clarify that it absolutely must not be used in any circumstances for BLPs going forward, by the fact that it is so clearly a SPS.] (]) 00:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Partly SPS and partly non-SPS''' - The site makes it clear that some authors can publish without prior review. I consider their articles to be self-published; for example, I put Steven Novella's articles in this category. The site also says that other articles undergo prior review (e.g., "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing"). I consider the latter to be non-self-published. Examples of authors who clearly aren't regular article authors there and whose articles presumably underwent prior review: and . For some articles/authors, it's not clear to me whether they fall in the SPS category or instead in the non-SPS category. ] (]) 03:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
* It seems that posts by some established contributors are self-published (as shown by links above), while guest contributors are not. So the answer to whether SBM is an SPS or not is 'yes'. '''SPS and not SPS'''. Certainly the idea that it's fully SPS has no basis. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


*'''SPS''': As noted by other contributors, SBM openly acknowledges that it often publishes content without prior peer review. Consequently, this makes it a self-published source (SPS), with the opinions expressed representing those of individual authors. Like any other SPS, its use requires caution, especially in articles about living people or controversial topics, where ensuring accuracy and neutrality is critical. ] (]) 17:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
"There is consensus that The Jewish Chronicle is generally reliable for news, particularly in its pre-2010 reporting. There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics. Where used, in-text attribution is recommended for its coverage of these topics."


*'''Not SPS for reviewed articles''' They directly state they have editorial peer review for a number, if not most, of their articles. And only a select few don't go through that process (though appear to have after the fact review, considering the retraction, so even that seems to be in question). I will note that this appears to be yet another attempt by ] pushing editors to try and remove skeptical debunking media from negatively covering their fringe topics. Par for the course attempt, honestly. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Editors may wish to comment on these issues specifically. ] (]) 09:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
*:It's a day that ends in -Y.... ] (]) 01:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:If we can't tell what is and isn't peer-reviewed and what is SPS material, is that not a problem? ] (]) 11:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:And how we will determine which articles have been reviewed? Also note that editorial review and ] are different things and they do not appear to make a claim of peer review. ] (]) 13:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Right. These "Not SPS" !votes completely fail to respond to this criticism or address this perfectly valid and critically important counterpoint other than to say things along the lines of, "Come on man, THEY SAY that some stuff is reviewed! Let's take their word on it bro! Even if they are generally a '''blog''', they are a '''''trusted''''' blog." ] (]) 20:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Poor editorial control is a matter of reliability, but all matters of reliability don't have to be decided by classifying a source as self-published. It's accepted that other sources follow their stated editorial practices, and noone has shown why that shouldn't be the case here. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Not SPS for reviewed articles''' They've got editors, which sets it apart from a standard SPS. Those articles that could be self published are still reliable for most purposes anyway, since they are from subject matter experts. It is also worth noting that while it should not be used for biographical details in general, even if this were to be considered a SPS that would not rule it out for comments on science, medicine, or the reception of fringe ideas, even when those ideas happen to appear on an article with a person's name at the top. - ] (]) 18:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


*'''Not SPS''' by virtue of having either pre-publication review or the possibility of editorially imposed retraction. A source that is truly ''self-published'' wouldn't have either of those. ] (]) 01:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Just a reminder but it's not technically possible to ] a source for a specific are of content and also a deprecated source is not more unreliable than an unreliable source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)


*'''Partial SPS''' It's a bit awkward since they do so much good work, but "our own editors, however, have earned the privilege of publishing articles without prior review, since they have a proven track record," is extremely concerning. What they describe as an editorial process for these articles, saying that "if any concerns about accuracy, fairness, or completeness come to our attention, we deal with them in a number of ways," is just not enough. The job of an editor is checking before, not just maybe cleaning up after "if," so I would have to say that the articles by their own editors have to be considered '''SPS''' until they revise this. Things they actually do vet ''before'' putting up, I consider as being subjected to an editorial process, however. ] (]) 02:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:Well, there are clear wording differences between ] and ], beyond the availability of technical means for the latter. ] <small>]]</small> 12:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Generally not SPS''', though additional scrutiny for articles by Gorski and Novella may be appropriate. Essentially per ]. I'm also frankly not impressed with this RFC, and the manner the proposer starts these discussions in general. Said discussions are not {{em|quite}} up to the point of disruption, but I would nonetheless heavily suggest that they seek advice as to the drafting of their statements and formatting of their proposals and whether adequate prior discussion has taken place, from one of the other editors supporting their point of view. ] (] • ]) 05:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm just summarising {{tq|Deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable.}} ] itself is a short summary of ], but this is better discuss in the discussion section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
* '''SPS''' A group blog posting guest postings is still a group blog, and still self-published. Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella, whose blog it is), previous claims to having a robust editorial process seem unconvincing. There is no consistently documented publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and this source is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. ] (]) 16:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I can easily give examples of non-SPS that don't have a documented corrections or complaints procedure, such as , and whether they have a documented corrections or complaints procedure seems to be more a matter of whether they're an RS rather than whether they're an SPS. Are non-SPS generally reviewed by more than two editors? It seems to me that by your favored WP:USESPS definition for SPS, the guest articles aren't SPS, as author!=publisher. ] (]) 18:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I am responding to suggestions that some sort of allegedly robust editorial and accountability process makes it not an SPS, which I think is a nonsense.
*::My favoured definition of SPS is: if it isn't traditionally published (book, newspaper, journal) or something directly comparable structurally, it is an SPS. That is in line with USESPS since it considers virtually all websites to be self-published. It is narrow, yes, but it is also consistent across media. It is also not a reflection on reliability in other ways, as SPS vs GREL are two different concerns.
*::I think the "self" in "self-published" causes much confusion, as does the consideration that "publishing" is the mere act of putting information online. A publishing company is more than a person who vets content and presses a button to place material on a website. If we consider something not self published simply because the person who writes it has to go through another person before it is published, that means celebrity social media accounts where an intern reports to a manager aren't self published, which makes a nonsense of the whole thing (ie, virtually nothing is self-published by that standard).
*::I consider "science based medicine" to be a publication as a whole rather than something that can be approached article-by-article. There is no distinct, separate, traditional publishing entity, as with a newspaper, a book, or an academic journal. The owners and editors are all the same, and that they solicit other people's content to add to their own publication which they entirely control still makes it their own self-published publication, in exactly the same way as any blog with guest posts.
*::I know there are difficult edge cases to the whole "what is a traditional publisher" model, but I don't think a group blog like SBM is even close to that, and considering it to be one (because editors want to use it to make BLP claims about quacks) has turned into a slippery slope IMO. ] (]) 10:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Thanks for elaborating on why you consider the SBM guest articles to be SPS, even though they're not published by the authors. Re: the rest, as others have noted, USESPS is an essay, not a policy; it should be consistent with policy rather than vice versa. I think we need an RfC to clarify what the meaning of SPS is in the WP:SPS policy, and once the RfC about grey matter from advocacy orgs is closed, I'm going to try to create one for WP:SPS, though so far I've found it tremendously difficult to figure out how to word such an RfC. WP:PUBLISHED says "Published means, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form," so that's much broader than your use of it. ] (]) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::] is '''policy''', <u>not an essay</u>. It is clear '''policy''' that '''<u>blogs</u>''' like Science-Based Medicine not be used for BLPs <u>at a bare minimum</u>. ] (]) 19:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I said "'''USESPS''' is an essay, not a policy" (emphasis added). It seems that you're confusing ] (which as I noted is an essay) with ] (which is a policy). People clearly have different opinions about whether SBM is wholly SPS or only partially SPS, and if the consensus of this RfC is that it is only partially SPS, then the part that isn't SPS can be used for statements about living persons despite identifying itself as a blog. Also, the BLP policy is for statements about living persons, wherever they occur, but AFAIK, RS expert blogs can be used for DUE statements about non-persons, even if that statement appears in a biographical article. BLPSELFPUB is also an exception. ] (]) 21:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::I'm aware. We have multiple highly debatable and contested terms, at the heart of a core policy, and radically different interpretation of them. When I raised this weeks ago I asked what I was missing, and it turned out I wasn't missing anything except a massive intractable tarpit. I think none of it is obvious. Your objection here is understandable depends very much how you interpret "author", "publisher" and the work being published, and a narrow definition restricted to natural persons means any source with two people can be argued to be not self published. But to me it remains obvious that for a self published book in which my friend writes the foreword, their content is still self published even though I acted as "editor", and I don't see a difference between a self published book with multiple contributors and a group blog with multiple contributors. And the trouble is a lot of the discussions about how we classify X or Y revolve not around what they are, but about how we want to use them, which makes it ever more messy. Personally I would like to see clarity on *why* BLPSPS exists, and define the standard clearly there, because that would inform what sort of sources are acceptable in BLPs, which is really the nub of the matter. BLPSPS feels like it might once have been shorthand for "a source who's probably had the lawyers look it over before publishing it", but that's just my impression/speculation. Absent BLPSPS, the question of whether sources like grey literature or SBM are SPS or not is largely moot. ] (]) 11:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::@] makes a great point. Literally any propaganda shop could just have TWO people and then instantly always not be SPS according to this B.S. argument being pushed for why this source is allegedly "not SPS".............. ] (]) 14:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::So basically most local news is self-published as well then. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Yes, most local and hyper local news outlets are in fact self-published. ] (]) 17:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*Not SPS for reviewed content. Where content is clearly reviewed, definitely not SPS. Where we’re not certain, treat it with extra caution. By the way “blog” and “SPS” are not synonyms. Blog is a format that can be edited and published by reputable organisations, as with eg The Conversation or perhaps the SPLC’s Hatewatch. ] (]) 20:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I would agree with you that your two examples are not SPS, however I have seen people argue the contrary in both cases. ] (]) 00:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::Everything in ] is effectively an opinion piece and as such is actually treated like a SPS per ]. I also don't believe that '''any''' of the content in SBM is "clearly reviewed." ] (]) 00:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@] makes probably the most important point of this entire discussion, which is effectively "How can we determine clearly which articles by this '''<u>blog</u>''' are considered '''reviewed''', and which are not?" many, at least all published by Gorski and Novella are unquestionably 100% SPS and therefore should not touch any BLP. This excellent point has been largely or entirely ignored by the minority "Not SPS" camp which really doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on other than "If this was considered SPS then articles on XYZ subjects would get worse." Sorry. That is not an argument supported by WP policy. ] (]) 01:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::That argument is ]. To be clear, I don't think it's an argument that anyone ''needs'' to make, but ] overrides ]. The only policy-based concern, even granting the application of the SPS label despite the fact that it doesn't really fit, would be about biographies of living people, but an article on a topic like germ-theory denialism isn't a biography of a living person. ] (]) 02:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Both of those links are to IAR, if thats the policy you're claiming trumps the relevant guidelines I would question your competence (especially as you appear to be calling ] a guideline). ] (]) 13:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Both of those links were deliberate. Like I said, the only part of ] that could be pertinent here is the prohibition against using {{tq|self-published sources as third-party sources about living people}}, but that fails to apply in two different ways. ] (]) 23:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::How does "fail to apply in two different ways"? ] (]) 01:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::There seems to be a lot more than that which is pertinent, that whole section for example is pertinent not just that one sentence. Many of the "not SPS" arguments also seem to be based on ]. As for it somehow not applying you've lost me, gonna have to explain. ] (]) 07:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Comment''', several editors seem to claim something along the lines of "since Science-Based Medicine is 'reviewed' it cannot be a SPS". This claim would benefit from some proof, ideally other secondary sources validating this claim, and not just the very same source saying that it does so. Alex Jones might claim that he is reviewed and reliable etc. That claim by itself does not make it so. Also, I am not saying that Science-Based Medicine is anything like AJ in terms of reliability etc., and to be clear, this RfC is not about reliability, it is just on whether or not the SBM source is an SPS, which I think it pretty obviously is. ] (]) 01:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*:When we're looking at obviously non-self-published sources, they usually fit into one of these three models:
*:# Book publisher: External authors submit book outlines and sample chapters; if selected, the publisher contributes substantially towards editing (including ] if necessary), designing, and marketing the book. The author pays for none of this and expects to get paid (at least if sales exceed a minimum threshold). If the publisher rejects the book, then the author is free to sell it to a different publisher.
*:# Newspaper: The publisher/publication hires editors and journalists. The editor assigns stories (to internal staff) or commissions them (among freelancers; alternatively, editors may accept external pitches, in the book-publisher model). The journalists write the stories; the editor and publisher/publication representatives decide whether to publish what the journalists wrote. If an employee instead of a freelancer, the journalist expects to get paid the same even if the article is ] (not published). If a freelancer, and the piece doesn't run, the freelancer is free to sell it to a different publication.
*:# Peer-reviewed journal: The (usually for-profit) publisher or (usually academic) sponsoring body creates the publication and hire editors. External authors submit whole papers; editors send the papers for external review and use that information to decide which ones to publish. The authors usually pay for publication, but this is understood to be akin to volunteer work on all sides, with the money usually coming from a third-party grant rather than the author's own funds. If the journal rejects the article, the author is free to submit it to another journal.
*:I wonder if any of these models feel similar to how you imagine SBM to work. ] (]) 04:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I have in a sandbox. I wonder whether people would find that comparison useful in, say, ]. ] (]) 04:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I do not think any of the above apply to SBM, but I'd like to see you perhaps write up a few methods for what clearly SPS look like, and then we could compare to the above, and determine which SBM most closely resembles. Again, if you write stuff, then you are the publisher, that is by definition "self-published", which is very often the case even if not always for Science-Based Medicine...even by their own admission! ] (]) 14:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I don't think defining none self-published sources are the ones we give a free pass because of our social-culture background is a good way to define them. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''SPS'''. The website describes itself as a blog. According to ] blogs are considered SPS. In addition, SBM publishes unknown proportions of articles without prior editorial review. Therefore, SBM could only be used with attribution, because it is impossible to tell which articles passed editorial review and which did not. ] (]) 17:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@], WP:SPS says {{xt|"...self-published material such as...personal or ] blogs (as distinguished from ], above)...are largely not acceptable as sources"}}. Are you sure that this isn't a ]? They have an ] and a ], which are positions that we expect to find in news organizations. Someone in the prior discussion says they sometimes "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness", which is something that sometimes happens with ], too. ] (]) 03:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Still only a "may", not "is", acceptable, and even then we would need to proceed with extreme caution, and almost certainly exclude BLPs from being acceptable for use by the source, see the rest of the quote you left off, "{{tq|These '''may''' be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, '''but use them with caution''' because '''blogs''' may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.}}" ] (]) 04:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I think by this point, we all know that you really, really, really don't want ] to be considered an acceptable source. You don't need to keep pushing for your desired outcome. ] (]) 04:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Normally newsblogs are run by news outlets and SBM is not an established news organization. Even if it was, per ] we are advised to {{xt|use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process}}. So I don't think SBM should be used for factual statements, it can only be used for statements of opinions. ] (]) 10:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Exactly. ] (]) 14:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Use with caution and statements of opinion are covered by other parts of the guidelines, separate from SPS. Whether a source is self-published or not doesn't mean it's reliable or unreliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Mostly SPS'''. It seems to be the Novella and Gorski show. That doesn’t make it unreliable for topics in which they are recognised experts - neurology for Novella and oncology for Gorski, apparently. That would make them reliable reviewers of any guest content on those topics too. But outside their domains of expertise, they are just blogging. Expertise in one domain does not imply expertise in another - and sometimes it’s quite the opposite, in that smart people who are accomplished in their niche start to think their opinions on everything else are equally robust (looking at you, Elon). ] (]) 00:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''SPS'''. Editorial oversight is insufficiently verifiable nor independent enough to call this something other than self-published. ] (]) 19:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''SPS''' It seems their peer-review is only for new contributers, the staff is volunteer and they explicitly say that they like to avoid as much editing as possible. There also doesn't seem to be much of editorial indepencence from the owner (New England Skeptical Society) which is an advocacy group. Especially troubling is that the Executive Editor is also the President of NESS. NESS also has two other members of the Novella family on the board. That makes three of the five board members from the same family. This is no what oversight should look like. The group of writers is also small and probably know each other well and are of course, ideologically similar. ] (]) 11:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>Partial SPS</s> '''Partly unclear, partly not SPS''' As discussed above, it isn't clear which articles by Gorski and Novella have been reviewed and we should probably lean towards treating those ones like ] just to be safe. They do, however, have a very clear review policy on guest articles (see ) which states {{tq|volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using a peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a peer review step in which '''at least three of our editors evaluate the submission'''}} (emphasis added). That's pretty obviously not self-publishing. I do want to note though that this type of discussion would really benefit from more consensus on what an SPS is. Maybe some more experienced editors should consider drafting a big RfC to revise SPS with more detail on what it means in practice (probably after ARBPIA5 is over so admins have more time to focus on it)? ] (]) 00:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{Reply|CambrianCrab}}The main problem is that they currently only have two editors (one being the managing editor), so we can be relatively sure that they do not follow that policy becuase it requires a minimum of four editors to follow (the managing editor and at least three others). ] (]) 17:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Exactly. ] (]) 17:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Good catch on the number of editors, I missed that the other ones had retired/passed, but I don't really think that makes it SPS since articles are still getting reviewed. Imo, it's a red flag in terms of ''reliability'' that either the list of editors and/or review policy is out of date, but no impact towards whether or not it's ''SPS''. ] (]) 02:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::See and that is interesting because I draw the exact opposite conclusion. I think that it could be reasonably argued that SBM is reliable, but that there is no case at all that it is somehow not SPS. When there is <u>one</u> person in most cases writing something and then just directly launching it to the internet on a blog, that is self-published. Which we have no way of knowing if these <u>two</u> editors even check one another, so it is very possible that frequently this is exactly what is happening. However, how different is it really when there are only <u>two</u> editors from one checking on anything. That is practically and definitionally a self-published source by every possible measure for evaluating whether or not a source as SPS or not. We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed? And again, even if that is true, if there are only two editors doing the "reviewing", that is not due diligence, that is back scratching and ]. ] (]) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::To be clear, I don't think SBM is unreliable, just that outdated pages would be a red mark towards reliability. Whether or not pages or up-to-date has nothing to do with if something is self-published.
:::::I don't really follow the rest of your argument. {{tq|We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed?}} Yeah we generally take sources at their word on their own policies unless we have reason to question it. SBM is a relatively long-running and well-known outlet run by experts in the topic area. I don't see any reason we should think they're lying about their policy. ] (]) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Those are fair point, review is review and it seems that at least some are seemingly getting reviewed. ] (]) 19:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Not SPS'''. What someone means by "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" is "these writers aren't dumbasses and we trust them" with an implied "if an issue is found after the piece is out, we'll put out a correction", not "these people are infallible and we will never correct them because reasons". &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 21:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:So they are essentially "Not SPS" because they claim to sometimes not be SPS. Got it. ] (]) 01:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:The purpose of oversight is due diligence, not dumbass detection. ] (]) 06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Partly SPS and generally unsuitable for contentious topics on Misplaced Pages.''' While SBM is valuable for some scientic topics, it self-described as blog with inconsistent editorial oversight, allowing authors like Novella and Gorski to pubish without review. Gorski, who often takes strong positions, is a polarizing figure, and his articles often reflect a bias and lack of nuance. For controversial topics or biographies, more neutral and independently vetted sources would better meet Misplaced Pages standards. ] (]) 22:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''SPS''' As I've said before on previous RfCs, this is explicitly a self-published source. ] (]) 22:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Not SPS unless Gorski and Novella wrote the piece''': SBM is one of the best sources for coveraging ] and ] activism we have <small> and I'll note ''some'', certainly not all, wanting to make it a SPS tend to have, at best, a ] attitude </small>. Simply put, there is editorial oversight of contributors. We don't know if there is for Gorski and Novella, and should act accordingly and treat them as subject matter experts outside BLPs, but we do know that there is for other contributors. I'm somewhat concerned with the shape of this RFC - we have longstanding consensus that SBM is a reliable source and not an SPS. Instead of challenging that, this RFC was opened to challenge specifically the SPS designation in a seemingly roundabout way to question it's reliability.
: I also want to note that per ] {{tq|In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed.}} - so while I still maintain it's not an SPS, the standards for ] allow non-peer reviewed sources on fringe topics as long as they're reliable, so an SPS designation should not, unless we ''also'' agree it's not reliable, be used to go a purge of its use. ] (]) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''No''' due to editorial oversight. ] <small>(])</small> 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Given that the editors have stated that they do not provide oversight on all contributers prior to publication, this does not seem to be universally true. - ] (]) 09:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


* '''SPS''' I think it's important that the arguments about whether Science Based Medicine is SPS or not are removed from our own assessment of the topics they’ve covered, otherwise we infuse topic bias on a process matter and risk floating away from the core question of this RfC. SBM is SPS simply because of the lack of editorial oversight and independence needed for subject matter of medicine.--] (]) 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
===Survey (Jewish Chronicle)===
*'''Option 2 in general, Option 3 for ] area'''. The recent scandal gives rise to significant doubts over editorial control and practices which taken together with the lack of transparency over ownership and recent checkered history suggests we should not consider this source reliable without inline attribution at a minimum and unreliable for matters relating to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.] (]) 09:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
*:You didn't seem concerned about funding in the case of Al Jazeera; you wrote {{tq|I am not persuaded that any bias produced as a result of Qatari funding}}. Why the different approach here? In this case there could be donors or lenders we don't know about (which isn't uncommon for news orgs), but what could be worse than being owned by an absolute monarchy? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 16:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Please take your irrelevancies elsewhere, the discussion section maybe. ] (]) 17:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::It's relevant because holding Jewish publications to a different standard would bias the topic area. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 20:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Al Jazeera is somewhat of a special case, as it has complete editorial independence despite being state-funded (a setup similar to the BBC). ] (]) 13:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::Almost all news orgs claim editorial independence, including RT for example. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 16:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::Repeats comment about irrelevancies. ] (]) 16:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' for Muslims, the British left and Israel/Palestine since 2016, '''option 3''' for its entire output since 2020. The JC has had a long history of false reporting on Muslims, the British Left and Israel/Palestine (a complex of topics which frequently intersect). In the post 2010 period the JC frequently libelled individuals and published false information on these topics. Individuals were forced to resort to complaints to IPSO in order to get corrections published. Professor of Journalism Brian Cathcart {{tq|the publication of falsehoods has been a characteristic of the paper’s journalism for years}}. The paper broke IPSO's code , an astounding number for a small weekly paper, and paid out in at least four libel cases. All were against Muslims or people on the British left.
:IPSO the paper's lack of cooperation with complaints in very strong terms {{tq| The Committee expressed significant concerns about the newspaper’s handling of this complaint. The newspaper had failed, on a number of occasions, to answer questions put to it by IPSO and it was regrettable the newspaper’s responses had been delayed. The Committee considered that the publication’s conduct during IPSO’s investigation was unacceptable.}} Given the difficulty of obtaining corrections from the paper in cases where individuals are named, it is likely a large amount of false information has also been published where nobody is named, so the possibility of libel actions is eliminated, and the chance of IPSO cases is significantly reduced.
:The 2020 change of ownership, meaning nobody actually knows who owns the paper, combined with the false stories on Gaza, suggest we should not use the paper in any capacity until the question of ownership is clarified.] (]) 09:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::Just in addition to this, I feel, having read others' comments, a date of 2010 for the beginning of the qualification on reliability regarding political topics may also be valid, given that marked the period where Stephen Pollard took over. I would certainly consider extending it back that far in terms of BLP. However, the real collapse in standards occurred from 2015.--] (]) 06:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2 in general, Option 3/4 for ] area''' (Option 4 for ] coverage from 2024 going forward, given this year's string of fabrications and widespread concerns about journalistic integrity voiced in both the Israeli and international press). --] <small>]]</small> 11:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Explanation of Option 2 "additional considerations", as :
*:The current RSP entry says, ''There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics. Where used, in-text attribution is recommended for its coverage of these topics.''
*:Per Option 2, in-text attribution should in my view not just be recommended but ''required'' for any topics that are related to "the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians" but do not fall under ]. This should also apply more generally to assertions and allegations of antisemitism that do not fall under ]. ] <small>]]</small> 07:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*:I also support comments by others that journalistic standards at the Jewish Chronicle appear to have dropped lower and lower over the past 20 years, with step changes in 2008, 2015 and after the change in ownership in 2020. ] <small>]]</small> 11:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 4''': major scandal for a prominent newspaper which should be immediately deprecated for the following reasons:
:1-;
:2-;
:3-
:4-
:5- who . ] (]) 11:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::These issues all relate to the period from 2020 to now. If it’s technically possible to deprecate for a specific timeframe only, is it right to assume you would argue for deprecating for this period specifically? ] (]) 12:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I can continue mentioning how the JC was bought by right-wing owners in 2008 and how the newspaper played a prominent role in slandering pro-Palestinian voices as antisemitic including UK Labor Party former leader Jeremy Corbyn, and how it promoted the new antisemitism concept which included anti-Zionism. Also notable that JC had too many IPO violations since 2018. ] (]) 12:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::::There was no change of ownership in 2008. ] (]) 13:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::My bad, editorship* as mentioned in MEE article. ] (]) 14:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::1. Are there any other sources deprecated because of the suspected political leanings of their owners? If not, are we going to start doing this? I might have some suggestions.
::2 & 3. are the points with substance to my mind. However, the JC have retracted the stories and cut ties with the writer, admitted the mistake and said they are reviewing their procedures for dealing with freelance journalists. This is substantially the same procedure as faced with a very similar situation.
::4. It's baffling that you think that this has bearing on the Jewish Chronicle's reliability.
::5. Columnists resigning is not a criterion of reliability or unreliability. Nor, for that matter, is being "unbalanced". ] (]) 08:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
:::There really is a world of difference between
:::* https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/26/open-door-column-note-to-readers
:::and
:::* https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/conclusion-of-jewish-chronicle-investigation-into-elon-perry-daaqr8b9
:::Do please read them both and compare. ] <small>]]</small> 08:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree re no.4. Re no.5, though, I think columnists resigning can be an indicator of unreliability if their reasons for resigning relate to criteria of reliability. Whereas some of the resigners (e.g. ]) have only mentioned a dislike of the editor's politics, most have mentioned being uncomfortable with the lack of transparency about ownership and many have expressed other reliability concerns, as the links already on this page show. ] (]) 11:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::@] I agree with you that some specific complaints of the columnists are relevant - and ], as far as I see the relevant concerns relate to the identity of the owners (see again point 1). The fact that columnists resigned in and of itself is not. And the complaints brought by @] - that resigning columnists ({{tq|stated that the JC's editorial line had become "sensationalist" and "unbalanced"}} are not germane to this discussion. ] (]) 10:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 pre-2015, Option 2 in general afterwards, Option 3 for ] area since 2020'''. This isn't about the current event, rather the current event appears to be the culmination of issues that have been growing for several years. Multiple external sources have commented on this, as have columnists that have recently ended their association with the paper. Oppose 4 in general. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 pre-2015, option 2 post-2015'''. It would be insane to deprecate a 183 year old publication, so strongly oppose option 4. I have argued in the talk section above that the IPSO breaches in the 2015-20 period should give rise to caution but not lead to option 3. I would urge those who are swayed by these breaches to read the actual rulings; you will find a couple of serious errors but the majority are fairly trivial and have been more than adequately corrected. I would argue against a generally unreliable status for antisemitism for that period because, prior to Jewish News taking off, the JC was the only UK Jewish paper and therefore the only outlet giving deep coverage to UK antisemitism. Designating it unusable means the whole topic can only be covered in a skewed way. I would therefore urge a formulation such as: “use with caution and attribution” for that topic in that period. Since 2020, the case for General unreliability, especially on Israel/Palestine, is strong, but even here we should explicitly note that there will be exceptions for authoritative contributors such as those who have resigned (eg Anshel Pfeiffer, Colin Shindler). ] (]) 12:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
*:{{quote|the only outlet giving deep coverage to UK antisemitism}}
*:The problem is that they make all sorts of highly dubious accusations of antisemitism, many of which appear to be politically motivated (i.e., in order to attack people who criticize Israel's treatment of the Palestinians). If the "deep coverage" is dishonest, then using it will not improve Misplaced Pages. -] (]) 08:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
*::That may be your opinion but there are no RSs saying that as far as I know. If we had restrictions on
*::BLP and/or ARBPIA in the relevant period, that would address that risk anyway. If we make them generally option 3, then we avoid the risk but also lose a lot of potential to cover antisemitism in UK society. ] (]) 15:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 pre-2015, option 2 post-2015''' Bobfrombrockley really saved me a lot of typing. I also want to emphasize that we really need to be treating most sources, even our top sources like WSJ, NYT etc as green to yellow anytime we are treading into areas where bias etc could come into play. While fundamental facts (times, dates, etc) typically are objective, even good sources can have some bias in how much emphasis they put into certain aspects of a topic or even that they chose to cover a topic at all. This also applies when we look at how much scrutiny is applied to various sources. Outside of the false reports issue (which is hardly unique to this source) are they under the microscope because they are much different than other sources or because their politics disagree with other sources? As a rule we need to put less stock in "the color of a source" and more thought into what the source is claiming and what evidence they present for the claim. ] (]) 13:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::Objectively speaking, they produce far more false reports than other sources. Including sources we deprecate, like the Daily Mail.] (]) 13:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 1 pre-2015, Option 2 in general afterwards, Option 3 for WP:A/I/PIA area since 2020''' as per ActivelyDisinterested. The Jewish Chronicle has issues stemming from its recent change in ownership, but those issues are much more clearly problematic, and more evidenced in third-party sources, for Israel/Palestine-related issues then issues outside that topic area. ] (]) 18:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 1 pre-2015, Option 2 in general afterwards, Option 3/4 for WP:A/I/PIA area, muslims, and the british left, especially after 2020''' seems they used to do good work tho ive seen the ridiculous scandals in the wake of continuing israel palestine conflict. agree for same reasons as loki, springee, hope the org becomes more transparent soon. ] (]) 18:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2 in general, Option 3 for muslims and the British left, Option 3/4 for WP:A/I/PIA area''' - Based on the provided background and latest developments, and considering JC's longstanding IPSO issues, undisclosed ownership that complicates the evaluation of the publication's impartiality, questionable editorial standards, etc etc. I've been following the gargantuan discussion preluding this RfC. These issues are not recent or limited to their latest scandal. - ] (]) 18:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' from 2015 onwards. No opinion for 2014 or earlier. In answer to queries about the year: 2015 was the year a general campaign of false allegations of antisemitism was launched against the British left and against ] in particular. ] (]) 04:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*:What is your source for the JC having "launched" a "general campaign" in 2015? This was not mentioned in the previous discussion. If the JC actually engaged in a campaign at this time, then a secondary source would say so. I do see that a made claims of antisemitism about Corbyn. But an ''editorial'' (even an inaccurate one -- it's an editorial!) is not what means when one says a ''newspaper'' has a "general campaign of false allegations", which suggests misconduct. ] (]) 04:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:: It wasn't the JC in particular it was the British press in general. Restricting the Option 3 to 2015 onwards leaves earlier JC journalism able to be used if people familiar with the history of the paper consider it reliable. ] (]) 05:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::To clarify then, Davesaurus, you think the British press in general should be option 3 after 2015? ] (]) 07:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 4'''. The unreliability and political bias of the JC has a long history. Their more recent opaque ownership and financing raises yet further concerns. that over the previous 5 years the JC had broke the IPSO code an astonishing 41 times* and had lost, or been forced to settle, at least four libel cases. There have been further cases since. This is all the more remarkable, because it has a relatively small circulation. By that metric the JC is substantially worse than other notoriously unreliable publications such as the Daily Mail which Misplaced Pages deprecated. However, irrespective of the final decision, it needs a strong warning of bias on all politically related, and non-Jewish religious issues. ] (]) 10:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' for 2020 onwards (dating to the change of ownership). Bias and IPSO complaints from earlier are recoverable issues. Mystery owners are not. The chain of accountability is important. ] (]) 10:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. Bias isn't unreliability. A single scandal, with the freelancers dealt with, isn't an indictment of the whole publication. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 19:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Andre, this isn't a single scandal, but multiple breaches of the IPSO code, libel cases, opaque ownership and funding, we are drowning in problems. By all means explain why these aren't relevant but please base your view around the evidence presented in the discussion. It's as if you haven't read anything or decided to insert ] fallacy! ] (]) 19:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Libel cases do not impact the publication's reliability unless they end in a judgment or verdict that is damning to the publication. There was an extensive discussion in the above thread about the IPSO and the ownership and my conclusion is that there's a bit of smoke but no fire (since the fire was extinguished by cutting ties and retracting the problematic material) as far as liability for the publication for the recent scandal, but the IPSO is a red herring since ''The Times'' also had a similar number of breaches, and I don't think it matters that it publishes more text, because that's not a metric defined anywhere. The relevant metric is a reputation for upholding accuracy and fact-checking. So long as Al Jazeera, a state-run propaganda outlet owned and operated by Qatar, is generally reliable, I'm not convinced that the ownership standard is one we care about. ] nor ] define this. The concern is whether the org stands by their fact-checking and corrects errors. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 20:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::No. Policy on this is at ]. The publisher matters. ] (]) 20:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::As it says there, "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It does not mention having to know who owns the publication. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::No. WP:SOURCE says the publisher affects reliability and it even identifies a specific reliable publisher. Also, here we have other sources saying that its unknown publisher is a real problem for the source. Three of its columnists quit because it does not have a reputation for reliability. ] (]) 21:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::That is a misread of the policy. ''Jewish Chronicle'' is the publisher, the question at hand here is whether they are reputable. It doesn't at all mention individuals or groups funding the ownership, that is irrelevant and a reach. The columnists quit due to the recent scandal. The publication has been around for many years, so its reputation is something at hand here for editors to weigh in on. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::No. You misread policy. ''Jewish Chronicle'' is the source under discussion. Your contention that it is self-published only makes it unreliable. ] (]) 21:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::It is not self-published, it is a publisher. It is owned by a consortium led by ]. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::You just said again it is a self-publisher. ''Jewish Chronicle'' is the publication. If as you claim, ''Jewish Chronicle'' is also the publisher, then ''Jewish Chronicle'' is self publishing. ] (]) 21:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Your argument makes no sense. Jewish Chronicle is both the publisher and the publication, just like most newspapers. Or technically the publisher is the consortium that owns it, but is also known as Jewish Chronicle. The New York Times is the publication published by The New York Times Co., also a privately owned and operated organization. Self-published is when an individual publishes their own book or article. Jewish Chronicle is the outlet. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::We have mainstream sources across the board, from to to to , telling us that the identity of the ''actual'' owner is unknown. You can't just sweep this concern under the carpet: it is being voiced by media professionals, including former contributors to the Jewish Chronicle, not Wikipedians. ] <small>]]</small> 21:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Please show me where in the policy the identity of the owner is mentioned as anything pertaining to its reliability. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::You just admitted that with the Jewish Chronicle, the publication and the publisher here are two different things, although you then pass it off as a 'technicality.' You go on to describe the publisher as the owner. ] (]) 21:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::Yes, it's no different than ], published by its namesake owner, The Nation Company, L.P., the Jewish Chronicle is both the publication and an eponymous group that publishes it. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::So, the owner is the publisher. Publisher matters under SOURCE. And the publisher, here has been put in doubt. ] (]) 22:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::Continued . ] <small>]]</small> 22:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Rather than clutter the survey, kindly take this to the discussion section. ] (]) 21:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::I would just answer this point simply by reiterating the quote by subject matter expert ]: {{tq|the publication of falsehoods has been a characteristic of the paper’s journalism for years}}. The problem is not bias, though the source is biased like every newspaper, it is consistent and sustained inaccuracy used to support its biases.--] (]) 06:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' with the additional considerations of: generally reliable or at least not noticeably objectionable pre-2009, and "use with caution" from 2009 onwards (Pollard era), most notably with respect to BLPs and politics (the source of almost all the libel cases and other complaints), given its significantly worse track record of inaccuracy and sensationalism in this area, and then '''option 3''' for content related to ARBPIA and related politics (including the intersection of race, religion, etc.) from 2020 onwards (the period of uncertain ownership and further step up in the editorial murkiness/malpractice and political beholdenness). ] (]) 19:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' for now. I'm open to changing my !vote if other evidence emerges, but so far I'm only seeing a single story with serious accuracy concerns, which doesn't say much about the broader reliability of the 183 year old newspaper. The other evidence that has been provided against JC's reliability is IPSO complaints. Anyone can file an IPSO complaint, so only the ones IPSO (partially) upheld seem potentially meaningful. As TFD mentioned, there were four of those in the past two years, so I read through those. They all have some kind of merit, but seem fairly minor. One was about the text {{tq|the Islamic Republic has repeatedly vowed to wipe Israel and Jews off the face of the Earth}}. Definitely imprecise, but we regularly see worse hyperbole from other biased-but-reliable sources. Another complaint took issue with the text {{tq|Labour banned him from its list of potential council candidates}}, saying the candidate was rejected but not (permanently) banned. Also imprecise, but we see far worse errors from ] sources regularly. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 17:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
*:I don't think anyone knows how many complaints the IPSO receives, only changes after a complaint was made. For all publications over the five years 2018 to 2022, only 3.82% and upheld 0.56% of the remaining complaints. 1.41% were resolved directly by the complainant with the publisher during the process and 0.43% were resolved by IPSO mediation. For examples of complaints about the JC which the IPSO '''rejected''' ] (]) 17:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 pre-2015, option 2 post-2015''' - just gonna second pretty much everything that Bob said. Somewhat lean option 3 for ARBPIA post-2020 but not strongly so, and complete deprecation, especially pre-2015, would be a mistake. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 18:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' per u:Andrevan. The newspaper handled the latest scandal involving Elon Perry properly by severing the ties with him and removing his articles. Other media outlets have also had similar issues . The IPSO rulings are a nothingburger, other sources like The Times have had multiple IPSO rulings against them as well and others like The Guardian simply choose not to be regulated by IPSO. It would definitely by good to know who owns the newspaper but I'm not sure how it would be relevant. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' per the arguments above. I previously had a somewhat lower opinion based on this scandal, but having read into it, it seems to me that the reliability issue has been sufficiently addressed. The political shift to the right is concerning on a personal level, and so is the departure of experienced and skilled journalists, but neither of those impacts the reliability for facts. The IPSO complaints are mostly the process working as intended, and the offending articles for this current scandal seem to have been removed (and are obviously, as any other thing written by such an author, unusable). The JC still has a reputation for fact-checking and reliability, and until that changes, it would not be reasonable to consider them unreliable, including in the I/P area. In addition, it has an important role of representing British (and other diaspora) ], and we should be highly cautious not to run out of centrist/right-leaning diaspora sources, including in the I/P area. I also find the argument about ownership entirely unconvincing: I don’t find it likely that there is any plausible ownership even close to comparably problematic to ], with the state in effect (though at least officially indirectly) both and (with to be fair, no beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence of editorial control) a source we currently consider reliable for I/P. ] (]) 11:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Whoa ... this calls for a bit of context:
*:* , CNN, 12 December 2023
*:* , New York Times, 10 December 2023
*:**''Just weeks before Hamas launched the deadly Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, the head of Mossad arrived in Doha, Qatar, for a meeting with Qatari officials. For years, the Qatari government had been sending millions of dollars a month into the Gaza Strip — money that helped prop up the Hamas government there. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel not only tolerated those payments, he had encouraged them. During his meetings in September with the Qatari officials, according to several people familiar with the secret discussions, the Mossad chief, David Barnea, was asked a question that had not been on the agenda: Did Israel want the payments to continue? Mr. Netanyahu’s government had recently decided to continue the policy, so Mr. Barnea said yes. The Israeli government still welcomed the money from Doha.''
*:* , Der Spiegel, 2 November 2023
*:**''Qatar is one of NATO's closest allies in the Gulf and has even been designated as a "Major Non-NATO Ally." In 2011, then United States President Barack Obama personally requested that the Emir of Qatar take the leadership of Hamas into his country. At the time, Washington was seeking to establish a communications channel to the Iranian-backed terrorist group. The Americans believed that a Hamas office in Doha would be easier to access than a Hamas bureau in Tehran.''
*:*Qatar ranks about twenty places above Israel in the ].
*:] <small>]]</small> 12:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
*::All we need to do here is look at the editors who !voted anything other than 1 in the snow closed AJ RFCs. ] (]) 12:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::{{u|Selfstudier}} can you explain this comment about our need to look at editors? ] (]) 05:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::I think its pretty clear, don't you? If some editors want to go on about AJ in this RFC then pointing to their comments at the AJ RFC makes sense, no? ] (]) 08:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Israel's low press freedom rating probably has to do with its regular involvement in military conflicts, but in any case, why is it relevant here? No Israeli sources are being discussed. Qatar's rating of 58.48 isn't great, and that reflects a mix of state-owned (e.g. Al Jazeera) and independently-owned (e.g. Doha News) news orgs.
*::Returning to the topic of JC, it seems very speculative to say that there might be donors or lenders we don't know about, who might attempt to exert influence, which might impact reliability. With Al Jazeera, it's hard to prove anything but there are many signs of Qatari influence, such as where US diplomats discussed the use of Al Jazeera in diplomatic negotiations. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 17:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::I agree it would be speculative for ''us'' to say that "there might be donors or lenders we don't know about, who might attempt to exert influence, which might impact reliability". But we have a wide spectrum of mainstream ''sources'' saying it, from The Telegraph to The Guardian to Haaretz to The Jerusalem Post. We have insiders like Lee Harpin, senior reporter at the JC till 2021, who left after the takeover and now
*:::* the new owners wanted more views ''"well to the right of the Tory party"'',
*:::* ''"The current predicament of the @JewishChron does not come as a surprise. Leadership chosen on ideological grounds by those who gained control of the publication. Communal orgs should have been raising concerns months and months ago"'',
*:::* and ''"The rot is deeper and for regular observers and readers of the paper, its direction over the last few years has been tragic to witness"''.
*:::You'd have to bring counterarguments published by people with similar standing in equivalent venues, rather than arguing with the people here. ] <small>]]</small> 18:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::Fair point, there is an accusation of owner influence rather than mere speculation. That said, every news org has criticism from disgruntled employees, especially in the past ~20 years when many news orgs had to undergo major changes. Harpin's criticism actually seems much less concerning than, for example, Peter Oborne's ] of ''The Daily Telegraph'', which includes accusations of owner and advertiser influence as well as (frankly more relevant) a focus on clicks over reliability. One can find comparable accusations from disgruntled employees of most major news outlets. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 20:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Well, at least you know who the owner of The Telegraph is. ;) I take your point about disgruntled employees, but the JC does seem to have had rather a lot of them since the takeover, and the concerns have been echoed very, very widely, both in Israel and the UK, by outside observers. ] weighed in today: Regards, ] <small>]]</small> 21:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
*::@] I'm confused why you would say that {{tq|Qatar ranks about twenty places above Israel}}.
*::The comparison you're discussing is Qatari state-owned media with a privately held British newspaper. ] (]) 10:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. Option 3ers believe this isn't about a single event, yet can't point to evidence of unreliability beyond that event. Meanwhile, substantiated IPSO complaints are at the level of other major newspapers like The Times showing there isn't a pattern of disinformation like the Daily Mail. Al Jazeera is relevant because I'm sure we can all agree holding Jewish publications to a different standard than Muslim ones is wrong and will increase bias on wiki. It's bizarre that this standard is applied here to say that Qatari ownership of Al Jazeera can't impact its reliability but ownership of the JC does.
:RSN and RSP are a good way to skew article bias by designating sources supporting certain viewpoints as unreliable so as to remove them from articles in contentious areas. Judging publications individually is naïve in such an environment because editors will unconsciously create different standards for their favoured sources. We need to consciously ensure we're holding all sources in the Israel-Palestine conflict area to the same standard. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 21:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Chess}}The times has 12 IPSO rulings against it and 5 for its website, which is shared with the Sunday Times, since 2018, publishing 312 editions a year. The JC has 6 for the jc.com, which have not been counted up to now, and 12 for its paper edition. This is over just 52 yearly editions.


*'''Not SPS''' when it's "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" it means that you have to become a trusted author first before you can publish without prior review, i.e., the editorial oversight comes from becoming a trusted author. ] (]) 01:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::To suggest these numbers are similar is a clear misrepresentation of the facts, given the probability of a the JC publishing an actionable falsehood in a given edition is AT LEAST 6 times higher (we do not know how many of the website stories originated in the Sunday Times). This disparity is further compounded by the fact that the JC is around a third of the length of the times, and so produces many fewer articles. A generous calculation would be that a JC story is ten times more likely to be punished by IPSO than the Times.
*:Editorial oversight means reviewing content prior to publishing to ensure the content being published is factual, etc. It's not about who the author is, it's about the substance of the content. ] (]) 02:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Are you suggesting that if I write a letter to the editor of some local newspaper, and it is published, then the newspaper is a SPS? ] (]) 03:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::@] If it was published without review? Yes. A website that published unreviewed content is not a publisher, it's a self-publishing platform. ] (]) 03:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Are you suggesting that the editors of the local newspaper basically do nothing? ] (]) 03:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I think you are using the wrong analogy. If you can publish directly, based on your own decision to publish, without anyone else reading or vetting your writing before it appears, you are self publishing. If an editor checks the material and approves it before publication, it is not self publishing. SBM allow some editors to publish without checking or vetting the material before it is published, as you akcnowledged, so in those cases it is an SPS. - ] (]) 05:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::At the very least anything written by Gorski and Novella there seems to be strong consensus that at minimum those articles are very clearly SPS. In other cases, I think it is dubious at best, since Gorski and Novella run the show and whether or not any real "editorial review" is happening on this blog appears to be very, very much in doubt. The analogy of a "local newspaper" and a ] is not actually analogous, and it is weird that an exception was ever carved out for this blog for it to somehow not be considered SPS. Thankfully it appears as if a new consensus has emerged as a result of this RfC in favor of SBM now being considered SPS, or at minimum, anything published by Gorski or Novella absolutely is without a shadow of a doubt SPS. ] (]) 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::{{reply|Bilby}} That's where we disagree. By letting you publish directly, the editor is saying they trust you to write content that doesn't need to be edited - and that means it's not SPS. In fact, one could argue it's a higher bar than having to read and vet the writing. ] (]) 09:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::By publishing directly, it is by definition self publishing. By being trusted to publish directly, it means you are seen as reliable. The two are not mutally exclusive. - ] (]) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:We are all making assumptions about "what it means" because SBM is not transparent enough about its editorial policies. It pales in comparison to journals that tackle many of the same topics. This is precisely why it's SPS. ] (]) 16:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Thats right. This "Not SPS" argument is without merit. SBM is not a journal, it is a blog and is 100% SPS. ] (]) 17:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind. ] (]) 03:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks. ] (]) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Are you suggesting that they post "bogus content"? If not, how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote? ] (]) 00:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::"Bogus content" is related to an argument about reliability. Which some contributors to this RfC have mistakenly believed is part of this discussion, it is not. This RfC is on the question of whether or not SBM is SPS, which it so obviously is. Therefore, my response was simply reframing that we are not arguing about whether or not the content is "bogus" at all, instead, we are simply discussing whether or not the "editorial review" which some allege occurs at SBM (with scant evidence), is done by the very same people who publish content (Gorski and Novella).
*::::::Given the self-publication by Gorski/Novella, which evidently is what happens, then the source is a self-published source, and "bogus" doesn't even enter into the conversation. Or at the very minimum, any article published by SBM by Gorski/Novella ought to 100% be considered SPS. ] (]) 00:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Banedon wrote: "If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind," and you responded "If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks."
*:::::::As best I can tell, you did not respond to my second question, so I'll ask it again: If , how is your comment at all '''''responsive''' to what Banedon wrote''?
*:::::::Just so you're clear, the current ] "self-published" explicitly refers to reliability. When you say "we are not arguing about whether or not the content is "bogus" at all," that's not entirely true. It's relevant to whether some of the content on the site is '''not''' self-published. ] (]) 01:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::You've moved the goal posts, Banedon is arguing that none of the content on the site is self-published. ] (]) 01:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::I know that Banedon's !vote was "Not SPS," but I interpreted Banedon's comment to Iljhgtn (who claimed that SBM is "100% SPS") as a point about outside contributors to SBM (outdated description ). Maybe I misinterpreted. ] (]) 01:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::I think in the case of Gorski and Novella there is absolutely no question that it is SPS, but I am more and more wondering how much "editorial review" actually happens even in other cases. From the link you provided if we review, "{{tq|How to submit a guest article: '''Anyone is welcome to submit content to ScienceBasedMedicine.org, regardless of credentials'''. We’ll publish anything '''we think is interesting''', relevant, well-written, and, above all, scientifically sound. ('''The less editing we need to do, the better.''') The '''volunteer editorial staff''' looks at all promising submissions using a peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission. Please embed citations as weblinks rather than footnotes or endnotes, it saves us a lot of time. How to submit a guest article for publication on SBM Submit your article by email directly to Dr. Gorski (SBMeditor@icloud.com), the managing editor . If he thinks it has potential, he will distribute it to the editorial staff for further consideration. '''Please note that none of the editors are paid for our work on SBM''', '''and most of us have demanding day jobs.''' That means that, '''more frequently than we would like, the process is less than optimal''' and not as fast as writers (or we) would like. (For instance, if Dr. Gorski is working against a grant application deadline, you might not hear for a while, '''because trying to keep his lab afloat trumps his extracurricular activities on SBM.''')}}" There are claims that "at least three of our editors evaluate the submission", but again, I don't trust this, but beyond that, this only applies (if they even do it) to guest submissions, which can be Gorski may post even if he just thinks its "interesting" and "The less editing we need to do, the better" (all well and good, but again, doesn't sound like much "editorial review" is happening even in the case of guest submissions... But again, that is only part of the discussion. The other part that has overwhelming consensus at this point is that anything from SBM authored by Gorski or Novella is SPS. ] (]) 03:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::No offense, but you just posted a bunch of text that once again didn't answer my question. Here it is again: If , how is your comment at all ''responsive to what Banedon wrote''?
*:::::::::::I'm not looking for your personal opinion about SBM, as you've already made that clear in your many comments. I'm not looking for your opinion about the RfC consensus. I'm trying to understand ''your response to Banedon''. ] (]) 04:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::His comment was, "{{tq|'''If you can write in your own article''' with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind.}}". I was not in any way focused at all on the "bogus content" aspect that you are laser focused on, I was refuting the fact that obviously I, Iljhgtn, cannot get stuff published on their page, but that if I could sure, it would not be a self-published source perhaps. Though it is a ridiculous point he made and that is why I am citing the direct text, instead of offering opinion. If that does not answer your query then I am exasperated and we can both just move on from this odd reading comprehension and/or semantics confused discourse we've been having. ] (]) 04:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Yes, I think we're talking past each other, and it's fine with me for both of us to step away from it. ] (]) 14:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::But you're not Gorski or Novella, are you? That kind of renders the entire point moot. Obviously ''you'' can't publish bogus content, because you're not trusted, ergo, there is editorial control and it is not SPS. ] (]) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Contributions by the editors are SPS'''. Definitely contributions by Gorkski, Novella, and the other listed editors are clearly ] by both the letter and spirit of ]. By the letter of ] I don't think contributions by other people are SPS but I do have serious doubts about the editorial policy, and thus the overall reliability, of SBM if they're allowing the editors to regularly publish articles without fact-checking. ] (]) 02:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Not SPS'''. This is a web publication of the ], not the personal vlog of ]. ]. The premise that organizations publishing stuff written by members of their organizations amounts to self-publishing seems like it can't help but lead to something like, "the LA Times publishes stuff written and reviewed by members of the LA Times so the LA Times self publishes itself". ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 08:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society whose leadership overlaps with that of the blog and is largely restricted to a single family, the Novellas. The same man, Steven Novella, is in charge of both so there is no independence here that would make it not self published. I would also note that if the Washington Post ever fired all its professional staff and started hosting stuff by Jeff Bezos and his buddies we would treat it as a SPS. ] (]) 17:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Did you consider the editorial that Bezos wrote in the Post (re: his decision to block the Post's endorsement of Harris) to be SPS? ] (]) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Yes, but note that we already treat editorials and opinion pieces as SPS so its a bit of a moot point. ] (]) 17:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::That's news to me. Are you saying that an editorial or opinion piece cannot be used unless it either falls under EXPERTSPS or BLPSELFPUB? ] (]) 18:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Its a bit (some would say a lot) wider than that because ] also applies. ] (]) 18:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::I don't understand how ABOUTSELF comes into play, since an editorial / opinion piece is typically representing the view of a single person, though I guess it's occasionally written by more than one, as with something from an editorial board. But even assuming that ABOUTSELF is in play, that says "'''Never''' use self-published sources as ] about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that we cannot use an opinion piece or editorial in the NYT to make a statement —attributed to the author(s) — about a living person whose relationship to the author(s) is third-party. If that's the case, I think there's a lot of WP content that's in breach of this. ] (]) 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::There might be some (wikipedia is full of violations of any rule you care to name), but most of those uses are as primary (under aboutself) not as third-party sources. ] (]) 22:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::Whether it's primary is distinct from whether it's self-published. Many opinion pieces are used as third-party sources for attributed opinions about living people. Here's an example: in the ] article, the text "Following the January 6 Capitol attack, ], who had initially resisted calling Trump a fascist, announced that the label now seemed necessary," sourced to opinion piece by Paxton, which is a third-party source for a statement about Trump. Are you saying that you think that text must be removed because the source is SPS? ] certainly doesn't say that all opinion pieces should be treated as SPS. ] (]) 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::You argue they're amateurs and unqualified to write the coverage that they do; that doesn't on its own bear on whether they're self-published or not. I've limited the scope of my !vote here to concluding they aren't self-published. Whether they are a reliable publication that isn't self-published or an unreliable publication that isn't self-published is a different question. As for Novella heading NESS and ''Science-based Medicine''—um, well, yeah, duh. The latter is an organ of the former. I'm not aghast that the editor in chief of the LA times runs the LA Times, or that ] ran ]. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 19:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::No, I'm arguing that The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society. The LA Times is owned by ], the editor in chief of the LA times is Terry Tang. A book by Alfred A. Knopf Sr. or ] published by Alfred A. Knopf would be considered SPS for wikipedia purposes, that isn't groundbreaking thats totally normal. ] (]) 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::To add to this, being an editor and running an interest organization are (and should be) two very different roles. I can't imagine the director of the National Association for People that Can't Edit and Hate Editorial Integrity (NAPCEHEI) would make a good editor in chief for the org's publication. ] (]) 22:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I said, {{Tq|You argue they're '''amateurs'''}}; you said, {{Tq|'''No''', I'm arguing that The New England Skeptical Society is an '''amateur''' society}} (emphasis added). I'm not seeing how I've mischaracterized what you believe about their qualifications when you immediately repeated it. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 02:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:There is a distinct difference between the ''LA Times'' and SBM in that it would appear as if at SBM just Gorski can write something or just Novella and then publish it. That is different that the LA Times or other non-SPS in that those have editorial review by other staff. These staff are known and are publicly verifiable as they have
*:At minimum, it must be acknowledged that material written by Gorski and Novella is SPS. For the record, that is also not saying it is not reliable (as several commenters above continue to be confusing), <u>just that Gorski and Novella work from SBM is SPS.</u> ] (]) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Forbes.com is owned by Forbes Media LLC. Because it is owned by a company, does that mean we should not regard it as self published? In the case of Forbes.com it is not the ownership that matters, but the ability of people to publish directly as contributors without editorial review. With SBM, I would argue that it is also not the ownership that matters, but whether or not people can publish directly without editorial review. - ] (]) 22:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Forbes.com includes content both from Forbes staff and from Forbes contributors. So some of the Forbes.com content is SPS and some isn't. ] (]) 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Presumably, that is because the Forbes staff material is published under editorial control. It is not the ownership that decides if something is an SPS, but the process by which material becomes available after it has been written. - ] (]) 22:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::That was my point, as it seemed you were claiming that we should regard all of Forbes.com as self-published. Why did you conclude that the subset of SBM material that does undergo prepublication editorial review is nonetheless SPS? ] (]) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I've never assumed that material on SBM that undergoes editorial review is SPS. My only concern is that the argument that the publication belongs to the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not SPS, is not sound. I think you can reasonably argue that some material published by SBM does not under go editorial review prior to publication, and that some material is therefore self published, or you can argue that all material undergoes pre-publication editorial review, and therefore SBM is not an SPS at all. But I don't think you can argue that SBM is owned by the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not an SPS. - ] (]) 23:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::I should have been clearer. I was asking because in your Dec.6 !vote, you said that you consider SBM to be wholly SPS (or at least, you didn't qualify your SPS response). ] (]) 23:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I think I have been fairly consistent, but to explain my reasoning: it is clear that trusted authors are allowed to self publish on the site, but what is not clear is who these authors are. We khave been assuming that this means the editors can publish directly, and we have assumed that guest contributors probably can not, but we do not know if all guest editors are not trusted enough, nor do we know where the authors that sit between those two come. Given that, rather than say "partial SPS" but not know who is self publishing, I think it is safer to say "SPS" but realise that there may be exceptions. From a BLP perspective I prefer to errr on the side of caution. - ] (]) 07:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''SPS''' A group blog where the participants can publish without review is a SPS, even if it calls certain people editors and sometimes deletes things (if that were the standard, even much of ''social media'' wouldn't be a SPS, because sometimes those sites have deleted stuff like COVID misinformation). I also do not think accepting occasional outside submissions consistutes "review" to the degree those posts become not-SPS. Nor do I think being "published" by an organization the blog authors *also* control consititutes sufficient independence, as some have claimed. I think sometimes the authors can be cited under the WP:SPS subject-mattere expert exception, but only in the ''specific'' area of their academic speciality (e.g. neurology, surgery and oncology, family practice medicine) but not in other areas. - ] (]) 15:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}


== RfC: Bild ==
::It is also clear from the rulings that the Times' corrections are spread over a range of topics, whereas all of the JC's false stories relate to the British left, Muslims and Palestine. This is more a campaign of disinformation by the JC rather than good faith errors. ] (]) 07:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::For reference, evidence of unreliability comprises points like the following:
::* Publishing a string of sensational stories described as "wild fabrications" or "wild inventions" in Israeli and British papers
::* Failure to vet (or knowing publication of) the falsified résumé of the freelancer writing these stories, who was instantly rumbled by Israeli journalists
::* Failure to conduct a proper investigation after the fabrication scandal
::* Failure to publish a transparent report on what happened (see e.g. for comment)
::* Your claim that upheld IPSO complaints are running at the same level as for The Times is false.
::**For material published since 2020 The Jewish Chronicle has listed under "v thejc.com", listed under "v The Jewish Chronicle".
::**Equivalent numbers for The Times: listed under "v thetimes.co.uk", listed under "v The Times"
::**Equivalent numbers for The Daily Mail (deprecated): listed under "v Daily Mail" (incl. "v Scottish Daily Mail, excl. "v ]"), listed under "v Mail Online"
::** The Times and The Daily Mail are daily papers, The Jewish Chronicle is a weekly, with far fewer articles per issue. Its collection of upheld IPSO rulings ''per article'' is an order of magnitude greater than for The Times and The Daily Mail.
::* Number of lost libel cases seems large relative to the size of the publication. We are writing an ''encyclopedia'', not a gossip rag.
::* The owner of Al Jazeera is known. The owner of The Jewish Chronicle is not. This is a unique situation, and the paper has taken a turn to the far right under the new, anonymous ownership. There are multiple mainstream media reports saying this lowers confidence in the paper's reliability.
::* Multiple mainstream media reports (some listed in the Background section below) have deplored the loss of journalistic standards at the publication. Half a dozen of the paper's top columnists have left in despair.
::] <small>]]</small> 09:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::If we're deprecating publications for a single freelancer fabricating stories let's get rid of the New York Times because of ] and ]. Additionally, the New York Times also has anonymous owners as it's publicly traded. We only ban reliable sources based on their ownership if the ownership is negatively influencing the publication. '''Please point me to the cases where a source was banned because its owner was unknown''', because asserting {{tq|this is a unique situation}} because {{tq|the paper has taken a turn to the far right}} means this is because of the views of the Jewish Chronicle.
:::This is a very high standard for the Jewish Chronicle that we do not hold other reliable sources to. The New York Times has had journalists fabricate content. The result of their investigation was to fire the journalist. This is the same thing the Jewish Chronicle did, so explain why you're not holding the Jewish Chronicle to a different standard when you say they failed {{tq|to conduct a proper investigation after the fabrication scandal}}. Or say that the New York Times is unreliable as well.
:::IPSO complaints are not a way to quantify unreliability. Complaints would only quantify reliability if they all represented the same flaw and were comparable across an entire industry, but IPSO complaints can be made for a variety of reasons and ] publications like ] opt out of them. Your math shows that the Jewish Chronicle is an order of magnitude worse than the Daily Mail and that The Times is (5+8)/(6+11)=76% as unreliable as the Daily Mail. '''If you believed the Jewish Chronicle was 10x worse than the Daily Mail you wouldn't have !voted for "Option 2 in general"'''. If the number of IPSO complaints had any statistical validity The Times would be at ] or below.
:::RSP is very quickly devolving into a method to enforce groupthink, because declaring a source as unreliable or just ] means one can effectively prevent its viewpoints from being presented on Misplaced Pages. Additionally, because the standard for reliable sources is ''de facto'' "does it agree with other reliable sources?", we end up with a ] that makes it harder to prove a source is reliable as the number of reliable sources that source agrees with goes down. This eventually leads to a corpus of sources that uniformly agree on what the truth is.
:::The only way to prevent selective exclusion of sources is to consciously question whether our standards are objective. You can't handwave this burden away when it's been brought up repeatedly by other editors. The reason why I !voted '''Option 1''' isn't because I am disputing most of your claims, it's because '''you cannot show why similar evidence would prove unreliability for other publications.''' <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 15:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Completely agree. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 15:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::::a) Most people are not suggesting deprecation and b) It's not just about rogue freelancers so lose the strawmen. ] (]) 16:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::!voters aren't suggesting deprecation because the Jewish Chronicle is obviously more reliable than the Daily Mail. But the IPSO argument implies that the JC is 10x worse than the Daily Mail. Both cannot be true at once. I'm refuting the IPSO complaint counters with a ] that demonstrates why the number of IPSO complaints isn't a meaningful metric to evaluate sources on.
:::::Rejecting IPSO means '''the rogue freelancer story is the only evidence of false information being published by the source'''. You have provided no other specific cases.
:::::Columnists resigning due to changes in ownership/political slant can only prove bias on the part of the JC. As the ], {{tq|bias is not a reason in itself for a source to be unreliable, but may require in-text attribution.}}
:::::The objective standard we should be following is whether a source can be used for citing false information on Misplaced Pages. We rank and categorize sources to prevent false information from entering the encyclopedia. You can write as much as you want, but if you can't give '''specific examples of false information''', then you haven't shown the source is unreliable. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 19:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::All of the upheld IPSO cases found problems with ''accuracy'' – typically incendiary, false claims ascribing words to people they had not actually written or said. This sort of thing is apt to cause BLP problems here. I don't understand why you think such inaccuracies are irrelevant for our purposes, or do not qualify as "false information" (and please go a bit more lightly on the bold). ] <small>]]</small> 20:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Reliable sources also have substantiated IPSO complaints. Our dispute is over whether counting the number is acceptable, because you haven't bothered analyzing their specifics. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 17:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::These IPSO rulings seem quite similar to me in nature (in one case, practically identical).
::::::::You are proposing that the number of upheld IPSO rulings against a publication (proven inaccuracies, misrepresentations or libels) should be irrelevant to us. That is hardly sensible.
::::::::Your previous post was a textbook example of ] – you said, {{xt|"the Jewish Chronicle is obviously more reliable than the Daily Mail. But the IPSO argument implies that the JC is 10x worse than the Daily Mail. Both cannot be true at once.}} You start with the assumption that the JC is better than the Daily Mail, so if it collects ten times more adverse IPSO rulings per article than the Daily Mail, then that proves IPSO rulings don't matter. Absurd indeed – but not in the way you mean.
::::::::The fact that these IPSO rulings generally occurred in a single topic area makes it all the more important to take note of the risk we would take by hosting the JC's truth claims unvetted and unfiltered by other, more reliable publications, here in our BLPs and other articles in that topic area. If the claim is important, another more reliable publication will pick it up, and we can cite that. That is responsible sourcing for an encyclopedia, given the substantial concerns about the JC voiced in the press. ] <small>]]</small> 19:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{tq|You start with the assumption that the JC is better than the Daily Mail, so if it collects ten times more adverse IPSO rulings per article than the Daily Mail, then that proves IPSO rulings don't matter. Absurd indeed – but not in the way you mean.}}
:::::::::I'm pointing out your absurd double standard where you argue that the Jewish Chronicle is statistically worse than the Daily Mail, but then only !vote for Option 2. It makes it obvious that your !vote doesn't follow from your stated reasoning. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 02:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::The IPSO and fabrication problems are limited to ''a specific topic area''. The "special consideration" in my Option 2 vote is that Option 3/4 should be applied to ''that topic area'' where there is strong evidence of poor reliability. I would be happy to cite the JC on lots of other topics – music, the arts, film and theatre reviews, biographies of Jewish scientists, etc. ] <small>]]</small> 08:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::::@] Well, have a look what the NYT did when it discovered one of their reporters was guilty of fabrications:
::::* , with transparent and exhaustive reporting of what had happened.
::::What we got from the JC is this nothingburger:
::::* of generalities.
::::To claim that this is in any way equivalent to what happened at the NYT is risible. You don't have to take my word for it, because we have journalists pointing this shortfall out in the mainstream press.
::::* "Thinnest form of contrition" ()
::::* "Though Wallis Simons apologised to readers, he offered no explanation for how the deception occurred. Just an assurance that standards will be tightened. This will not do." ().
::::The concerns about ownership etc. are voiced in the British and Israeli mainstream press, across the political spectrum.
::::Using the Jewish Chronicle for WP:A/I/PIA coverage after this episode is not my idea of due diligence. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." If they sort their operation out, we can always revisit. Regards, ] <small>]]</small> 16:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::What would writing a longer statement with a more detailed apology do? Elon Perry lied about his identity and his sources. He was caught within two months. The "transparent and exhaustive reporting" of the New York Times is full of florid prose about Blair's travel habits, counselling, and personal problems as he was a full-time employee of the New York Times.
:::::I don't think the Jewish Chronicle would have any of that information for a freelancer, so most of that article couldn't be written even if the JC wanted to. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 02:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::He was caught ''instantly'' by Israeli journalists when he made claims that Netanyahu's family then tried to give extra visibility to. (A similar PR effort was simultaneously underway in Germany, with the ] tabloid publishing a related fake news story: )
::::::Perry was caught by the simple expedient of Israeli journalists asking the IDF whether it really had the materials Perry claimed they had (they replied it was a "wild invention"), and then checking whether Perry really was a professor at Tel Aviv University (he was not). If the JC is unable to perform such simple tasks then it lacks basic qualifications for reliable reporting on such matters.
::::::The editor should have explained to readers how contact with Perry was established, why they did not fact-check his résumé given that he made some tall and easily disproved claims about himself, why they did not try to contact the IDF to corroborate Perry's stories (standard practice in reliable publications is to require ), etc. This is all basic bread and butter for mainstream outlets, and the JC is simply and evidently out of its league here if they can't or won't apply such basic due diligence. ] <small>]]</small> 09:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2 in General. Option 3 for issues relating to Palestine and the war in Gaza''' Its bias is very clear and overt. But as other editors have pointed out, this does not necessarily mean it deserves depreciation. However, depreciation and considering a source unreliable on a single topic are two very different things. For the same reason why editors are rightfully sceptical of Pro-Russian sources reporting on the war in Ukraine, it is best to be consistent and also treat with some scepticism the reliability of the Jewish Chronicle when dealing with Gaza and issues related to Palestine. ] (]) 15:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 4''' since 2024, '''Option 3''' 2015-2024— the problems with editorial standards at the newspaper have been ongoing for years and are only getting worse. (] &#183; ]) ''']''' 23:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
*:The idea that JC covers antisemitism in the UK is not a good reason to keep the paper when it has lost any reputation for reliability in that area. We should be looking for scholarly sources to cover these controversies anyway. (] &#183; ]) ''']''' 23:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
*:It's not possible on a technical level to deprecate a source for a period of time. It has to be all or nothing because the deprecation edit filter can't determine when an article was published. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 02:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
*::] assessments are independent of the presence and feasibility of an edit filter. ] <small>]]</small> 09:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::In every prior subject-area or time-limited deprecation discussion, the technical issues relating to the edit filter has come up. So yes, the feasibility of a subject-area deprecation needs to be addressed if we're going to adopt it. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 23:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::There are deprecated sources that are not subject to an edit filter (the National Enquirer is an example) – you can have one without the other. But consensus seems to lean towards "generally unreliable" anyway, rather than deprecation. ] <small>]]</small> 06:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I think Buidhe makes a very pertinent point. If the JC is frequently libelling people and making false claims around antisemitism, the fact it is the only source reporting on some cases of alleged antisemitism means these claims should generally not be included in our pages. Especially in cases of BLP.] (]) 17:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' for ] (including antisemitism) and Muslims, '''option 2''' for other issues, per comments above and below (including mine).''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 23:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
*:While it is a legitimate !vote that it be deemed unreliable on antisemitism (I have above argued that this would be a mistake, while Buidhe and Boynamedsue have made the argument for such a ruling), I just want to additionally argue that antisemitism in general should not be covered by AIPIA, only antisemitism directly related to Israel/Palestine, which I believe was the case in all of the relevant IPSO breaches. Personally, I think it is dangerous to not be able to cite the UK's only Jewish newspaper on the topic of antisemitism in the UK, without any evidence that it is unreliable on this topic in general (as opposed to antisemitism directly related to Israel/Palestine). At any rate, I think you'd need to present an evidence/policy-based argument rather than use ARBPIA. ] (]) 16:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
*::I'm confused. Don't any of the other 4+ Jewish newspapers in the UK cover antisemitism? What's this "only XYZ" business about? And if the others don't cover the same incidents as the JC, perhaps that's indicative of the types of incident that have gotten it into libel and defamation territory. ] (]) 17:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::Jewish News was basically a local paper until ~2020, at which point it became a better source than JC. Hamodia, Jewish Telegraph and Jewish Tribune are all impossible to use for Misplaced Pages as not web accessible, as well as very parochial. For 2015-20, JC is only source that fully covered antisemitism in the UK. ] (]) 19:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
*::I only had to look as far back as this year to find an IPSO breach without a mention of Israel or Palestine which could be inadvertently interpreted as antisemitism.
*::. Just from memory I recall only after mediation
*::I also know that the JC has made similar mistakes as over the IHRA definition, that doesn't excuse the JC ] (]) 12:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::Well if it is indeed a pattern of unreliability in relation to non-Israel/Palestine-related antisemitism, then this needs to be a separate topic area to the Israel/Palestine topic area, and consensus would need to be established for this.
*:::The Media Reform Centre report (a terrible piece of research imho) doesn't say anything indicating that JC is unreliable; its only mention is that it reported on Corbyn's Facebook posts long before other media outlets did. If we designate the media outlets that the MRC report indicts unreliable, we'd need to stop using BBC, ITN, Sky, Guardian, Telegraph and Independent, which personally I'd oppose. ] (]) 19:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 1 pre-2015, Option 2 in general afterwards, Option 3 for WP:A/I/PIA area since 2020''' per ActivelyDisinterested. As usual in UK media, Private Eye seems to be one of the few places taking any notice of this issue. ] (]) 12:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 3 for topics related to Israel, Palestine, Muslims, British left, accusations of antisemitism and BLP claims irrespective of timeframe, option 4 in general since at least 2020'''. As for its reliability concerning other subjects in earlier periods, I don't know the publication well enough to make a clear vote. I think the publication's unreliability during the last few years has been established pretty well by other editors, so I see no reason to elaborate on that. However, I would consider it generally unreliable on these issues irrespective of timeframe; besides the fact that the JC has been openly Zionist since the early 20th century (hence qualifying as a biased source although not necessarily unreliable), the article about it mentions a lot of instances of the JC accusing people with views critical of Israel of antisemitism at least 56 years back, when they were sued for accusing an MP of antisemitic views with no evidence and had to issue an apology, and it also mentions numerous occassions - some of which predate the 2015 threshold - where the JC has posted serious false accusations against people and institutions with an opposing view to the JC's. Among other things, in 2009 the JC falsely accused a peace activist of harbouring suicide bombers, and in 2014 it falsely claimed that the Royal Institute of British Architects had voted for a "ban on Jews" from the International Union of Architects, while what in fact was voted on was a suspension on an Israeli architect association involved in the building of illegal Israeli settlements. Posting such false allegations against people and institutions with opposing views clearly cross the line between biased reporting and pure misinformation/fabrication, and as the above examples show, the paper has engaged in this behaviour long prior to 2015. I find it obvious that a publication engaging in deliberately posting misinformation to promote its views and smear opponents should be labeled as generally unreliable, and as the paper has engaged in this behaviour prior to the 2015/2020 threshold, I don't think it is appropriate to limit this judgement to this limited timeframe. As for other topics, I don't think I have enough background information of its reporting throughout its history to make a statement about its reliability on other topics in earlier years, but I do think that its opaque ownership, along with its history of posting fabricated stories and misinformation, raises serious questions about its reliability on other issues as well. --] (]) 17:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
*:There was a case 56 years back, when JC published an ''opinion piece'' by one Labour MP calling another antisemitic; this is not disinformation, but opinion. Then there was a 41 year gap and they published ''a letter'' in which what the Guardian called a "peace activist" (and the Press Gazette specificies was an ] activist) was falsely accused of harbouring two British men who he had simply met, who then carried out a suicide bomb in Israel, in a case that doesn't mention antisemitism. That's not a pattern. There's an plausible argument that the 2015+ pattern starts earlier, with the 2009 case (although this case doesn't relate to antisemitism), but considering how much coverage of antisemitism there was in these decades it would be perverse to stop using it on that topic because of the 1968 opinion piece. ] (]) 15:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC) (A reminder that neither an opinion piece nor a letter to the editor would be considered usable as a source for facts, especially biographical facts, anyway, so these two examples are really irrelevant. ] (]) 16:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC))
*::However, and received a public apology in the High Court. His argument was that, whilst his comments were anti-Zionist, they were not antisemitic. ] (]) 08:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::OK, but the 41 year gap between that and the next instance doesn't suggest a pattern does it? And would the article by Edelman ever be used on WP as a source for anything apart from this controversy itself? ] (]) 15:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
*:Similarly the 2014 is not a case of inaccuracy; it's a case of articulating a strong opinion. Once again, bias =/= unreliability, and we would not use an editorial as a source for facts anyway. ] (]) 16:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree that the architect story is clearly comment, but it is a leader, the official view of the paper, and the nature and way this opinion is presented is pretty indicative of the way the JC's very extreme positions work. The article doesn't mention the fact that the ban was motivated by the participation of members of the Israeli architects' association in the construction of illegal settlements in occupied territory, a warcrime according to the Geneva convention. It also conflates Jews and Israelis, which according to most definitions of antisemitism... is antisemitism. This lack of context and misleading framing is also typical of its news coverage.--] (]) 09:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I agree an egregiously biased leader reflects more badly on a source than an egregiously biased op ed, and this is indeed evidence of a drift towards hard right positions under Pollard. But these opinions about what constitutes antisemitism are common opinions that we'd see in plenty of reliable sources (e.g. the Wall Street Journal or Telegraph) and not evidence of unreliability. Also important to note that the leader was one para in an edition that included other articles on the topic, a topic it had extensively covered, including the illegal settlement issue that provoked the boycott. E.g: I'd argue that we'd never use this leader as a source for facts, but it'd be fine to use a news article on this issue (like ) as a source for facts in a WP article, while of course better to use alongside other sources. ] (]) 16:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::That particular article is much better than some it's published, and could have appeared in any reliable source. The problem is the sheer quantity of unreliable content it has put out means we have a hard job to separate the decent articles (which I assume that one was, doesn't seem to have any obvious howlers) and the dodgy ones.--] (]) 21:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::If we look at its extensive coverage of this RIBA boycott (more extensive than any other source) I think we can clearly see that all the news articles are very solid, while the editorials and op eds are extreme. The editorials might become due when other, secondary sources (in this case architecture media) refer to them, but otherwise we’d ignore them and stick with the news articles. This is a good illustration of why designating its news articles unreliable because its editorials are extreme would be a bad idea. ] (]) 07:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2, on I/P since 2019/2020, with ''protest'' of 2015 date''' -- ''please pay attention to sources!'' The ''only RS'' that have been posted for JC's change in reliability have been in the 2019--2021 area (for the IPSO case alerts and owner change) and 2024 reporting scandal. This has been discussed ''extensively'' in the thread immediately preceding the RfC. The first !voter here posted a 2015 date but offered no reasoning, and everyone to follow seems to have parroted that date. As I detailed below, giving opportunity to comment for weeks: the 2015 date, when it was brought up exactly once prior, is an artifact of the fact that IPSO started reporting in 2015 (it was founded 2014/11); the only other controversy that year was an ''editorial'' about Jeremy Corbyn. I am pleading that the closer reads this and gives the cutoff date consideration, and includes the previous thread. ] (]) 23:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
::If you are going by IPSO rulings and the comments of the RS Cathcart, we should date back to 2018 not 2019. The best cut off is 2008, the editorship of Pollard, who was forced out after bankrupting the paper with libel settlements. But he was already committing , falsely accusing an Islamic charity of involvement in terrorism. They (just two months after Pollard took over) again paying damages. It is worth noting that corrections were only published here as part of legal settlements for damages, the JC resisted correcting their lies to the very last. The lower quantity evidence of unreliability prior to 2015 is precisely for the reason you state, IPSO, toothless and incompetent as it is, didn't yet exist to document the JC's abuse and provide recourse to its victims.] (]) 08:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Why 2018? What specifically happened in 2018?
:::I can tell you ''specifically'' what (many) IPSO violations and internal communications regarding JC happened in 2019 and 2020, and further events in 2021.
:::(Not to get into the, but "being involved in a terrorist bombing" is a complete misreading of the very short article you link. Also just a reminder to everyone that importantly .) ] (]) 04:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Well, if a paper stares someone has "harboured" or "sheltered" terrorist bombers, I consider that to be an accusation of involvement. It is certainly libellous and false, as shown by the fact the JC were forced to pay 30k for damage to reputation.
::::I choose 2018 because that is the date that Professor ] refers to as the beginning of their insane run of IPSO judgments. 2018 was when they by Mike Sivier implying he had denied the holocaust, that Mark Wadsworth had "abused" Ruth Smeeth (you can find the video , there is no way to characterise it as abuse).
::::And as for libel law, yes the UK's libel law is tougher than almost any country, but it meshes very well with our BLP policy. If you can't prove it and it damages reputation, don't publish it.] (]) 06:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::The Sivier case is a really week case for establishing unreliability. The single inaccuracy IPSO found in that case was as follows. Sivier had said “I’m not going to comment on ‘thousands’ instead of ‘millions’ because I don’t know, but the Nazi holocaust involved many other groups as well as Jews, and it seems likely that the SWP was simply being ‘politically correct’ ”. JC summarised this as: “remarks he made about Jews and Zionism, including a claim that he could not comment on whether thousands or millions of Jews died in the Holocaust he said ‘I don’t know’”. After he contacted them saying he didn’t deny the Holocaust, they amended the article to include his response. This is not grounds for a designation of unreliability. ] (]) 08:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::The IPSO on that case say: ''The article gave the impression that the complainant had said something which he had not, on a subject liable to cause widespread offence; a clarification was required to avoid a breach of Clause 1(ii). The publication had offered to issue a clarification stating the complainant’s position that he had been referring to why the leaflet made this claim when he said “I don’t know”, and stating his position on the number of Jewish victims of the Holocaust. This clarification made the complainant’s position clear, and was sufficient to meet the terms of Clause 1(ii).''
::::::The way you've summarised it is apt to leave the same false impression as the JC did, and was slammed for. . ] <small>]]</small> 08:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::The former IPSO case was a breach, the latter was not (it was resolved in mediation). Note that ; in looking up again the 2019 memo, I did find a reference on investigation starting as early as 2018 (. As I've said previously I was fine with saying anything in the 2019--2021 area as an approximate cut-off year guidance (precision on that is deceptive), so given this 2018--2021 is appropriate too. All I care about is that these dates remain justifiable to sources, and that when people !vote they know what they are voting on. ] (]) 16:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::To be fair, the 2017 breach is not particularly concerning. It is outside the topic area where the JC's run of bad stories occurs. Distressing and unfair as it was to the individual concerned, it seems to be a kind of "cost of doing business" error that all papers, even the most reliable, suffer from.--] (]) 20:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 pre-2015, Option 2 in general afterwards, Option 3 for ] area since 2020''' A newspapers that refuses to even disclose who owns it (and hence can exert control over coverage) must be treated with caution, and probably not used for sensitive areas. The same applies to media funded by dictatorial regimes, for example Al Jazeera. ] (]) 09:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)


<!-- ] 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1736895671}}
* '''Option 3 for WP:A/I/PIA area since 2020''' (or 2019 as mentioned by SamuelRiv), '''Option 2 in general for the same time period''' - given the pattern of IPSO rulings, reliable secondary source coverage of its problems, and evidence of unreliability given by Andreas JN466 (Jayen466). ''']] (])''' 15:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
What is the reliability of the German tabloid ], including its website Bild.de?
# Generally reliable
# Additional considerations apply
# Generally unreliable
# Deprecated
] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
===Responses (Bild) ===
*'''Option 3/4''' Bild is a sensational tabloid, that according to Foreign Policy magazine, , routinely violates basic journalistic ethics and is regularly sanctioned for it by German Press Council, being sanctioned by them 26 times in 2021 alone. As evidenced by this piece in Deutsche Welle their process of verification and fact checking is below the standard expected for a reliable source. For those looking for a more comprehensive account of the newspaper and its ethics, I've found this freely accessible short book (less than 100 pages, including references) in German from 2023 on the topic (which can translated using google translate's PDF translate feature) Some quotes from the book (in translation) {{tq|Driven by a special editorial culture ("We are tabloids after all") and driven by editorial decisions in which sales interests take precedence over media ethics, articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers.}} ... {{tq|The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary}}... EDIT: another quote {{tq|BILD's journalism does not focus on the task of providing information, but rather on examining a suitable fact for its emotionality and framing it with commentary.}}} ] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*:As an addendum: here are some other examples, including a fake story about migrants committing sexual assault in 2017 , as well as taking scientists quotes out of context to further an agenda regarding COVID during the pandemic ] (]) 14:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' - per Hemiauchenia. I'll add an argument that's weaker but nevertheless entertaining and somewhat indicative, which is that Bild's infamy is so well-established that ] is a common inclusion of university German language, German literature and media studies courses. There hasn't been any argument made, however, that our current usage of Bild is so pervasive a problem that deprecation is necessary. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 3/4'''. I don't think we should cite Bild anywhere on Misplaced Pages. It's a sensationalist tabloid like the Daily Mail or National Enquirer.--] (]) 23:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''3''' at least, and I wouldn't say no to '''4'''. This is one of the weakest sources in the region, though I could see it being cited for special purposes, like examples of "headlinese" that aren't in English, etc. But at this point I don't think it's even usable for ] material; if they claimed something as simple as {{var|X}} number of employees, I would strongly suspect it of being an exaggeration. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 23:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''3''' I honestly have no idea how one could even come to approach the idea that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but if previous discussions haven't been enough, I suppose it's worth piling on. Sources should not be considered reliable until they prove themselves to be. ] (] • ]) 05:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''3/4''' Bild is a tabloid and well known for its lack of fact checking and heavy bias. The closest english speaking equivalent would be things like the Daily Mail. In my opinion broadly unusable. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''bad 2 for miscellaneous or political content, unusable for the private lives of BLP and particularly recently deceased people''' it's rather rare that they publish straightforward misinformation, particularly when considering the volume of content published. Having said that, they have a nasty habit of violating both journalistic and actual ethics (and ''allegedly'' breaking the law), so using them is probably broadly unwise. There are some rare cases where they can be useful, but as far as usable sources go, they are on the very lowest end IMO, being a tabloid in an area with an otherwise strong media environment. In addition, there doesn't seem to be a significant issue to justify depreciation. <small> Note: this applies to Bild only, other sources owned by that publisher are usually a lot more reliable, even if I personally consider much of what they believe to be rather questionable </small> ] (]) 10:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 2, provisionally''', since no examples of publishing falsehoods and misinformation have been provided so far in this thread and I couldn't find them in the article. See my comments in the discussion section. ]<sub>]</sub> 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 3''', I don't see the need for deprecation. Bild is tabloid journalism, and falls far short of the high quality sources that BLP calls for. It shouldn't be anywhere near anything contentious to do with a living, or recently deceased, person. When it comes to it reliability in other areas how other reliable sources view Bild is important, I suggest reading the work by Prof Lilienthal posted by Hemiauchenia. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 4''' Tabloid journalism is generally incompatible with the Misplaced Pages project. ] (]) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 3''', there even exist a German blog whose aim is mainly to publicize errors of Bild – . But see my comment in the discussion section below. --] (]) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' per ActivelyDisinterested. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 05:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' so no change. Most of our current usage of it seem to be interviews which per ] would be fine. I see no evidence they’re fabricating interviews. Probably usable for mundane things like sports (they seem to cover that a lot). For any contentious anything should not be cited - but they seem to get a lot of interviews with notable people, so we can keep using that. ] (]) 20:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 3/4''' per Hemiauchenia... tabloids in general post sensational info that is poorly fact-checked and rife with errors. ] (]) 20:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
*:it's ''snowing 3'' ] (]) 21:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 3/4'''. Academic coverage frequently treats it as an archetypal example of a publisher of misinformation. See eg. --] (]) 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 3/4''': Tabloids usually fail reliability. It seems this one is no different. ] (]) 17:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
* Option 3/4 (depending on whether anyone can make a case that there's some e.g. ABOUTSELF use we would still want them for — but I doubt we should be using them 1,800 times, as Hemiauchenia says we are at present) per Aquillion and Hemiauchenia; as RSP says, a reliable source "has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction"; ''BILD'' has the opposite reputation. ] (]) 04:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


===Discussion (Bild) ===
*'''Option 3''' It is quite difficult to get IPSO to rule against a newspaper. Breaking the IPSO code IPSO's code 41 times between 2018 and 2023 must mean that this is an unreliable source ] (]) 18:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Bild is currently used over 1,800 times on the English Misplaced Pages per {{duses|bild.de}}. It is already currently listed on RSP as "generally unreliable". This RfC was prompted by a discussion at ], where a user questioned the lack of participation in previous discussions. ] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' I will go with no change to the ratings, as the attached notes seem enough. Although I’d tend to evaluate any cite depending on what the edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without context can be really valid. I do feel that with this small a pub, I'm dubious this even needs a rating unless sources of greater WEIGHT simply do not exist, but would include handling this source as the existing rating of "option 1" as RS per WP:BIASED as mentioned on the WP:A/I/PIA aream seems enough. The 2023-24 change in business are noted so may be a consideration in a specific cite, but this highlights again that CONTEXTMATTERS -- it depends on specifics of what the cite being used is dated and what the intended edit is. Cheers ] (]) 23:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 4 for ], Option 3 in general''' The IPSO ruling is damning, and as I said in my comment just now too: the JC has proven itself to be unreliable, and should be deprecated as a source. This true historically, and the latest scandal and the lack of a proper response (merely getting rid of the writer and pretending it was just a minor slip up and moving on) definitively confirms its lack of editorial standards, and that this is systemic with the publication, and not incidental. This marks a qualitative difference between the JC and another outlet like the NYT or Guardian publishing a plagiarist or fantasist: They don't have a long record of this, and when this does happen, it is never because they wrote things that were sought out and published for being in accordance with the editorial political positions of said outlets. Both are the case with the JC, so I support deprecating it as a source. ] (]) 12:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::] I’m sorry, but you are simply incorrect in saying Guardian and NYT do not have known incidents of plagiarism, biased reporting, etcetera bad enough to have reporters quitting and/or purged over such and that there is a long history of incidents. If your !vote is premised a mistaken belief that others exist without intentional flaws, you may wish to google history to get some of the examples where these or Globe and Mail or some others did sins egregious enough to get coverage, or where London Times and such publicly announce an editorial political POV. No source is perfect, none is free from its limited POV or inherent biases, none is free from human fallibility of an occasional corrupt act by reporter or editor. RS would include considering editorial policy and retractions on such inevitable items as a sign of quality because they just do happen everywhere, and I think should similarly give credit for open announcement of a POV such as pro-Jewish as just being honest. Cheers ] (]) 18:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:::If the Guardian or NYT had a proven track record of publishing many false stories on a single topic, I would argue we shouldn't use them on that topic. But they don't. The JC does, however. The JC doesn't have a pro-Jewish POV, btw. It has a pro-Israel POV. It's really quite anti-Jewish when the Jewish people concerned don't like Israel.--] (]) 20:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' in general, '''option 4''' for topics related to Israel/Palestine. The opaque ownership structure and IPSO issues rule out that TJC is a reliable source. at this point. ] (]) 08:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' in general, '''Option 3/4 for ] area''' - per ] who has a seemingly infinite amount of patience and AGF in the face of repeated false claims despite having debunked them each time. When other reliable sources are saying that this source was used as part of a , when they discuss its , it beggars belief that anybody can claim that the source is "generally reliable". I sympathize with ]'s concern about deprecating a hundred plus year old newspaper, but in general we shouldn't be using '''news articles''' for things that are not news anyway, at that point we should be looking at books and journals and so on. But fair enough, for material prior to when this source had become "fake news" and participating in a "disinformation campaign" that was based on "wild fabrications" (and those quotes are all from reliable sources), use it to your hearts content. But for material after that point? ] said it best, {{xt|you kidding me or what?}} ''']''' - 05:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 3''' in general, '''option 4''' for topics related to Israel/Palestine/Islam/West Asia/UK politics. Not sure what else to add that hasn't already been mentioned by others. No one knows who owns the outlet. The outlet has been criticized for being a disseminator of disinformation. The outlet echoes (and sometimes starts) far right rhetoric and is known for spreading Islamophobia. The is around 16,000 per month only half of which are paid which is an even more damning indictment of how the current owners are completely ok with alienating not just their staff (who have quit) but also their readers. My heart goes out to ] when they feel emotional about deprecating a 100+ year old publication. Our decision needs to be grounded in being neutral and not clouded by sentimentality. Misplaced Pages is not beholden to the Jewish Chronicle or any other outlet. When media watchdogs and reputable journalists speak, it's our job to listen and act. ] (]) 15:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
*:It's not sentimentality. It's about the simple fact that bad editorial decisions in 2023 don't give us a reason to deem unreliable (let alone deprecate) material published in 2003 or 1973. I find it bizarre that editors are providing arguments for unreliability based on recent missteps but somehow backdating the unreliability to before the current editor was born, which is going to make a difficult job even harder for the closer. Further, given for many of the years in that period, the JC was the only real Jewish newspaper in this country, we'd be wiping out a lot of encyclopedic coverage of the UK Jewish community for very recentist reasons. ] (]) 17:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
*::This note is used beside the depreciated Daily Mail: 'Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context. So a similar note could be attached to the JC to allow restricted use. ] (]) 19:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::Something like that may work if some version of option 3/4 is adopted without a specific start point.
*:::Of course, the Mail's offences stretch back a lot further than the JC's: I would argue for more than "historical" reliability but that most post-digital output is usable with increasing caution from the 2010s on select topics. ] (]) 14:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
*::That's a valid point and Andromedean's suggestion seems like a great way to ensure we are mindful of that. Do you agree with option 4 for Palestine/Islam/West Asia/UK politics then, perhaps starting 2010, given those topics are not directly relevant to the UK Jewish community? ] (]) 04:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::Not sure if that's directed at me but if so then: not really.
*:::*I'd oppose deprecation for Palestine and "West Asia" (the latter something nobody else has argued for so far) because that would lose for example analysis by Colin Schindler and Anshell Pfeiffer who recently resigned; I think option 2 and a bit more than the care that ought to routinely be put into ARBPIA topics is enough there (except possibly in the very recent period, relating to the Elon Perry case).
*:::*I'm not bothered by deprecation for Islam under current and last editors, who are arguably Islamophobic in their editorial positions, although I don't see an evidence/policy-based reason to go past option 2 for on this topic (it was relevant in just a couple of IPSO breaches, a tiny fraction of their coverage related to Islam).
*:::*Nobody has made an argument for "UK politics" up to now; the UK left is a better frame for extra considerations in the 2015-20 period from the evidence presented so far in this discussion. (Again, I think option 2 could cover that.)
*:::] (]) 14:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' in general, '''Option 4 for ] area''' - per ], ] (]) 20:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 3 or 4''' since 2008. '''Option 1''' before 2008. The decline in quality and in accurate and complete reporting of the facts has been a long and slow one. It probably cannot get much lower. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 16:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)


I asked the initial question at WT:RSP since I don't like when we classify sources based on vibes. So I'll play the role of the devil's advocate. I have very little knowledge of the German media landscape and I'm open to arguments in both directions. The sources provided by u:Hemiauchenia make two claims:
===Background (Jewish Chronicle)===
* {{tquote|articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers." ... "The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary"}} - this should have no bearing on reliability, unless they actually published falsehoods about said celebrities
*Mainstream media reports:
* In 2018 Bild fell for a hoax. Someone leaked emails supposedly between a major political party in Germany and a made-up Russian online figure. Bild published an article based on it. This is definitely a failure of their editorial process but they definitely did not do it on purpose and when this became known clarified that the whole thing was a hoax. I don't think that one such issue that happened 6 years ago should automatically lead to GUNREL status. Many other RS fell for hoaxes . ]<sub>]</sub> 13:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
**]: , '']'', 26 April 2024
**, '']'', 16 September 2024
**, '']'', 16 September 2024
**, '']'', 18 September 2024
**, '']'', 20 September 2024
*History of ] rulings against ''The Jewish Chronicle'':
**
** --] <small>]]</small> 11:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)


::This is a massive understatement of what Lilienthal 2023 cited by Hemiauchenia actually says. The better part of the text's 92 pages is a critique of Bild's practices in a systematic fashion, summarized in its introduction (translated): {{tq|From the perspective of critical readers, BILD is constantly chipping away at its own credibility.}}
===Discussion (Jewish Chronicle)===
::If that's not enough, the paper includes an 8-page bibliography of other extensive studies of der Bild. It's silly to act like what should decide this source's reliability is some "gotcha" wiki-sleuthing based on recent scandal--we have the verdict of mountains of peer-reviewed research. Make a case based on that, as others have. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 14:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm just surprised that given the reputation of the source and all these analyses no one has come up with a examples of inaccuracies other than the 6-year old hoax. Unfortunately I don't speak German and so can't read Lilienthal's report. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. ] (]) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::@], I've managed to translate it using Google Translate, thanks!
:::::These are the key points from the foreword
:::::# articles are published that hurt those affected and (can) irritate readers
:::::# BILD is running campaigns against political opponents – against Angela Merkel, Karl Lauterbach, Annalena Baerbock, to name just three examples
:::::# is said to have felt personally affected . Because he is co-owner of such a property in Berlin. He then prompted BILD editor-in-chief Reichelt to write extremely critical reports about Adidas and the rent freeze
:::::# A woman who says she suffered under former editor-in-chief Reichelt is suing the German media group in the USA because she felt let down by her former employer
:::::# A particularly drastic case occurred in early 2017, when the Frankfurt edition reported on sexual assaults by men with a migrant background on visitors to a prominent nightlife district - completely fabricated by people the editorial team trusted without checking. The embarrassment was great, and the retraction in the paper itself was inevitable.
:::::I think I understand the issues with it better now. Would you say that this is a reasonably complete summary or is there something else I missed?
:::::In my view #5 is most relevant for the assessment of reliability. They certainly didn't a good job as journalists but it doesn't seem like they fabricated stuff and in the end they published a retraction which is what we expect from sources. #2 and #3 show that it's clearly a very ] source. I'm still not sure it satisfies the WP:GUNREL criteria. ]<sub>]</sub> 23:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Actually the example you gave after your !vote about Bild's campaign against Christian Drosten is pretty convincing. ]<sub>]</sub> 23:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'm not really sure what is meant by {{tq|classif sources based on vibes}}, but if it means assessing the reputation of a source based on other reliable sources, that's kinda what we're required to do by policy. ] says {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}, as does ] multiple times. No reputation, no evidence of reliability. ] (] • ]) 00:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
* Because of Bild's outstanding importance and high circulation, politicians, celebrities and sportspeople often give Bild interviews. I consider these texts as generally reliable, in contrast to Bild's other articles. I've checked some of the {{duses|bild.de}}, most of them belong to the first category. --] (]) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


== Nigerian newspapers ==
*, from The Guardian, should be relevant. At lot of it seems to be from Elon Perry, whose articles they've recently retracted ''en masse''. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 11:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I am concerned with, as are several of the reports on this, about their vague, inadequate response. The statement they made is more like a cover-up: 'we won't tell you the details, we've 'memory holed' this so it will go away, just trust us.' As I suggested in the prior discussion, we should expect when something like this happens that the outlet 'reports the hell out of it'. We should know from them who and why touched off the investigation, who was involved, what was false, what can't be confirmed, where it leads, what charges that preceded the investigation and arose during it could be validated, denied, or for which there is no evidence, what was their investigation, what didn't they investigate, why, what processes went wrong in their organization, what the fixes are, etc. etc. etc. We should also expect disciplining of the editors involved. - ] (]) 11:06, 22 September 2024
*:For reference, was the statement summarising the investigation, published one day after the that an investigation was underway. --] <small>]]</small> 11:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks. I should have linked those in my comment for others' sake. That's what my comment refers to as inadequate, to say the least. Instead, they are 'sitting on the story', not reporting perhaps among the most important news, in the outlet's history. -- ] (]) 11:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' These additional qualfications add nothing, since they already apply to every other news publication.
:For all green-lighted news media, they are considered generally reliable for news and additional considerations apply for all other information they publish. See ]: "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). ditorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."
:Also, per ], "Any exceptional claim requires ''multiple'' high-quality sources."
:No one has pointed out how this source has caused damage or even that there has been any discussion in articles about specific claims linked to it.
:] (]) 18:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::I have no doubt we should do a better job of making the policies cabining news clear everywhere (including on the perennial sources page) -- indeed, one of the reasons I think that page may be unclear (despite the extensive introductory hand-wringing), is it likely suggests in its format, news and other types of sources are the same (we should probably breakout news outlets from others, although I don't want us to then suggest all other sources are the same--perhaps sectioning would be better). But "editing notes" is what we should collectively give, and it only makes sense on Misplaced Pages that there would be collective editing notes, especially concerning its most plainly used but also difficult to use source, news. ] (]) 13:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Objection''': There is no cutoff year offered in the RfC, despite many or most in the prior discussion saying that there was a distinct and recent change in JC's reliability, with several sourced dates offered. So voters have added cutoff dates themselves -- but where on earth did the '''2015''' cutoff year come from? It's not been mentioned at all in the previous thread in the context of when problematic behavior actually occurred. All I could find is ]'s 17 Sept comment comparing the total number of complaints since 2015 for the JC and The Times. They do not say why 2015 is the cutoff -- presumably it is because ] began in September 2014, so that's the first year of their reporting. That is ''not'' the first year in which problematic behavior was reported by the JC -- as far as I can tell the first year in which ''secondary sources report problematic behavior'', or report that JC internally was concerned about such behavior, was 2019. This is not the same as picking a year arbitrarily and counting the IPSO violations thenceforth -- we are taking a RS article that cites either internal communications about violations, or a particular violation as a bellweather event, for their own judgement that JC has dropped standards after that particular point. No such source has said 2015. ] (]) 00:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*:I think '''Option 2''' is supposed to cover it case by case after 2015 onwards, especially for non I/P stuff, and Option 3 for PIA after 2020 should be a clear enough point where facts from TJC should not be sourced for I/P issues. ] (]) 01:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*:As per the discussion above, the 2015 date stems from a time where TJC started to receive a number of IPSO complaints. We are not writing an article here; RS are not specifically needed to make an argument that a source is unreliable for one reason or another. ] (]) 08:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Please see my direct response to your !vote above (but reply here): what is your source -- because it was never said in this thread -- that there were "a number of IPSO complaints" in 2015? What is your source that the number of IPSO complaints in 2015 was significant compared to others? (Compare to the years we have sources for that IPSO complaints ''were'' significant, the years that alerts internal and external ''were'' raised.) ] (]) 12:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::I have not voted in this poll yet. ] (]) 10:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
*:I think 2015 makes sense as a transition from green to yellow status as this is when the run of IPSO complaints began which all relate to the controversy over ] which began that year. This is when Brian Cathcart seems to start with his denunciation (although his main target is IPSO), so ''if'' you see the IPSO complaints alone as grounds for option 3 then it makes sense to start then. But there's also a strong case that 2015-20 was marked, not marked by ''general'' unreliability, but issues that call for additional considerations, e.g. extreme caution on the topics of the British left and Muslims or perhaps Israel/Palestine (although nobody has really given an argument for that specifically). Apart from Cathcart, all other RSs take 2020/2021 as a starting point: the mystery owners, compounded by the appointment of an amateur and highly ideological editor a year later. ] (]) 11:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*::As far as I can tell the only direct relationship JC bears to the antisemitism controversy is their front page editorial against Corbyn. While that's significant, it's an ''editorial''. Does that speak to reliability, in ''2015''? (Much less unreliability in ''news coverage'' of the left, Muslims, or I/P in 2015, the year of the editorial?) ] (]) 12:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)


] has nothing about Nigerian newspapers, but references a project-list of them which seems rather too optimistic. It seems to me that these newspapers are filled with completely unreliable promopieces. You can see ], where a completely unknown Nigerian/French person supposedly got a US-only award from President Biden. Not a single source outside Nigeria confirms this, there seems to be no reason at all why she would have received this, but it got reported by , , , , ...
*'''Comment''' I think we have a problem here already, because people who are !voting option 2 are often not saying what they mean by it. I would invite them to clarify, or we are giving the closer a bit of a hospital pass. Option 2 covers a lot of ground, my own !vote is effectively option 2 prior to 2020, but the important part is exactly ''what considerations'' users think should apply.] (]) 06:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*:This is a very good point. Quite a few editors have !voted for option 2 for the whole period from 1841 to 2015 without indicating what extra considerations should apply, which isn't a usable conclusion. (For me, the additional considerations that should apply after 2015 is '''attribution and caution on the British left and Muslims, especially for BLP stuff'''.) ] (]) 11:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*::The previous RFC close mentioned pre 2010 and I chose not to date my comments on the grounds that stuff that old can in all likelihood be sourced better elsewhere and if not, one would have to ask why not. ] (]) 17:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)


We had similar issues with e.g. ], ], and probably many others which I can't find as easily.
*'''Comment''' It concerns me deeply that despite the mountain of evidence against the Jewish Chronicle (JC) editors are still attempting to find periods and categories it might be considered reliable so as to grant exemptions. This privilege wasn't granted to the deprecated Daily Mail which has a long history and covers a wider subject range. If exemptions are granted, we need to ensure exclusion of a broader range such as politics and all other religions, not just Israel, Muslims and Labour. With regard to timing the JCs more extreme lurch to the right can probably traced to Stephen Pollard. Only two years before being appointed editor in 2008, like “preserve Western civilisation” from the threat of “Islamists.” and “the Left, in any recognisable form, is now the enemy” in his blog. Fast forward to today and . This is an endemic problem not a temporary one. ] (]) 09:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Surely the issues with Pollard relate to bias not unreliability? We consider the Telegraph or Wall Street Journal reliable sources, despite plenty of that rhetoric. And despite what he wrote in his blog in 2006, he still published lots of left-wing opinion in the JC. More importantly, it's not a "privilege" if a long-running newspaper that has not been accused of serious improprieties in its close to two centuries is assumed to be generally reliable; it's our default for all legacy media (e.g. regional print newspapers)unless evidence is brought against it. With the Daily Mail, the downgrading decision was based on a massive body of evidence of uncorrected fabrication and plagiarism that went back a long time. It's not comparable. ] (]) 11:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Yes, but I notice that on the Reliable sources/Perennial sources noticeboard a comment is often made regarding bias, notability, sensationalism, propaganda as well as reliability. Isn't this the area to discuss this? ] (]) 15:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*::I would say no. Pollard heralded in the period of reduced reliability and presided over the initial accumulation of IPSO complaints. It is obviously harder to tell how the publication performed prior to this (the 2014 formation of IPSO), but there is no particular reason to consider that it was likely any better. The paper was first successfully sued for damages under Pollard in 2010, and Pollard is synonymous with other woes for the paper. Everything from 2009 onwards deserves a sharper lense. ] (]) 16:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::Your citation for "The paper was first successfully sued for damages under Pollard in 2010" actually refers to a blogpost he wrote for a different publication, The Spectator, in 2008, prior to his arrival at JC. I guess the point might still stand that this reflects poorly on him as a choice of editor (The Spectator is yellow on RSP) but not in the way being sued for damages would be. ] (]) 13:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Part of that is news especially, "old news", is assumed to have ever-limited shelf life for much of what Misplaced Pages does and wants to do. ] (]) 13:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*::The first draft of history, as they say. The problem is that for many Misplaced Pages topics that is all there ever is; and even for topics that scholars subsequently do write about, the scholarly sources often don't make it into Misplaced Pages as the article is full already. ] <small>]]</small> 14:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::The theory is that merging or updating or replacement should occur to render the long view (not sticking to a first draft). So that, the 'British left in the 1980s' is essentially a differently useful topic than the 'British left today'. -- ] (]) 14:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*::] Well the looking at periods may reflect that clearly RSP evaluated it as “option1” initially in 2021 and apparently re-confirmed that in 4 other questions of 2024 that just add cautions of a topic, so the question seems has it gone worse and if so then when. Personally, I could see the ownership change of 2023-2024 as an objective point where one might think that it’s basically a new paper, but the general thread seems re 2015 and if RSP has been wrong for 5 years+. Cheers ] (]) 19:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Whilst I take on the earlier advice that this RfC isn't a simple vote count, it would be highly challenging to assess it fairly due to the multitude of categories editors have inserted. To carry out the analysis fairly and avoid double or partial counting would require a model and qualification in set analysis! Do we need technical or independent assistance or agree to stick with simpler categories? Other RfCs must go through the same difficulties. My view is that there's no need for dates, although I could be convinced to give it a pass prior to Pollard, if only for my sanity!] (]) 18:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Well, the closer generally looks to see if there is a ] among the vagaries of participants differing expressions of thought, not any mathematical certainty. ] (]) 18:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)


Isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers which routinely publish such completely unreliable promo pieces as articles? ] (]) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
* I've placed notifications at the Journalism, Newspapers, Politics of the United Kingdom, and Israel Palestine Collaboration projects to seek further input. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
: The problem is that if you deprecated these newspapers, there'd be basically no usable Nigerian sources left, which hardly seems good in terms of attempting to fix Misplaced Pages's coverage biases. I do agree that it is standard practice at a lot of Nigerian newspapers to run effectively undisclosed promotional material, and it seems good to note this somewhere on RSP, but I think deprecating them outright would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. ] (]) 17:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I'll notify the WikiProject Judaism and Jewish history as well. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 19:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:: Here's a relevant BBC News story about the issue from 2015 . Apparently Nigerian newspapers also regularly suppress stories due to advertisier pressure. Another interesting story from 2020 which says {{tq| realised that their top quality journalism or influential columnists alone weren’t going to win the battle for eyeballs. Enter “viral content” and clickbait headlines. Press releases were repackaged as news stories, fact-checking and verification became redundant. Aanu Adeoye says, “the traditional gatekeepers of journalism (newspapers) in this country don’t give a hoot about the quality of what they’re churning out daily.” In a few years, stories from Nigeria’s top newspapers looked as hurriedly written as stories from blogs. It had become a game of who could break the news the fastest and who could churn out the most news. Nigerian traditional media beat the upstarts at their own game and occupied spots at the top of Nigeria’s most visited websites. But the true cost of this pyrrhic victory was quality control.}} If even mainstream Nigerian newspapers can't be trusted as factual sources then it's not clear what Nigerian sources can be trusted. ] (]) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*::No objection to additional notifications, the four I chose seemed to be the most generic matches to the issues involved. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::I really don’t get arguments like this one. How does it help Misplaced Pages to use unreliable sources from countries with more limited media landscapes? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I'll notify the WikiProject ] and ] as well. ] (]) 04:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::One of Misplaced Pages and the WMF's goals is to be "diverse" and to lessen systemic bias to western nations. Limiting coverage to Western liberal democracies will obviously prevent that. ] (]) 11:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::How does it help the English Misplaced Pages to eliminate practically all English-language sources for about 1 billion English-speakers? There's not an easy answer, here.--] (] &#124; ]) 14:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Much of the editor population vastly underestimates how much of our reader base comes from these regions of the globe.
:::Formally deprecating sources is a last resort for widely misused stuff like the ''Daily Mail'' (arguably part of the issue there was the perceived credibility of a mainstream Western paper subject to strict British libel laws). Simply following and enforcing existing P&G should address the issues adequately.
:::Furthermore, if one of these Nigerian papers were to come under new and improved management or ownership, I doubt WP would take notice with any real celerity.
:::] (]) 00:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:This is a problem with virtually every newspaper published in Nigeria and India. We cannot simply deprecate all news from two of the largest English speaking countries in the world. Or, we could, but we would get called very racist for doing so. ] (]) 17:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::There is nothing racist about applying basic standards of reliability to sources. If there are newspapers from Nigeria, or India, or the US, or ... which ''don't'' have these issues, then they will be treated as reliable sources. But we shouldn't be afraid to label a source as being unreliable just because someone might shout "racism" without good reason. Allowing unreliable sources just because we want to have more articles about a country is probably the worst thing we could do. ] (]) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think the damage to the encyclopedia that comes from effectively banning most coverage of two of the most populous countries in the world outweighs the benefit here. We are biased enough towards the West as is. I do not think there are major newspapers in either country without these practices. ] (]) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Its not bias to refuse to allow falsehoods, it is racist (to my mind) to give them exceptional status. ] (]) 13:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::If it results in a racially biased coverage how is that not racist? ] (]) 11:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Becasue we allow other African news media, its just that we do not allow, falsehoods. ] (]) 11:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It still has a disparate impact in a racially biased manner. ] (]) 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::No its not, it is based upon lack of truth, no one here has raised race once apart from you. ] (]) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Whatever the ''intention'' banning the entire media ecosystem of a developing country of 230 million people (plus India's 1.43 billion because we would ban them for the same reason) and making our encyclopedia irrelevant to large swathes of the non western world would have a biased ''outcome'' - doesn't matter the intention if it gets you the same result. Is that a sacrifice we are willing to accept? Because if so we need to stop pretending we have any interest in "combatting systemic bias". ] (]) 11:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, in my opinion it hasn’t been shown that reliability issues already aren’t being handled at in a nationally disparate manner. ] (]) 00:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::if these sources want to be accepted as reliable on Misplaced Pages, they should give up their practice of publishing paid news and writing puff pieces for anyone willing to pay. - ] (]) 07:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::If we are going to be banning every single news source of a country of 230 million, then we should be very aware we are doing it. And possibly throw out all the project's virtue signaling over countering systemic bias along with it, if we decide to go that route. ] (]) 10:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::We should allow perpetuation of misinformation on Misplaced Pages because it would be racist not to? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It would disproportionately affect the writing and sourcing on articles and topics on highly populated non-Western formerly colonized countries. That’s pretty obviously racist whether it is the right or wrong thing to do (] or something analogous). If we do it, we will get called racist for it. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it but it is reality. ] (]) 21:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It would affect them by prohibiting bad information from bad sources to be included. Sounds good. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Should we do the same and ban all news from India? ] (]) 11:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::We should ban all shitty sources. If that wipes out all of India’s news (I’d sure be surprised) then yes. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I can't see how it would be preferable to have our coverage of non-Western developing countries be dominated by propaganda, paid-promotion, tabloids, and un-fact-checked reports... ] (]) 20:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::No one is suggesting an either-or dichotomy. We should start by enforcing existing policies with regard to usage of these sources on a case by case basis. Mass deprecation was merely an impulsive suggestion someone made somewhere above, and would self-evidently be overkill unless all other options had been exhausted, which they haven’t. Cheers, ] (]) 00:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think this claim should be presumed true but not notable. The PVSA award is given out annually by any number of authorized NGOs to their own volunteers without any US government involvement, and it does come with a form letter in the president's name. Ononiwu apparently received hers from Innovate Africa Corp. There's no reason any US press to write up such a thing, and there doesn't seem to be a public database of honorees. Note however that Ononiwu should not have been eligible for the award because she's not a US citizen or permanent resident. I guess these newspapers went along with exaggerating the award's prestige, but I don't see it as a major problem for reliability on facts. ] (]) 19:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think it could be worth writing some guidance along the same lines as ], though I'm not sure it rises to the point of a general deprecation yet. ] report might also be helpful in developing such guidance. ] (] • ]) 20:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:As with WP:NEWSORGINDIA Nigerian news sources are full of undisclosed advertorials. It's a common practice, so editors need to be cautious with anything that uses promotional language. Their use for establishing notability needs to be seen in a similar light.
:Formally deprecating all Nigerian news media just isn't an option, in the same way deprecating all India news media with the same issue isn't an option. I would support changing the language of WP:NEWSORGINDIA, so it highlights the same issue in other countries not just India. I doubt this is an issue limited to those markets, and one that will likely become more of an issue everywhere with the difficulties newsedia currently face. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


:I recall at least one instance of them churning out AI generated puff pieces e.i and . Oddly enough Daily Times NG is listed as a "generally reliable" source for Nigerian topics at ].- ] (]) 07:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Continuing the discussion with ] from above: As ] already mentioned to you, ] explicitly points out that one of the four aspects of a source that can affect reliability is ''the publisher'' and its ''reputation''. An anonymous owner creates the impression of having something to hide. This has impacted the reputation of the Jewish Chronicle, as evidenced by the media reports linked above. --] <small>]]</small> 22:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:There's evidence that their promotional articles aren't reliable. But I've yet to see anyone present evidence here that other kinds of news from these sources are unreliable. Does anyone here have evidence of that? If not, I don't see why we'd deprecate these Nigerian news sources in their entirety, and instead I support Hemiauchenia's having added "Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability" to RS/P, perhaps adding something like "especially for promotional news articles." ] (]) 15:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:Yes. Anonymous can have no reputation. ] (]) 22:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:Since the PROMO issues seem to be localized particularly to biographies, perhaps we could have guidance similar to what we use at NCORP that calls for heightened Nigerian source scrutiny re: independence when it comes to BLPs. Deprecating them just for BLPs might also be an option. ] (]) 18:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::If such standard were applied to all sources, we'd have to mark as unreliable any source for whom we don't know all the board members. The sources you provided do list a number of people. A silent partner in any venture is not unusual or a sign of unreliability. {{tq|The Companies House listing for '''Jewish Chronicle Media Ltd''' also suggests no change in its status from a private limited company. Instead, the only change that appeared to have been made was to remove Gibb as a person with significant control, replaced by Jonathan Kandel, a former tax lawyer whose LinkedIn page says he now works as a senior consultant for the Starwood Capital Group, an international private investment firm.}}....{{tq|The Jewish Chronicle’s ownership structure, in which several key figures remain anonymous.... Since 2020, the only shareholder and director was Robbie Gibb, a former Downing Street comms director. But he was not bankrolling the loss-making paper, which according to its latest accounts required a loan of £3.5 million. In March, the paper announced it would be becoming a charitable trust. Gibb recently resigned as director, replaced by the Labour peer Lord Austin, Jonathan Kandel, a prominent lawyer, and Joseph Dweck, a senior rabbi. The shareholding was split up, too. But the people ultimately responsible for The JC’s debts remain unknown.}} ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:I refuse to comment on the instances that led to this proposal because they can happen on a platform with the format adopted by Misplaced Pages. However,&nbsp; I oppose the proposal to deprecate all Nigerian newspapers on English Misplaced Pages. Applying a blanket judgment based on issues with a few outlets among many is unjust and undermines Misplaced Pages's inclusivity. Nigeria's media landscape, shaped by its diverse population of over 500 languages and 300 ethnic groups, plays a critical role in democracy and accountability.
:::We should be concerned when sources say it is a concern. ] (]) 22:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:"While no media is flawless, treating all Nigerian newspapers as unreliable disregards their contributions and efforts to uphold global standards. Media reliability concerns exist worldwide, yet discussion of this nature is sensitive and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than through blanket exclusions. Adopting this precedent ensures fairness and avoids marginalizing voices from the Global South.
:This is, again, a misread of what it means by "publisher," it means the outlet, not the ownership of the outlet; ownership isn't mentioned. If you find an article that was published in the Jewish Chronicle, that was published by the Jewish Chronicle, and it will be reputable or not based on what we decide here, but nowhere is that extended to mean the reliability of the shareholders of the company. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:"I recommend individual evaluations of Nigerian newspapers, involving local expertise and ongoing monitoring, to maintain Misplaced Pages's mission of inclusivity and accuracy. A nuanced approach will preserve diversity and strengthen the platform's credibility."] (]) 02:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::No you don't understand publisher. The publication is the Jewish Chronicle, either it has a separate publisher or it does not. ] (]) 22:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::As I just said, it is called "Jewish Chronicle Media Ltd." The fact that we don't know all the shareholders is not relevant. I think we're going around in circles so let's agree to disagree. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::The ownership does matter. It has to matter to the publisher. But more specifically, it matters to the sources that have taken issue with it. As Jayen already pointed out, this problem was not identified by Wikipedians, it was identified by sources. ] (]) 22:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::The sources also say, {{tq|Not all of the contributors have resigned. “For me, this incident is not reason enough to give up on a paper that’s been a powerful and essential voice for our Jewish community for 180 years,” says Naomi Greenaway, deputy editor of the Telegraph Magazine and Jewish Chronicle columnist. “But I have a lot of respect for the journalists who have resigned, and I’m glad it’s triggered The Jewish Chronicle to interrogate their editing processes. The shame is that for a paper that does give a platform to those on all sides of the political spectrum, these resignations will ironically mean it loses that balance on the Left. “From my experience, they are a tiny team, juggling a huge amount on a shoestring budget and generally the calibre of content punches way above what would be expected from their resources. But they’ve dropped the ball and they know they have massive lessons to learn from it.”....“The @JewishChron has cut all ties with the freelancer in question and his work has now been removed from our website. Readers can be assured that stronger internal procedures are being implemented.}} ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I don't know what you are responding to. That does not address publisher. It also continues a vagueness, apparently she, an editor, has no idea what went on and what the fixes are or what lessons are learned. ] (]) 22:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The question at hand is whether the publisher, Jewish Chronicle Media Ltd, and its associated publication, have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That quote substantiates that in fact, its reputation may still be intact, though that is for editors here to determine. As to whether the company contains, among the named individuals, some anonymous individuals AFAIK is not something discussed anywhere in wiki-policy. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::No. It does not. She is not a reliable source for her own employer in such a matter. ] (]) 22:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::It ''had'' a reputation for fact-checking, up until circa 2009, when Pollard took over, it was bankrupted by libel cases, and then taken over. The JC of today is no longer the JC of yester-century, but the shell of a long-cherished brand, and the point of this RFC is to make that very distinction in terms of source quality. ] (]) 04:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Has any RS reported it was bankrupted by its four libel cases or was this speculation? Lot of newspapers suffered financially in the same period, as lots of the RS commentary on this case notes. ] (]) 13:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)


Yes banning falsehoods is a sacrifice I am willing to make, be they from White people black people, or yellow people. As I said about Fiox and the Daily Myth, if you do not want to be accused of telling lies, there is a simpler solution, do not tell them. This is my last response here with a firm '''not reliable'''. Prove me wrong and I will change my mind, but it has to be proof and not emotive appeals to (so-called) fairness. ] (]) 11:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
An interesting quote from ], part of the consortium that acquired ''The Jewish Chronicle'' in 2020, this weekend in '']''. Ware told ''The Times'':
:{{tq|1=or yellow people}}<br>Uhhh.... ] (]) 18:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
* ''"I, and some others, repeatedly asked to be told who the new funders were. We were told that wouldn’t be possible. I was assured that they were politically mainstream and I trusted those assurances because I trusted who gave them. I didn’t want the paper to fold so I allowed my name to be used, having been told it would help. I had zero managerial, financial or editorial influence, control or input, nor ever have had. It was just a name."''
::Obviously meant as in "persons of any color, including colors in which persons don’t exist" and not a reference to the antique Western epithet for East Asians <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Ware stopped writing for ''The Jewish Chronicle'' in February 2024, due to concerns over the publication's new editorial line under Wallis Simons, and defected to the '']''. --] <small>]]</small> 13:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
:::It's not "obvious", even to those of us who have interacted with Slatersteven enough to presume he wasn't intending to use a racial epithet. ] (]) 20:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:That's indeed a damning quote, but note his resignation is not due to reliability issues just editorial political position: {{tq|“To be frank, I became unhappy with the JC’s political drift. Whilst it was doing new and important stuff on extremism, I felt too often it glossed over the fragmentation of Israeli society, which is accelerating and which really matters to the Jewish community here and should matter everywhere. It’s a very big and developing story.”}} ] (]) 13:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
::The anonymous consortium member quoted a few months ago – who said some remarkably similar things to what Ware has now been saying on the record to ''The Times'' – also declared the JC's editor was "behaving like a political activist, not a journalist", especially in social media, and that coverage of Israel had become a case of "my country, right or wrong".
::This may or may not have been a different member of the consortium – after all, the sources are saying several of its members eventually became uneasy about their involvement – but it is clear that even within the consortium that was ostensibly owning and running the JC, concerns arose whether the JC was about propaganda or journalism.
::], another consortium member, also confirmed to ''The Times'' that he has had no involvement whatsoever in any oversight structures for the JC. ] <small>]]</small> 16:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Lee Harpin, a former , left the paper in 2021 and a few days ago published a scathing piece about on his Substack. Alan Rusbridger Harpin as saying that after the new owners took over, he was told they wanted more views "well to the right of the Tory party". --] <small>]]</small> 10:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)


I'm against this. Nigerian sources, like all sources, are entitled to be evaluated one by one. ] (]) 21:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''':A few days ago we seemed to be converging on a general consensus (unreliable on certain subjects after a certain date). However, since then the following editors ], ], ], ] have given the JC a clean bill of health. Their arguments are based on one or more of the following opinions: the JC has a long standing service to a minority (what possible relevance is that to post 2010/15 reliability?), unknown ownership and funding isn't as bad as state funding (yet like the BBC, ] claims to be independent and is only partially funded by it's government), the IPSO rulings don't look that bad , by focussing on the latest scandal, and ignoring ].
===Arbitrary break (Nigerian newspapers)===
*falsely accusing a peace activist for harbouring suicide bombers
I've gone ahead and created a new section covering Nigerian news organisations at RSP ]. It's a bit stubby at the moment but it's at least a start. ] (]) 00:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*disclosing details a family members without good reason
*reporting false links to terrorist activity
*making untrue allegations about their own regulator, the IPSO. Note the IPSO considered the JCs conduct during their investigation “unacceptable”.
*falsely accusing a councillor of a) antisemitic comments, b) launching a vicious protest & c) interfering with a vote
*falsely accusing someone of a conspiracy to intimidate, threaten or harass Jewish activists in a meeting, when he wasn't even present.
*falsely accusing a country of repeatedly vowing to wipe Jews off the face of the earth
*falsely accusing a Rabbi of holocaust denial when they clearly knew in advance this wasn't true.
:I would be interested to hear a response, particularly if they think these legal cases aren't that bad? ] (]) 11:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::I haven't looked into all of these claims, some seem like fair concerns, but a few points -
::* Some it just seems like matters of opinion, like Suarez who takes issue with being called a "Israel hate author" (other sources have made similar claims), or claims about antisemitic comments. At best they show JC is ].
::* Publishing info about family members doesn't relate to reliability.
::* {{tq|reporting false links to terrorist activity}} doesn't seem accurate, they stated that ] was listed by the US as a ], which is factually accurate (albeit unbalanced without mentioning Interpal's denial).
::We have to keep in mind that JC voluntarily submits to IPSO regulation, which provides a highly accessible venue for complaints, giving them leverage to extract apologies or small payouts. Other outlets like ''The Guardian'' opt out of IPSO regulation, so claims about libel have to go to real court, which is much less accessible and which involves a much stricter legal standard of libel.
::JC also receives more scrutiny than most sources due to its controversial positions. If AP or Reuters made a mistake like writing {{tq|banned}} rather than {{tq|rejected}}, in an otherwise uncontroversial report, we'd never hear about it because noone would care. I'm not convinced that JC makes more factual errors than most news outlets. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 17:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq|However, since then the following editors...The Kip...have given the JC a clean bill of health.}}
::I voted virtually the exact same way as ], ], ], ], and ] (and not far off from ] and ]), which was that it was reliable up to a certain point (hence why full-scale deprecation would be a problem) and not so reliable afterwards, especially for ARBPIA. That is very clearly ''not'' option 1 akin to the others listed. What ''in the world'' do you mean by I've "given it a clean bill of health??" ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 03:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::@], forgot to ping in initial response. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 03:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Fair enough, not option 1 across the board for you, but that brings me back to how difficult it will be for an assessor to make a judgement with all the exceptions to this and that. I also believe that Option 2 could be used with almost any publication on non-political issues. However, it's mainly geopolitics and national politics which dominates references to the JC, and is the motivation behind many of the other controversies. Typically editors are advised to find other sources where they exist in such cases. ] (]) 08:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::@], I primarily responded to the latest Eylon Perry debacle and the IPSO rulings since these were the main arguments in the ''Background'' section. I'll review the links you've shared and respond here (and possibly amend my !vote). ]<sub>]</sub> 07:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::@], I've looked at the lawsuits and rulings section of the wikipedia article. First of all, as you probably know England has rather peculiar ] which put the burden of proof on the defendant and (imho) have been abused by a lot of unsavoury characters. Whatever you think about the merits of this law, this means that the same article would not necessarily be considered libelous if it were published elsewhere where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
:::Second, most of the section and most of your examples have to do with IPSO rulings which is again, the system working as it should resulting in the newspaper removing content (amongst other remedies). I agree that they published a number of articles that turned out to be incorrect but since they took appropriate measures following the decision of the regulator, I don't think we need to downgrade them. This definitely confirms their bias, but that's hardly news for anyone here.
:::Regarding some of the specific examples you've mentioned.
:::* Publishing {{tquote|details of the family members of the defendant without valid justification}} has no bearing on the reliability.
:::* {{tquote|falsely accusing a country of repeatedly vowing to wipe Jews off the face of the earth}} - it was in an opinion column which we would not use for statements of fact per ]
:::* {{tquote|reporting false links to terrorist activity}} - if you're referring to ] then it's not obviously false. In spite of the court ruling in the UK this organisation seems to be still designated as a terrorist organisation by the US, Australia and Canada.
:::]<sub>]</sub> 09:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
* by ] is concerning: "{{tq|Therefore, at the time of publication, the allegations against the complainant remained unproven. By reporting these allegations as fact, rather than identifying them as unproven claims made by multiple sources, the articles failed to distinguish between comment, conjecture, and fact}}". There are about 12 other complaints of inaccuracy in which IPSO ruled against JC.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 23:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
The NYT has joined in the reporting round. ] (]) 08:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks. From the NYT article: "To Israeli national security journalists, the reports bore the hallmarks of a ''disinformation campaign'' by sources in the Israeli government. Such stories, one said, are often placed in friendly publications outside Israel ''because their reporters and editors are less likely to subject them to intense vetting''." (My emphases.)
:The NYT report also mentions that the fabrications stayed up even after the Israeli Defense Forces had debunked them. They were only retracted after columnists quit. ] <small>]]</small> 09:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


:See ]. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 20:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
* If we're going to keep pigeonholing publications into a single category, then I think we need to make space for "Biased but doesn't have a history of making things up, so still reliable within the limits of ]" and possibly "Unfortunate incident". For example, ] fabricated a lot of articles at ''The New York Times'', and yet it's still RSP "green". One might wonder why a mass retraction at a general-audience newspaper resulted in no change, but a seemingly similar mass retraction at a Jewish newspaper is treated differently. ] (]) 22:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
::Sure, but this is by Nigerian editors who ranking Nigerian sources relative to each other. This is different from the standards that non-Nigerian Misplaced Pages editors have for sources. There are serious issues with quality of Nigerian media across the board, as elaborated on in this article: . It's definitely useful to tell the relative quality of Nigerian sources though. ] (]) 20:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Seconded ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
:::From direct experience, I have not observed Nigerian editors to be somehow inferior to non-Nigerian editors. They’ve been especially insightful in the several Nigeria-related AfDs I’ve participated in. I invite you to go through the more experienced Nigerian editors’ edit histories and see for yourself. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*:The difference lies in the sensational nature of the fabrications and their political context, the fact that a very obviously doctored résumé was accepted, the paper's opaque ownership, the wholly inadequate, non-transparent response of the editor to the affair, the walkouts of major, longstanding contributors, and the unanimous verdict of the mainstream press that journalistic standards at the Jewish Chronicle have severely declined. ] <small>]]</small> 23:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm not saying that their judgment is poor or that Nigerian editors are inferior in any way, but that there are issues with Nigerian press across the board, such as low press freedom that is very different from say, news sources in Western Europe and North America, which should be kept in mind with evaluating their content. ] (]) 21:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I would say that ''all'' sources are biased, although some more intensely so. Israel/Palestine sources are particularly susceptible to bias, it seems, meaning there is really no perfect source on the conflict. There has been a problem with discussions on this noticeboard of editors !voting for unreliability for sources perceived as pro-Israel (Jerusalem Post, JC) ''and'' as anti-Israel (al-Jazeera) simply because of bias ("they're Zionists" or "they're pro-Hamas"). We really need to keep bias out of the conversation. (The best sources might be those perceived as biased against them by both sides...) ] (]) 16:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:I encourage you to engage with folks at ] as you develop guidance on Nigerian media. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 21:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*:It is your claim that appears false. They are not the same. (Nor does it make sense to believe each reputation of each publication would be exactly the same, no matter what.) Here, the JC has seemingly failed in multiple ways, and it is both the scandal which brought some of it to light, and it is their failures and continuing failures in how they have handled it which makes them doubted across RS (see also, lie by omission). They have failed to even do the job of deeply reporting the matter, and not disciplining editors. For example, among other things this scandal has highlighted that the new post-almost-closure editor is a novelist (see generally, fiction), and it gets worse from there for the JC's seeming reputation. Also, can anyone even begin to draw a comparison, which does not even consider something like ability/resource to do a job.-- ] (]) 18:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::I second this. I conversion about Nigeria WP should not be done without Nigerians editors involvement. Just because you found something wrong in some sources that doesn’t give you the right to assume all is bad. I can literally give you examples of where , in 2024! So let’s listen to these editors as they are more familiar with these sources. ] (]) 07:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::: I'm unsure if has been mentioned. In 2014 the JC claimed that a PSC Director, had said that demonstrations against the Gaza conflict “had been used by people to ‘peddle hatred and intolerance’ towards Jews”. The Chronicle published the following correction: “Ms Colborne had not said that. In fact, what she had said was: “The Palestine Solidarity Campaign opposes all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, and racism directed against Palestinians whether living in the West Bank and Jerusalem, or as citizens of Israel.”” Therefore, there are five publicised pre-2015 cases against the JC, in 1968, 2009, 2012 and two in 2014. ] (]) 13:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
"Does the Jewish Chronicle really matter, though? Nobody reads it anymore – it circulates just under 16,000 print copies, distributing around half of them for free – hence its near-death experience in 2020." ] (]) 13:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::Rivkah Brown is a commissioning editor and reporter for ], which for those familiar would indicate her levels of reliaiblity and bias. She gives Pollard period (2008+) for increasingly extreme bias ("fanatical cheerleader"), Wallis Simon period (2021+) for unreliability. ] (]) 16:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)


:Reliable sources can churn out a lot of rubbish once in a while. No matter what anyone says, the likes of Vanguard, Guardian, Daily Times, Punch, Daily Independent, The Sun, etc, would always be notable relating to general issues about Nigeria. Some weeks back, a state in Nigeria held their governorship election. These media houses in question were the source of verified information about the election. When a political appointment is made by the president, it is the same media houses that Misplaced Pages editors would use to establish the claim. If we make them unreliable, it means we are putting an end to Nigerian contents on English Misplaced Pages. These media houses will dish out promotional materials whenever they want and we can do nothing about it (it is business for them). All we can do as Wikipedians is to speedy norminate articles for deletion if they are not notable to be on the Wiki. The major issue we are having now is a result of a loophole in the notability criteria. GNG should not be used '''ALONE''' to establish notability. ] (]) 10:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:In March 2022, a Professor of communications at the University of Westminster and a member of the British Journalism Review editorial board, wrote scathingly about the quality of the JCs journalism and the inability or unwillingness of the IPSO to effectively regulate it. ] (]) 10:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::If these media houses(e.g The Daily Times) are churning out AI generated puff pieces then we should indeed add a cautionary clause in the guideline that care must be taken when using these sources to establish notability, especially at venues such as AfD. - ] (]) 12:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::Barnett would support 2018 as turning point. Beware though of JC as collateral damage in opinion pieces attacking IPSO, which is one of Barnett's main causes. ] (]) 16:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:GNG still works. The sources have to be independent. What this means is that in the case of Nigerian media, it's tricky but necessary to try and determine if a particular report is independent of the subject.--] (] &#124; ]) 11:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: I can't find any explicit mention of him agreeing to 2018 as being a 'turning point'. However, he did say "Since 2018, it has been found by IPSO’s complaints committee – which is notoriously reluctant to find fault with member publications – to have breached the Editors’ Code 33 times. Even worse, over the same period it has admitted and paid damages for no fewer than four serious libels."
:Judging articles on a case-by-case basis is something we (Nigerian editors) are already doing and believe it or not, we’re doing a damn good job at it. Deprecating these sources means that articles on Nigerian topics would be deleted in batches——thousands, if I might add——and this doesn’t necessarily reflect the systemic bias we are supposed to be fighting.
:::] (]) 10:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:There are tells that give off a sponsored/paid article and every Nigerian editor in good standing already knows this and by this, I vehemently disagree with Hemiauchenia that Nigerian editors are not able to distinguish a reliable source from an unreliable source.
::::look at the context of that quote: “Over the last few years, for whatever reason, the JC appears to have suffered a catastrophic failure of journalistic standards which has short-changed its readers, damaged the victims of its serial inaccuracies, and left its reputation in tatters... The JC’s charge sheet is long and depressing. Since 2018, it has been found…” In other words: It HAD a good reputation; that reputation is in tatters after a series of failures over the last few years; the charge sheet starts in 2018. ] (]) 20:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:Also, I think sometimes, what we consider as “poor journalism” (in the Western standard) are just Nigerian journalist (correctly) using ] to write articles that it seems like it is promo. This does not mean that undisclosed paid journalism does not happen but sometimes, we confuse the two. So, this is me opposing any form deprecations as this will have unintended consequences. Best, ] 12:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::If this is something Nigerian editors are already doing then what's wrong in codifying this on RSP? Indian sources engage in same practice and we have ] that tells users what to look for in order to discount press releases and undisclosed sponsored content when evaluating notability, nothing wrong with having one for the Nigerian media. - ] (]) 12:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@], uhm, if Indian editors did so, someone took the liberty of doing it for us (]): ]; no one is opposing it. Best, ] 16:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


It is true that Nigerian news outlet like their Western counterparts (RSBIAS?) do publish opinions, promotional and advertorials like reliable news without explicitly marking them as much. In fact, this has long history in and it is mostly associated with UPE editors who want to create contents for their gain.
*'''Comment'''. I am very sympathetic to a point by {{u|Unbandito}} made down the page, although I'm not sure it's been how this board has worked for some years: {{tq|I believe these discussions are supposed to take place in the context of a content dispute, so can you provide an example of where Palestine Chronicle is used on Misplaced Pages in a way that is misleading or violates our core principles?}} In this discussion of the Jewish Chronicle, not one editor has mentioned an instance of JC being used on Misplaced Pages in a way that is misleading or violates our core principles (and in fact the evidence being pointed to by option 3 voters focuses on (a) the IPSO issues in a bunch of articles that have all been fully corrected, and (b) the Elon Perry pieces which have all been removed, so it would be pretty impossible for these to be used improperly on WP). ] (]) 09:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
*:There's no requirement for a RfC to come from a content dispute. Challenging the reliability of a source based on change of ownership, change of editorial policy (e.g. using AI, which some previously reliable sources have been doing) etc. is appropriate. ] (]) 16:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)


Yet, deprecating Nigerian sources is not the solution. It will definitely do more harm than good to the visibility of the most populous black nation on earth. This means that we would have no reliable source to either curate or create contents. This is just an indirect way of saying that Nigerian content is no longer acceptable on English Misplaced Pages. This is because reliable sources are the backbone of contents creation.
*'''Comment'''. I agree with Andromedean and others that the JC has proven itself to be unreliable, and should be deprecated as a source. This true historically, and the latest scandal and the lack of a proper response (merely getting rid of the writer and pretending it was just a minor slip up and moving on) definitively confirms its lack of editorial standards, and that this is systemic with the publication, and not incidental. This marks a qualitative difference between the JC and another outlet like the NYT or Guardian publishing a plagiarist or fantasist: They don't have a long record of this, and when this does happen, it is never because they wrote things that were sought out and published for being in accordance with the editorial political positions of said outlets. Both are the case with the JC, so I support deprecating it as a source. ] (]) 11:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Prior to this discussion, we have been sending a lot of articles with promotional sources to ]. This is what we can do from our end. We can neither stop people creating them nor stop the media from doing their business.


Also, there is currently a section at ] tagged ] notifying reviewers and editors of caution in dealing with Nigeria sources. This alongside thorough analysis of Nigerian sources should drastically reduce the promotional articles and create a better future for Nigerian contents on the English Misplaced Pages.] (]) 14:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Are people truly arguing that RSP is consistently wrong? Clearly RSP rated JC as green or “option 1” in 2021, and in 4 prior discussions of 2024. The concern timing this year matches both a change in ownership 2023-2024, and *ahem* a hot war in Palestine which I have seen in WP edit-warring / POV pushing at other articles. So unless one argues that RSP failed all the prior times, I’m inclined to think JC (a) remains green since the specific concerns match the war topic that was already added is enough, or (b) the quality shift in 2024 is the concern and articles since 2023 get an added note to a still-green JC listing. Cheers ] (]) 19:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:We cannot disregard Nigerian sources entirely. Yes, there are issues with some outlets, such as publishing promotional content or reworded press releases, but this isn’t unique to Nigeria. Even in countries with established media systems, there are sources that can’t always be trusted. The solution isn’t to write off all Nigerian sources but to evaluate them individually. Some articles might be biased or promotional, and we can avoid those. However, there are also credible reports and investigative pieces from Nigerian media that meet our standards. By treating each source on a case-by-case basis, we strike a balance, avoiding systemic bias while ensuring the content we use is reliable. A blanket approach would only create more gaps in coverage, which isn’t what we want for Misplaced Pages. And as {{u|Reading Beans}} mentioned, we Nigerian editors are already doing a good work judging sources on a case-by-case basis. ''''']''''' ] 17:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:To be clear, in 2021, there was 'no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians.' ''Edit: Based on the links below, after eliminating sock puppets & those not eligible, those in favour of the JC being generally reliable became 11/23, against 11/23 saying it was generally unreliable or outright publishes false material and should never be used.'' However the way subject areas and timescales are divided up is complex, and the quality of arguments and evidence need to be weighted. It must be enormously difficult for an uninvolved assessor to evaluate RFCs. I note some news sources are given two independent ratings to simplify matters. Perhaps that's an option here? However, it's still worrying that a small paper with such a large catalogue of IPSO cases and legal disputes is given the benefit of the doubt in less controversial areas, or dates before regulation was tightened up (ever so slightly). Editors opinions change as regulators highlight issues which were previously unknown, and presumably Misplaced Pages changes as it attracts a more diverse international readership. ] (]) 10:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
], the only keep argument is based on just the above "so you want to dismiss all Nigerian sources?". This is why they should not be acceptable because content is being created (and defended) using dubious sources (on the very grounds those sources are being defended here, false allegations of racism or false balance). ] (]) 17:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::The 2021 RFC was disrupted by 6 socks and the close had to be rewritten. The fact there were so many other discussions only indicates a slow boil, with evidence mounting at each stage, arguably an RFC could have been run much earlier than this. ] (]) 11:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
** The IPSO apparently is not concerned, it seems the opinion that the complaints are a lot is just what is voiced by . I’m thinking likely some sensationalising there as natural and by the mention of islamophobia they may have their own bias, plus think that likely *any* paper covering either side can easily have dozens of complaints filed so I still think existing green with caution note about topic of palestinian war is appropriate and there has not been evidence of anything else needed. Cheers ] (]) 14:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)


:Such a statement from a suspected UPE with limited knowledge around ] and ] shouldn't hold water let alone be used as a basis or argument for the deprecation of an sources of information. The volunteer are doing enormous tasks to ensure content that doesn't meet the English Misplaced Pages standard is nominated for deletion. ] (]) 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:If I am looking at the discussions correctly, the first two discussion predate RSP's creation in 2018, the ] which lead to most of the current text at ], and the ]. --] (]) 11:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|Slatersteven}}, like already stated above, every sources presented in an AfD discussion is analysed carefully. FYI, majority of !delete votes there are Nigerian editors and the only keep !vote there being the paid creator (whom I suspect of UPE). If you can get a deletion discussion where a non-notable article was kept and defend with unreliable sources, I would appreciate it. Like the examples shown, the unreliable of the published articles were always pointed out and the articles were (correctly) deleted. Best, ] 19:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Thank you for the link to the fourth discussion, May this year, which I had totally forgotten about and which rehearsed many of the issues we're discussing now. Some useful information there about the IPSO complaints, use by others, and other issues. (Although of course lots of irrelevance to wade through too.) ] (]) 12:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::No. No. No. my friend, @], I have told you ever and anon that this editor is not into UPE. So STOP THE SUSPICION and even voicing it out. It is affecting the reviewing of my articles. It is a blessing in disguise that my article brought this intense discussion. My take away from here is the guide being created for Nigerian sources and the caution I will employ in future creations. ] (]) 18:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:What I'm seeing in that AfD, and in the others mentioned that all ended in deletion, is editors using their own good judgement to deal with this issue. Hopefully the new advice at NEWSORGNIGERIA will help encourage other editors to use the same caution. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:], if someone argues "so you want to dismiss all Nigerian sources?", the response should be "no, we don't. We're rejecting notability based on these specific Nigerian articles, because (a) the articles being used to assert notability all focus on a single "event," (b) the articles are extremely similar and might have been content farmed, especially since they seem overly promotional (e.g., it's not a "prestigous" award, it's solely based on number of hours volunteered and being nominated by a relevant organization), and (c) US government info about the award makes it clear that she's not eligible for that award (as she's not a US citizen or permanent resident), which means that ''these'' articles aren't reliable for ''this'' content. But the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter. Do ''you'' have evidence of the latter? ] (]) 23:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Which is what Im did say, more than once. To me met with stonewalling "but that's racism" comments (and still am), at which point if the best argument you have is emotive, I have to assume you have no others, thus Im assume its an accepted problem with them. And as this is about "reputation for fact-checking" and the best argument is "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism"...well I have to assume they dio not have said reputation.] (]) 10:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Sorry, but I'm not sure what the referent of "them" is in "Im assume its an accepted problem with them."
:::As for the rest, my argument ''isn't'' "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism." My argument is "the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable ''doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable''. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter. Do '''you''' have evidence of the latter?" You still haven't presented any evidence that articles from Nigerian news media are ''generally'' unreliable. Either you have evidence for that or you don't. ] (]) 14:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::] ]. ] (]) 11:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Did you actually read those articles? Neither one makes any mention of any of the Nigerian news outlets identified in the OP. The BBC piece is about ''new'' websites "established around the time of Nigeria's general elections in February 2023." The SSRC piece is about "the spread of disinformation and ''how social media has only furthered this spread'' by providing new, fast-moving arenas for confirming and amplifying such false information" in Nigeria, including uptake by traditional news media, while noting that "The increasing threat to democratic institutions posed by disinformation is a ''global phenomenon''." ] (]) 14:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Vangaurd and The nation ]. ] (]) 14:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::"This story is part of a series by the BBC on disinformation and fake news - ''a global problem'' challenging the way we share information and perceive the world around us," where this particular article focused on the "spread of fake news in Africa" by looking at how five false stories — one each from five African countries, including Nigeria — was picked up by some news media in those countries. Yes, "The Nation and the Vanguard, both published stories with a very similar theme" to one of those false stories, but absolutely nothing in the BBC article suggests that Nigerian news media are ''generally unreliable''. Is there any country globally where the BBC couldn't write an analogous report? For example, another BBC in this series is "How President Trump took 'fake news' into the mainstream." ] (]) 14:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::You have it in reverse, we judge a source on its reputation for fact-checking, I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not, it down to you to show they do, We do not judge sources based upon how local editors will police pagers, but on the sources alone. ] (]) 13:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tq|I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not ]}} No, you haven't. Nothing you cited says anything about their reputation or suggests that they're ''generally unreliable''. If you believe that something you cited provided evidence of ''general unreliability'', please quote what you have in mind. {{tq|it down to you to show they do}} I haven't claimed that they have a reputation for fact-checking, so I have no burden to prove that they do (and more generally, if you want me to show something that I've said is true, just quote it, so we're both clear about the claim in question). What I said is (again): "the fact that ''these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable'' doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are ''generally unreliable''. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter." Fram proposed "to formally deprecate these newspapers," and you responded with "a firm '''not reliable'''." Since you're claiming that they're ''generally unreliable'', you have a burden to show that they're ''generally unreliable''. ] (]) 14:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I finally dug up an old AfD comment I'd made after reading a bunch of literature on Nigerian sources:{{pb}}Nigerian newspapers in particular are well known to&nbsp;&nbsp;on paid advertising.&nbsp;{{tq|Professor Omenugha describes a similar trend in the print media: “In the newspapers, the so called specialised pages of the property, IT and computer businesses and finance pages are prime examples of commercialised spaces. The point is that no attempt is made to let the audience or readers know that these spaces are paid for and they end up holding them as sacred as they would news”.}}&nbsp;{{tq|Some journalists also work as paid consultants to politicians and businesses thus threatening professionalism. AIT’s Amarere says it is demeaning to journalism as “some of the concerned journalists now work for companies through which they obtain jobs. They cover their track by saying they are staff of this or that company and run offices outside the newsroom. In this situation it is difficult to balance profession with commercial interest”.}}&nbsp;"Awards" issued by media are also considered corrupt.&nbsp;{{tq|“The awards are not free, they are for money and anything that comes with a prize has implications”, says Olumide Adeyinka-Fusika, a lawyer. “If a newspaper names a bank as the best bank of the year and the bank is later indicted for corruption, that newspaper will not be willing to publish the story because that will be like passing a vote of no confidence on their own judgement”.}} ] (]) 00:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Here are some other references: {{pb}}{{tq|For example, such practices as pack journalism by beat associations of journalists which operate like cartels, the payment of protection fees by reputation managers of institutions, the granting of awards of dubious credibility to non deserving individuals and organisations are some of the ways in which corruption manifests in the media.}}{{pb}}{{pb}}{{tq|Even though over 64 % of those sampled believed that acceptance of any form of gratifications was unethical, over 75 % of the<br>journalists engage in corrupt practices with impunity. More than half of the 18 media outfits covered by the study are indifferent to certain identified corrupt practices in their organizations.}}{{pb}}{{pb}}{{tq|Adewale (2008), in his "The Rot in Nigerian Journalism Is Much Deeper Than We Thought" cited a controversial statement by Graham Greene to back up his position thus: "A petty reason perhaps why novelists more and more try to keep a distance from journalists is that novelists are trying to write the truth and journalists are trying to write fiction". This embarrassing irony aptly describes the state of Nigerian journalism and journalists in particular.}}{{pb}}{{pb}}{{tq|In its mildest form, press releases are published almost verbatim. Reporters either have an agreement with the government media men and are ‘settled’ with money, or threatened they will not be paid what is known as ‘qua”, or ‘mobilisation”. Some papers don’t pay salaries, and journalists have to make what they can on commission. In its more malevolent form, journalists are all but owned by powerful men. Newspapers have a straight conflict of interest, they are financially reliant on political adverts, full-page colour hagiographies to governors and other political players. Last year, one paper alone took an estimated £270,000 in advertisements on one edition from supporters of former military ruler Ibrahim Babangida, celebrating his birthday.}} ] (]) 01:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I think we need something similar to ] for Nigerian media as well. - ] (]) 03:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::@] the "Corruption in the Nigerian media: the brown envelope syndrome" is an auto-expiring link that doesn't let anyone else use it. Could you provide a better link/where you found the original link? ] (]) 18:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Clicking the link from should work. ] (]) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::All seriousness aside, {{tq|In its more malevolent form, journalists are all but owned by powerful men}} - those powerful men should just buy the newspaper or hell even a whole media empire to rebroadcast their personal opinions. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:I was pointed to this discussion by @] after a similar discussion when I ran across ]. It does seem like much of Nigerian media simply writes whatever the highest bidder is willing to pay for. It seems like these sources should simply be banned except in cases where it is clear that the article was not purchased. ]] 00:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
{{ctop|unhelpful ChatGPT wall of text}}
::::::::My humble take and summary from these deep debates:
::::::::'''Analysis of Nigerian Newspapers as Sources for Misplaced Pages Articles'''
::::::::The reliability of Nigerian newspapers as sources for Misplaced Pages articles—particularly in Biographies of Living People (BLPs)—has ignited considerable debate within the Misplaced Pages editing community. A complex interplay of skepticism regarding the veracity of these sources and the recognition of systemic biases in coverage dynamics has led to high-stakes discussions. This report delves into the characteristics of Nigerian newspapers that contribute to their portrayal as unreliable, as well as those that underscore their potential value as information sources, and the broader implications for Misplaced Pages's commitment to inclusivity and diverse representation.
::::::::'''Characteristics Leading to Distrust'''
::::::::Nigerian newspapers often face criticism for their propensity to publish promotional content, undisclosed advertorials, and sensibly sensationalized reporting. This trend raises significant concerns regarding the integrity of journalism in the country. A primary issue is the commercial influence on editorial decisions, wherein advertising dollars can lead to the suppression of unfavorable stories or the propagation of misleading information to satisfy financial backers.
::::::::High-profile examples, such as the case of a female personality—where numerous Nigerian news outlets reported unverified claims regarding an award from America—underscored the media’s failure to provide corroborative sources from outside Nigeria. Such instances not only reveal a troubling trend toward questionable journalism but also invite closer scrutiny of the claims made by various outlets.
::::::::
::::::::The environment fostered by these publications has seen a shift toward prioritizing clickable, viral content over factual reporting. This prioritization can obscure quality journalism and make it increasingly difficult for both editors and readers to discern credible information from misleading narratives. Such practices contribute significantly to the stigma that Nigerian newspapers face in the eyes of the Misplaced Pages community.
::::::::'''Reliability in Context'''
::::::::While there exists a notable trend of unreliable reporting among many Nigerian newspapers, it is critical to contextualize this within the broader media landscape of Nigeria. Not all publications succumb to dubious practices; several outlets continue to uphold high journalistic standards, successfully publishing well-researched investigative reports and reliable coverage of current events. For instance, reputable newspapers often play an essential role in reporting on significant political developments, including elections, thereby contributing positively to public discourse.
::::::::From the perspective of Misplaced Pages's guidelines for sourcing (specifically WP:RSNP), engaging in a case-by-case assessment of sources is pivotal. This approach emphasizes the necessity for editors well-versed in the Nigerian media landscape to identify which sources maintain their integrity and contribute substantively to Misplaced Pages’s mission. A blanket rejection or deprecation of all Nigerian sources would, therefore, overlook the valuable contributions that some publications make, ultimately hampering the representation of Nigerian voices in global discourse.
::::::::'''Recommendations for Misplaced Pages Editors'''
::::::::1. '''Develop Specific Guidelines''': Create detailed guidelines akin to those for other regions, such as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. This document should articulate the acceptable use of Nigerian sources while pinpointing common issues like promotional materials and the nature of reporting practices. Such clarity will assist editors in evaluating sources effectively.
::::::::2. '''Engage Local Expertise:''' Encourage the involvement of Nigerian editors in determining the reliability of local sources. Their unique insights can significantly enhance the community's understanding of the nuances of language and reporting styles prevalent in Nigeria.
::::::::3. '''Enforce Critical Scrutiny''': Emphasize the importance of thorough evaluations of articles from Nigerian newspapers, particularly regarding BLPs. Editors and reviewers should be trained to recognize promotional language and ensure the use of independent, verifiable sources.
::::::::4. '''Adapt to Changes in Media Landscape''': Continuously monitor and research the evolving landscape of Nigerian media, documenting improvements in journalistic integrity and the emergence of new, credible news organizations. This ongoing reassessment will allow Misplaced Pages policies regarding sourcing to adapt in line with current practices.
:::::::: 5. '''Maintain a Balance in Coverage''': While it is essential to prioritize accurate information and avoid systemic bias, it is equally crucial to reflect the diverse perspectives from non-Western countries. Dismissing all Nigerian sources could marginalize important voices, undermining Misplaced Pages's mission of being a comprehensive encyclopedia.
::::::::Finally, the integration of Nigerian newspapers into Misplaced Pages remains a multifaceted challenge that requires a balanced approach acknowledging both their shortcomings and their capacity for delivering credible information. By applying informed scrutiny and developing nuanced guidelines, Misplaced Pages can adeptly navigate the complexities involved in sourcing from Nigerian media while committing to enhancing its inclusivity and representation in global knowledge sharing. ] (]) 18:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::That's not "your humble take", that's a bloated ChatGPT-generated regurgitation of this discussion. ] (]) 21:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
{{cbot}}
*'''Comment''' pretty much everything has already been said; the news media in Nigeria seem to be in the habit of puffing everyone and everything. As with the Indian news sources, we almost have to evaluate each news story on a case-by-case basis. We can keep Nigerian sources, but if we can find coverage from outside of the area, it helps show notability. The sources in the country are in the habit of puffy reporting, we just have to learn to use them. ] (]) 01:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I'd be ok if we create a policy similar to the NewsOrgIndia ... We allow the sources, but to be taken with a grain of salt. ] (]) 01:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::See ]. What did you mean by “…{{tq|but if we can find coverage from outside of the area, it helps show notability.}}”? Best, ] 05:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]'s addition of ] is helpful but the link to the unvetted WikiProject list is not, in my opinion. It lists, for example, ] as "reliable" which is the publication I ] which seemed to have drawn the conclusion to disregard promo and use with caution. It also lists pretty much every newspaper which reported inaccurately sparking this thread as "reliable"
*:Beyond the issue of promo, "Nigeria is one of West Africa’s most dangerous and difficult countries for journalists, who are regularly monitored, attacked and arbitrarily arrested, as was the case during the 2023 elections." ]] 10:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::@] What sort of opinionated and unstructured comment did you just make? What do you mean by "unvetted WikiProject list"? Do you, by any chance, know the efforts I and few other editors who are Nigerians have put to bring up that list? Please be careful when making comments, especially when the topic has to do with one you're not entirely familiar with. As far as I am concerned, you cannot call a list which I have put efforts in contributing to "unvetted", the comment is not only unreasonable but also incorrect.
*::I couldn't locate the thread you linked but whatever you brough up there are your opinion. I know the efforts I have been putting at AfD when it comes to Nigerian sources. Be careful, please, with all due respect.
*::In a more general note, this thread is not going anywhere, '']'' is a reliable source of information whether anyone "who is not a Nigerian" likes it or not, in fact, any source listed in the WikiProject as reliable is indeed reliable. The Herald, Guardian, New York Times, and other UK or US papers all publish nonsense piece as well, no one is permitted to call Nigerian sources unreliable because there are only a few Nigerian editors? I can't tell. I guess when this thread was initiated it was thought that there'd be no editor to oppose. SMH. ] (]) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::The link they are referring to has been archived, see ].<br>In regard to {{tq|who is not a Nigerian}} There are many non-Nigerians who don't agree with the comment that started this thread. I both support and encourage projects to maintain there own sources lists, as they most likely to have knowledge of that particular area, but they are subject to ] and so from to time discussions like this will happen. The net result of this discussion has been ], which only writes down the advice that has been given in many other discussions.
*:::If any editor wants to discuss a particular source they believe has issue outside of what's already covered by ] I suggest they start a new section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::@] last time we discussed This Day, you pointed out that they . Currently, top of the advertorials is . As you noted, there is no indication on the article that this is an advertorial and it looks like a normal news item. .
*::::How can this be a reliable source when advertorials are completely indistinguishable from reporting? ]] 15:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Because otherwise it would result in the making all news organisations in multiple countries completely unusable, and it wouldn't be limited to India and Nigeria. Such undisclosed advertorials are common in a lot of countries, and will likely become more common not less due to the changes effecting news media across the globe. It wouldn't help to improve the encyclopedia by saying that such vast swathes of the news media are generally unreliable, and in many ways that isn't a fit description for the sources. They are reliable for many things, but not for the promotional nature of these advertorials.
*:::::As has been said before the AfDs show that noone is being fooled. Editors are correctly spotting when this is happening and acting accordingly. Promo content being added to Misplaced Pages is certainly not an issue limited to these countries, just look to all the reputation management companies found elsewhere.
*:::::Ultimately it's what effect should be had. We don't want those advertorials being used to add promo content to Misplaced Pages, that is achieved by ]. So do we need to class all those news media organisations as generally unreliable, will that help to improve the encyclopedia? I very much doubt it would. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Are they? How are they being spotted? For example, see ] - there are many sources here but every single one of them appears more dubious than the two advertorial examples linked above. For an active AfD, see ]. It was moved out of drafts by an editor who is now blocked and the editors voting keep simply insist that the sources are reliable without any evaluation. ]] 18:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::(Pinging you is difficult) Let me be blunter, you deletion rationale in that AfD {{tq|Sources all appear to be ]}} is not only unappealing but also vague. Why? you simply said that "ALL" of them are NEWSORGNIGERIA without telling us what analysis you did that made you come to that conclusion. I figured since we're not doing anything in-dept here, it would make sense to also tell you, since this area is my expertise, that the subject clear-cut passed GNG. If you did any analysis and showed it, then we'd be discussing what you analysed and not something else. ] (]) 18:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::I do not get the impression that advertorials are regularly passed off as real news in countries with strong protections for journalism. What the academic papers I linked earlier were emphasizing is that Nigeria has a striking systematic problem with unethical journalism that goes beyond what is seen in respectable broadsheets (the "brown envelope syndrome" being one example) and appears to affect ''all'' major outlets. The last link talks about an egregious political advert for Babangida's birthday that ran in the ]—listed as generally reliable—and characterizes the newspapers as being ''reliant'' upon such revenue sources. Some of the other journals note that several newspapers don't even pay their journalists; surely at least those should be considered generally unreliable? ] (]) 02:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Not sure why you're responding with so much emotion. It would be better to discuss this dispassionately. Your reply doesn't actually explain why a publication like This Day, which publishes disguised promotions, should be viewed as reliable. @] also provides very compelling evidence above which has not been rebutted. ]] 14:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Maybe the rather emotionally charged use of "unvetted" to describe another editors work had something to do with it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::So, my reply is emotional to you, and you think I am dispassionate, lol. I'll entirely ignore this your comment. ] (]) 18:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


People may defend ], but when I see that e.g. The Nation is considered "generally reliable" but publishes (with a byline!) e.g. pure promo drivel (used in a new article here, not something I went looking for especially), then it is hard to take that list or the defense of it seriously. It turns out to be (at least in part) a copy of a four year old article from the Vanguard, not some actual journalistic effort by the Nation, but how could one tell? ] (]) 14:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
== RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs? ==
*<strike>'''Oppose blanket ban'''.</strike> The proponents of the ban have failed to actually demonstrate that ''all'' Nigerian newspapers have ''always'' been unreliable. As far as I can see, the evidence presented does not, for example, give any indication that the Lagos Daily News or the Daily Times were unreliable in 1925. In fact, they do not even appear to have been mentioned. , actually cited above, claims that the quality of Nigerian newspapers was better before the internet. , also cited above, only applies to the South-West geo-political zone, and not the other five geo-political zones (something not mentioned above). We need to take one newspaper at a time, and we need to look beyond the last five minutes. ] (]) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- ] 21:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1730581269}}
**There has been no proposal to blanket ban all Nigerian Newspapers, so you are bold opposing a strawman. ] (]) 10:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{rfc|policy|rfcid=1A7CC47}}
***Expressions such as "isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers" do look like proposals for a blanket ban. Everyone else in this thread seems to think that this is a proposal for a blanket ban. If you are not proposing a blanket ban, perhaps you should rephrase your comments in grammatically and semantically correct plain language that other people can actually understand. Anyway, in view of the statement that there is no proposal for a blanket ban, I have struck my !vote. ] (]) 12:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
] is entirely deprecated as a ref. But should the text in photos of record labels and album jackets (only) be made an exception? ] (]) 20:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
*** FWIW, I too, interpreted it as a blanket ban, and it's clear from people's comments that many other people did as well. Glad to know that that's not what you meant. ] (]) 16:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
===Survey (Discogs images)===
*'''Yes'''. Lets think this thru: works are their own refs, and the photos are accurate representations of the actual work to a 99.9% level of confidence. The label text is not user-''generated'' absent an elaborate hoax, so who uploaded it is immaterial. It is as impossible to mislabel these photos as it is for a movie title screen etc (you can't pass off the label of record X as being the label of record Y). The alternative is continue our current practice: assume the article editor has not made a mistake, and to verify the reader has to get a copy on eBay or whatever. This is not better.
*'''Yes'''. How would anyone ever know that an editor is using Discogs vs. a copy of the album that they own? ] (]/]) 20:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
* Primary sources are reliable about themselves and users can include courtesy links for the aid of verification. This is true in all case. As to Discog it's not deprecated, it's unreliable as it's user generated. The primary images it hosts don't make it anymore or less unreliable. This is the same as with the primary documents that ancestry/com hosts, they are reliable in a ] way even if the rest of ancestry/com isn't reliable. None of this changes anything, the references aren't to Discog they are to the primary object (the album in this case), any link to an image on Discog is just an aid for verification purposes. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
::I discussed this below. ] (]) 02:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::My points still stand, see my response below. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::To be clear I'm not bold voting in this RFC as Discog is not deprecated or prohibited, it's unreliable as it's ]. Nothing in this RFC will change that, and nothing about it being unreliable prohibits the use of a courtesy link to an image of a primary object. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
* The source is the physical record itself, so Discogs only has to accurately convey the contents of the records. This isn't something it's guaranteed to do, since anyone can upload a photo claiming to be of the record. I agree with ActivelyDisinterested that Discogs should only be treated as an aid for verification purposes, not as a guaranteed accurate representation of a work. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 02:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::I discussed this below. "not as a guaranteed accurate representation of a work" just isn't so, if one thinks it thru. ] (]) 02:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::Anyone can also upload a scan claiming to be of a book, or upload a picture claiming to be of the subject of the article, and yet that is widely done too. ] (]) 05:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::That's why in-practice, it's fine to cite it. It's just that a physical copy would take precedence. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 22:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. As of now, we rely on some editor just using the information from a copy of the album they presumably have at hand. I support this provided this is limited to actual scans.
*Is that even making an exception? If you find a photo of an album on ebay, amazon, or Jeff's Music Blog, we don't need consensus that those are reliable sources to use it, right? &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
*:This point was repeatedly raised in the discussion prior to this RFC, see ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', but as a URL within ]. A point that nobody here has mentioned is that the physical music release is its own reliable source, just like a book. It has a catalog number, a title, a publisher, a date. If we add a URL pointing to a scan of the same material, it would be a welcome convenience, assisting others with verifiability. The likelihood of someone uploading a false scan is very low; we can address such instances as they arise by comparing to other scans of the same release. ] (]) 03:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''No'''. Seems like I'm in the minority, but it's unnecessary and a bad precedent. I use Discogs every day--it's riddled with errors. Misspellings, typos, track listing misorder, bad translations, etc.--thousands of mistakes across the site, I imagine. It's appropriate only as an EL. As mentioned above, the album itself is the source; we don't need an inline citation to "help with verifiability". If an editor really wants an image for an inline citation, they can take the time to find one from a source without Discogs' problems. I'm also not sure that it's necessary to turn something that takes 3 seconds (scrolling to the EL, Googling outright) in to something that takes 1 second. And Discogs as an inline citation is constantly abused, with editors using it for exact release dates, genres, album sequential number, etc. ] (]) 13:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tq|Misspellings, typos, track listing misorder, bad translations}} are all relevant to text hosted on the site, not the text legible in images of release packaging. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 01:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
*::Exactly. Let's not compound the issue by using such a flawed site for an inline citation when there are much better options. Or again, simply cite the liner notes. ] (]) 10:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::What "better options" are there, and what makes their scans preferable? ] (]) 05:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::Right, if the Discogs ''photo'' has the wrong songwriter or whatever, the ''actual record label'' is going to have the same error.] (]) 06:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::For what purpose? Again, it's totally unnecessary to use an image to "verify" or "prove" any credits, at all. Cite the liner notes and use Discogs as an EL. Given Discogs' thousands of UG errors and how it's misused as an inline citation, take the second to scroll to the bottom of the article page. No burden whatsoever. ] (]) 14:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. Editors might easily add an edit summary such as "this discogs photo matches the record in my own collection". If the photo is uploaded to Wiki or Commons, that same explanation would also be useful. The textual contents of sleeve notes / liner notes are already permitted as a valid source for album credits, this just adds secondary validation. ] (]) 10:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' - The images only. The images are just an easily accessed record of the primary source, which is usable as a citation for itself. There should be nothing wrong with this, just be careful to keep it limited ONLY to direct images of the primary source itself, not to ''any'' user ''generated'' content. User uploaded primary sources should be fine as primary sources. ] (]) 06:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' If somethings need to be sourced to an image uploaded to an unreliable UGC website then it very likely isn't worthy of inclusion. I don't even understand what exactly is being proposed here, using images of an album to determine who wrote it...? If no reliable sources that Johnny Doe wrote some album then we won't write that Johnny Doe wrote it. ] (]) 09:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
*:Even RS sources don't always give all the information on a label or don't always accurately report it. I'm not sure why any discogs editor would ever want to falsify what's printed on a label e.g. by photoshopping it. Yes, a label image would be a primary source, but it seems it would still be very reliable. ] (]) 09:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
*::Yeah, the rule that "works of art are their own reference" is actually horrible and way way outside our usual comfort zone. For obscure works especially we are effectively saying "OK editor, we'll take your word for it". That's not a whole lot better than "something I saw on the internet" as also a usable source.


:I would support RSNG in that I would support projects creating source lists. How specific sources are listed on RSNG is first a matter of discussion at the project level (as the list is only at the project level), and RSN if there is no agreement there. This is the same for all project level lists. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::But if we didn't -- if we required published reliable secondary sources for material on works of art as we do for most other articles -- our coverage of works of art would be very very much less that we do have. Very few movie and book articles would have Plot sections or would have short incomplete ones, which would leave the reader blind. In fact, most of our movie and many of our book and record articles would have to be destroyed or stubbed -- they don't have any secondary sources. You can't get a cast list etc for most movies, really you can't get anything, if you're sticking to secondary sources. Very few album articles would have track listings. And so on.


===Brainstorming RfCs===
:::''It's a problem'' and its a big problem. Why pretend otherwise. But what else can we do? Cut our coverage of films and books and novels by 75+%? Not going to happen.
It is clear that referring to the overly optimistic ] is not a good approach to determine the current reliability of some Nigerian newspapers. If we were to reconsider the status of e.g. ], to list it as e.g. "generally unreliable", what question should be posted in an RfC? Should we first try to find a cut-off date (i.e. "no longer generally reliable from year X on")? Are the above examples and reports sufficient, or is more needed? Or would it be easier to change ], correcting "As such, Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability. Wikiproject Nigeria has assembled a list of sources that they consider reliable/unreliable: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources." to "As such, Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability and verifiability", adding "verifiability" and removing the link to the project-based list? ] (]) 16:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:I think correcting WP:RSNP is a good start, simply by undoing which there clearly wasn't agreement to add. ]] 16:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I mean c'mon, a reader saying "wait, I thought that song was written by Smith not Jones" is not going to hunt down a copy of the actual record (which for many would be quite difficult or expensive) to verify that. Get real. For a lot of these records -- 78's and records from 1930 etc -- there is, basically, no way for the reader to verify the text. Unless they to go to Discogs or someplace like that -- which I guess they shouldn't -- they'll have to be like "oh well, I'll never know I guess".
::What to include or not include on the RSP (outside of the results of discussions at RSN) are probably best discussed at the RSP talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It was ]ly added without discussion, though, so I've removed it for now as a first step. --] (]) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I would suggest that editing the section be done this way. RSP is no different from any other page, edit, discuss on talk page, then third opinion or noticeboard. Exact wording in the section doesn't immediately necessitate an RFC unless there is unresolvable differences of opinion. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:I would suggest against one RFC to cover all the sources, unless there is a very specific question about the sources (more specific than 'are they reliable?'), as it will likely result in a train wreck.
:If the issue is just to add 'and verifiability', or removing the project link, I would suggest ]. Consensus is first built through editing, and the RSP is no different in that matter. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Whatever way the discussion goes it, I suggest an RFC should be in a completely new section. RSN gets overloaded, and this section is already very large. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Absolutely. ] (]) 08:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:I have been reading old RfCs about unreliable medias to reference. Many of these discussions start with a blanket question. For example: "Is ]
:# Generally reliable
:# Additional considerations apply
:# Generally unreliable
:# Deprecated"
:From there, editors can make their own arguments so if there should be a cut-off date for reliability. I think we can start with the more egregious media with examples and those who do not view them as unreliable should make the argument for why and when they should be considered reliable. ]] 19:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::If the TechCabal article is correct, then Nigerian newspapers were better before the internet. This might not apply to ], which began publication in 2001. One of the earliest accounts of "brown envelopes" dates to the ] (1979 to 1983): . On a search of Google Books, I found no references to "brown envelopes" in Nigeria in any book published before 1983. I found no more than 8 such references in books published before 1990, and 5 of those were from 1989: . In the absence of further evidence, I think we could take 1979 as a complete cut off point. Even after that, the evidence is not unequivocal. The study from 1984 says that ] journalists may not be as corrupt as journalists are depicted: . And the claims of bribery during the Republic seem to relate more to government journalists, than to independent newspapers. The sources also suggest that ] was more reliable. ] (]) 19:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] / ] ==
:::Here's one method we could employ to cut that back some. Why would we not want to do that. ] (]) 04:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
::::The reader can verify that if they've got a copy of that record in their collection. Classic ], of course. But I'll try and "get real". Thanks. ] (]) 10:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Can you show me a notable album that cannot have this key information sourced elsewhere? ] (]) 18:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Not sure. Just albums, or singles also? ] (]) 20:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Either or ] (]) 00:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::If this were anything else, the obvious point here would be: if it's not sourceable in an RS, <em>then it is not key information for the purposes of our encyclopedia!</em> Why are we treating this area of information totally differently? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 01:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Why do we need to know what is on the label? If you cannot find a reliable source to cover who wrote/performed it then the work is almost certainly not notable unless it is notable for something non-typical. ] (]) 07:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Why not allow an editor to use this resource to reference this ''easily sourced'' information? Yes, the information could be sourced elsewhere if the target is notable, but why disallow something that makes life easier for editors, and ALSO... and this is more important... make things easier for someone who wants to USE the reference. References aren't a game we play here at wikipedia, there's a purpose to citations and referencing everything. They are to provide the references to users who want to use the information themselves. Referencing the album art for information about itself can be USEFUL to users, and this website has them online for easy viewing. ] (]) 23:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Then it can be an external link. I still don't see any album being notable enough for an article but not notable enough to have basic information on unable to be sourced. ] (]) 04:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::It is able to be sourced—in the liner notes of the album. Compare to referring to the copyright page on a scanned book to source information about publication. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 16:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::@] You're failing to consider that non-notable musical works that are covered in other articles. In the ] article, I included albums in the discography section that were not covered by the AllMusic reference using {{t|cite AV media notes}}. I did not add the eBay links where I viewed the liner notes, but I should have, since that is more honest to anyone verifying the article than implying I actually own the physical CD package. It seems straightforwardly ridiculous to argue that albums the musician played on (and one he released under his own name) are undue for inclusion in their own discography section. ] 22:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::We're not a database. If there is no source beyond the actual material itself it won't merit inclusion. ] (]) 22:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)


Used for many claims throughout pages for CBM movies, such as ], ], ], and ], including those which are otherwise unverifiable like Victor von Doom appearing in the first or that Spider-Man was supposed to appear in ] but was cut.
*No. You don't need an exception (nor should we give one), you just need to treat the pictures as authentic, we have a very low (almost non-existent) standard for treating images as authentic, something along the lines of the 'good faith uploader reasonably believed it was a picture of the thing and so does the good faith editor'. But the citation then is not and never should be to the picture, it is to the label/record/album/cover itself. ] (]) 15:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
* <del>'''No'''{{snd}}I'm pretty baffled. User-generated sources are not reliable by their very nature—for any other area of the wiki, the fundamental idea is that information that cannot be reliably sourced is not considered for inclusion in our encyclopedia! No one has provided a logical justification, only a pragmatic one that I resent strongly. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 01:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)</del> <ins>See replies. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 20:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)</ins>
*:The point is that a ] reference would be reliable:<br><syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline="1">{{citation |author=Musician |title=Album name |publisher=Record Label}}</syntaxhighlight><br>So why would a primary reference with a curtesy link be less reliable:<br><syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline="1">{{citation |author=Musician |title=Album name |url=courtesy.url |publisher=Record Label}}</syntaxhighlight><br>There's no need for an exception, as this is already allowed. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
*::Oh, so it seems the terms of the discussion have shifted somewhat from earlier then. I'm going to strike my !vote in that case, since I'm indifferent to this as the operative question. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 20:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::I'm not sure what the exact question of the RFC is, I've already pointed out that Discog isn't deprecated it's unreliable as it's UGC. Reading through the comments editors have bold voted both '''No''' and '''Yes''' while agreeing that it can be used as a courtesy link, so good luck anyone who closes it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. Editors should feel free to link to Discogs or eBay or Amazon or any other source normally considered unreliable in {{t|Cite AV media notes}}, because the reason those sources are considered unreliable have nothing to do with false/mislabeled scans, the way some publishers may be considered unusable for what would normally be considered ] interview quotes if they have a history of manipulating them. ] 21:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
*:It's incredibly lazy to cite a purely commercial vendor like eBay or Amazon--one just isn't trying very hard. I always remove those links; any information on those sites can be found through much better sources. I can only conclude that editors want to link to Discogs solely for the pretty pictures; again, citing the AV notes is enough. We don't need to link in the body of an article to a site that is full of thousands of errors and typos, even if it's just the image. If there's disagreement over something like, did ] play bass on track two or three of ''Album Example'', and the AV notes are cited, then it's a matter of edit warring, and you can involve an admin. Discogs is only appropriate as an external link. All the text in this thread so far has not made the case that it's necessary--or even helpful--to cite in the body. ] (]) 16:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Can someone explain to me how it's not a ] issue? I feel like I must be misunderstanding the situation to have so many people say "yes" so far. ] ] 22:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
*:See my earlier , Discog isn't being cited it's being used as a courtesy link. Also my even earlier as to why I don't think this RFC is even necessary. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
*::I'm inclined to agree with your comment then. ] ] 00:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', as long as it is solely album jackets and liner notes being cited directly as primary sources. Discogs itself, as mentioned, is unreliable per ] (see its entry on RSP at ]), but as long as it is the images being cited and not the user-generated text that supplements them, I don't see a problem. ] (]) 11:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Needs a strong caveat, but yes for 'what is written on the record'''' The images faithfully reproduce the records and their covers. The sources in this case are the records themselves and their covers (the {{tlg|Cite AV media notes}} template is relevant). The images on discogs merely provide verifiability. They are often (but not always) primary sources. For ''what is written on the record and its cover'' the images are reliable. The reliability of the records/covers for external facts depends on the label/publisher/artist of the record. If we fail to include this caveat in e.g. a RSP entry, we may give the impression that every liner note or song attribution etc. can be used as a reliable source. They absolutely cannot. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 16:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)


I really do not see why his claims is so widely allowed and accepted as fact, even though he is undoubtedly more reliable than random blogs or posts on Twitter he's still a journalist making claims without evidence. I would like to establish here definitively if we continue to site theinsneider.com as a source, as we currently do in many articles. ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 21:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
===Discussion (Discogs images)===
N.B.:earlier discussion was here: ] Headcount was 3-2, maybe 4-2.
N.B.:The RfD is not proposing that these photos be ''required'' to ref, just that the editor is ''allowed'' to use them if she wants to without another editor deleting them as disallowed.
* We kind of do this already a lot, we include a link to Discogs in the "External links" section, in fact we even have {{tl|discogs release}} etc. to facilitate this. Problem is this removes the link down away from the the material being ref'd -- bit less than excellent. And if the editor doesn't include that, the reader is usually going to go to Discogs anyway if she wants to verify; it's just more work. Second, c'mon: hella editors are using Discogs to get their info anyway (I know I do) and that can't be stopped. So the current situation is kind of kabuki, and that also is sub-excellent. ] (]) 20:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)


:I did a Google News search and when other outlets report his stuff it is described as a rumour or "reportedly". He is also described as a "scooper". I don't think most of that should be used on Misplaced Pages because of NOTNEWS. Rumours about media that haven't been released yet aren't even news yet. Does he say that he got his info from a source? Then it should be attributed to that source. It also looks like a SPS. So everything sourced to him should be attributed, but even then it probably shouldn't be used. ] (]) 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::NB: if an editor provides a ''proximate'' link to a Discogs photo -- attached directly to a line of data-- just as a courtesy, whether as a bare URL or using a citation template, it will be indistinguishable from a ref. Other editors will see them as refs, and possibly tag them for {{tl|better reference}}, but far more probably delete them, and perhaps the material also as being now unref'd while they're at it I believe we can count on this. (it still wouldn't be unreffed, but it might seem so to the casual editor not knowing the rule for works). And in fact since using Discogs as a ref is clearly prohibited at ], you might be in for a scolding. So I wouldn't do it.
::Right now, much of what is sourced to him is just taken as face value, for example Doom is listed in the cast for the Fantastic Four movie without clarification that it's based off a claim by him. My changes to remove such information from the pages were undone, so there seems to be some ambiguity if he is currently accepted as a RS. ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 18:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:For any stories about named people (e.g. casting), ] would probably bar use of this source, since he's self-published. His record on this is at best mixed from a quick search. For example, he reported that ] would be starring in a new Johnny Depp film, which was swiftly denied, kept posting that it was true, and then a few months later, ] was announced as the co-star.
:I did some digging and apparently he made a recent post, copied here, , in which he says {{tq|This may speak to my own reckless vanity, but I’d rather be wrong sometimes than sit on 100 accurate stories and stand idly by and watch as Nellie Andreeva breaks every single one of them. Yes, it’s nauseating to get a story wrong — seriously, it makes me sick to my stomach — but it’s an even worse feeling when you don’t report something and then get beat by the competition.}} If that's his attitude to reporting, then it would probably be best if we don't use him for non-BLP subjects as well. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::I've removed everything that clearly failed ] and tried to beef up non-BLP uses of this (e.g. filming dates, projects in development) with better sources that cite his work. Honestly most reputable don't really cite him and hedge by using "rumoured" or "reportedly" and cannot corroborate. Definitely not an ideal source and probably runs afoul of ], especially if not picked up by better sources citing him at all. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


In the future it would be appreciated if you notified other editors of such a discussion rather than going on what I would describe as a deletion rampage, making dozens of edits to remove a source that is widely deemed to be reliable. Sneider clearly meets the SME requirement at ], he is a long time film and entertainment journalist whose work has previously been published by various reliable sources. The fact that he is now self-publishing his reporting does not now make him unreliable, which is what the wording at SELFPUB caters for. If you take issue with specific claims he has made or the wording of specific claims then the place to discuss those is at the talk pages of the articles in question, not here where the majority of editors will never see it. - ] (]) 09:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::As I said, an external link at the bottom of the article is extra work for the user and just more mediocre. Why do that. But that is currently the only use allowed by ].


:I have notified editors at ], ], ], ], and ]. I think that should cover all the articles impacted so far by this discussion. - ] (]) 09:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Re "anyone can upload a photo claiming to be of the record" and " a guaranteed accurate representation of a work", that just isn't true. A photo of the label for "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" can't actually be a photo of the label for "Love Me Do". It's flat impossible. Of course, as anywhere in the 'pedia, we are indeed subject to be fooled by an elaborate hoax using photoshop skills. But we assume no elaborate hoaxes absent some indication of such, and to do so regularly would be kind of paranoid... And for instance photos (putatively) taken and uploaded without modification by Misplaced Pages editors are far likelier to to hoaxes or just wrong and for good or ill we accept those. I guess we would accept a photo of a record label taken by an editor to be shown in an article to be sufficiently reliable, why can't she upload to Discogs and use it as a ref.
:For a lot of these pages, the relevant policy isn't ], but ], since the InSneider is self publishing reporting about living people (e.g. A didn't role B, C got fired because of D, E might be in F). BLPSPS is a bright-line rule and while ] exists, superhero movie rumours isn't going to justify that. This is especially true when non-selfpublished exist to cover the same claims or when ] applies.
:For example, your revert at ] restored The InSneider when the material in the sentence is already fully supported by the already cited ] piece and your revert at ] restored material alleging very specific allegations of sexual misconduct with young men that is corroborated by independent sources . I've reverted the latter given the serious BLP issues there.
:It's less of an issue when the BLP-connection is less direct such as when it's talking about a film production in general (e.g. G starts filming in H, I was delayed to J, K is in development at L), but even SELFPUB recommends replacing with better sources when possible and I highlighted some reliability issues with Sneider above.
:I have also notified ] since this touches on BLPSPS. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think you are forgetting that there is a very big distinction between Sneider's pieces written for Collider and other RS and those he written on his own blog. He speculates much more and gives unverified, evidence-free information on his blog than he does when working with publications, and he isn't impeded by an editor or journalistic oversight in his own website.
:If you want to see ''proof'' that Sneider has made false and provably false claims on his own website before, then there's of all the time he has made false claims thanks to the people at the subreddit for Marvel spoilers. Among the falsehoods he has promoted on his site include that the Fantastic Four movie would start filming in March, that Adam Driver was cast as Doom, that Jack Quaid was cast as Johnny Storm, and that Tom Holland was going to appear as a full role in Across the Spider-Verse. Sneider should be used in articles ''only'' when he is writing for reliable sources, otherwise we are inviting unsourced and oftentimes completely imagined speculation on our pages. ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 18:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Oh wow, so he's basically correct about 2/3 of the time. Not terrible, I guess for online postings, but this would seem to fall well-short for ] purposes, much less making an exception for ]. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I don't think we should be letting some people from a Reddit community dictate what they think is true or false to determine notability on this encyclopedia. I understand Sneider gets a bad rap from some people and in the press, but he does qualify as a ] in the field of entertainment news. I am subscribed to his newsletter and Sneider does a pretty good job clarifying what he is actually reporting from what are his own opinions and beliefs. A lot of what he says in his newsletter tends to be blown out of proportion or taken out of context, and not everything pans out in the film industry. For the Sydney Sweeney thing, I read that as the actress either being in talks or close to a deal but it likely fell apart and thus, Cruz came onboard, not that it was somehow false or intentionally misleading. A lot of the major trades do not cover every aspect of these film productions (because they get ad revenue from major companies involved) but Sneider has a good track record of reporting on industry details, deals, and events as they are in progress, which goes for the Fantastic Four castings and Black Widow. I have been working on adding third-party sources for some of his recent newsletter issues being cited to help make verifying his reports easier, though this takes time. I do not agree with removing his published articles from Collider, Variety, or his newsletter outright as we cannot disregard a source simply because ] or you don't believe in it. We go by ], and report all the facts as presented, which is how an encyclopedia ought to be. I have not found any instances to my immediate recollection where editors cited a Sneider report only for it to be proven intentionally wrong or misleading. The Madame Web report was not disputed or debunked, and the recent reports of Superman and Beyond the Spider-Verse have since been clarified as a matter of semantics, not actually being intentional false news reporting on Sneider's part. A lot of what he says is regurgitated through aggregators and social media which tends to be less reliable or transparent than what he actually says in his newsletter or on his podcast The Hot Mic. I would not go as far as to say Sneider's newsletter reporting is "speculation", as he is an independent working journalist with 20+ years of experience in this profession. He knows his stuff but gets a lot of bad publicity from his social media activity and because some of his reporting hits a nerve with select communities. I would consider him a reliable source, but with clarification needed to specify when he is making an educated guess or providing an opinion alongside what he is reporting from his industry sources. ] (]) 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Also, because @] questioned what Sneider's sources are, I suppose it ought to be explained that every journalist gets their information from sources. These individuals are usually people who work within the industry they are reporting about, so they are often talent agents, managers, PR workers, producers, involved creatives in a production, etc. who have first-hand information and provide information as a tip to a journalist. Most of these sources prefer to remain anonymous, so we cannot just find who his sources are to verify their tips. That's just not how this industry works. Filming schedules and castings change all the time, so to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a ] and ] concern because no sources said these were absolutely false, and if you have any reliable sources saying Sneider specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report, that should be presented rather than just going off of some editors' opinions of a controversial figure. ] (]) 05:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Anonymously-sourced reporting obviously can be used in RSs, but you're not really making a strong case for reliability and encyclopedic quality by defending Sneider with {{tq|to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS concern because no sources said these were absolutely false,}}. In respect to the Holland thing, it's not a good look to be confidently stating things about major casting at the tail end of February 2023 that then don't pan out upon release in at the end of May that year. Maybe he was right at the time, though no one else has corroborated this from what I can tell, but even then he would've published too early given he was ultimately wrong.
::::{{tq|specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report}} would meet the standard for defamation of a public figure, but it isn't the standard for assessing if a particular source is reliable or a good indicator of if something is encyclopedic. If someone gets a lot of stuff wrong in good faith, they're still not reliable, especially in ] situations. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 05:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, using anonymous sources is common in journalism, but is not standard. The standard is to cite their sources. Sure, NYT and WaPo don't always follow their own guidelines on anonymous sources. Usually such guidelines involve mentioning that the information is from an anonymous source and giving clues as to the credibility of the source. When including information from anonymous sources, wikipedia should follow suite. If the NYT cites a "source close to the president" for a claim, the wikipedia article should also mention a "source close to the president" So how much info does Sneider give?
::::Also, information should be verified. This might involve asking another source if they object to the publication of the information. Also, really, the studio should be asked to comment. If there is not a comment from the studio or a line saying that comment was sought, then best practices have not been followed.
::::The idea that Sneider is a SME is questionable. The reporting in question seems to be a matter of insider knowledge not expertise. Basically, people are leaking the information to Sneider or gossiping to him about who will get the part. ] (]) 15:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::FYI, we are also not here to be ]. It is completely acceptable to note what an SME reports about an industry topic they have been covering for two decades now. The reports should be judged on a case-by-case basis to determine if Sneider has ever actually intentionally made any false or misleading statements and passed them off as a report directly by himself, and not by sheer opinion or a lack of or misunderstanding of the filmmaking process and journalistic procedures. ] (]) 05:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Even if he is 100% correct (which he isn't), none of his tweets and InSneider reports can be used per ] to verify anything about living people since they are self-published. There's presumably no issue with his work in non-self-published sources with editorial control like Collider, but for the self-published stuff in respect to living people (e.g. castings, cut scenes, staffing), Misplaced Pages has a bright line rule against it. The only stuff that is even allowed to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for self-published stories would be for instances where it's being used for stuff that is general enough to not really implicate BLP (e.g. filming schedules, runtime, episode length). -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 05:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::The whole sum of BLPSPS is that no self-published blogs may be used. Sneider's publishing is via a newsletter and is part of his job as a journalist. In what ways are his newsletter reports violating any core and basic BLP policies or how are they of a major concern to it beyond the X-Men '97 allegations. A lot of journalists nowadays are posting on their own outside of major trades or news organizations because those options have become more prevalent to do so. Anonymous sourcing is also how all journalists operate, so if we say journalists who post on their own cannot be cited as reliable sources for doing their job without disclosing their sources and having a company watch over them, that sets a very bad precedent for the freedom of the press and what we actually allow to be included, let alone mentioned, in this encyclopedia. If it applies to Sneider, it ought to apply to all self-published journalists and newsletters, and I don't see how that could go well. ] (]) 06:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::That's a misreading of BLPSPS, which says: {{tq|Never use self-published sources—'''including but not limited to''' books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—}} (emphasis added). Unless there's a clear organizational structure (e.g. ]), most newsletters are little more than self-published blogs. There's tons of great journalists with their own newsletters that I think are most likely reliable that I would love to cite (though Sneider may not be one of them), but BLPSPS is crystal clear on this front and for good reason. If you want to start a new discussion somewhere (here, ] ], etc.) on whether we should move to a case-by-case basis for journalistic SPSs, you can do that, but until then BLPSPS is policy and can't be overridden by ]. Don't really care about the anonymous sources issue, since that is an accepted norm for journalists. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Not all of the instances of Sneider's reports are about people themselves. They are primarily about the Hollywood projects which naturally involve people's jobs and castings. I fail to see how a technicality should prevent us from using a decent source at all. If the issue is of verification, find a third-party source verifying the report. This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that. ] (]) 07:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that.}} The InSneider can be separately assessed for reliability for any claims not about living people, but as ] makes clear in the first sentence, it applies regardless of if the article is a biography or not, so the fact that Sneider is cited on movie articles is immaterial in respect to ].
::::::::There's been multiple discussions on this noticeboard about Substack and other newsletters involving much more prominent journalists than Sneider and the consensus has always been that BLPSPS bars their use in respect to living people unless the publication has editorial oversight and a reputation for reliability (e.g. ] , ] , ] , in general )
::::::::I don't object to the underlying facts per say if they are indeed verifiable through third-party sources. I did try to find non-self-published sources that independently corroborated what Sneider reported, and replaced InSneider with them when I did. I only removed when I was unable to do so. ] makes it clear that the onus to restore material removed for BLP issues is on those who want to restore it to do so in a policy-compliant way, which seems unlikely since nothing in this section has challenged the individually self-published nature of InSneider. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you for your lengthy examination of Sneider as a reliable source. I think a potential compromise that I hope the editors here could agree on- is to restructure all current citations to his self-published website so that it clearly states that it is journalist Jeff Sneider reporting. The example on ] that spurred me to open up this discussion in the first place, for example:
:::{{tq|Additionally, the character Mole Man is expected to appear, and Robert Downey Jr. is expected to appear as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene.}}
:::could be reworded to:
:::{{tq|Journalist Jeff Sneider reported in 2024 that the character Mole Man is expected to appear, as well as Robert Downey Jr. as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene.}}
:::This would be done for every single citation that uses his personal site. I see your arguments defending his inclusion as a verifiable source, but I also feel as the central issue here- that a lot of pages take him at face value as equivalent to official news from Deadline or Marvel Studios themselves, should still be rectified. We could also add him to the RS list as a source that can be used in the articles ''with attribution only.''
:::Thoughts? @] @] @] ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 05:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::For anything that involves stories about living people, this would be BLP violation, attribution or not, since The InSneider is a self-published source and that's barred by ]. If no other sources are writing about it besides a self-published report from Sneider, that's a good indicator that we shouldn't include it on Misplaced Pages. Attribution for stuff like "Mole Man" might be okay depending on Sneider's reliability and how tied that is to a specific actor in the text. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 06:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I support attribution being applied to Sneider's reports, and most of the instances where his reports are used already do this in prose while third-party refs are being added to them. The BLP violation reads to me like a bit of a stretch with semantics itself and could probably be re-evaluated when it comes to journalists reporting as part of their job. Reporting on allegations should not be a reason to be barred as a source when major news outlets do the same. ] (]) 06:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|Reporting on allegations a reason to be barred as a source}} is a straw man. Major news outlets have a reputation for fact checking and reliability, while Sneider has had multiple confirmed reports not pan out. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Which ones have not panned out? ] (]) 07:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Sweeny, Lindelof, and Holland make at least three incorrect reports in approximately a year. If I did more spot checks from the spreadsheet, there would probably be more. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Again, not everything in Hollywood pans out. That does not mean the reports were false. Unless other independent sources confirmed they were false, you are assuming they were not true, which draws into some dangerous POV issues here on your apparent bias. I have asked you to provide sources which confirm Sneider's reports were false, and you have provided none of the sort. ] (]) 07:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Lots of stuff in all kinds of different fields don't pan out. However, if a source often reports things as confirmed and they don't pan out, there's a reliability/jumping the gun issue and its starts falling into unencyclopedic ] territory. The end result is that Sneider either misjudged how correct the story originally was or how likely that status quo was going to remain. If you look at the Deadline and Variety archives, they only reported on certainties in respect to the Sweeey/Holland/Lindelof stories (i.e. Cruz hiring/nothing/hiring and departure).
:::::::::Genuine question, does Sneider ever issue corrections/retractions or do retrospectives on why he got stories wrong? Obviously sometimes reliable sources get it wrong, and the proper thing to do in that case is to issue corrections/retractions.
:::::::::I think I've seen only even heard of Sneider once before (when the X-Men '97/Beau DeMayo story was happening) so to accuse me of bias is wild when you've created a position where it is functionally unfalsifiable that Sneider could ever be wrong. If it pans out, he was correct. If it doesn't, he was correct but things changed afterwards, despite in many cases no reliable sources backing up his original story. Sneider isn't important enough for something like the ] or an an actual reliable source to investigate his methods and he uses anonymous sources (which isn't an issue in and of itself) so it's essentially impossible to prove if any of his reports are false in a way that would satisfy you. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I think that is an argument for waiting until things are officially announced, before putting them in the article. The problem isn't Sneider, but the kind of reporting that he is doing. He is reporting other people's predictions. He also isn't a SME. He is a reporter that chases leads and reports what may be hearsay or leaks or outright lies by his sources. He is reporting on Hollywood, after all. ] (]) 16:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{reply to|HadesTTW}} I just saw that you pinged me in this message. I agree that a good resolution here would be to add Sneider to the RS list as an SME for entertainment reporting as long as he is attributed, and potentially with the caveat that his self-published sources should be replaced with non-self-published sources if available. - ] (]) 15:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You can spot check the examples used and some definitely seem to hold up as poor reporting. Besides the Holland/Across the Spider-Verse example I discussed above another one I spot checked was this comment made March 9, 2023, in which Sneider says it's 100% confirmed that ]'s Star Wars film would be coming out in December 2025 film. On March 21, 2023, Lindelof's departure is announced.
:::{{tq|I am subscribed to his newsletter}} Can you confirm if the quotation from the post I cited is correct then? It matched the title of this post from InSneider and it went unchallenged in the thread and seemed to match the style from what I've found.
:::{{tq|not everything pans out in the film industry.}}, {{tq| I read that as the actress either being in talks or close to a deal but it likely fell apart...not that it was somehow false or intentionally misleading.}} and {{tq|A lot of the major trades do not cover every aspect of these film productions}}. I don't think Sneider is maliciously creating false reports or anything, but if he's reporting too early on things that aren't confirmed yet while the major trade publications are reporting when it's certain, that does not bode well for his reliability nor for the encyclopedic value of his coverage (]).
:::{{tq|removing his published articles from Collider, Variety}} Pretty sure no one here is suggesting that. The main issue is ] and then reliability as a ]. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 06:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Sneider's report and those quotes are correct from his newsletter. I have no idea what "thread" you are referring to, but a lot can change and happen in the 12 days between Sneider saying Lindelof's film was confirmed for that release and when Lindelof ultimately exited the film. That's just how Hollywood, and all of business, pans out. You can't seriously hold that against Sneider to say his statement is false when Disney's Star Wars films have pretty much languished with ] issues for years. Even major trades report on projects in early development and when directors or writers are in talks. That's just what the trades do. They report on the production process, which is always in flux. ] (]) 07:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for the confirmation. I copied the quotation from a Reddit thread from a film podcast subreddit which I linked in my comment above. I dealt with how the other trades operate and the issues with using Sneider for the truth of what he's reporting above, so I won't repeat them here. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{OD}}
<br>
Alrighty, I wrote the below on ] and I'm copying this below.


'''Jeff Sneider being used as a source in Hollywood reporting'''.<br>
::Re "The primary images it hosts don't make it anymore or less unreliable. This is the same as with the primary documents that ancestry/com hosts". I did not know that birth certificates or whatever that Ancestry hosts are considered unreliable, that is a different issue -- I suppose the birth ertificates for two different Joe Smiths might be indistinguishable etc. This doesn't apply to the matter at hand.
Jeff Sneider's reports, found in his ''TheInSneider'' blog and also ''Above the Line'', have been covered in several other reliable sources.
His career besides his self-published blog: He has had two notable tenures at '']'', and in between those two tenures, he had a stint at '']'' covering the film industry. This is confirmed , with information on his tenure at ''Variety''. '']'' also as Senior Film Reporter, and says he did work at '']'' before his venture into trade publications, and at one point he contributed reports for '']''.


These following perennial sources have cited his self-published blog, exemplifying ''']''':
::Vetting reliable sources is tricky if you drill down. Most sources are reliable for some things, and not others. But if the ''Daily Unreliable'' were to host material that -- by some magic -- we were certain was true to 99.99% confidence, yeah we could use it I'd think. The label photos are 99.99% sure of being accurate, n'est-ce pas?
:*'']'', including and


:''Forbes'' describes him as, "Jeff Sneider, an industry insider and reporter", and covers his reporting, even providing a link to another site he contributes to, ''Above the Line''.
::Sure our rules have to be blunt instruments ("Do not use the ''Daily Unreliable'', period"), we can't get overly nuanced. but ''if it is possible to make a rule less blunt'' by logical proof of an reasonably broad exception, and an editor has bothered to do it, it would be mediocre to just be like "enh whatever nah". ] (]) 02:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::How will this RFC change this in anyway? Discog will still be an unreliable source in general, so anyone blindly following the colour applied by a script will still see the same colour. I would suggest making sure the title of the reference is something like "Courtesy link to image of the album reverse showing the song listing". If you add a bare url it may get reverted, the same happens to edits without summaries, if other editors don't know why you're doing something they might revert you in mistake. Clearly explaining goes a long way to mitigate that.
:::Nothing at RSP "prohibits" the use of Discog, the specific wording is {{tq|The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable}}. That is routine wording, all ] is considered generally unreliable.
::::It's prohibited for refs I believe. I want it usable for refs. Your quote basically makes the argument "We can't use any Discogs material for refs, because we don't use any Discogs material for refs" which is circular. Look me in the eye and tell me that you truly believe that these photos are not accurate to a sufficient level of confidence for a ref. You can't because they are. How can that not matter. ] (]) 06:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::::It's not prohibited, and if you think my argument bis circular you have misunderstood it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:::My point about ancestry/com is that it is unreliable, but that the primary documents it hosts are considered reliable (rather than the other way round). -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::As to hoaxes Discog is as likely to be hoaxed as any other place that are user edited, Misplaced Pages included. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Hoaxing the Misplaced Pages can have ideological advantage in many places. Making a hoax record label is pointless and also requires some photoshop skill. There probably ''are'' hoaxed images on Discogs (altho their hivemind would catch lots of them eventually you'd think). However, surely it is way less than one in a thousand. A 99.9+% confidence is way more than sufficient for a ref. ] (]) 06:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Most of the hoaxes on Misplaced Pages are not ideological, see ]. The main reason people create hoaxes is basic trolling. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Mnmh. Well, Misplaced Pages is a magnet for all kinds of hoaxes, but its very different, all of those are text hoaxes -- articles or passages. It's different. Plus Misplaced Pages is ''very'' visible, its the go-to place for hoaxing, Discogs is not. Plus realistic photoshopping takes a level of skill that... idk, one person in a thousand has? (Maybe not in your circle, but overall.)


:* '']'' covers his reporting
::::::Photoshopping a record label is just not the same is all. Altho... now I think of it, you could photoshop your own name as the writer or something, either for lulz or some personal advantage (impress a girl or whatever)... but even so: are more than 1 of 1000 images in Discogs altered? Remember, there are a ''lot'' of images on Discord... 1 in 1000 would mean there are hundreds of hoaxed images on Discord. Many would have been caught, and/or bragged about. I haven't heard a whisper of that. And I mean the internet has a lot info, what my neighbors dog had for breakfast is on the internet.


:* '']'' covers his reporting
::::::I mean sure anything's ''possible''... more that 1 in 1000 Discord images being hoaxes is not literally absolutely ''impossible''... but you'd really be going down a rabbit hole to think its ''realistically possible''. Maybe the ''New York Times'' doesn't exist and is an elaborate hoax (have you ever been there?). Maybe all the rest of us and the whole universe is ] (in which case there would be ''no'' reliable sources I guess.) But how far down the rabbit hole do we want to go.


: and here's him reporting that ] was chosen to play ] in ] of '']'', which ended up being '''spot-on correct''', via '']'':
::::::Nobody in this thread has made the argument that more than 1 in 1,000 Discog label images are significantly altered. It'd be an extraordinary claim, and there's not one single source, even a unreliable random blog or whatever, for that, that I know of. I think it's safe for us to dismiss that possibility. ] (]) 18:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)


:* per a ] publication, '']''{{'}}s own '']'', covers one of his reports
===Summing up, to this point anyway===
So, seems to have died down a bit. So let's see.


:* '']'', (] as {{tq|considered reliable for entertainment-related topics}} but not for {{tq|controversial statements related to living persons}}, which in this case, we're sort of concerned about that stuff in relation to Sneider's reporting) '''covers Sneider in many, many instances'''. <br>
So, my goal here was to add text to the effect that "Except that images of record labels and jackets are OK" at the Discogs entry at ]. That page is for "sources that have been repeatedly raised for discussion are listed here... it is a summarization of discussions about the listed sources" to avoid having to go over some sources over and over. Discogs is rated as "Generally Unreliable" With the circle-slash "prohibited" icon. This represent the consensus of the various previous discussions, and is mainly used for answering editors who aren't sure, but could also be used to quell pointless local discussions on the matter. And that is fine. (I was told that here rather than there is place to have this discussion).
: and reported by ''Screen Rant'' an ''InSneider'' report that '']'', (a film with Austin Butler and Norman Reedus) was dropped by Disney's ]. Sneider's report '''ended up being true''', as Disney let the rights go to ].


:* And '']'' - reporting on the ''InSneider'' report mentioned above concerning ''Bikeriders'', right . Can hardly get better than trade publications.
So, let's see -- by headcount, its 7-4 in favor of "yes" (most people from the other discussion voted here, but one didn't, and was a "yes" so '''8-4 Yes'''). As to strength of argument, well, not for me to say, but... I didn't find the "no" ones very convincing, to say the least. You ''can't'' pass off a photo of record X's label as being record Y, no matter how many people don't get that, you still can't. The photos themselves are technically user created, but I mean so is "I have the album right here, take my word for it man" and that's less reliable and the reader sometimes can't check it at all without unreasonable effort. "We can't use Discogs at all because we don't use Discogs at all" is not a strong argument; "We don't use Discogs at all and that works OK so let's keep doing that" is better, but pretty weak IMO... could be used against any change anywhere... "works OK" is arguable and "works better" is a worthwhile goal. But that's just me, and I'm biased, so make your own conclusion about strength of argument.
:* '']'' - that Sneider was the first to get the news that ] were coming back for '']'' and ''].
:* via '']'' - Sneider that ] was playing ]'s son in '']''.
<span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


:I also find the ''Mary Sue'' story about Johnny Depp and Sydney Sweeney to be drama mongering. Their punchline about Sneider's story amounted to "and <u>internet users</u> were pissed about the actress potentially working with the subject of the ]" - like who cares about internet people being ticked? Was there doxxing? was ] or a world government involved? '''No!'''
Anyway, for the purposes of ], a "a summarization of discussions about the listed sources" has to include this thread, and with more weight than something from say 15 years ago. So it's ''most probably'' not true that a summarization of discussion can be said to reveal a consensus against Discogs label photos as refs, anymore. More the opposite. (If there are a number of fairly recent, well- populated, and decisive discussions that might be different -- but since label photos as a separate thing were discussed little or not at all (I'll betcha), most probably not even then.)
:If Sneider gets something wrong, nobody gets mangled or tangibly harmed. The ] policy is for claims concerning living people themselves, not films and casting processes or anything of the like. and for randoms who are not, something that is not what Sneider is doing.
:Let's ] the concept of this policy and apply it to ]. Even though the chunk of rock is the subject of the article, there are parts of the article for the Moon which concern living people, like ] and how he walked on it. '''Holy hell!''' the very association of living people to a subject of an article clearly not about people means we '''must NEVER''' use any ] about the Moon in the article because it is ].
:I don't think that Sneider should be used to state facts about casting. I certainly don't believe we need to add a person to a cast list because he says something on his podcast: while I question his nature of jumping the gun on reports, I don't believe the rationale should be that the info he reports is concerning a living person. I figured that saying ] was gonna be in ''Fantastic Four'' was bold, but it's concerning that a character is going to be in a film, not some claim about a person's life and times. Besides his casting scoops, I think he gives worthy insight into the film industry and its processes. I think that his branding is corny and I'm concerned that but hey, ] was cruel yet he was still held in high regard for his work. Same thing for Sneider. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 21:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::Agreed, I started this discussion because I was bothered by the Fantastic Four page where he's used for the cast list. I hope we are able to at least agree that he shouldn't be cited without attribution, lest he gets something wrong (not maliciously, but because his sources may have been wrong, or events changed in the production process that he was not aware of). Advocating him to be deprecated for BLP violations is a massive stretch that I do not agree with- he's generally reliable, and I trust that his self-published site can be used for article content. He just shouldn't be taken as absolute fact. ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 01:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Precisely. I agree with all of that. The Fantastic Four page's cast section is something that is being discussed at ] and would be best handled there rather than here, though I agree with the core points with the attribution and use with non-BLP content. ] (]) 01:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I think it's best if we formalize it here, anyways. It's my hope that we can get a consensus enough to write an entry on ], which would be helpful for everyone editing CBM articles that refer to his claims. ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 04:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I would prefer listing Sneider at perennial sources. The ] taskforce already has an entry for his reports at ], for reference. ] (]) 04:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Just to note that this wouldn't meat the criteria for inclusion on the RSP. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::I don't know, saying someone was going to get a job, and then it turns out they didn't might have a negative effect on their career. A casting director might wonder why they weren't chosen. This is just speculation, and it probably helps the actors, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. The stakes are low either way, and it makes sense to wait for an official announcement. As it has been said, things don't always pan out. Speculation on casting seems like news to me. ] (]) 15:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:All three of the listed ''Forbes'' articles are written by ] ] {{rspe|Forbes.com contributors}}, which are ] due to lack of editorial oversight. Please note that Forbes.com contributor articles do not count toward ]. As a policy, ] takes precedence over the ] guideline. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 02:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::alright, we can consider the other 97 out of 100 <small>joking exaggeration</small> sources I've laid down here. We've still got use by Hollywood trades, reliable entertainment websites, and other popular sources. My point stands still. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::I believe that Sneider's reporting of casting is 90% of the time on point, but the margin of error warrants attribution and additional consideration. I do not believe that info about a person being cast in a film constitutes ''personal'' information, and thus I believe that BLP does not apply to that extent. I believe additional considerations and attributions should apply for the first reason, rather than depreciation for a grossly WikiLawyered reading of BLP policy. I believe he is considered reliable for general behind-the-curtains technical info about Hollywood, having been at it for a long-o time and that he would know about these things. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::] is a bright-line rule that prevents self-published sources from being used for third-party claims {{xt|"about a living person"}}. The policy is phrased with the word {{xt|"Never"}} to emphasize that routine exceptions for claims such as film castings are not appropriate. This language is repeated in the ] policy in more explicit terms: {{xt|"'''Never''' use self-published sources as ] about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."}} Like the remainder of ], this rule applies to all claims about living persons, and not just {{!xt|"''personal'' information"}}. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 02:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Okay. We seem to agree to not use it as a third-party source. We seem to agree to give Sneider attribution and consideration of ] in these reports he does.
::::If there are any concerns, I suggest you turn to the great policy that is ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What do you mean by {{tq|behind-the-curtains technical info about Hollywood}}? Like what a gaffer is? Or the type of camera used? Or does he know more about things like how casting directors and location scouts work? I thought he was a reporter that covered the Hollywood beat. Does he do anything besides report what industry people tell him? ] (]) 15:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I wonder if reporting what industry people tell you is, uh, what trade journalism is the definition of? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I don't think he is a trade journalist, either. A trade journal covers an industry with people in that industry as the target audience. ] describes him as an Entertainment Journalist and describes him writing for publications aimed at the general public. His own website describes itself as {{tq|Scoops and insider analysis}}. This isn't about being an expert, it is about being in the know and chasing down leads. A lot of the articles are even labelled "Hot Rumor". He is a reporter, he reports things. The nature of what he reports means that it involves making predictions as well as discussing rumours and other gossip. A lot of it involves upcoming movies, that is, events that haven't happened yet. It also means a lot of his stuff isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. ] (]) 11:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::know what? I think his insights have merit. Glad to see you found the article about the journalist that I wrote. Did you see the part where he threatened to drive his car into a tree when he lost a Christopher Nolan scoop, then got fired from ''Variety''? Or when he said something racially insensitive and got fired from ''Mashable''? I personally enjoyed the part where he went on about getting his butt kicked by ] in a boxing match.
::::::Anybody think that he does a self-published newsletter because he can't hold down a job? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It did strike me as surprisingly negative considering the defence he is getting here. It is basically a hit piece. The boxing thing was confusing, it is probably undue. ] (]) 16:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Reliable sources describe Sneider the way that they do, so that should be reflected in the article. This is a rationale that is based on a concept which is probably best explained by ].
::::::::As for the boxing match, that is a notable event he was involved in. Fighting the director of ] is plenty notable for inclusion. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:I like Paul Tassi's work, but per ], he can't be used in USEBYOTHERS analysis. However, he, like the other links in this post generally refer to Sneider's reports as in terms of rumors instead of certainties. The one exception is , where it is corroborated by THR, and they suddenly switch to writing in certainties. The last three links here from the major trades are clearly doing their own independent corroboration of Sneider's story and doing the polite thing in journalism and crediting him with being the first to break the news.
:As for accuracy, many of the links were about the Beatles casting, which Sneider was actually wrong about Charlie Rowe as George Harrison, which was immediately denied, and ultimately ended up being wrong. The many commentary pieces about the rumored casting that it sparked might justify inclusion, but the miss doesn't speak well to his reliability. So even from your own links, it seems that for content that doesn't run afoul of ] and is encyclopedic enough to include, it would have to be attributed and written as though it's a certainty. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 04:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


I have not kept up with this discussion over the holidays but I see a bunch of dubious arguments have taken place. Trailblazer was correct above when he said that Sneider makes it clear when he is noting rumours versus reporting on something that his sources have confirmed to him, and the high-profile instances where he "got something wrong" are not examples of him lying but clearly examples of things being true or potentially true at the time which did not pan out. Several instances have been mentioned where a potential casting was reported but did not pan out. That is not a lie or a "miss" or anything of the sort, he is reporting on people being eyed by a studio or even entering negotiations but he can't guarantee that everything will work out in the end, and his wording reflects that. The exact same can be said for any of the Hollywood trades who have reported on potential casting that ended up falling through. The level of scrutiny being put on the accuracy of his reporting here is a bit ridiculous considering the same would not be done if he was still writing for ''TheWrap'' or ''Variety'', which is what WP:SELFPUB protects. If any of these reports had come from a journalist who was still working at the trades we would not be having this conversation at all. As for WP:BLPSPS, its wording is oddly vague. "Never use self-published sources... as sources of material about a living person" -- what does that even mean? Any sentence that mentions a living person cannot be sourced to any self-published source, regardless of what that source is or what the sentence says? If an expert on the life of Donald Trump had a meeting with him and then tweeted out something Trump had said, we could not include that in any articles even if it was not a detail about Trump's personal life? I think it is crazy to say that we can't use a tweet or a blog post from a person we otherwise consider to be reliable to note when an actor is being considered for a role in a film or that they may have a scheduling conflict that could prevent them from doing a certain job. I am sure the wording at BLPSPS could not have been meant to prevent that. - ] (]) 14:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
And the nutshell at that page does say "Consensus can change...". So...


:In your example, if that expert's tweet contained anything of substance, a reliable source would mention it, and you would be free to cite that reliable source. Alternatively, you could wait until the ] policy no longer applies to Trump, although I highly doubt that the tweet would constitute ] in any Misplaced Pages article if no reliable source mentions the tweet by that time. In all other cases, yes, ] would prohibit that tweet from being cited on Misplaced Pages to support a claim about Trump, despite the tweet being written by an expert, because the tweet is self-published. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 22:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Make sense? I will talk to the Perennial Sources people, OK? They will probably agree to the change.
::There are situations where DUEWEIGHT allows a mention even if there is no wider coverage, which is the case here where useful context is being provided. Regardless, I still think the vague wording at BLPSPS is being used to inappropriately prevent additions that should not be covered by it. A subject-matter expert on the entertainment industry is providing noteworthy context on the development process for high-profile film and television articles, we are not talking about unreliable sources making exceptional or contentious claims about individuals and their personal lives. - ] (]) 22:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The ] policy, {{xt|"'''Never''' use self-published sources as ] about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer"}}, is as explicit as can be. That longstanding requirement has been part of the ] since ], and part of the ] when it ]. (It was added to the latter page as a guideline requirement ].) If you would like to contest these policies, you are free to do so on their respective talk pages. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 23:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I was going to mention the wording in ], as it's more explicit, but Newslinger beat me to it. I've found this annoying in the past, where the project of a living person is detailed in a otherwise reliable third party self-published source. However that exact situation is meant to be covered (and excluded) by it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::As I and others have said, the policies against self-published sources used for anything about living people is a bright line rule. And as for ] and ignoring the self-published/BLP issue, if the only source that mentions an aspect of an article subject is a self-published newsletter, then it would more likely to be undue to include based on the proportion of RS coverage. Misplaced Pages is not the great place to ] about what reliable sources should be covering. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 06:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I am not denying what BLPSPS says or how long it has said it, I am taking issue with the way it is being applied. I do not agree that we are violating BLPSPS by sourcing film production and development information to a self-published SME. I also do not agree that it is UNDUE to include information that only a single self-published SME has provided, particularly when it aligns with other details from other reliable sources. I'm not advocating for building an entire article based on such a source or for prioritising it over contradictory reliable sources. - ] (]) 11:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::When I went through and removed most of the mainspace uses of InSneider, the overwhelming majority were reports of people being cast, people being considered for a acting/directing role, when an already cast role was going to make a secret appearance in a film, or creative decisions that can only be made by a very small number of people at a studio (i.e. director, producer, executives) that the guidance at ] leans towards applying the policy.
:::::If something aligns with what other reliable sources have said, then it would be best to use what those sources have said instead of a SPS. But in any case, UNDUE is not an avenue to bring in content that doesn't meet our verifiability/sourcing policies. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Again, we are not writing a biography about James Gunn or Peter Safran and using Sneider to source claims about their person. Sneider is used to write about the particulars of film production.
::::::One side of this discussion is looking at the forest, while the other side is focused on the trees. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::BLPGROUP doesn't seem to be relevant to this discussion, it is talking about "corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons" and specifically refers to harmful claims, neither of which apply here. - ] (]) 11:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The subsection is about when BLP applies to "legal persons" AND "groups". It does not displace ] and in no way limits the applicability of BLP to groups to instances of potentially harmful material.
:::::::The first part of the paragraph is a clarification about how ] existing as a term of art in law doesn't mean that they are always covered by BLP, which is meant to protect natural persons. The second half of the paragraph applies to all groups and tells us to look at each group on a case by case basis to see where it fits on the spectrum between groups that are small enough that BLP should apply and ones where they are too large. The part about harm is simply noting it is part of the analysis. For creative decisions on films, the people actually making that decision would be very small, so it should attract BLP protections, which means BLPSPS applies. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 03:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::The fact that people make creative decisions on films does not mean we cannot use self-published sources to support those creative decisions, that is such a ridiculous stretch of what the policies say and mean. - ] (]) 09:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Besides the stories involving named people where BLP would obviously apply, the level of creative decisions that InSneider reports on and that Misplaced Pages uses him for are those that would clearly be attributable to a very small number of people (5-10 max). They're typically stuff such as what projects a studio is considering, what characters will be cast, and what the plot of film will be about.
:::::::::We're not using InSneider for lower-level stuff like what belt buckle was used on a particular costume, what brand of communication devices the PAs use, or what shade of a color was used in a particular CGI shot. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 15:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm going to leave this discussion with two absolutes. #1: Sneider is a dude who knows the industry of which he speaks about, and so long as we consider in-text attribution and consideration of ], we are fine. #2: ]. if BLPSPS or otherwise are keeping us from something helpful and insightful to the subjects of articles, it's within our power to ignore it. These policies don't exist to keep us from expanding the encyclopedia with expertise, especially from sources who don't have to worry about holding back information from seeing publication because of ulterior motives. That is where self-published sources are at an advantage ahead of traditional media. If you wish to hear tales of another subject-matter expert journalist putting a major media organisation on blast for withholding information for ulterior motives, see ] on this very page. '']'' censored CEO killer ]'s face for shady purposes. Not saying all legacy media is compromised, but I'm saying I enjoy seeing self-published journalists actually giving uncompromised coverage of their subjects that is made possible by self-published status. Just like Sneider. If ''general association'', not even ''direct'', with living people makes these sources unusable despite clear merits, then ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::The one policy that ] does not bypass is ]. From this discussion, there is no consensus on ignoring the ] and the ] policies to use Sneider's self-published claims about living persons. That type of content would be permissible on a wiki hosting site like ] {{ndash}} which typically uses minimal reliability requirements for the sake of completionism, but Misplaced Pages's sourcing standards are higher than that of most Fandom wikis. Per ], {{xt|"Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful"}}, particularly if it does not meet Misplaced Pages's reliability requirements. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 17:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::A few editors here are trying to stretch the BLPSPS and SPS policies to prevent Sneider from being used at all, which shouldn't override the existing community consensus and clear evidence that he is a reliable source for film-related reporting. HadesTTW suggested wording that is a good start towards a common-sense solution where Sneider is used, with attribution, for reports on film-related coverage where better sources do not exist. This should lead to a compromise, with Sneider being used in situations where his reports are improving articles while editors become more aware of whether he should be used (and not using him in situations where his reports genuinely fall into BLPSPS territory, could be replaced by a better source, or some other issue such as DUEWEIGHT). All that is preventing us from moving on to that conclusion and ending this discussion is the idea that BLPSPS and SPS apply to every little mention of a living person in a source, which I maintain is ridiculous and inappropriate. - ] (]) 18:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::If you do not agree with excluding self-published sources from being used for claims about living persons, you may propose a change to the relevant policies at ] and ]. What you believe is {{!xt|"ridiculous and inappropriate"}} is actually how these policies have been applied on Misplaced Pages for 18 years, per community consensus. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 18:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I never said I was against the central ideas of BLPSPS, I completely understand why we want to have a higher standard of verifiability when it comes to exceptional/controversial claims about real people who may take issue with said claims. That makes sense from multiple angles. What I take issue with is using the same standard for non-exceptional claims that happen to involve people. In my opinion, there is a very big difference between (which I accept) and . - ] (]) 19:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::exactly! If I actually paid any attention to X-Men 97, I would have rm'd that in a hot second. Sneider making claims that ] was doing heinous stuff to his staffers is some outrageous content that I would insist we wait on reports by '']'' or '']'' or '']'', any particular source of merit to include those claims in the article. Outrageous claims require usage of especially reliable sources like ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::In the 18 years since that BLPSPS policy was enacted, the industry of journalism has changed drastically with a variety of seasoned journalists and subject-matter experts publishing their reports on their own accord, and I believe it is about time that the policies are updated to compliment such changes to update with the times. I do not think Sneider's status as a self-published source should discount his reliability with his actual reporting in his newsletter, and am more than happy to raise concerns for the policy to be updated elsewhere, but that is not the central issue to determine reliability in {{em|this}} discussion. ] (]) 02:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Most people on this board are aware of the poor state of traditional journalism and the rise of indie outlets. I myself noted in a ] that ], who has a track record of good journalist work and whose stories I think are accurate, should nonetheless not be used without corroboration and/or discussion by non-SPS RSs because he's a BLPSPS. If any of you think there's appetite in moving from the current bright-line rule to another system for BLPSPSs (e.g. limited carve out where RSN endorses use with attribution), that might be a worthwhile discussion to have. As its stands though, BLPSPS is quite clear and the overwhelming majority of the uses of InSneider are in such cases.
:::::::::::::::If we do want to go back to discussing the reliability of InSneider for non-BLP claims, I would start with something I asked earlier, are you as a subscriber to InSneider, able to provide examples of if he retracted, corrected, and/or explained why he missed on the Sweeney/Day Drinker, Holland/Spider-verse, Lindeloff/Star Wars stories? Getting a story wrong isn't fatal to use as a reliable source since even the best sources aren't 100%. However, for assessing new sources, correcting mistakes is an indicator of reliability (as long as the miss rate is not too high), but not addressing them is a sign of unreliability. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::The language in ] and ] does not provide an exemption for self-published content about other living persons that is deemed to be uncontroversial. The "central idea" of this requirement is to ensure that any claim (not just controversial claims) about a living person passes adequate editorial oversight before it can be included in Misplaced Pages. There is nothing special about Sneider or his self-published newsletter that would warrant an exception to this requirement, which applies to every other individual who meets the ] criterion. If anyone wants to amend this requirement, which has been applied on Misplaced Pages for more than 18 years, a discussion at ], ], or ] would be the first step to enact the change you are looking for. Such a change, if it gains community consensus, would apply to all sources of this kind and not just Sneider's content. Until then, the use of Sneider's self-published claims about other living persons remains a violation of core content policies. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 06:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Once again, that is your ''interpretation'' of the policies which is clearly not shared by all editors. I fear a discussion at one of those other places will have similar luck due to a few editors that like things the way they are, but I am happy to give it a go. As for wrapping up this discussion, I still think we should return to the wording that I suggested above in response to HadesTTW. I am not concerned about these apparent "misses" that Patar knight keeps harping on about. Some of these may have been genuinely wrong, but not many of them (which is the case with almost all reliable trade sources as well). Most would have been accurate at the time but then things changed due to the developing nature of films (i.e. Lindelof leaving his SW film, Driver being considered for FF but not getting the part). The Sweeney instance seems to be a blatant case of him getting it wrong and being called out immediately, but that one time isn't enough to make him an unreliable source especially when nearly everything else he has reported aligns with other sources. - ] (]) 10:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::I've started a policy talk page discussion at {{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Self-published claims about other living persons}}. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 20:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't have a particular problem with using Sneider as a source, as long as we attribute his speculations properly. He has a generally good track record and is used by reliable sources. But I have come across situations where we report his speculations as fact. When he has an expectation that is not attributed to an official or at least genuinely connected source, if we choose to report that expectation at all, it needs to be attributed as "Sneider's expectation that such and such will occur", not as a Wikivoice statement that "such and such will occur." ] (]) 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] ==
But here is the thing. So far we are talking about if a fact (is there consensus) was or was not established.


{{Hatnote|Once Telegram gets mentioned on ], its shortcuts would be ] and ].}}
But... for ''rules'' its different. At ] (part of ], which is technically just a guideline but has the weight of a strong rule) it says "Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are... Discogs...". Well is 8-4 and (if you think so) weight of argument enough to change a rule? Mnmh... well the at WP:RS it's just one example. Removing it doesn't change any rule, at all. And dollars to donuts that the people writing that list of examples gave zero thought to Discogs label photos specifically, and we're not "originalists" bound to exact text.
Telegram is unreliable because:
*Telegram is an ] platform, which means that it is highly unreliable as a source because it is used by the alt-right to evade censorship and publish far-right opinions and pseudoscientific conspiracy theories.
*Telegram is a ] because it is a social networking service.
*Most far-right things (such as ], ], and ]) have escaped to Telegram after getting suspended on several mainstream social networking services.
*Telegram has been described as a "safe haven for spammers and crypto scams" because of how most Telegram groups are flooded with cryptocurrency scammers and other types of spammers. However, t.me links are barely seen on Misplaced Pages (or i just don't see them often).
*].
Telegram would either be ] (like all other self-published sources) or ] (because it is alt-tech). However, if t.me links are commonly used to violate ], it would be ].


] (]) 16:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
So yeah I'd say changing that text (most probably just removing it, since its only listing some examples, and less confusing) would probably be appropriate.


But suppose we would have to have a discussion over at RS tho. We'll see. ] (]) 03:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC) :I wasn't aware there was anyone suggesting that it might be reliable. ] (] • ]) 10:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:Telegram doesn't need to be on the RSP, it's obviously unreliable and I don't see anyone arguing that it is reliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::Agreed, it's just a user-generated source (]). Reliable for ] claims and posts by respectable experts/journalists/reliable sources, unreliable generally. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 16:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:Aside from the fact that the ] i.e. '''''literal''' neo-Nazis'' use it (which is ]), Telegram, as a platform where ] with no clear editorial oversight, is a ] and unreliable, except in cases such as ]. I thought this was pretty obvious. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 00:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson ==
:As someone involved in the RFC I would suggest leaving it to whoever closes the discussion.
:As to UGC as I said above this would change nothing, at best it would add a sentence at RSP that links to images can be used because if other pre-existing policy considerations. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 10:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)


] is cited in the''' Media outlets''' section of ]. He's an independent journalist who self-publishes and doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist. Reliable or not? I say no. Some other editors from that article might come here with more context. ] (]) 02:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
== Palestine Chronicle ==


:. Mr. Klippenstein is being used to cite:
Palestine Chronicle is a questionable news outlet. As an example, it hired a freelance journalist Abdallah Aljamal to write articles on the ] who was later revealed to be holding Israelis as hostages. Aljamal was also a spokesperson for Hamas. This is an obvious conflict of interest; ]s do not actively participate in wars nor are they paid by the militaries they are covering. The ] is currently being discussed for failure to vet freelancers---should the Palestine Chronicle also be held to that standard?
:# {{tqq|Klippenstein also alleged that '']'' directed their staff to "dial back" on showing photographs containing Mangione's face.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Klippenstein |first1=Ken |date=December 11, 2024 |title=NY Times Doesn't Want You to See Shooter's Face |url=https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/ny-times-doesnt-want-you-to-see-mangiones |access-date=December 15, 2024 |website=kenklippenstein.com |language=en}}</ref>}}
:# {{tqq|A report on the killing by the ] was obtained by independent journalist Dan Boguslaw, and published by Klippenstein on December 26. The report focused on Mangione's motive and people who express sympathy for him, whom they labeled as "extremists". Klippenstein alleged that multiple media outlets had access to the report, but selectively quoted it in a way that focused on Mangione. He said that "By withholding documents and unilaterally deciding which portions merit public disclosure, the media is playing god."<ref>{{cite web |title=Read the NYPD’s Mangione report the media won't publish |url=https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/post-luigi-the-extremist-threat-is |publisher=Ken Klippenstein |access-date=28 December 2024}}</ref>}} {{reflist}}
:] (]) 03:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:It's crap. "Media reactions" or "in the media" sections in Misplaced Pages articles too often, like this article, become dumpsters where Wikipedians simply like to show off how good they are at finding random sources and shoehorning them into an article, for reasons. ] (]) 04:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::Agreed. ] (]) 04:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::Right, but the focus here is on the reliability of Ken Klippenstein and whether or not his statements (sourced to his own website and attributed) are usable in the article. ] (]) 12:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{tq|doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist}} That's not accurate, as you could have confirmed by checking out the references in the Klippenstein WP article that note that he's been a journalist for outlets like The Nation and The Intercept. Both of those are generally reliable on the RSP. He's also seen as serious by other journalists (e.g., in Columbia Journalism Review interview, which describes him "as one of the most fearless reporters of the Trump era").
:His self-published work cannot be used as a source for WP content about living or recently dead people (e.g., about Mangione's letter), per ]. He could be used as a source on a BLP if the WP text sourced to him is not itself about a person (e.g., if it's about mainstream media). But in this case, I don't see how to disentangle his statements about the press from content about Mangione. Some other news outlets have reported a bit about the content currently sourced to Klippenstein, such as this , noting Klippenstein's apparent publication of Mangione's letter. ] (]) 15:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::I was just going to say something similar - it's definitely inaccurate to say he hasn't written for other reliable sources in the past. It's true that his own stuff would fall foul of ], but his stuff picked up by other reliable sources is usable, conceptually, with proper context and attribution. ] ] ] ] 15:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:Hell no, get rid of this Kenny guy now. ]: this content directly involves a living person (Luigi), and to make self-published claims about info regarding these living persons is against policy. And, Kenny boy over here is using his blog to write ] things about an American newspaper of record. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{U|BarntToust}} - Dial it back a bit. ] applies to all BLP is all Misplaced Pages spaces. You calling him weird names like "Kenny Boy" probably doesn't constitute "written with the greatest care and attention". ] ] 16:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::If this was like '']'' or '']'' writing this about ''NYT'' then yes I would support inclusion. This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here. "Ken" should be more concerned that he is writing damning blog posts accusing a reputable newspaper of compromised journalistic integrity. Who else will pick this up? Who else will corroborate this bold as all hell claim with trusted journalistic process? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::"This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here" is false, as is "he is writing damning blog posts." More than one person here has noted that he's a reliable journalist. Unbandito explained why he chose to start his own journalism Substack (not a blog). There are a number of established writers using Substack to host their reporting; here's ]. It's bizarre that you put his name in quotation marks, especially after calling him "this Kenny guy" and "Kenny boy." Nothing is stopping you from answering your own questions. I already noted a couple of sources that had picked it up; here's . ] (]) 18:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I personally believe that bold claims against these news organisations need other comparable news organisations to corroborate them, to establish ]. the spreading of claims by sources who are especially biased and opinionated means nothing. "Ken" can make a bombshell accusation against NYT for spineless reporting but can we get ''The Guardian'' or some other prestigious institutions to back these claims? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::A reminder that WP:RS states "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject," so I don't agree that his reporting "means nothing." This thread started off with the false claim that he "doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist" and the question "Reliable or not?" The false claim has been addressed. The question shows that people have different opinions. Whether some mention of Klippenstein is DUE is not a matter of reliability and belongs on the Talk page. ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Having been employed by two ultra-partisan outlets for some short period, and then by "The Young Turks" which is marginally better than InfoWars, does not indicate this individual's self-published works meet the encyclopedia's reliability standards. And it has not been shown that I made a false claim, only if you think these ultra-partisan sources are "mainstream". Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent, which is laughable. ] (]) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::He was employed by The Young Turks ''before'' he worked for The Nation and The Intercept, not ''after'', and those aren't the only other media for which he's written. Partisanship doesn't determine whether a given media outlet is/isn't mainstream media. They're both listed on Harvard's . {{tq|Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent}} Please quote whomever you're referring to, because I don't see any comment suggesting that. I'd be happy to be corrected, but otherwise, it's counterproductive to characterize people's comments as more extreme than they actually are. Again: people clearly have different opinions about whether he's "Reliable or not?" You have your opinion, and I have mine. Personally, I consider the ] interview as evidence of his reliability; if they happen to focus on someone who's unreliable, I think they say so, as . ] (]) 22:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Funny, Misplaced Pages lists The Federalist as "generally unreliable due to its partisan nature" yet they're listed as mainstream on Harvard's index. Seems like some kinds of partisanship are more acceptable than others. ] (]) 23:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I didn't claim or imply that all MSM on Harvard's list are ''reliable''. Reliability, partisanship, and mainstream media status are all distinct dimensions. A source can fall into any one of their 8 combinations. The full RSP sentence is "The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature''' and its promotion of conspiracy theories'''." Maybe you think a source that promotes conspiracy theories is reliable, but I don't. ] (]) 23:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't think a source promoting conspiracies is reliable, and I'm not disputing the decision against The Federalist. I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here. Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview, and I disagree. Even the content in question isn't just a professional critique of editorial decisions, but it's couched in nefarious undertones, even going so far as to accuse MSM of "playing god." ] (]) 00:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{tq|I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here.}} That's a very general claim for which you've provided no evidence and that also seems way beyond the scope of this particular thread. {{tq|Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview...}} Another very general claim, though this one at least touches on the thread's topic. Focusing just on Klippenstein, if you have evidence that he "''frequently'' write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a ] worldview" and not reliable, you should present it. If you do have that evidence, then you really should have presented it when you first asked "Reliable or not?" ] (]) 00:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I would just refer you over to the article's talk page where discussion of this issue has continued, and a resolution has been reached. As to Klipp's conspiratorial worldview, see his latest media rant which I also submitted in talk.. ] (]) 18:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I don't see how anything on the talk page provides evidence for your claim that he "'''frequently''' write of large corporations as dark plotters," and either you have evidence of that or you don't. So far, it looks like you don't. The only thing I see in your link relative to a "conspiratorial worldview" is his claim that "every self-appointed moral arbiter from politicians to major media outlets conspired to forbid the public from engaging in debate about how inhumane our healthcare system is," which hardly rises to the level of "frequently." ] (]) 19:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::is that a conspiracy or is that just actually saying a ]? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::It's a BLP violation to keep calling him a conspiracy theorist is what it is. One that Jonathan f1 seems quite committed to. ] (]) 19:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Like I explained to you on the talk page, I'm using his own words. He's alleging that politicians and major media outlets "conspired" against the public. ] (]) 19:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Him using a turn of phrase one time doesn't give us cause to start throwing insults at him on Misplaced Pages talk pages. Please provide a couple of reliable sources calling Klippenstein a conspiracy theorist or desist immediately. ] (]) 20:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::], do we need reliable sources? I don't think we should explicitly be throwing around the ]-word, but rather ]. Keeps BLP vio away. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::I'm not putting him in the same bucket with Alex Jones, but his repeated attacks on major media followed by a remark about them "conspiring" with each other is what it is. But okay, to move past all this pointless tone policing, I'll find a new phrase. ] (]) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I'm not going to rehash his entire career as a journalist here, and particularly his time with The Young Turks which will certainly provide you with ample evidence of this. It isn't even relevant here -the articles in question are attack pieces where he is either implicating major media outlets in a plot or calling their journalistic ethics into question. That we are even debating inclusion with no corroboration from high-grade sources is remarkable. ] (]) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Again, I said {{tq|if you have evidence that he "'''frequently''' write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a conspiratorial worldview" and not reliable, you should present it.}} You're the one who made the claim, and you're the one with the burden of proof for it. Don't try to shift the burden onto me. I'm not "debating inclusion" of any specific edit right now. I'm telling you that if you can't or won't substantiate your claim, then you should retract it, as it's an unsubstantiated contentious claim and a BLP violation. The BLP policy applies to any statements about living persons on all WP pages, including this one. ] (]) 20:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I'll retract it just to move on from this. My objection to Klippenstein in this particular case does not hinge on this little side issue. ] (]) 23:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Why did you put his real name in quotes like that? ] ] 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::As an indicator that I generally distrust Substack reporters and their methods. I can't believe that anything will pass as qualified journalism nowadays 😐 <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:In this case, I'd say keep it. Klippenstein obtained and published the manifesto, which mainstream sources begrudgingly admitted was the same one they refused to publish. It appears that the citations in this article are of secondary coverage of his work, which makes them even more admissible. Klip is not just some guy, he has journalistic credentials and a past of reliable reporting for multiple reliable orgs. He's one of a number of journalists who was laid off from major outlets in the last year or so as part of a broader trend of restructuring in media that is ongoing. He and others like Ryan Grim and Jeremy Scahill have moved on to independent work, but despite the loss of their association with an established organization, their reporting remains influential and they've made a number of valuable contributions to our knowledge of and discourse on current events. I worry that Misplaced Pages policy, which assumes that mainstream media has a static financial and ethical position in perpetuity, is not adequately nuanced to accommodate major shake-ups in the press such as what we're seeing today. I think it's also worth noting that while Ken publishes on substack, at least in some other articles he's written (such as his publication of a US intelligence report on Israeli preparations to strike Iran) he employs an editor to review his work. This is the same sort of self-publishing that mainstream RS do, and another argument in favor of his reliability. ] (]) 16:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::"multiple reliable orgs."
::Really, like what? The Young Turks? I'm aware that Nation and Intercept are considered generally reliable, but there's also consensus that they're opinionated, biased and partisan, and should be used with caution. Klipp doesn't work for any of these publications anymore; he self-publishes on substack and has made a career for himself publishing MSM polemic. That's what this section includes currently -Klipp's self-published polemic directed at NY Times, CNN etc. Even if this appeared in The Nation, there'd be weight issues. ] (]) 17:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, The Nation and The Intercept. All media has bias, and any media-literate person should understand this. I think weight arguments are a lot stronger regarding content that is more than a few sentences or a short paragraph long. I don't think the due weight for this content is zero, and therefore I think the material is appropriate. If there is a significant view in opposition to Klippenstein, I think the page would be better improved by expanding it. ] (]) 17:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Of course all media, and all humans, are biased, but when a consensus on here comes with that caveat, you know you're not dealing with a gold standard RS. And this is only relevant here if you think his past employment with these outlets, however brief, in some way lends credibility to his self-published substacks. ] (]) 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think what his past employment in media shows is that he has the training and follows the same standards of verifiability as prestige media organizations. I think it's worth noting that when a fake version of the manifesto was making the rounds, Klippenstein declined to publish it and called it out as misleading because he couldn't verify its authenticity. Regardless of where he's publishing them, I think his publication of several leaked documents ahead of the mainstream press as well as his history as a FOIA journalist shows that he is well connected to valuable sources of information and is engaged in "real" investigative journalism of the sort that prestige outlets are increasingly unwilling to pay for when opinion pieces get them just as many clicks.
:::::His perspective on the unwillingness of the media to publish a document which they had verified is true is granted some additional relevance by the fact that he is the one who published the document and inquired to these organizations as to why they hadn't, as well as by the fact that journalists from those legacy organizations leaked internal communications to him which showed the decision those organizations had made.
:::::I think that this is frankly a strong example of the way that Misplaced Pages's current RS policies are inadequate to handle the reality that with the traditional media in financial and organizational crisis, sometimes breaking news is going to be published by small independent outlets or individuals. Any conception of reliability that uniformly dismisses sources like Klippenstein as if they're some random blog post by John Q. Public while reifying legacy media despite the history of its errors and shortcomings and the media studies scholarship that problematizes a simplistic conception of source reliability, is sure to exclude some valuable material and include a lot of junk. Without getting too far off topic, I think the solution to this is to emphasize verifiability and source consensus over things like editorial process and organizational prestige, and to attribute wherever there is controversy or disagreement. ] (]) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::: Anyone using phrases like "MSM polemic" ought to be stepping well away from deciding the reliability of ''any'' sources, to be honest. ] 19:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::NY Times and CNN are mainstream media, a polemic is "a piece of writing expressing a strongly critical view of someone or something." Thus, Klippenstein's hit pieces on MSM are polemics. I don't see why me knowing what these words mean implies I need to "step well away" from assessing reliability. ] (]) 19:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::if someone else reports on it, its not sps, its secondary coverage of SPS, which should be admissible in BLP, right? I think we can't directly use any details in his blog that aren't vetted and cited by another non-SPS news source ] (]) 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, secondary sources can be used for a BLP, if they are RSs. For example, this article confirms that Klippenstein published Mangione full "manifesto." And this article could be used re: his criticism of other media for not releasing the whole thing, though RSP says "There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement." Perhaps there are other reliable non-SPSs that are better sources for the content about Klippenstein's criticism of other media; I'm not going to take time right now to search further. There may still be questions about due weight, whether a claim needs to be attributed, etc., but those are distinct from the question of reliability and what can be used for BLP material. ] (]) 17:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::See, this is the thing, we've got LA Times, a high quality RS for news, so there's no reason to cite Klippenstein. But that covers the manifesto issue, which I wouldn't object to including. But the hit piece on those MSMs? Yeah, that's not found in LA Times or any other source on that level, only a "marginally reliable" source. I do not think Klipp is any position to critique editorial decisions at these publications, and do not see how that's due weight anyway. ] (]) 18:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I had to read the section again (didn't remember it from memory) so let me rephrase this:
:::::* I don't object to the bit about media not publishing the manifesto, and this could be sourced to the LA Times (the secondary source referencing Klippenstein).
:::::* The next line about the NY Times not showing the suspect's face -no RS is talking about this and I personally find it irrelevant.
:::::*The last part about media outlets selectively quoting from the NYPD report -this exceeds weight limits and makes the section read like a hit piece against MSM, all sourced to one man. Klippenstein objects to the NYPD using the term "extremists" to describe the suspect's supporters, and cites a report by security firm Dragonfly to argue that the risk of violent attacks on corporate leaders will likely remain low. If you read his source, they, too, use the word "extremists" to describe people who support the killing.
:::::] (]) 19:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:I read his work and personally trust Klippenstein. However, his substack is clearly a self-published source. Unbandito's comments on broader issues with Misplaced Pages, while interesting, don't address the ] issue. Ultimately, Klippenstein is the person with final approval on what he wrote.
:I would consider Klippenstein's views ] if they are reported on by reliable sources. Based on what I know and see here, I can't consider him to meet the ] criteria in this topic area. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 07:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::I agree with Chess here - ] is appropriate here. Klippenstein is a respected journalist. He's also self-publishing. But, in this case, he's an expert who is self-publishing. ] (]) 14:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::See talk page (article linked up top). ] (]) 18:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'll endorse this as position as well. Klippenstein has a good track record with reputable outlets and hasn't had issues so far on his own, but is ultimately a ] that should only be included when corroborated and/or discussed by non-SPS RSs. That appears to be the case with the manifesto itself, but not the other reports. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 01:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Pretty much yes. There's no issue with the manifesto content, but the other reports are not mentioned in any secondary RS of any quality (ignoring Washington Times and the art website). There's also the fact that he's mentioned 3 separate times in a section of only 8 lines, which is hard to defend. ] (]) 01:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I merged the 'Media outlets' section with the 'Other' section. An editor made a ] on the talk page that according to Klippenstein's article, he's a FOIA document expert, and that {{tq|much of his journalism draws on information he has uncovered from records requested at state and national levels of the US government}}, which {{tq|also frequently include information from leaked documents}}. ] (]) 02:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Regardless of expert status, BLPSPS applies and would bar the use when it's not corroborated. It seems the new combined section has some sources that discussion Klippenstein's work in and of itself, which partially solves that issue. The issue then is if the amount of coverage is DUE. Klippenstein is an established journalist and some inclusion is probably due given the coverage, but a lot of the paragraph is repetitive, so I would probably cut it down by half. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 19:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Could you comment in the ], because despite what is being said here in this thread, certain editors still think he's a ], ], and unreliable ], ], ]. ] (]) 19:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:From what I can tell, a consensus has not yet been achieved here. I don't wish to step on anybody's toes, but I have reverted ]'s blanking of a large portion of the disputed section . ] (]) 10:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::Please see ]: {{tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} You should self-revert your reversion until consensus has been reached in one way or another. ] (]) 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::But ] is also relevant: {{tq|When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.}} ] (]) 17:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The discussion is still ongoing, so I don't see that as relevant yet. ] (]) 19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::The material that User:Toa Nidhiki05 removed had been in the article since December 13 without any dispute (until now). ] (]) 19:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:Ken Klippenstein is a bit of a weird special case because he's an experienced reporter whose Substack is nevertheless still clearly an ] but because he has very different views on the direct publication of source documents (like manifestos) than much of the rest of the media, he is reasonably often the main source of the full text of a document that the rest of the media acknowledges exists, is real, and that Klippenstein's version of the text is correct, but refuses to actually publish the text themselves. A sort of one-man Wikileaks situation.
:I honestly think that since he is clearly reliable in these situations he is actually a fine source for these sorts of documents, presuming we bear in mind that:
:a) Documents published by him should be clearly acknowledged in the text to be sourced to him alone.
:b) Just because Klippenstein is reliable for the text of the documents he publishes doesn't mean that the documents themselves are reliable for facts or that Klippenstein is endorsing or even has checked their factual claims.
:c) Klippenstein doesn't have to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines and so it's very possible that documents he publishes don't follow BLP guidelines for some reason. AFAICT usually what he publishes is about public figures but that doesn't ''have'' to be the case, and in cases where a document has private information about a private figure we shouldn't repeat it. ] (]) 21:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


==RfC: NewsNation==
Likewise, both the JC and the ADL have been deemed unreliable because they conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. The claim is that criticism of Zionism being inherently antisemitic is enough to declare an outlet as unreliable. In contrast, the Palestine Chronicle regularly says that support of Zionism is a form of ] and contributors say that Jewish organizations should be forced to abandon Zionism or be disbanded.
<!-- ] 02:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739068436}}
What is the reliability of ]?


* '''Option 1: ]'''
Finally, the Palestine Chronicle's news division publishes false information. For example, the PC's news division said that ] called for Israel to nuke Gaza. This was considered false/misleading by ].
* '''Option 2: ]'''
* '''Option 3: ]'''
* '''Option 4: ]'''
] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


===Survey (NewsNation)===
Palestine Chronicle is linked 238 times on Misplaced Pages, so this is a widely used publication that may have to be re-evaluated in light of the standards being set in the topic area. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 00:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light).
**NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
***In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the ], Coulthart said {{xt|"... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"!}} . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including ] and ], all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects.
***Writing in ''The Skeptic'', Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: {{xt|"Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."}}
***He wrote a UFO book titled ''Plain Sight'' which ] described as a {{xT|"conspiracy narrative"}} and a {{xt|"slipshod summary"}}.
***The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for {{Xt|“espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”}}
***The ] did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking {{xt|"Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary?}} while strongly implying the former.
***The '']'' has described him as a {{Xt|"UFO truther"}} with {{xt|"little appetite for scrutiny"}}.
***Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked ] investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians.
**Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs:
***In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the ''Washington Post'': ), the channel {{xt|"was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health"}}.
***In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said {{xt|"... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing"}}. The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to ]'s analysis, a Boeing 737 .
:] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage ] (]) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. ] (]) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' per Chetsford. – ] (]&nbsp;<b>·</b> ]) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative.] (]) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. Compare ]. ] (]) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' why are we putting ''any'' stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “]” syndrome. ] (]) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


===Discussion (NewsNation)===
:Agreed, should be generally unreliable if not deprecated ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:24, 14 October 2024 (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)
:I don't think the evidence you've provided here is sufficient to call Palestine Chronicle's reliability into serious question. It is no doubt biased, but bias isn't the same as unreliability. The evidence you've provided here doesn't hold up to further scrutiny.
:On the Abdallah Aljamal controversy, the claim that Aljamal was holding hostages in his home was reported by the Israel military, which has killed more than 120 journalists during the war. The source you provided says Aljamal was a spokesperson for the Gaza labor ministry. Although Hamas is the government of Gaza, this is not the same as being a spokesperson for Hamas. said that Israel provided no evidence for its claim that Aljamal was keeping hostages in his home. CNN further calls this claim into question, pointing out that Aljamal lived on a different story of the multi-family building where the hostages were found from the floor where the Israeli military said it recovered them. CNN also says that the claim Aljamal was a spokesperson for the labor ministry comes from the Israeli military. It's also worth noting that between 100 and 274 people were killed during this operation, which demonstrates that it took place in a dense and complex environment. This further supports the view that the IDF's claims are insufficiently supported by meaningful evidence. Finally, none of this proves that Aljamal was an unreliable source as a journalist for the Palestine Chronicle. A brief overview of his contributions indicates that they consist largely of on-the-ground interviews with Gazans. Seeing as Aljamal was a photojournalist, his articles are full of photographic evidence that corroborates the stories he tells in them. Biased he may have been, but this was a level of access to the on-the-ground reality in Gaza that few media outlets have. Gazan journalists provide us with an essential part of the whole picture of the reality of this war. It would be foolish to discredit them without strong evidence of their unreliability.
:I don't think it makes sense to regard the ADL and Palestine Chronicle as equivalent. The reason I argued for the ADL's unreliability in that RFC (which to my understanding was one of the major reasons it was closed as unreliable) is because the ADL portrays itself as an objective, apolitical research organization while functionally promoting a pro-Israel interpretation of what antisemitism is. The article you linked from the Palestine Chronicle is clearly an opinion piece and does not claim to be anything other than that.
:Palestine Chronicle's comments on Lindsey Graham are on its blog. Per ], the Palestine Chronicle Blog should not necessarily be considered reliable. However, I don't see why this should affect the reliability of Palestine Chronicle's hard news reporting. The Newsweek article you mentioned doesn't mention Palestine Chronicle by name or call its coverage of Graham's remarks misleading. Despite the clickbait-y headline, the article is a bit more nuanced: {{tq|Comparing Israel’s war on Gaza to the US war with Japan during World War II, US Senator Lindsey Graham said on Sunday that Israel should do whatever it needs to do to win the war. He implied that Israel should drop nuclear bombs over Gaza.}} I think this is essentially correct. Graham's remarks do imply that Israel's use of nuclear weapons would be justified if it were necessary for Israel's survival or victory in the war. ] (]) 02:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::CNN spent a month doing their own research and confirmed with their own reporters that Aljamal is linked to Hamas. Your article is old and no longer accurate. That being said, you acknolwedged that CNN is reliable on this subject. So, do you acknowledge that Aljamal was affiliated with Hamas?Aljamal's affiliation is relevant because he was being paid by an organization he was covering. It's interesting you say about Palestinian journalists that {{tq|It would be foolish to discredit them without strong evidence of their unreliability.}} Do you apply that standard to Israeli journalists?
::You say your problem with the ADL is because it {{tq|portrays itself as an objective, apolitical research organization while functionally promoting a pro-Israel interpretation of what antisemitism is"}}. Reading PC's about page shows {{tq|The Palestine Chronicle team consists of professional journalists and respected writers and authors who don’t speak on behalf of any political party or champion any specific political agenda.}} You've just acknowledged the Palestine Chronicle does promote a pro-Palestinian viewpoint. '''By the standard you applied to the ADL, the Palestine Chronicle saying it doesn't champion a specific political agenda is enough to discredit it.''' Please engage with this. Why is the Palestine Chronicle different?
::I'd like to zero in on the last two points. Virtually all of what Palestine Chronicle tags as "news" is also tagged as part of their "blog". Likewise, most of the rest of their website is tagged as "commentary" (the opinion pieces). The only thing not tagged under either of those are features. Either way, almost all of our sourcing to PC is to their blogs/commentary. Can we go ahead and remove those sources? If not, why? <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 03:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::Also, you say Newsweek is wrong, but you acknowledge Lindsay Graham did not actually call for nuking Gaza. He said Israel can use nuclear weapons if sufficiently threatened. What do you think of this feature (not a blog), which says {{tq|Republican Party Senator, Lindsey Graham, recently sparked a controversy with his call for “nuclear weapons” to be used against the people of Gaza in order to end the ongoing war.}} Did Lindsey Graham call for nuclear weapons to be used against Gazans to end the war? <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 03:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you for sharing the updated CNN article. That article does indeed confirm that Aljamal worked for the ministry of labor as late as 2022. Aljamal made nearly all of his contributions to the Palestine Chronicle in 2023 and 2024, but he did write three articles during the time he could have been working for the Gaza government, according to CNN. They are all about civil society issues: a , the , and . Aljamal's reporting from 2023 onward tends to focus on detailed interviews with Palestinian civilian and civil society sources, which I believe is of some value to expanding and improving Misplaced Pages. To give one example, I think article on the killing of Hatem al-Ghamri provides important balance and adds considerable detail to the only other notable in the TOI. The same goes for account of the killing of Iyad al-Maghari which adds some detail to reporting of it. Aljamal also wrote detailed reports on the killings of Gazans who did not receive meaningful coverage elsewhere, like and . I am not persuaded that Aljamal's past association with Hamas's civilian government should outweigh or invalidate his reporting for Palestine Chronicle or the Chronicle's use in general as a source.
:::You ask me if I would apply the same standard to Israeli journalists, and my answer is yes. ] of ] served in the IDF reserves until March 2023, and you do not see me calling for Axios to be scraped from the record. ] of ] served as an . I don't think it's productive to remove all coverage by The Atlantic from I-P related Misplaced Pages pages. If we were to apply ''your'' standard to Israeli journalists we would disqualify nearly all of them, due to the conscription practices of the IDF. In general, I think that writing in this topic area benefits from a full exposition of conflicting narratives. I'm unwilling to sign on to attempts to knock out sources on one side or another, especially when they provide us with unique details or a marginalized narrative, unless there is strong evidence that those sources have published inaccurate or misleading information. Even then, I think that content disputes are often best dealt with on a case by case basis rather than by painting sources with a broad brush. In a topic rife with systemic bias and selective coverage of events, including at the legacy media level, we need as many sources as we can get and should focus on verifiability and consensus among sources over designations of broad reliability.
:::I believe these discussions are supposed to take place in the context of a content dispute, so can you provide an example of where Palestine Chronicle is used on Misplaced Pages in a way that is misleading or violates our core principles?
:::I am not going to dedicate much space to your arguments about the ADL, other than to reiterate that the Palestine Chronicle article you cited is clearly an opinion piece - something that news organizations who strive to be objective and non-partisan regularly publish - while the ADL attempts to pass off its politicized equivocation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism as objective research, in contravention of academic consensus. It's not remotely the same thing. ] (]) 05:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Your first paragraph doesn't address the point of the CNN article, which is that the hostages were found in Aljamal's house in 2024. Secretly holding Israeli hostages in one's house creates a conflict of interest when reporting on the Israeli military. To the best of my knowledge, neither Barak Ravid nor Jeffrey Goldberg have imprisoned Palestinians in their attics while reporting on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
::::Finally, here's an example of a feature from Palestine Chronicle equating a Zionist conference in South Africa to racism. If we can agree that Palestine Chronicle's opinion pieces and news articles are both bad sources, then we only have the features remaining to discuss.
::::I can't point to any content disputes anymore since you've conceded the usage of its commentary pieces and blogpost are both wrong, and those two are pretty much all of PC's use on Misplaced Pages. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 08:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::It would be improper to use commentary or blog content from any source to put facts in wikivoice, per site-wide policies that apply to all sources. I do not agree with you that the presence of commentary and blog pieces on the site has any impact on Palestine Chronicle's overall reliability, unless you can demonstrate that PC is presenting opinion or commentary ''as'' hard news, which you have not yet done.
:::::The you do cite here about the conference in South Africa does not seem to indicate a reliability issue to me. It features interviews with people who are quite opinionated about the conference, but attributes those opinions. There could be an appropriate use for this source, for example in an article where the interviewees' opinions are relevant. If the source were used incorrectly by a biased editor, which again you haven't provided evidence for, that would not necessarily be an indication that it is unreliable. Rather, it would be an issue of an editor not understanding our policies that apply to all sources.
:::::On the issue of the hostages found in the Aljamal family's house, the CNN article makes one important distinction in describing the situation as {{tq|Hostages being held by civilians under the direction of Hamas}}. It also stops short of revealing any evidence that the Aljamal family received any sort of compensation for holding the hostages. Presumably, CNN could not find any. The article says it was likely that the family was trusted by Hamas, but nothing more. This was obviously a complex and fluid situation, and we don't know exactly the levels of coercion and complicity that were at play. As the article points out, Abdallah and his wife Fatima, as well as his father Ahmed (presumably the head of household) where killed by the IDF while his sister Zainab hid with Abdullah's children under a bed. It's unlikely that we'll ever definitively find out who knew what and how they felt about it. However, I would like to take your argument at its strongest -- let's assume that Abdullah had full knowledge of the hostage situation, was involved in the decision to hide the hostages on the third floor above his family's home, and agreed to do so willingly in the absence of any coercion from Hamas. While this is something that many would find morally reprehensible, you have yet to demonstrate how specifically this has impacted the credibility or veracity of his interviews with Gazan civilians and civil servants and reporting on the war, or show where exactly his reports have been used on Misplaced Pages in a misleading or otherwise detrimental way. More importantly, you haven't shown how this impacts the overall reliability of Palestine Chronicle. You say that this is an issue of failure to properly vet freelancers, but CNN says that the Aljamal family's own neighbors didn't know that hostages were kept in their midst. What did you expect the Washington, USA based Palestine Chronicle to do? Fly someone out to Gaza and check each of their Gaza contributors' homes for hostages?
:::::I implore you to focus on actual uses of Palestine Chronicle as a citation on Misplaced Pages when building your case. ] (]) 01:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::As you said, we should focus on the actual uses of Palestine Chronicle onwiki. Since we both agree that anything they tag as blogs or commentary isn't usable for WikiVoice, and those are the uses I'm concerned about, I would say further discussion isn't going to help us reach a better consensus. As an FYI, all of their posts tagged "news" are also tagged as coming from their "blog". <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 23:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:I have an issue and a quibble with this:
::1) We don't consider the current Newsweek to be generally reliable which applies to this. Graham's comments were deemed to be suggesting nuclear action in reliable sources: ; ;
::2) This is just a quibble, but I don't see how 238 uses makes it a widely used publication. For the sources you discussed, Times of Israel is used 9,907 times, Newsweek is used 12,175 times, and The Jewish Chronicle is used 2,740 times. For the sources I used, The Independent is used 106 times for the US version and 74,931 times for the UK version, The New Republic is used 2,810 times, and NBC News is used 23,535 times. All are used ten or more times as often.
:Those were the things I observed. Your assessments about <s>their failure to vet freelancers and</s> their misleading claims of anti-Palestinian racism seem correct to me and should be used to deem them unreliable for being a source for <s>the Israel/Palestine conflict and</s> for anti-Palestinian claims. If you can clarify how they publish false information, then I could consider support them being generally unreliable instead of just in specific circumstances. --] (]) 03:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::Replying to myself here to note that I missed Unbandito's comment until after I had submitted my own due to how I was using Reply. I have amended my comment in response. --] (]) 03:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::OK, did you see CNN's follow-up article where they confirmed {{tq|Abdallah had served as a spokesman for Gaza’s Ministry of Labor as recently as 2022, a position entrusted only to Hamas members}}? <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 03:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::No as you never linked to it. You listed the Times of Israel, Newsweek, and The Jewish Chronicle. In any case it seems like you and Unbandito are discussing that in more detail, so I will leave that discussion to both of you. --] (]) 11:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::That's a lot of interpretations. Let's use the same one as Palestine Chronicle: Did Lindsey Graham call for “nuclear weapons” to be used against the people of Gaza in order to end the ongoing war? <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 03:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::: "It should be like Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Get it over quick" are the words he spoke.<ref>{{cite web |title=Republican congressman suggests nuking Gaza |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/3/31/republican-congressman-suggests-nuking-gaza |website=Al Jazeera |access-date=14 October 2024 |language=en |date=31 March 2024}}</ref> The obvious interpretation, and a perfectly reasonable one, is that he suggested the nuclear option but, since we are not mind readers, we cannot be sure of his intention. Given the circumstances, it is a dangerous thing to be unclear about. ] (]) 06:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Those words were from Tim Walberg not Lindsey Graham. ] (]) 13:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::: Yes my mistake. Al Jazeera said it was Lindsey Graham when linking to the video, although the video itself clearly says it is Tim Walberg's voice. According to al Jazeera Graham's comments included that the US was right to "end " by dropping two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that Israel must be given "the bombs they need to end the war they can’t afford to lose". "I thought it was okay” when the US dropped the nuclear bombs on Japan. "To Israel, do whatever you have to do to survive as a Jewish state".<ref>{{cite web |title=Israel’s war on Gaza updates: Israel has no ‘credible plan’ for Rafah – US |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/5/12/israels-war-on-gaza-live-major-rafah-attack-feared-after-evacuation-order |website=Al Jazeera |access-date=14 October 2024 |language=en}}</ref> Elsewhere al Jazeera summarised Graham's comments by saying he "previously suggested that Israel would be justified in using nuclear weapons in Gaza".<ref>{{cite web |title=Senator Lindsey Graham slams Palestinians as ‘radicalised’ in social post |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/4/senator-lindsey-graham-slams-palestinians-as-radicalised-in-social-post |website=Al Jazeera |access-date=14 October 2024 |language=en}}</ref> ] (]) 15:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Same one as Palestine Chronicle? The second sentence is: That falls in line with what I cited above. There is a difference between your words and the words in the article from my viewpoint. Where in the article is your interpretation based on? --] (]) 11:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm basing it on this follow-up piece which said {{tq|Republican Party Senator, Lindsey Graham, recently sparked a controversy with his call for “nuclear weapons” to be used against the people of Gaza in order to end the ongoing war.}} <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 23:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Chess, from my perspective this is the second time you referred to something you didn't link to initially. I believe you would have a better argument if you included this initially.
:::::That aside, as I linked to above: {{tpq|q=y|The congressman’s extreme rhetoric follows that of Senator Lindsey Graham, who on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday similarly suggested Israel could drop nuclear bombs on Gaza.}} If you would rather something different,
:::::Do you have a better example of them publishing false information? --] (]) 09:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
{{tq|do not actively participate in wars nor are they paid by the militaries they are covering}}, Hamas is not simply a military, it is the government of Gaza. That sort of misleading argument runs through the entirety of the initial post here. ''']''' - 15:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)


== Is this article declaring the ] a 12th c. baptistry a reliable source for the tower?? ==
Working with someone who was holding hostages at home is bad enough, but what is more important for us is how the outlet reacts to such an event. Far from acknowledging the issue, they immediately demoted Aljamal from "a correspondent for The Palestine Chronicle" () to a mere "contributor for c () right after the raid in which he was found to have held hostages. This kind of manipulation clearly means that this is not a reliable source. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:: I would say failure to vet correspondents is more egregious than failure to vet freelancers, and changing someone’s designation from correspondent to freelancer when they’re revealed to be involved in the conflict is problematic if the correction is made without noting the change. ] (]) 09:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I think it's worth considering that the decision by Palestine Chronicle to quietly distance themselves from Aljamal was a decision made in the context of a general atmosphere of repression toward pro-Palestinian speech in the West and in the context of laws and a history of ] and ] which could put them in legal jeopardy for having a financial relationship with a member or associate of Hamas. There's an argument to be made that this decision was more a reflection of the treacherous legal terrain faced by a US-based NGO with a limited ability to independently vet its associates in Gaza, rather than a reflection of its journalistic ethics in the abstract. We don't have any evidence that PC was aware of the hostages being held in the Aljamal family's midst while he was alive, and their decision to quietly distance themselves after his death seems to suggest they were not aware, as it reflects their concern that it could put them in legal jeopardy, which in turn demonstrates that they'd have been smart enough not to associate themselves closely with Aljamal had they been aware it could be legally treacherous to do so.
:::More importantly, we should consider whether this is a serious enough controversy to risk what seems to otherwise be a source which reliably covers events from a perspective that runs counter to the systemic bias of the bulk of English language sources. Since anyone with a basic level of media literacy understands that even the most reliable sources can get things wrong thanks to groupthink, the bandwagon effect, cultural blind spots and the like, I think it is particularly important to use caution and discretion when considering applying sanctions to sources that might counteract those detrimental tendencies. ] (]) 23:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)


The autho rhas emailed me demanding it be added to the Newport Tower article as it has been peer reviewed.] press.... Other non-peer reviewed papers of his can be found here. ] ] 15:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*I don't really have an opinion about "The Palestine Chronicle" (I am not familiar with it); just noting that having a ] wrt to the IP area is rife, especially among US journalist. It is so I wonder if anyone gets a job covering the conflict in the ] or ] ''without'' a ]? ], ] and ] all have sons serving in the Israeli army, and it is OK to use them as a source/opinion about Israel/IDF? ] (]) 20:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
*:I don't think the issue is necessarily conflict of interest exactly, so much as transparency about this. If a Palestine Chronicle correspondent (or even freelancer) was also a spokesperson for a Hamas-led ministry or even involved in the hostage operation, that doesn't make them unreliable. But if this is not revealed, or if the outlet isn't aware when it hires, that is more problematic. How they respond when it's revealed will also be a good indicator of how robust the editorial control is, e.g. are notes added to the articles.
*:So far, nobody has really made the case that this is more than an isolated issue in relation to one fairly minor contributor, so I'm not inclined to think that this alone implies a blanket unreliability designation. But it seems legitimate to raise concerns about how it was dealt with and keep an eye on this. ] (]) 11:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::*]: But transparency ''is'' the problem, or rather: lack of transparency. ''Nowhere'' does the NYT say that their chief correspondent in Jerusalem's son served in the Israeli army (see: ), ditto for ; they treat it as if that is totally irrelevant. Should we hold PC to a different standard than NYT? If so, why? ] (]) 20:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::*:For starters, someone having a ''son'' who served in the army is not at all the same thing as literally employing a combatant. Last I checked, family members do not therefore make every other member of their family biased. so it's not even the same thing. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 20:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:::*: If a politician in my country has a sibling, parent, or child working in a company, or even owning shares in that company, then that politician is regarded as having a COI w.r.t. that company, and is forbidden to partake in any decisions w.r.t. that company. (Even if it is, say, a brother you haven't been on speaking terms with for decades.) Doing a military service, with potentially life & death making decisions gives many times more COI., IMO, ] (]) 20:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::*:Kershner's son was a conscript a decade ago, so I don't think it's comparable, although I agree it would be better if NYT mentioned it.
::*:Brooks' volunteered, also a decade ago, which he's publicly spoken about. He's an opinion columnist. He has written three times about Israel/Palestine during the war. The most recent time includes these words: "Readers should know that I have a son who served in the I.D.F. from 2014 to 2016; he’s been back home in the States since then." Seems pretty transparent to me.
::*:I don't think this is a good enough reason in itself to designate either PC or NYT unreliable, but it's a data to point to bear in mind in making an overall assessment. ] (]) 11:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Link, please? That is pretty well hidden away; it is not mentioned in the "about" that I linked to, ] (]) 20:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/24/opinion/gaza-israel-war.html
::::::I clicked on your link, saw Brooks writes weekly and scrolled down looking for anything relating to Israel and couldn’t see anything, so used the search function to search his columns for “Israel”, arranged them chronologically to see the most recent was in March, and looked at that and saw this text. Given it was him who first made this public (in an interview with Ha’aretz in 2014) I don’t think there’s any deception going on. Let’s focus on Palestine Chronicle maybe? ] (]) 02:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Ok, thanks for the link. My point in bringing up the NYT (and no: I am not trying to get it banned ;/), is that even clear ] as the NYT have ...issues. Imagine a situation where a financial newspaper lets somebody commentate on the prospect of, say, Apple stock, mentioning in a parentheses (oh, I have the majority of my savings in Apple stock), then proceeding to comment on how very well Apple stock is doing and that it will increase in value. I suspect you wouldn't have very great respect for that financial newspaper. But this is exactly what the NYT is doing wrt the Brook's comment on the Israeli army. It is good that he said that he has a COI, but 90% of my objection remain: the commentary shouldn't have been published at all. And ] nowhere disclose her COI; AFAIK. My point is that we are not dealing with "white", neutral sources vs "black", partisan sources here; we are dealing with various shades of grey, ] (]) 21:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::*::Here's a better example with a use case on-wiki: The ] article relies largely on Israeli sources, two of which have ] as an author. Ravid served in ], Israel's signals intelligence, cyberwarfare and espionage division, and continued to serve as an army reservist until March 2023 (it's not clear when he left Unit 8200), meaning he was in the military and presumably had some level of clearance/conflict of interest at the time he wrote/contributed to the articles in use on the Duma arson attack page. To be clear, I'm not saying we should necessarily get rid of these articles or downgrade their reliability. Rather, this demonstrates how inexorable COI is from the topic area. Virtually every Israeli journalist who grew up in Israel will have served in the IDF and this is never disclosed because it's near-universal. In Ravid's case, the only reason we have written record of his service is because it was lauded in Israel, because he resigned as a reservist over some Netanyahu controversy, and because his have accused him of essentially still spying for Israel in his media roles.
::*::The PC article on that page is used to provide a quote from the Dawabsheh family that I was not able to find in a higher quality source elsewhere. I think this provides detail and balance to the page. Maybe someone else can find a better source for the quote to replace PC? If not, I think it's another good example of its utility. ] (]) 13:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::*:::I totally get the point that we need to triangulate (pro-)Israeli sources against (pro-)Palestinian sources. Many of the sources in this piece are neither (e.g. Reuters, Guardian) and less hyperpartisan, but arguably have gaps that a weaker source like PC might fill. (Note we also have Israeli sources like BTselem, which are not supportive in any way of the Israeli government, and may well have writers who have served in the IDF, given compulsory service...) I definitely agree COI is a bad reason to avoid these sources.
::*:::Re the specific use of PC. The first ref, the quote from the family, supports content that absolutely should be in the piece and is good to balance against Israeli sources. However, as I noted above, it's second hand: it comes from Andalou Agency. If AA is an RS, surely far better to cite them not PC. Al-Jazeera also reported the exact same words, again via AA, so it would be massively preferable to cite Al-Jazeera, where we can be confident more editorial checks were made than with PC.
::*:::This is even better illustrated by a later citation (about a later fire) of PC which erroneously links to another weak source, MondoWeiss. MW, PC and MEE all get their reporting second hand from Andalou, and all describe this as an arson attack by settlers, without noting any possibility that might not be the case, although the two Israeli sources we cite note a police investigation that concluded faulty wiring. In that case, where Israeli and pro-Palestinian sources contradict each other, we'd want to attribute or, better still, look for more robust sources (like Reuters or al-Jazeera) and use them instead of hyperpartisan weak sources. ] (]) 17:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::*::::Yeah, I agree with this analysis. I've had my edits reverted for using Andalou Agency before, so I thought it might be considered unreliable but it evidently is not. If we can get the same level of detail from AA or AJ, that's preferable. Part of my concern with deprecating and downgrading sources is that it seems editors sometimes use that status to remove material they don't like entirely rather than replacing it with a better source. The rest of the world doesn't have the sort of media consumption standards expected of Misplaced Pages editors, and I see it as a problem if people (particularly new editors) are finding true information in popular but sub-optimal sources and having good edits reverted instead of improved. There are also rare but important instances where a typically unreliable source gets something right that the rest of the media ecosystem doesn't see. In any event, I like what we're doing in this thread. I think a lot of these RSN problems would be better solved by going through the external links search and improving articles rather than debating the general reliability of a source, which strikes me as a very difficult thing to do with anything approaching real accuracy rather than broad generalization. ] (]) 02:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
*I agree with Chess and Alaexis. Clearly this is not a reliable source. ] (]) 20:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)


:For reference the tower is ] The answer is no. The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming. Even academic presses slip up sometimes and Istanbul University Press is frankly quite a bit distant from Rhode Island such that I would be cautious about the level of rigour of its fact checking (if any) on the topic. ] (]) 15:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*I've been looking through recent articles filed under ''news''. My conclusion is that it is a low quality source and I can't see why we would generally want to use it. First, almost all of the content is sourced from elsewhere (Al-Jazeera, CNN, AP, etc). In these cases, far better to site the original reliable sources, which present the information in a less sensationalist way. Concerningly, though, the articles never link to the original sources, which makes it harder, but still worth doing. The only material I found in recent news where there is no prior reliable source is statements of what they call "the resistance" - Hezbollah and Hamas. Potentially, then, it could be used as a source for the words of those bodies, but given the biased presentation, it would be ideal to do so in a very cautious way. Second, what they add to the content sourced from other RSs is lots of embedded tweets. For instance, in they embed a tweet by a major anti-vaxx disinformation influencer "Dr" Anastasia Loupis. I think this toxifies the source a little, making it inappropriate for use here, even if the content of their own article is not factually wrong. So, I'd avoid articles in this category. Turning to articles in the ''articles'' category, at first glance these seem better: mostly original reporting and analysis by named journalists, such as Nura Tape, a South African journalist previously at al-Jazeera, albeit mixed with some opinion pieces and poems. However, again many of these also include embedded tweets by dodgy sources, and a large percentage of the recent articles are by Robert Inlakesh, whose track record is with deprecated sources such as al-Mayadeen, RT, MintPress and TheCradle, so I would avoid those by a large margin. The ''blog'' section seems to duplicate the ''news'' section. So all in all, my conclusion is that this is a very weak source that we could almost always do better than. ] (]) 13:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::In addition to this, the author is retired from the U.S. Navy and a student of aeronautics, while this paper involves a great deal of cartography, religious history, etc. In other worlds, far outside of the author's field, even if there was some question about its reliability. Looking at the non-peer reviewed papers, I see that the author also believes the ] is legit. ] (]) 15:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I would agree that in many cases where coverage of an event or topic has been widespread, PC articles can and should be substituted for a better source. If the editors involved in this discussion or any others wish to do that, I think that would be a wise first step to improving the encyclopedia in this topic area regardless of the outcome of this discussion.
::], that WP article has an entire section on ], so it's not clear to me that "The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming" is a reason to exclude this hypothesis. Given that context, what does it means to be a RS for a fringe theory? A source may be reliable for the existence of the fringe theory but unreliable otherwise.
*:I combed through some of the articles where PC is cited on Misplaced Pages to see what legitimate uses of the website I could find. I found that for smaller articles on more obscure aspects of Palestinian culture, PC articles seem to play an important role in building out the article. For example, the destruction of the ] received a few words' mention in an NBC article, but details from the PC article allowed an editor to write a fuller picture of its history. PC articles were also used on the ] article.
::It's unclear to me whether this chapter is truly peer-reviewed. It appears in an , and the editors are on the faculty of Istanbul University, but it's not clear to me that they have expertise in this area, whether they reviewed all of the chapters for accuracy or only for things like pertinence and organization, or if they sought any outside review for any of the chapters. Their Google Scholar info: , . The book was just published, and I couldn't find any reviews for it. What the author of the chapter "demands" is irrelevant. ] (]) 20:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:PC articles have also been used to bolster coverage of some military aspects of the war in Gaza. For example, the ] article, which is sourced based on the sparse information available about it in general on the web, including PC coverage of a Hamas video about the weapon. PC's "Resistance Roundup" articles have also been used on pages like ], ] and ]. These articles are amalgamations of statements put out by various militant groups about their combat engagements with Israel. Like IDF press releases, they are not guaranteed to be reliable given the fog of war and the incentives of combatants to spin the facts (and indeed, PC attributes the statements in their articles), which is precisely why it's important that we are able to use statements both from Israel's military and from its foes to give the reader the fullest picture of the information available and allow them to arrive at their closest approximation of the truth. To reiterate an earlier example (which is not currently used on-wiki), PC's article on the killing of , which focuses on his role as an engineer and civil servant, provides some important balance to the of him which echoes IDF claims that he was a militant without providing any evidence.
:::The question is, does this source add anything to the "Norse hypothesis" such that it is worth adding the article to include it? I think the answer is no. There's no evidence that this paper has had any impact on the wider discourse surrounding the tower. ] (]) 20:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Another valuable use of PC as a source was in its critical coverage of the Times of Israel's publishing an . The other source I found that covered this controversy was ], and since that source is only considered marginally reliable, PC helps to corroborate the story and hold TOI accountable when it fails to vet its contributors. As I said earlier, I think it's better to have access to a variety of sources in this topic area and determine reliability through verifiability, describing and attributing disputed claims and through determining consensus among sources, rather than trying to knock out sources for bias or make sweeping generalizations about their reliability based on one controversy or another. Here's another example as to why. While I often use TOI as a source when editing, I want to be informed of the criticisms and controversies about them as a reader, and I want to know when I shouldn't take their claims at face value.
::::I haven't read the paper, but the abstract says "Two Turkish cartographers, the earliest being Maximus Planudes (c. 1260-1310), and later, Piri Reis (c. 1465-1553), illustrated the North American Baptistery on their respective cartographic works." I know nothing about the "Norse hypothesis" and so cannot judge whether this is something new; the current WP text makes no mention of Turks, but perhaps that's just a matter of what was judged to be DUE. The book link above says that the book was only published last week, so at this point the chapter cannot possibly have had any impact on wider discourse. ] (]) 22:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:PC has also published a considerable amount of original photojournalism through its correspondents in Gaza: These articles may have some use for verifying contested events or filling out finer details in articles about humanitarian issues in Gaza or Gazan culture before and during the war.
:::::It seems the text is mostly taken up by attempting to divine meaning from certain blotches on an old map. This is not a particularly convincing hypothesis for what it's worth. ] (]) 14:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:PC has also provided secondary coverage of paywalled sources, such as the of the bombing of Gaza and the of MIT's divestment from certain Lockheed Martin seed funds. I would argue this is valuable to editors for verifiability purposes. In fact, I am pretty sure that I was the one to use PC as a source for the MIT divestment story when adding it to ], precisely because I don't have access to the Boston Globe (which I would have preferred over PC, per my earlier comments). ] (]) 20:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:Peer review is only as good as the peers in question... Istanbul University and history have a rather fraught history when it comes to Turkish nationalist historiography (which I would fit this under given the elements of Turkish exceptionalism). We have a long history of disregarding those views because academics outside of Turkey do (especially as it concerns claims of Ottoman voyages of discovery, the Kurds, and the Armenian Genocide). ] (]) 16:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Largely agree with Bob, though I think Ramzy Baroud is citeable in PC, and if they have other commentators with similar resumes that would be fine too. But like EI the news is largely cribbed from other news sources and I’d be wary of citing PC by itself for anything not written by a noted commentator for something other than that persons views. ''']''' - 02:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:No, obvious crank. I would take it as evidence that Istanbul University Press is not reliable. I imagine he was stationed at the base in Newport and got interested, but he should seek professional training in history and learn to read some relevant languages before leaning in on a claim this unlikely. There's really nothing in his article except some maps so extremely magnified that they don't resemble anything in particular. ] (]) 01:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::This is a great summary {{u|nableezy}} and also a good exemplar of how we should treat weaker sources (on both sides of the partisan divide) on this contentious topic. Basically, the presumption should always be in favour of better sources (which will be available in most cases), but there is good a case by case justification for use for triangulation, niche issues, verifying less accessible sources, etc. ] (]) 11:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)


== RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu ==


The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (B and C):
{{reflist-talk}}
* '''A: Geni.com'''
* '''B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley'''
* '''C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav'''
:Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.
:They should be:
* '''Option 1: listed as ]''' (change nothing to A; add B and C at ] as such)
* '''Option 2: ]''' (list them as such at ])
* '''Option 3: ]''' (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2)
] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu) ===
== RfC OurCampaigns ==
* A: See "Geni.com" at ].
* B: See ], in particular ], where this RfC for the 3 sources in question was prepared together with @]. The other sources discussed there fall outside the scope of this RfC.
* C: See ] (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Preliminaries ===
<!-- ] 19:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1731956472}}
{{rfc|pol|hist|rfcid=E3B9643}}
Currently, OurCampaigns is listed as an unreliable source. Should it also be deprecated or even blacklisted to prevent its continued use and allow for mass removal? ] (]) 18:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)


:Probably need to add the website to the list of unreliable sources. It also uses Misplaced Pages articles which would be ]. --] 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
, not including map files that list it as their source in the description. The site's says: {{bq|OurCampaigns is an internet community formed in 2002 to discuss politics and elections. It is a collaborative website which allows users to post messages and links, earn points by predicting the outcomes of future elections, and enter historical election information. The website is built by the members as they enter site content.
::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)
When you create an account, you are able to post messages. With good solid participation in this area, the website owner (Randy) or others with high enough access may increase your access to more functions of site creation. This will enable you to help make the website more comprehensive and useful for other people who are interested in politics. This is the true power of the website.
::These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:Read Background: B. ] (]) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::<strike>I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc.</strike> --] (]) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Survey A: Geni.com ===
OurCampaigns (OC) is also a web community. The users become a small e-family, which means that family dynamics come into play in the discussions. Be quick to forgive, slow to take offense, and quick to admit an error. Most of all, enjoy your time at OC!}}
:'''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)


=== Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley ===
Previous discussions:
:'''Deprecate''', per background discussion. ] (]) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*]: Post suggesting it be removed from all articles
:'''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)
*]: "looks like an open Wiki"
:'''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)
*]: points to ], declined because "site is dead"
::{{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)
*]: brief discussion
:::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.
*]: discussion that leans toward reliable for election results, but some reservations stated
:::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)
*]: RfC that elapsed; consensus seems to indicate generally unreliable, disagreement over blacklisting; archived without closure
::::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)
*]: RfC that put OurCampaigns on WP:RSPS as "generally unreliable"
:::::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)


=== Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav ===
To me, it should be blacklisted. I used to be okay with its inclusion in articles, even adding it to articles myself, as there's not many sources for older elections (actually there is and I'll get to that) and they provide data sources for most of their pages. Recently, I was gifted United States Congressional elections, 1788-1997: the official results of the elections of the 1st through 105th Congresses by a fellow wikipedian, which I have started replacing OurCampaigns with since its actually reliable. The first article I've done this with is the ] (which cut it down by 13,000+ bytes, yippe). To my disappointment, the book doesn’t include county returns, which was shocking because most OurCampaigns pages cite that book as their only source, yet also include a county map. For example, the page for the cites only that book as its source but somehow also has a map. Where did they get that information? For all I know, it could've been completely madeup.
:'''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)


===Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)===
In addition to its maps lacking any source, OurCampaigns frequently gets information wrong. In some cases, it’s a minor discrepancy, with numbers being slightly off, but in others, it's egregious. Again, using the IL At-Large page as an example, there are two more candidates listed than are reported in the source: "James Dunkin" and "Write-In Nonpartisan." Where they come from? They're not in the source provided.
{{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} my apologies also. To be clear, I respect your concern, and I think I understand it. I think we've conveyed our concerns, and laid out some pros and cons, and background principles. I'm not stressed about that. I think its a point of getting the balance right. In practical reality the three sources should not normally be used, and I see no big disagreements. I just think the difference between the two categories offered is (or should be) meaningful, and I wanted to make that clear. I am not really disagreeing with any other specific point.--] (]) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


:Although I disagree I can understand you position. It's to easy to get stuck in disagreement spirals are part of RFCs. Let's see if anyone else brings any new ideas. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Another egregious example is with the 13 trials for MA Essex North. In the first trial, the book lists ] as running as an independent against the ] candidate, before becoming the National Republican candidate in the later trials (the again has the book as its only source and this time doesn't even incldude a page number. It's page 97 for the first trial and then page 100 for the other 12.) And on the , the page gives Russel Freeman 48%, when he is only given 42% in the book.
: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)


== Far Out Magazine ==
My final example for its blacklisting is a now-blocked (thankfully) IP editor that was going around replacing reliable sources with OurCampaign and ] (who I will get to in a separate discussion for another time) sources. Specifically, I'd like to mention this to the ] where Cheeseborough is shown as a separate candidate for president from the two candidates, like on the OurCampaigns and Atlas sources, .


Would ] be considered a reliable source for music and the arts? ] (]) 23:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
There's really no reason to use this source. If an editor needs information for an election article, they should seek out reliable sources, maybe even those cited by OurCampaigns. For election data, I recommend , a website created by ] and run by the ], for any election before 1826 (it includes county returns). For any election from 1838-1914, the (it includes county returns). The varius Congressional Quarterly's Guide to US elections such as the ones on (whenever they get it working again). For any gubernatorial election, Dubin's US Gubernatorial Elections, 1776-1860 () (it includes county returns). I have access to Dubin's US Gubernatorial Elections, 1861-1911, United States Presidential Elections, 1788-1860, along with US Congressional Elections, 1788-1997, and I know someone with Party Affiliations in the State Legislatures: A Year by Year Summary, 1796-2006, most of which include county returns and that I can send you pages of through discord. ] (]) 18:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:Only RSN-comment I could find on it here: ]. I can't find an "about"-page. Currently it's used on WP quite a bit, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be. ] (]) 08:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*Blacklisting or deprecation seems overkill. It's already on ] as generally-unreliable. It's a user-generated source, just like Misplaced Pages, ], ], etc. It's easily available online, and lazy amateur Wikipedians are of course more likely to cite freely available user-generated sites than a history book by some forgotten scholar. Replace with better sources when possible. But unless you personally have a grudge with the site, I see no reason for further escalation. ] (]) 02:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
**{{+1}}. ] (]) 10:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC) :Comments at ] indicate caution is called for. ] (]) 08:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I make it a point to remove this source whenever I see it because of the fact that, beyond the ] concerns noted on the talk page linked above, many of their articles seem to republish content from years ago, while titling them to make it sound as if new insight has come out recently. For a few examples as of late, see , , and are all examples of this website recycling content from other, more reliable sources that can (and should) be cited instead. For all I know, there may be minor instances where this site can be used, but I'm familiar enough with Far Out Magazine to say that, for the most part, their content is clickbait churnalism, and in particular, should not be used for information about ]. ] (]) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
**Yes, I have a grudge against websites that have consistently provided incorrect information, something OurCampaigns has done multiple times beyond the examples given here, including reporting incorrect numbers, falsifying candidacies, and including unsourced maps. I don't believe we should allow people to continually add potentially incorrect information to articles and reward their laziness. I understand that most editors don't have access to non-online sources, which is why I am willing to share mine and have provided links to online freely available election data from archives like the Internet Archive, as well as dedicated, professionally run sites like A New Nation Votes and Ballotpedia. ] (]) 21:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)


:Credit to ] for explaining the unreliability of this source ]. ] (]) 13:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:Are people actively adding them to articles still? if so, I suppose adding it to the edit filter might be appropriate. ] (] • ]) 05:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)


:TL;DR, no, ''Far Out'' is unreliable; it's a website that engages in churnalism. See ] at ]. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 14:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== The Joe Rogan Experience ==
:Minimally reliable, there may be some use but in general I don't think they're reliable for the reasons that have been mentioned (especially the churnalism/CIRCULAR concerns). I don't think that this is suprising, they are what it says on the label... "Far Out" ] (]) 23:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== Are the sources in these articles primary or secondary? ==
Over at ], {{Ping|Bill the Cat 7}} has argued that an appearance by Hancock on '']'' podcast is a reliable source for the following statement {{tq|Hancock has strongly rejected allegations that he is a racist, a white supremicist, as well as other defamatory accusations by the SAA Archaeological Record, saying he was "personally hurt badly...wounded badly".}} . For context, the article already states {{tq|Hancock has rejected allegations that he is racist}} cited to the New Republic (a reliable source). I think that while obviously statements on podcasts can be used for non-controversial non-self serving information per ], that the podcast is not usable to call the accusations by the SAA {{tq|defamatory}}, which I also think is a ] issue. As far as I can tell, the SAA did not actually call him a racist or white supremacist (see the letter they sent ), and therefore the addition by Bill the Cat 7 misrepresents what the SAA actually said. ] (]) 17:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)


Are the sources in these two articles primary or secondary? ] and ]. The book provided is just a collection of parliamentary records, elections, terms served etc. an example is here: ] (]) 08:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:It's such an obvious BLP violation that it's not worth spending more words and time. ] (] / ]) 17:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
: Those articles are sourced to contemporary newspapers, which would be secondary sources; one of which, the ''New Zealand Herald'', is included in the "perennial sources" page and categorised as "Generally reliable". ] (]) 10:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
**Newspapers are interesting to discuss because their classification evolves with time. Historians usually classify recent newspaper reports as being secondary, but ''old'' reports are classified as primary (this is because the sources used by the newspaper have been lost, and so the newspaper becomes the earliest available record of the events… with more modern sources based on that old newspaper). ] (]) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Reliability isn't the issue here. It is if the sources are primary or secondary. Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, and Berkeley considers contemporary newspaper articles as primary sources: ] (]) 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] ==
::I think the "BLP vio" framing is confusing, It makes it seem like the BLP vio is against Hancock when it is not. I definitely disagree with the addition and think it's essentially flat out wrong and effectively soapboxing, but calling the statement by the SAA, an organisation not a living person, "defamatory" is not necessarily an obvious BLP vio, though I understand how it could be reasonably understood as a BLP vio against Daniel H. Sandweiss, the president of the SAA who signed the letter. ] (]) 17:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)


This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] on the multiple issues regarding that article.
:::I was confused, thinking Hancock was referring to some articles published in the SAA record, not the letter. I still think a wikivoice statement that claims made in the letter are defamatory would be a BLP violation. It's written as expressing the organization's concerns, but it's definitely Sandweiss's letter, starting with "I write this open letter ...". ] (] / ]) 12:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)


I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:<br>
::::The SAA Archaeological Record did publish an issue responding to Graham Hancock's book ''America Before'' in 2019 (it's even cited several times in his article), but as far as I can tell it does not call him a racist or a white supremacist and Hancock is most aggrieved by the 2022 SAA letter about Ancient Apocalypse rather than anything in the SAA Archaeological Record. ] (]) 15:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
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.
::::: As a further addendum, I'm not sure if this is intentional on Bill the Cat 7's part, but the part of the video he linked was as far as I can tell about the alignment of the constellation of Orion with the Great Pyramids, and Graham Hancock's rejection of white supremacy/racism is not within several minutes either side of the timestamp. If you're going to cite a 4 hour+ podcast, you need to provide accurate timestamp, just as you'd provide a page number when citing a book. ] (]) 19:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:<s>Please link .</s> While I think editors refer to ] often inappropriately, this is a good example where it's unnecessary to say 'I'm not a racist', precisely because the very next sentence is the slightly-more-substantial statement, "expressed support for native rights". The former says nothing (and really often just makes the BLP subject sound ignorant and defensive), while the latter is at least somewhat informative and may get the reader to actually click the source if they have any interest. As you point out, this is not an RS issue. ] (]) 17:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)


]: 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>
::On SAA defamation, if the podcast doesn't firmly support it, that's a ] problem. (We don't have a V noticeboard, and we really need one.) Obviously you can't say something disputable or controversial that's not explicit in the source, before even considering RS. (I replied to the initial post too quickly.) ] (]) 18:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
]: 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):
:::I'm not sure verifiability would really need to be a different noticeboard. A statement is verifiable when it a) can be found in b) a reliable source. B would be in scope here, and A would be in scope on ]. ] (] • ]) 10:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
*
*
*
* (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)
:::To clarify further, I've jumped ahead of myself: why is it WP:V? Because first you need to make "defamatory" a direct quote, not a wikivoice summary as it is now (you'll notice that in the diff it is not even an ]) -- but that can only be done if Hancock literally says "defamatory" in the interview, and if he doesn't (which I don't suspect he does, but I'm not listening to any podcast without a timestamp), then it's a failed WP:Verification. ] (]) 20:17, 16 October 2024 (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)


== Bossip ==
:This isn't the ''Joe Rogan Experience'' making statements about Hancock, this is Hancock making statements about themself in an interview. So this is less ]/] and more ]/] (the two are duplicates policy statements) as Hancock is talking about themself.<br>It's reliable for Hancock statements about Hancock. Editors on the talk page should decide if it's self-serving or due for inclusion per ], but that's NPOV not reliability. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)


Hello. I am debating on improving the "]" article for a possible ] nomination. I have a question about a potentials source. Would '']'' be considered reliable and high-quality enough for the FAC process (or for Misplaced Pages in general)? I would be using the following source: . The page says that the site has earned awards in the past and has been mentioned in various reliable sources. I am hesitant about it as ''Bossip'' is a "gossip" website. Apologies if this site was already discussed before, and thank you for any help and insight on this. ] (]) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I don't think it's entirely ]{{snd}}{{tq|allegations that he is a racist, a white supremicist, as well as other defamatory accusations by the SAA Archaeological Record}} is a statement about something other than himself. ] (]) 23:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)


:Looks marginally reliable to me. Like it's not great. But by the standards of pop culture media it's not as bad as it might be. ] (]) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Sorry you're correct, only this denial would be reliable not the details of what he was denying. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 09:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you for the response. That is fair. I had a similar opinion about to be honest. If I do decide to work on this article in the future, I may use other sources first and then see if this one would even be necessary in the end or not. For the purposes of a FAC, which has stricter requirements for sources, it may not be the best option for that context. ] (]) 19:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:What exactly would 'Before she was the illest female in her Dillard’s department, Amil was the illest in all of Hip-Hop, making $40K/guest verse as the Roc’s first lady? Riiiiiiiight.' be used to source? ] (]) 20:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:: It would be used as a negative review for the song as it is criticizing Amil's lyrics. ] (]) 20:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yeah. The use of slang isn't the issue here. Reliability isn't a register of specific vocabulary. I suppose the question would be whether, Amil was, in fact, making $40,000 per guest verse previously. Should they be reporting that factual statement accurately and should they have a decent history of accuracy in reporting and clarity in corrections when they make an error then the rest is just aesthetics. ] (]) 20:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: It wouldn't be reported in the article as a factual statement. The "$40,000 per guest verse" bit is part of the song's lyrics and would be addressed in that context, not as an absolute fact. ] (]) 21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:Seems pretty odd if not outright illogical to use a gossip website if you're going to bring this to FAC. The typical reviewer there expects the '''''cream of the crop''''' of sources, not tabloid gossip. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 00:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Read some of the articles on the site and it's overly unserious and pretentious BS; my advice is to not use this source. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 00:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Okay. Thank you for the response. I agree with your assessment. I have removed it from the article. I am honestly not sure why I used it in the first place. I just thought that it would be beneficial to open a discussion about it here to get further feedback. I believe my question has been answered, and hopefully this can be used to help any other editors in the future. ] (]) 02:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== Science-fiction fanzines ==
:Should we not be asking is this podcast an RS in general, I would say not. ] (]) 12:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::Most podcasts are ] due to being SPS, there's no real reason to consider JRE an ] so the only interesting (non-trivial) question is whether it might qualify for an exception, like ABOUTSELF. ] (] • ]) 12:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)


I see the question of science fiction fanzines has come up many times in the archives. My question is fairly simple. Writer and translator Philippe Hupp, the founder of the Metz science fiction festival, sent a letter to ''PKD Otaku'', a sercon fanzine that is notable in the PKD community and is often referred to by PKD scholars, but is admittedly obscure in the grander scheme of things when it comes to reliable sources. (pp. 4-6), Hupp goes into some historical detail of his relationship with ] and how he was able to get him to speak at the festival in 1977, and provides important historical documents (correspondence, photos) that is reprinted with permission by ''PKD Otaku''. Currently, I'm citing this letter in an article about the festival to say some basic facts about the history. While Hupp and Metz have been covered by numerous reliable sources in France and elsewhere, I believe this kind of exclusive historical detail has only been revealed in ''PKD Otaku''. Is it acceptable for me to carefully cite this info from Hupp (it is, after all, about him and his relationship with PKD) and point to ''PKD Otaku'' as the source? The article I am working on, ], is currently on GAR, and it has been pointed out that this fanzine may not meet the criteria for a RS. It does have two editors, however, but I think it is safe to say it is self-published like most fanzines. It would be a shame for this historical information to be ignored. What is the best course of action? If it isn't acceptable to use as a primary source, I've thought that a brief mention of it in a footnote might be okay. Please let me know your thoughts. ] (]) 22:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Well it can be seen as self-serving, so arguably no. Much better would be third-party coverage of any denial. ] (]) 12:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
* At the very least, as written, by my reading, it is calling them {{tq|defamatory accusations}} in the ''article voice'', which is utterly inappropriate when using a primary ] citation to his own words. But even if it were attributed I would avoid it. The balance between NPOV, RS, BLP, and DUE allows us to state the simple fact that he denied it (ie. in a completely neutral wording like {{tq|X denied the accusations}}, saying nothing else), but sort of dry unexceptional statement of denial is the limit of what we can use ] for; when it starts to get into characterizations and explanations and other detailed framings, that's unduly self-serving and requires a non-ABOUTSELF source. If we're going to imply that they called him a racist or a white supremacist, this absolutely requires an independent reliable source (ie. non-ABOUTSELF); it's not something that can be cited to a podcast. --] (]) 18:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)


:If it's the only source available, and the facts are not controversial, and cited as being from Hupp's account of things, it seems fine to me. ] (]) 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:A source that says X (e.g. Hancock saying he is not a racist) is ''always'' reliable enough to support the mere claim ''that that specific source says X''. In fact, it is the most reliable possible source to support ''that particular claim''. How could it ever not be?
::I believe it meets that criteria, however, I will revise it further to make sure that it does. ] (]) 01:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:Reliability of such a source only matters if you want to use it to support more than the bare fact of what the source says. An accused party's denial of an allegation is typically not going to be a reliable source to support claiming, in Misplaced Pages's own voice, that the allegation is false (even if that source is otherwise considered reliable). Nor is it going to be a reliable source to support a characterisation in Misplaced Pages's own voice of what the accusations ''are'', since people or organisations who have been criticised often distort the nature of the criticism against them into a less reasonable, more easily rebuttable version when they publicly respond to it.
:The text you say this citation was meant to support mixes a statement that Hancock denies the allegations against him with a statement (in Misplaced Pages's voice) of what those allegations ''were''. It is reliable for the former purpose and not the latter one.
:(The denial may not be significant enough to include regardless of the above, but that's a judgment call that isn't ''purely'' about source reliability - although whether reliable secondary sources have reported on the denial is at least relevant to it.) ] (]) 10:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:Surely a podcast appearance, with audio and video of someone saying something, is a reliable source as to the statements made in said podcast appearance. This seems to be a dispute about the appropriateness of including the statement and how to frame it per Wikivoice, due weight, MANDY, and numerous other policies, guidelines, and norms, as well as the marginal value of this statement (and source) in the context of what is already presented in the article. Any determination about how to resolve this particular content dispute should not rely on the general reliability of ''The Joe Rogan Experience''. In the event that a statement, especially a direct quote, warrants inclusion it seems absurd to rule against citing the actual source. Time stamps should be provided and possibly links to multiple sources of the audio or video and transcripts. -- <span style="font-family: verdana;">] 🍄‍🟫<i>— ]</i> </span> 21:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)


== Beebom.com ==
I've been very busy lately (I just saw this). Please give me 72 hours and I will respond formally. Thank you. ] (]) 13:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)


Beebom has been in a few discussions previously about reliability but they've had few responses. I'm asking about their reliability after in ] where their opinion is being used as fact ]. Issues below also make it difficult to establish reliability via ].
:Formal reply follows. ] (]) 15:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)


I'm not familiar enough with Beebom to know their overall reporting but I've come across issues.
{{od|::::}}
FORMAL RESPONSE - (GH = Graham Hancock, FD = Flint Dibble, SAA = Society for American Archaeology)


* They don't have a masthead so I don't know who their writers are or what their expertise is. The most they have is an with a few higher roles not in editorial and then two editors without any information. This makes it difficult to establish their level of independence and editorial control. A previous RS discussion pointed out some of their content being written by "Beebom Staff" which is still the case but not often.
1. GH was indirectly, but clearly, accused of various serious things.
* Their are limited and don't disclose important information. For example, they don't state a separation of ads from editorial. They don't mention here the affiliate programs they're in or the sponsorship deals they do. They don't mention their Beebom Gadgets storefront where they sell phones and make videos on them. However, they disclose having an Amazon affiliate program in their . But they don't disclose the other "affiliate partners" they use. These issues brings into question conflicts of interest which they don't have a policy on. Alongside other basic guidelines like a corrections policy or how they handle accepting samples (if they do).
**A 2016 interview explains that they make money from sponsored posts and partnerships. This isn't included in their editorial guidelines. I bring it up since they feature this interview on their About Us page, but Misplaced Pages blocks links to the interviewer's site, YourStory.
**They as "#sponsored" 5 years ago but stopped. It seems they now use a byline named "Partner Content" for those articles. But they don't mention anything about a sponsorship or partnership in their latest article under this byline. Nor is there anything about this in their policies. So I can't confirm if they do this for all paid content or not.
*I tried looking into their gaming coverage after seeing them on the ] page and found a where they deliberately lie. The headline is, "Black Myth: Wukong Is Now the Most Played Steam Game of All Time", which they almost immediately state isn't true. While also stating "Yes, Black Myth Wukong is now the most-played Steam game of all time!" This makes me question their overall fact checking and reliability when they lie in a news headline.


I can't find much mention of Beebom aside from their own social media on google. Even after removing their social media, I can't find anything. ] (]) 02:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
a. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/27/atlantis-lost-civilisation-fake-news-netflix-ancient-apocalypse


:It should probably be removed as a source for the example you brought, since an "opinion" piece is not "reporting." As for the site as a whole, it seems to fit more the model of YouTube gadget reviewer, and could probably be used as a source for certain product reviews where appropriate. But they haven't shown that they have much editorial oversight. The two editors I see listed do not have bios. ] (]) 15:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
b. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/nov/23/ancient-apocalypse-is-the-most-dangerous-show-on-netflix
::So I did a bit of digging and they haven't really been keeping their website up to date. One of the two editors has now moved into the position of "content strategist". This looks like a very marginal source. I've definitely seen worse in the video game space but I'd personally hesitate to use it for anything controversial. I would also suggest that opinion from this source is likely undue unless there is a named author on the byline with some sort of expertise independent of the outlet. ] (]) 16:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== Jacobin ==
c. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/01/netflix-ancient-apocalypse-canceled


d. https://newrepublic.com/article/169282/right-wing-graham-hancock-netflix-atlantis


Jacobin is currently listed as "generally reliable" under ]. ] (]) 08:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
e. https://hyperallergic.com/791381/why-archaeologists-are-fuming-over-netflixs-ancient-apocalypse-series/


:There are definitely issues with Jacobin, and a reevaluation of its reliability is probably going to come sooner or later. I don't think a Reddit page full of amateur pundits, who are in turn discussing another social media discussion, is going to give us anything meaningful to work with. ] (]) 08:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
f. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-07/experts-say-ancient-apocalypse-netflix-series-is-racist-untrue/101728298
:Not a good look, but I will note that the says at the bottom: {{tpq|q=y|Correction: An earlier version of this article overstated the amount of US housing stock that Blackstone owns.}} So far as I can tell, the sentence in question is removed from the current version of the article entirely. --] (]) 08:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::That would indicate, notwithstanding snark on Twitter, the website for snark, Jacobin actually did the thing we expect of a reliable source and made a correction to an article with a factual error, identifying with a correction notice that a correction had been made. ] (]) 14:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
g. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/27/atlantis-lost-civilisation-fake-news-netflix-ancient-apocalypse
:I think this justifies a significant increase in caution towards the author at the very least. In general, an in-depth look at it's reliability is probably due, even though a Reddit discussion isn't evidence. ] (]) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:It's strange that it was closed as 'generally reliable' in the first place, when most respondents voted either 'no consensus' or 'generally unreliable' in the last RFC. ] (]) 10:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
h. https://theconversation.com/with-netflixs-ancient-apocalypse-graham-hancock-has-declared-war-on-archaeologists-194881
:: Had a quick perusal of the r/neoliberal subreddit. It appears to be discussing one sentence in one (possibly opinion) article in Jacobin. Are you asking whether that particular article is a reliable source for that one sentence? ] (]) 10:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Just as an aside, RFCs are ] (if they were then reliability would be based on the personal opinions of those taking part). I can't speak for the closer of that RFC, but it appears those saying that Jacobin is 'general reliable' had better policy based reasons. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
i. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13965425/ancient-APOCALYPSE-comet-Netflix.html
:Sources making corrections, as has happened in this case, is a sign of reliability. Things that happen on social media, and reactions on social media, are mostly irrelevant. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:The ] that supposedly found ''Jacobin'' to be reliable really is a bit of a tenuous close. A simple beancount in that RfC would lean against treating it as ], and I'm not really able to discern ''why'' the arguments for reliability were so much stronger than those in opposition that an affirmative Option 1 consensus was declared instead of a no-consensus close (at minimum). I do think that it's ripe for re-evaluation. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:The author's behavior would be annoying if we were chatting at lunch and I personally dislike the smugness, but reliability isn't a personality contest, and as Simonm223 points out the article itself was corrected and the erroneous information removed. That's basically what we expect a reliable source to do—fix itself when an error gets pointed out. So long as the actual content produced is dependable or gets fixed to become dependable, that's reliability. Anonymous Reddit complaints trying to score Internet points aren't a compelling reason for overturning the prior RfC. Evidence of a pattern of unreliable reporting and ''failures'' to make corrections would be more persuasive. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 03:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think reviewing this again is going to change anything much, the "worst" outcome is likely a 2, but because it often mixes news and opinion, even a 1 is going to be caveated with caution or attribute, so absent falsehoods, etc might as well let sleeping dogs lie. ] (]) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* I think it is time for a review of the past discussion and time to bring up Jacobin for a reliability check. ] (]) 03:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I don't hold Jacobin in any particular high regard but, as I mentioned above, publicly issuing a statement of correction when a factual inaccuracy is identified is the standard Misplaced Pages expects from reliable news media. So I guess my question is, aside from it having a bias that is different from the NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus, what, precisely, is it that makes Jacobin less reliable? What is the basis for an RfC? ] (]) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::What does "NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus" mean? ] (]) 21:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
* It looks like they handled this appropriately, can you explain what the issue would be? Your comment is a little light on details, its basically just spamming a reddit discussion... Maybe tell us what you think? ] (]) 17:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


A new discussion on Jacobin is long overdue, particularly per ]. It's clear that Jacobin is not reliable on all topics, and at the very least additional considerations should apply in these cases. --] (]) 23:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
2. I updated the article providing a RS source saying that GH strongly, and in no uncertain terms, rejected such very serious allegations.


:Agreed. ] (]) 23:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
a. Joe Rogan Experience #2136 - 2:02, 2:08, & 2:19.
::An RfC next would be worthwhile. ] (]) 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Agreed. It's good that this was later corrected, but it's such a blatant error that should never have made it through a decent editorial process in the first place. There's even a (less serious) error in the next sentence: ] hasn't existed in 6 years. Combined with the past concerns and the borderline result of the past RfC, it's time for a discussion whether "generally reliable" is still a fair assessment. ] ] 17:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
b. Hancock has strongly rejected allegations that he is a racist, a white supremacist, etc., as well as other defamatory accusations by the SAA Archaeological Record, saying he was "personally hurt badly...wounded badly". <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DL1_EMIw6w&t=14479s</ref>. He has also has expressed support for native rights.<ref>{{Cite magazine |title=The Strange and Dangerous Right-Wing Freakout Over Ancient Apocalypse |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/169282/right-wing-graham-hancock-netflix-atlantis |access-date=2024-04-26 |magazine=The New Republic |issn=0028-6583}}</ref>
::::All good points! ] (]) 17:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors ==
3. I was reverted, and then I reverted...twice, which I freely admit was wrong, although an honest mistake. My sincere apologies.
{{Archive top|status=|result=The discussion is partially non-topical for this forum. The discussion about the issues that belong here continues below in {{slink||The Heritage Foundation}}.—] 19:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Taking this here based on a recommendation from {{U|Aquillion}}. The conversation began where a report from forward was shared . According to this report, the Heritage Foundation {{tq|plan to use facial recognition software and a database of hacked usernames and passwords in order to identify contributors to the online encyclopedia}}. A copy of the Heritage Foundation proposal deck is available . This Heritage Foundation plan to dox wikipedia editors also {{tq|would include creating fake Misplaced Pages user accounts to try to trick editors into identifying themselves by sharing personal information or clicking on malicious tracking links that can identify people who click on them. It is unclear whether this has begun.}}


Clearly this situation is alarming in the extreme and the discussion at the arbitration case brought forward the very reasonable suggestion of a project-wide block of all Heritage Foundation domains. So why here? Well Aquillion suggested a reasonable first-step toward this would be to get the site deprecated and blacklisted via RS/N. So that's what I'm here to do. ] (]) 14:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
4. I was given an "edit warring" warning on my home page. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Bill_the_Cat_7
:I am unsure about a retalitory deprecation (or whatever). ] (]) 14:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::No this would be a preventative deprecation. The idea, to my understanding, is to remove the ability of Heritage Foundation domains to interact with en.wp as much as possible. ] (]) 14:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
a. I responded, saying, "I provided an RS, which apparently you didn't agree with. We can discuss it on the talk page should you wish, but I honestly believe you are the one who is "edit warring". Let's take this up on the Talk page. Bill the Cat (talk)"
:::Is that not best done with range blocks, to prevent them from setting up accounts? ] (]) 14:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think this is a discussion to be had at the Village Pump, as it's not a matter of reliability. Deprecation wouldn't have the effect that your looking for, you would need blacklisting and I don't think this would fall within the normal process of blacklisting. So a discussion at VP seems more appropriate as it's something outside of prior policy or guidelines. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::A village pump discussion was created and the suggestion to bring the conversation here actually arose from discussion of that conversation at the arbitration page. Honestly I'm pretty nervous about a pseudo-governmental organization trying to interfere with individual Misplaced Pages editors in this way so I'll happily take the conversation to whatever board we think is most appropriate. But right now we've got a whole lot of conversations pointing to different places as a precis to discussing the actual problem. ] (]) 14:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Hostile actions by a third party against Misplaced Pages or it's editors isn't a reliability issue, and this isn't a forum for anything but reliability issues. If anything it sounds more like safe guarding, a much bigger issue that should probably involve the WMF. However if editors want to start a discussion about it's reliability, per the sources below, that would be a seperate matter. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:I will point out that part of what I said there was that they're already used on some , and are probably ''already'' depracable for publishing obvious disinformation (especially since the 2020 election.) I wouldn't have suggested going through RSN to deprecate them if I didn't think they were ''also'' worthy of deprecating on their own merits, entirely separately from the threats to use their websites to dox Misplaced Pages editors; but deprecating them would make it easier to add them to the spam blacklist and would help avoid situations where editors are forced into a situation where they have to consider whether to click a link to an obviously Heritage Foundation-controlled site in order to verify a presented source. I suppose we could just move ahead with trying to get those sites added to the spam blacklist ''without'' deprecation, but for a site that also publishes disinformation, it seems easier to get it deprecated first, since it ought to be an easy call. --] (]) 14:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Apologies if I misinterpreted. I'll admit that reading the thread at the arbitration case upset me rather considerably. ] (]) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::That is a more valid reason, there do seem to be issues with the recent work. ] (]) 14:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:This discussion should be closed and a proper thread should be opened with substantiated concrete claims about problems with this source. —] 15:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::The thread itself is the precursor to an RFC. That said, they've published misinformation or disinformation about climate change,<ref name="Washington_2011">{{Cite book |last1=Washington |first1=Haydn |title=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |title-link=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |last2=Cook |first2=John |publisher=Earthscan |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-84971-335-1 |location=London |page=75,77 |oclc=682903020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Fisher |first=Michael |title=Heritage Foundation |url=https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210808183550/https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |archive-date=August 8, 2021 |access-date=September 1, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first1=Ruth E.|last1=McKie|title=The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America|url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|publisher=Springer International Publishing|date=2023 |location=Cham|isbn=978-3-031-33592-1|pages=19–50|via=Springer Link|doi=10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|quote=Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...}}</ref> the FDA<ref>{{cite book|first1=Zane C.|last1=Wubbena|first2=Derek R.|last2=Ford|first3=Brad J.|last3=Porfilio|title=News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XAcoDwAAQBAJ|publisher=Routledge|date=1 March 2016|isbn=978-1-68123-401-4|via=Google Books|pp=49|quote=For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.’s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...}}</ref> elections and politics,<ref name="Kessler_2021">{{Cite web |last=Kessler |first=Glenn |date=March 31, 2021 |title=The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511214334/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |archive-date=May 11, 2021 |access-date=April 2, 2021 |newspaper=]}}</ref><ref name="NYT-GAvideo-2024-09-07">{{Cite news |last1=Bensinger |first1=Ken |last2=Fausset |first2=Richard |date=September 7, 2024 |title=Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |work=The New York Times |access-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240907203454/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Fields |first1=Gary |last2=Swenson |first2=Ali |title=Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force |url=https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |publisher=Associated Press |date=July 12, 2024 |access-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713110730/https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |url-status=live }}</ref> and more. --] (]) 16:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::That's enough to open an RFC. ] (]) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Can I suggest closing this section and starting another, to afford accusations that questions of reliability are based on animosity to the source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{+1}} I think it's time we started a RfC (perhaps in a new section, as suggested by AD). ] (]) 17:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, new section. —] 18:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::An RFC is in a new section already? You mean a new RFCbefore section? Titled Heritage Foundation? (ie without the dox part) ] (]) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::New level 2 section. —] 19:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I certainly have no objection to closing this discussion and opening a new one to host an RfC / RfC Before.] (]) 19:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


5. That didn't seem to satisfy User:Hemiauchenia. Instead, the user opened a ticket to the Edit Warring WP site (I can't find the link for this; it may have been deleted), as well as this RS site.

a. Note that I said I was willing to discuss it on the Talk Page of GH.

a. This might be WP:WikiBullying, but I'm not sure and I'm not claiming that it is.

6. The SAA article claimed that "Hancock’s narrative emboldens extreme voices that misrepresent archaeological knowledge in order to spread false historical narratives that are overtly misogynistic, chauvinistic, racist, and anti-Semitic."

a. Most reasonable people would agree that these are strong accusations and defamatory if they are not true. According to GH, these accusations and defamatory statements are very much completely false.

7. I'm NOT suggesting that the article from the SAA be in any way removed or censored. I think it's important. In fact, I think it ought to be expanded to explain what '''''exactly is being claimed and why'''''. However, I maintain that an accurate and equally clear rebuttal in GH's own words, '''''must''''' be included in the article.

8. With the policies linked below, I can provide another RS for GH's full response in his own words (not in WP Voice), to most or all claims leveled against him. Although this discussion should have been explored on GH's Talk Page, my hand has been forced, so I'm engaging here. I can update GH's Talk Page with these points after this has been resolved.

a. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

b. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources

9. I haven't seriously edited WP in a quite a long time (12+ years). Forgive me if I don't have neither the time nor inclination to engage in such matters on a regular basis. I'm just a WP Gnome at this point. Nevertheless, much of the article is a direct attack on GH's theories (pseudo this and pseudo that, etc.). Fair enough, since they are sourced. A direct/indirect attack on GH's character/motivations/implications '''''must''''' be responded to, in his own words, for the sake of neutrality. Simply saying that he doesn't agree, without being allowed to speak for himself, is unacceptable.

Thank you. ] (]) 15:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:This discussion is not about your actions, but whether or not the Joe Rogan experience is an RS, for this content. ] (]) 16:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::That's true to a certain extent, but I just wanted to provide ''context''. It's about whether a youtube video is an RS for a '''''specific''''' rebuttal in the subject's own voice (i.e., not WP voice). Can you please explain why GH is not allowed, per wiki policies, to do that? I would also truly like you and others to respond to my above points on the GH talk page. Seriously. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::No need, we can respond here (we should be discussions in one place, not spread over multiple talk pagers). And they have been addressed (or rather the question has, as non of the above affects this being an SPS). ] (]) 16:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Just to say this is not a general forum, and anything other than reliability should be discussed elsewhere. Discussions of behaviour or wikibullying are not appropriate here.
:::As has been said above the podcast would be reliable for a denial per ], but not necessarily for the nature of the allegations themselves. So using the subjects own words may not be appropriate, as the nature of the allegations are details about someone other than the subject (see the second point of ABOUTSELF {{tq|It does not involve claims about third parties}}). Also if there is disagreement about the exact allegations it may be at odds with the first point ({{tq|The material is neither unduly self-serving...}}).
:::There is no requirement to use the subejcts own words only to report that the allegations behave been denied (see the final sentence of ]). -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

*Is this not a textbook example of ]? As an aside, I would strongly suggest Hancock's response should be in there, given the ] aspect. If we make it look like someone is saying he's a racist and he's said nowt, the reader may be left with the impression he has tacitly accepted the claims.] (]) 07:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::Just looked at the article, the denial is already sourced. I don't really see the need for more information than that.] (]) 09:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Yeah those were my original thoughts. The issue appears to be not Hancock's denial (which is already included), but insisting on using the exact quote of Hancock's denial. ABOUTSELF is reliable for the denial, but not for the details of claims made by a third party. As far as I can tell the SAA doesn't ''directly'' claim that Hancock is a racist or white supremacist, but Hancock's denial states that they have. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::::More than anything we risk a BLP violation against Hancock himself by reporting Hancock's words about the SAA. The SAA actually claim his work is informed by outdated racist tropes rather than claiming racist animus against the man himself. I don't think even his most vociferous critics accuse him of actively holding or expressing racist viewpoints, rather than subconscious bias informed by the "scientific racism" of the past as well as the biases of past pseudo-theorists.] (]) 11:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}} {{reflist-talk}}

== Electronic Intifada ==

Deeply biased, spreads fake news, its owner Ali Abunimah spreads fake news frequently and also injects personal opinion on its reportings. Should be deprecated. ] (]) 22:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

:I have removed 'RfC' from the thread title above, since this doesn't remotely comply with the ] requirement that the opening statement be neutrally worded. ] (]) 22:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:A discussion about EI in ] was closed as "generally unreliable", but it's in a lot of articles. ]&nbsp;] 22:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::There was an RfC closed in February. Consensus was that EI is 'generally unreliable', but there was insufficient support for depreciation. ] (]) 22:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I missed that in my search, thanks @]! ]&nbsp;] 23:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:Is already classed as generally unreliable, should be removed and replaced as you come across it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::Wow quite a lot. ] (]) 13:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::It's dependant on editors maintaining reliable sources and replacing unreliable ones. I doubt even after the RFC no-one has done the hard work of trying to clear down it's use. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I wonder if we could get an AWB user to tag all of them with {{tl|unreliable source?}}. I dislike mass removal, because sometimes the content is fine, and sometimes it's not, and it's useful to know that the content likely came from an unreliable source when deciding whether the source should be replaced vs the claim should be removed. ] (]) 05:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Mass removal is rarely a good idea, false positives and errors with automation are always an issue when dealing with a very large number changes. In many instances {{tl|better source needed}} would likely be more appropriate, but it would be a case by case issue. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I think tagging most uses as BSN is definitely appropriate, and the we can go case by case on specific uses regarding removal without replacement (if none are available). Is anyone opposed to that? ] (]) 16:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I think that's a good idea. It should have a <code>|reason=</code> parameter pointing either to the RFC or the RSP entry. Anyone who thinks a given use is warranted is welcome to remove the tag. One-time runs avoid accidental edit warring. ] (]) 16:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

== Closure review of Telegraph on trans issues RFC ==
{{atop|reason=The review has been ] closed.}}
Because of course there is, interested editors can find the review at ] -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}


== Could someone who can read Bengali take a look at ]? ==
== Should subject or time-specific deprecation be an RfC option? ==


Hello, I started the title AfD in response to some users recreating a rejected draft in mainspace and they responded by filling the discussion with sources that don't pass ]. I'm unable to read some of the sources, though, in particular one that the users claim has a whole chapter on the subject of the article. Could someone who can read the Bengali sources take a look at the discussion and see if the article passes ]? --] (]) 18:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
It's now becoming common at RSN to propose a 4-option RfC for the purpose of discussing a source for a given period of time or its coverage in a specific topic area. As an example, the recent RfC on ] was limited to its coverage on transgender topics and presented a deprecation option. Let's call this "partial deprecation".


:You may have more luck asking at ] or ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Partial deprecation should not be presented as an option in future RfCs.''' ] states that deprecation {{tq|primarily exists to save time by avoiding the endless discussion of the same issues, and to raise awareness among editors of the status of the sources in question.}} In other words, deprecation is not an extra level of unreliability on top of ]; it's a list of sources that we auto-revert and have an edit filter warning people about.
::Thanks, will repost there (West Bengal, since it's the Wikiproject whose scope covers the article's subject). --] (]) 22:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== The Heritage Foundation ==
However, it isn't possible to implement partial deprecation for most sources. The auto-reversion and edit filter is based on a source's URL. Only some sources include the date of publication in the URL, and very rarely do sources include a machine-readable topic in the URL. A consensus for partial deprecation would be unenforceable, so having it as an RfC option would be misleading.
] has published misinformation or disinformation about climate change,<ref name="Washington_2011">{{Cite book |last1=Washington |first1=Haydn |title=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |title-link=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |last2=Cook |first2=John |publisher=Earthscan |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-84971-335-1 |location=London |page=75,77 |oclc=682903020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Fisher |first=Michael |title=Heritage Foundation |url=https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210808183550/https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |archive-date=August 8, 2021 |access-date=September 1, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first1=Ruth E.|last1=McKie|title=The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America|url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|publisher=Springer International Publishing|date=2023 |location=Cham|isbn=978-3-031-33592-1|pages=19–50|via=Springer Link|doi=10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|quote=Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...}}</ref> the FDA<ref>{{cite book|first1=Zane C.|last1=Wubbena|first2=Derek R.|last2=Ford|first3=Brad J.|last3=Porfilio|title=News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XAcoDwAAQBAJ|publisher=Routledge|date=1 March 2016|isbn=978-1-68123-401-4|via=Google Books|pp=49|quote=For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.’s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...}}</ref> elections and politics,<ref name="Kessler_2021">{{Cite web |last=Kessler |first=Glenn |date=March 31, 2021 |title=The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511214334/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |archive-date=May 11, 2021 |access-date=April 2, 2021 |newspaper=]}}</ref><ref name="NYT-GAvideo-2024-09-07">{{Cite news |last1=Bensinger |first1=Ken |last2=Fausset |first2=Richard |date=September 7, 2024 |title=Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |work=The New York Times |access-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240907203454/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Fields |first1=Gary |last2=Swenson |first2=Ali |title=Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force |url=https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |publisher=Associated Press |date=July 12, 2024 |access-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713110730/https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |url-status=live }}</ref> and more. It has been publishing obvious disinformation especially since the 2020 election. Its website heritage.org is used as a source on some <s></s> (<u>correction</u>: I copied "5000" with this search link from another editor uncritically. "heritage.org" includes all of "english-heritage.org" links; the real count is —00:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)). I'm inviting editors to consider whether this source should be deprecated. Another thing to consider are possible other sources such as websites and publications operated by or published by the Heritage Foundation.—] 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:We should definitely be avoiding using sources that intentionally put forward disinformation. ] (]) 19:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The only exception I can see would be if a consensus is reached on how partial deprecation would be ''implemented''. For example, checking the URL for a set of topic-related keywords and making the revert or edit filter decision based on that. But there will likely be arguments over what those keywords should be due to the potential for false positives, and the best way to avoid wasting editor time would be listing those keywords at the start of the RfC.
::What about the ]? —] 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Nothing of value would be lost if we had to do away with that one. ] (]) 19:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I like how the United States is 0.6 points away from not being green in that index. ] (]) 20:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::What about the books published by the Heritage Foundation?
::What about https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future as a source in ]? —] 19:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Not sure I would want to go direct to deprecation unless they are demonstrably churning out falsehoods.
:On a quick search, I only found in the archives, about the Daily Signal, which looks like a pretty partisan affair. ] (]) 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:A lot of these are country rankings on the foundation's ]. Not sure if we want this used or not. ] ] 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::I was a bit flip above with my comment regarding that index but I guess my question would be what value it is? I mean, let's be honest, the methodological claim in our own article on the index {{tq|The creators of the index assert that they take an approach inspired by Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations}} suggests they've derived their index from theories in an outdated treatise on economics from 1776. Furthermore we could probably reproduce the index just by measuring how deregulated any given economy is. I'm not sure what neutral value there is to Misplaced Pages giving breathing space to an index that equates economic deregulation with freedom on the basis of a 250 year old book. ] (]) 20:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I mean, just as an example, their benchmark for Government spending is $0. IE: The ideal case, for this index, is that there is no government at all. ] (]) 20:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::That just means you personally disagree with them. I could turn it around on you by asking what value there is to the contributions of editors who describe themselves as socialists in their userboxes.
::::Obviously the index in question is from a particular point of view, but I don't see any evidence adduced that it's not reliable for descriptions of countries according to that POV, which is something that can be of interest. --] (]) 21:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Oh do stop. I've heard that particular ] violation a thousand times. My argument is that they have no valid methodology and a ] ] perspective, it is not that they are an extreme right-wing group. ] (]) 22:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::: I don't know much about their methodology; that's something that could be explored. As to the perspective, I think the reference to Smith is more normative than descriptive. I don't think you can apply AGEMATTERS to moral propositions. --] (]) 22:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::It's a moral proposition tp build your economic worldview on a text that predates electricity? ] (]) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::It's a moral proposition to value lesser regulation per se (as opposed to achieve some other goal). --] (]) 23:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Their index is pseudoscience. We aren't supposed to use that in Misplaced Pages except to critique it. ] (]) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::That's a bold claim. Evidence? --] (]) 04:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don’t really care about whatever their wacky economic index dealio is, we just flat-out shouldn’t trust an organization that wants to systematically attack our userbase and will most likely harvest any data it finds for that purpose. It’s like reaching for a source in a bear trap. ] (]) 11:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::What about https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB850689110237569500 (). We are not worried that the Wall Street Journal will systematically attack our userbase etc. —] 11:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:It appears that the use in these pages are not problematic and supported by ], replacing sources in 5000 pages would be a ton of work. I would like to first know in which pages did the actual use of this source appear unreliable, such as promoting ]. ] (]) 20:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think they can be counted as a reliable source but I see no objection to saying what they think since they are important if it is obvious they are being quoted as a heavily biased party. They make it fairly clear what they are rather than trying to be deceptive about their aims which at least is a mercy. Really most of these 'think tanks' and 'foundations' and 'institutes' and even 'research organizations' are like that and we'd be well off if they were specially marked as such instead of being mixed up with reliable sources. ] (]) 20:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:I would consider it ] since it’s self published and openly partisan. ] (]) 21:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::It's not self-published in the sense we use that term. Lots of reliable sources publish their own materials, including e.g. serious thinktanks. It may be GUNREL, but SPS is not a valid policy-based argument in this case. ] (]) 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::There was recently (may still be going on) a very extensive discussion about whether ] applies to "gray" sources such as think tanks and advocacy groups. This line of reasoning probably is coming out of that discussion. ] (]) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::There was an ] as well, there wasn't a consensus on how to define such sources but there was consensus against ''always'' considering them to be self-published. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think it can be used, but like with most such sources attribution is appropriate. ] (]) 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] Please review reference no. 6 in ] ({{tq|Additionally, each state is entitled to select a number of electors to vote in the Electoral College, the body that elects the president of the United States, equal to the total of representatives and senators in Congress from that state}}). Is the source adequate? Would we want to replace it? —] 23:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yeah thats somewhere where I just don't see using Heritage (or any other think tank) being due. That seems like a place where academic sourcing should be pretty easy to find. ] (]) 23:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks. What do you think about the following paragraph found in ], supported by the Project 2025 publication, ''with attribution'': {{tqq|], a conservative think tank, dubbed the Space Development Agency "a model for the military". In their ''2025 Mandate for Leadership'', they call to develop new offensive space capabilities to "impose will if necessary". They further claim the Biden administration "has eliminated almost all offensive deterrence capabilities" in space that were planned under the Trump administration.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf|title=Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise|first=Heritage|last=Foundation|date=1 February 2023|website=]|access-date=1 September 2023|archive-date=16 November 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231116113522/https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>}} Is this where "attribution is appropriate", or should this entire paragraph simply be removed unless there's a secondary source on the fact that the Heritage Foundation has said so and so. —] 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Given what we now know, this can be cited as another example of their modus operandi: do what they say, or else. ] (]) 11:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It could go either way, I'm not familiar enough with the topic area. ] (]) 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It might be 'reliable' that the HF said what they said they said, but is it relevant? This is getting into questions about whether the content is even ]. Lots of people say lots of things about lots of stuff, but Misplaced Pages doesn't quote it all. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 07:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::There's the reputed ], for one. ] (]) 12:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think the issue is them being unreliable. I think the issue is them tracking the IP of anyone who visits their sites and trying to doxx editors with that info. There might be a way to just archive all the links and then replace the links with links to the wayback machine or something to avoid sending people directly to their site. ] (]) 23:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::That's not a topical matter on this noticeboard. —] 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't know about that. If a source is willing to go to such extent to silence people, then I don't see how it can possibly be considered reliable. ] (]) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yeah, if a source is operating in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, that is ''directly'' relevant to an evaluation of whether they are a reliable source; namely, it's (additional) direct evidence that they do dishonest and untrustworthy things and are unreliable. Together with the other evidence of unreliability presented in OP's first post, I think they have gone beyond unreliability, into territory where deprecation and blacklisting is in order. ] (]) 05:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support ''' blacklisting ''']]''' 07:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Minor point but it's used on not 5000. The search caught false positives such as english-heritage.org. ] (]) 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support''' blacklisting. I don't wanna get doxxed.. ] ] 21:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Serious, non-sarcastic question... Does blacklisting actually ''prevent'' and/or ''stop ''any alleged doxxing? Or is it merely a retaliatory action and !vote I am seeing? ] (]) 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::They have threatened to start doxxing people on Misplaced Pages. ] ] 22:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::And also have said they will do it with links. ] ] 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It's unlikely that any professional phishing campaign by HF would use heritage.org, and if their home website were blacklisted, they would proceed to ''use other websites'' ] (]) 22:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


Should just be considered unreliable for unreliability in general, but the implications they would go to doxxing is icing on the cake to suggest blacklisting at this point. ] (]) 04:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Does anyone else agree with my logic here? <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 00:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)


As with ALL think-tanks, I think they should be considered ]; though if some of their reports see ] than those could be used with attribution.---''']]''' 06:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:The issue is that deprecation was basically a nuke option to get people to stop using the Daily Mail, but people think it means Unreliable++. It should probably stop being included in the default RFC options, since including it makes people treat it like ''extra'' generally unreliable. Or maybe we should stop doing so many source RFCs when they aren't needed, but to stop incentivizing that we would have to stop adding to the RSP page things that are not perennial, but people want sources to be added to the easy to consult list so its stated purpose is constantly flouted... alas! ] (]) 02:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:I don't think we have the ability to bind the community against forming a future consensus for a partial deprecation, but it would be appropriate that people be reminded of the practical implementation, and for any favouring such proposals to explicitly indicate they have considered such and have a intended implementation, whether that be in the RFC nomination statement, a part of their !vote or somewhere else. ] (] • ]) 05:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::I think we can recommend not to include it as an option unless it has a possible implementation. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 18:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:My personal view has long been that RFCs should offer propositions that are basically of the form "upgrade" or "downgrade," especially if it's even going to be a struggle to get it downgraded, why bother offering deprecation as an option unless that is obviously merited? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 08:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:I never personally !vote deprecate any more, but I think what people mean when they say something like "'''option 4''' for Rhinos and large tropical ungulates in general" is that we should never ever use the source in that topic area. There is clearly a difference between this and "generally unreliable". A "deprecate" at RSN allows for immediate deletion of content sourced to a bad source in this topic area without discussion, which is an option which might actually be useful. My view is that we should retain deprecate but add a category of something like "'''Option 5''' Not to be used in the topic area of Rhinos and large tropical ungulates, broadly construed."] (]) 12:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::Deprecation doesn't allow for any different editing behaviour than unreliability. ] {{tq|the only effect of deprecation ''alone'' is to explicitly codify the source’s pre-existing status, as already determined by Misplaced Pages’s sourcing requirements}} and {{tq|Deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable}}. Editors can remove content referenced to an unreliable source without discussion because editors never need permission to edit (]). -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, the discussion is made much easier with the DO NOT USE option I propose. If there is a DO NOT USE FOR X on a source, there will be no discussion over why, on this occasion, the only generally unreliable source should be used. It just becomes a tap the sign moment.--] (]) 16:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::::What your suggesting isn't deprecation, but something more stringent than deprecation. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:I raised this issue on the talk page awhile ago, and have been ''trying'' to stop the misunderstanding that deprecation is GUNREL+. One of the current RFCs contains editors wanting to deprecate for a topic area, not sure how that would work maybe we could create an general AI to determine if an edit contains text relevant to the topic.<br>As it stands partial deprecation isn't possible, this is a technical limitation and not something easily overcome. I've argued before that deprecation shouldn't be a default option, maybe only including it if the RFCBEFORE shows a need for it. However a smaller solution would be to rename the option from "Deprecate" to "Unreliable with deprecation", it makes it clearer that this is just GUNREL with a technical option. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::That seems like a decent idea. ] (]) 12:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::That renaming idea sounds good. '''''<sub>]</sub>]<sup>]</sup>''''' 17:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::This is probably the best way of making the impact clear. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 18:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::I like both of these ideas, to only include "deprecate" as an option if the RFCBEFORE shows that at least some chunk of people think the source actually needs deprecation (I've seen, and I'm sure we've all seen, many RFCs where it made no sense that it was being presented as an option, since the only options anyone was actually arguing for were either "reliable" or "considerations apply", but some people responded with stern "don't deprecate!" !votes because the format of the RFC made them think it was an option that was actually being considered), and also to rename "deprecate" when it ''is'' an option. ] (]) 21:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)


Could we see some evidence of doxing please? If this is something they do to people it is a safety concern and we probably need to deprecate. As for the rest, I think they are an over-used fringe source, but there are probably times when their attributed opinion is due. The Economic Freedom Index was something you used to see quoted a lot in newspapers and on TV in the UK, not so much now. It shouldn't be mentioned in our ] or ] type articles.--] (]) 06:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:"Partial deprecation" has actually been applied before, in the case of ]. The outcome wasn't formally chosen as an RfC option, but was implemented post-RfC as a common-sense exception to acknowledge that the reasoning for deprecation only applied after the site had changed ownership. It happens that the technical measures were enforceable in that case (the site was subsequently successfully, without any problems that I'm aware of), but even if that hadn't been the case the partial deprecation would have remained.
:Even if there are technical barriers, at minimum some degree of enforcement can still be done manually. When justifying removal of a source, "enforcing deprecation" is probably less likely to be opposed than removal based on general unreliability. If necessary, the specific circumstances where the deprecation applies would be determined case-by-case, in the same way that many sources are already treated as GREL/MREL/GUNREL based on specific circumstances. And regardless, as already pointed out, we can't really bind the community against forming a specific consensus in the future. ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 03:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::If deprecation is misunderstood, perhaps it needs a new name. Imagine if people had to vote "Prohibited", for example, or "Remove all existing instances and set a ] to warn against future additions".
::I've also wondered whether we need an option for "It's biased but it doesn't actually make up nonsense". So many voters in RSP discussions seem to think that holding a POV they disagree with makes the source unreliable. If a newspaper were to accurately but extensively report every crime they heard about, that wouldn't be "unreliable" – every fact in each article is true – but the overall effect, day after day, would give a biased impression of a crime wave. That bias is important for local politicians, whose constituents will demand that they 'do something', but it's not relevant for Misplaced Pages, because our interest is in the individual facts in each separate article, and not at all in whether the newspaper talks about crime too much, not enough, or just the right amount. ] (]) 06:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree with WhatamIdoing and Alpha3031. Depreciation is often treated as if something is really unreliable or POV related, which is ridiculous.] (]) 06:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::You've mixed up blacklisting and deprecation, their not the same thing. I wouldn't know if the solution for partial blacklisting would also be applicable to an edit filter, or whether it would be to expensive runtime wise. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)


: expose in ], a respected progressive Jewish outlet, is the main source of information on this scheme. ] (]) 11:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::No, this particular source is both deprecated and blacklisted. That said, that part of my comment is really a secondary point - I was just trying to clarify exactly what happened in the example I was describing, without having to go into a lot of extraneous detail, but perhaps I didn't do as well as I hoped. The main point I was making was that partial deprecation did in fact occur, and this status would have remained even if the technical components couldn't be fully implemented. ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 09:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)


'''Support''' blacklisting. I don’t know if it’s “spam” per se but an organization that has stated an intent to dox editors is obviously just a simple threat to user safety. And I don’t think there’s any debate their content is all garbage, disinfo, and propaganda. Even ] content should easily be obtainable via respectable 3rd-party sources. ] (]) 11:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== Need for verification of the reliability of the Chosun Ilbo article based on false information. ==
{{hat|reason=OP blocked as a sock, ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)}}
It is necessary to verify whether the following Chosun Ilbo article can be considered a reliable source:
https://www.chosun.com/english/national-en/2022/09/06/EOR5JQWL2FWHD34HJII4L27BRE/


'''Support''' blacklisting. ] am I right in thinking your script marks this as unreliable? ] ] 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
1. The Chosun Ilbo article states that Michael Kim paid a fine to avoid prosecution for tax evasion during the sale of ING Life.
"MBK Partners Chairman Byung Ju Kim has been found to have paid W40 billion in taxes and penalties to avoid charges of overseas tax evasion which carries a criminal prosecution in Korea in connection with income not reported in Korea with the sale of ING Life Insurance in 2018."


:Heritage.org is marked as unreliable, yes. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 11:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
2. For this statement to be true, it must be a fact that Michael Kim engaged in tax evasion during the sale of ING Life.


'''Support''' blacklisting of this Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". ] (]) 12:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
3. However, the official document issued by the Korean police, "Notice of Decision Not to Prosecute," clearly states that Michael Kim fulfilled his tax obligations during the sale of 오렌지라이프 (formerly ING Life).


'''Support''' blacklisting. The Heritage Foundation produces two things: disinformation and opinion. I don't think the opinion of a disinformation vendor is particularly noteworthy except in ] contexts. With such minimal value to use of this group as a source let's just show them the door. ] (]) 13:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8lihc0c2j3vk6bl1w3biu/Notice-of-Decision-Not-to-Prosecute.pdf?rlkey=e5is4mxasiwbm01xasd1424jf


* '''Support blacklisting'''. The site is published by an ideologically-motivated group which is well-documented for making false claims of fact, using dubious methodologies in their work, and is now engaged in efforts to damage this very project. There's absolutely no use, and much potential harm to come from using them. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
"However, it was confirmed that the suspect, as a U.S. citizen, had properly reported the transaction and fulfilled their tax obligations during the sale process. (*The relevant Korean original: 피의자는 미국시민권자로 매각과정에서 적법하게 신고하여 납세의무를 이행한 것으로 확인된다.)"


=== RFC: The Heritage Foundation ===
"No intent or motive for tax evasion was found, and no relevant materials or evidence supporting the initiation of an investigation or establishing a crime were identified. (*The relevant Korean original: 피의자의 조세포탈의 고의나 동기를 찾을 수 없고, 조세범처벌법의 수사개시를 위해 필요한 최소한의 관련 자료나 범죄 성립 자체에 대한 자료가 전혀 확인되지 않아 수사의 필요성을 인정하기 어렵다.)"
<!-- ] 16:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739462471}}
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=08190DC}}
What is the reliability of ] and should it be blacklisted? ] (]) 15:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


* '''Option 1: ]'''
4. Therefore, the claim that Michael Kim paid a fine to avoid prosecution for tax evasion, when he had fully met his tax obligations, is clearly false.
* '''Option 2: ]'''
* '''Option 3: ]'''
* '''Option 4: ]'''
* '''Option 5: ]'''
==== Poll: The Heritage Foundation ====
* <s>'''Option 5: Blacklist'''</s>: Multiple examples of the foundation publishing complete misinformation. The use of links to try to determine and datamine user identity moves to a trust issue and indicates a need to blacklist links to protect users and editors. ] (]) 15:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Pinging @]@]@]@]@], they voted above before I made this RFC. ] (]) 15:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Barnards.tar seems correct... We need to be able to cite some of their opinions, and pure blacklist would harm our mission... but i'm not certain its worth using their material if this is the new world we are in.
*:is there a way to place warnings on links when you click on them that would warn users about this scenario though? that would be a good compromise.. otherwise keeping vote for 5] (]) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I honestly don't see how blacklisting such a garbage source would harm this project. ] (]) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::@]: There is a way to warn users attempting to ''add these links'' (filter {{edit filter|869}}), but warning users who click on them would likely require some JavaScript magic that's above my pay grade. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support option 5''' - Allowing this website to exist on wikipedia is a danger to editors' privacy and safety. The Heritage Foundation needs to be blacklisted ASAP ''']]''' 15:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:The Heritage Foundation is not a website. It's an organization. You can treat the website as one of its publications. There may be other websites. There are further publications, such as the paperback yearly Indices of Economic Freedom: https://isbndb.com/book/9780891952930. We can't blacklist paperback sources. What's the status of that going to be? How does your recommendation answer this question? —] 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Not our problem. We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization. ''']]''' 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::They are works published by the organization. If an organization is such an unreliable source (in the conception of an organization as a source as per {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Definition of a source}}; that's point no. 3), which is the framing of this RfC, as to be "blacklisted", should we really retain the status quo wrt its printed works? —] 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Do paperbacks get special dispensation in policy from reliability requirements? If (say) David Irving published a paperback would it magically become reliable? ] (]) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Yes, according to Abo Yemen. He said: {{tqq|We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization}}—] 16:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Ay dont be quoting me on that. I didn't give a complete answer. I have no idea how unreliable this source is but according to other editors, it is not reliable. But if the paperback was reliable enough compared to stuff they publish on their website then i dont see why it shouldn't be used. All i did was try to give an answer to your question ig ''']]''' 17:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::They don't. ] (]) 17:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::What is the status of (a printed work) going to be then, according to you: perhaps a deprecated source? —] 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Whatever we decide, but (again) it being a paperback has no relevance. ] (]) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::This is an RfC, Slatersteven, it's the time when things are decided. Saying "Whatever we decide" is clearly not moving things forward. —] 17:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Its status now is that is is an RS, its status when this is over will be determined by this RFC. ] (]) 17:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::Please start engaging more meaningfully. It doesn't appear that you're getting it. How do you blacklist a printed work? Only web domains can be blacklisted. What is the consequence for the printed work as the outcome of this RfC if the consensus is to "blacklist the Heritage Foundation"? —] 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::We do it all the time, we have plenty of blacklisted printed works (the Daily Mail for one). Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? So it would not, in fact, be covered by any ban on the heritage foundation. ] (]) 17:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::If ''Daily Mail'' is blacklisted, how is this possible (edit: I intentionally broke the link later after a complaint that a source highlighter script is painting too much red):{{blist|
<nowiki>{{cite web |last1=Earle |first1=Geoff |title=Justin Trudeau glares at Trump amid his threat to absorb country |url=https://www.d ailymail.co.uk/news/article-14267497/justin-trudeau-glares-trump-jimmy-carter-funeral-canada-threats.html |website=Mail Online |access-date=9 January 2025 |date=9 January 2025}}
</nowiki>}}...?{{br}}I'll help you: ''Daily Mail'' is not blacklisted.—] 17:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::]. ] (]) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::That's not an entry marked as blacklisted. Please find me an entry which is in fact blacklisted, for me to believe that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking when discussing specifically blacklisting something. —] 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Ahh I see, well yes we cannot blacklist spam if is hardcopy, but we can depreciate it, and it can be assumed that if you choose 5, you are choosing to also depreciate it. Are you you arguing that if you vote 5 it will not cover hard copy? ] (]) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::I think there is a misunderstanding of what is meant "blacklisting the source". Please see ] below. ] (]) 17:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::Ok, I'll give more responses to your slightly earlier comment: {{tqq|Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing).}} Yes, nothing says so; I wasn't arguing otherwise. {{tqq|But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal?}} Does not appear to be. The sole publisher of this paperback edition is The Heritage Foundation.{{pb}}Going onward... You said that this country ranking, which is a primary source and an unscientific publication from a think tank, is a RS. On no day would that simply be a reliable source. So I'm going to circle back to my original question, to which you replied with the rhetorical question of {{tqq|Do paperbacks get special dispensation ...}}. That original question, mildly rephrased, is:{{pb}}''How does the recommendation to blacklist heritage.org the website for safety reasons answer the question of how to treat the reliability of The Heritage Foundation as a source, whereby "source" means publisher, consistent with ], which is how this RfC's question is also formulated ({{tqq|'''What is the reliability of <u>The Heritage Foundation</u> ...'''}})''?{{pb}}Your answer to this question is that blacklisting an organization's website creates an assumption that all publications from that organization which can not be blacklisted are treated as deprecated sources. This answer is ''possible'', but it is not what, say, ] thinks. He wrote: {{tqq|... we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question ...}}. —] 18:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Hey Alalch can you change the source you change this to a normal link because the entire section is now colored red because of the source reliability gadget thing ''']]''' 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Yes, I'll break the link. My highlighter doesn't work like that. It only colors the link red, not the whole section. —] 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Ultimately I think this is somewhat moot as, notwithstanding the safety concern, they're also a deeply unreliable fringe source that has been spammed all over our project. As such I do sincerely think there is a justification for options 4 and 5 even if this group wasn't trying to target Misplaced Pages editors. That they're also doing this is, in my view, an inflaming element but I think that getting this pervasive fringe source out of our project is a good for the project on its own merits. ] (]) 18:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Also this is an online source, so may be a security risk. ] (]) 17:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::You are mistaken. The link I posted is a link to a database entry on the website isbndb.com. It contains information about a printed work published by The Heritage Foundation. —] 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' already said why, garbage source that’s a threat to user safety. ] (]) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support option 5 and option 4''' per my statements above. ] (]) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*: I added option 4 to my support message to clarify I support both blacklisting and deprecating this source. ] (]) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 3,''' with '''Option 5''' post 2016 and '''Option 4''' for any hard copy after 2016. ] (]) 15:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Only blacklisting/deprecating content from a certain time period is not possible unless the domains are different. ] (]) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::@] You're correct separately about blacklisting but you're not correct separately about deprecating, but maybe (probably) that's not what you meant specifically ("blacklisting/deprecating" was probably not separately addressing deprecating)—see Lenta.ru at ]; deprecated status only extends to content published from March 2014 onward. I.e., it's possible to deprecate content from a certain time period. —] 00:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::@] Interesting, it looks like it's possible ]. Heritage does not include article dates in their URLs, though. Not even their static content includes them (unless you can somehow decipher "824-MHT-304". ] (]) 02:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Yeah, that is interesting. In the present case, if blacklisting for ostensible security reasons, the date isn't a factor. —] 03:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


* '''Option 3: generally unreliable'''. Too many examples of them publishing bunk. However, blacklisting would also be wrong, because they seem to have a deep archive of relevant material, such as by ] which we link to on his article. For readers who want to read the subject's writings, that is a useful link. Putting the heritage.org domain on the spam blacklist would prevent this. This is far from the only example. Furthermore, the call to blacklist seems to be a misguided attempt to prevent the doxxing op that they have planned. Blacklisting will not prevent any of that plan being executed. It's just the wrong tool. By all means aggressively block accounts and IP addresses implicated in doxxing, but blacklisting their domain is a completely unrelated action. ] (]) 15:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
In other words, the Chosun Ilbo article, disregarding the authority of the media outlet, has published an article containing false information. There can be no clearer evidence than an official document issued by the Korean police.
*'''Option 5''' and '''Option 4'''. this is literally a Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". ] (]) 15:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' maybe the doxing threat would be a good enough reason, but the fact it publishes misinformation is an overwhelming reason. ] ] 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 2 for pre-2016''' (meaning: same status as the Cato Institute and the other "]" think tanks) and '''Option 4 for 2016 and later'''. While spam websites can get spam-blacklisted if they're recognized as obvious spam in discussions held in this forum (happens rarely), I oppose the notion that this forum has an ability to decide to blacklist a non-spam source for computer security reasons, because the subset of editors at large interested in reliability of sources used on Misplaced Pages, who are predominantly the editors commenting here, here do not have the competence to make an informed decision on matters of user safety. Facts and arguments should be collected in a discussion devoted to that specifically, which discussion has a chance of attracting editors with suitable knowledge and skill, and decisions should be made going forward from that (i.e., ''']''' (])), not from value judgements.—] 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Actually, we do have the competence and the right to decide whether a source should be blacklisted in this appropriate venue. ] (]) 16:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Disagreed. I.e., agreed for spam, disagreed for safety.—] 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I'm noting that multiple other editors also disagree in a discussion a bit further below, or state that blacklisting is pragmatically poor on its own merits as a protective measure. —] 00:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 5''' We can't control what they do with their site, and they've indicated their willingness to use malicious applications and methods to harm Misplaced Pages. Allowing links from our site to theirs is a fundamental cybersecurity concern, given their announced intention to target our editors. And given their use of misinformation, their all but explicitly stated goal of engaged in broad political activity to undermine the constitution of their home nation, which is also the host nation of this project and whose constitution outlines fundamental principles of this project, there will be no appreciable loss to the project from doing so. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 5''' - blacklist website for cybersecurity reasons. Not sure about non-website references. --] 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' blacklist for security reasons, noting that they have brought this on themselves - I would otherwise oppose blacklisting, as they sometimes carry content from individuals whose opinions we would give weight to. ] (]) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' Blacklist -- ''but this does not mean removing the reference''. Rather, we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question, but with their announced intent to use links to try to break Misplaced Pages privacy, they are a malware site and should be treated as such. This needs to be done to all links to their websites, regardless of date. -- ] (]) 17:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' They are often publishing pure opinion, and what they publish is definitely the opinion of the people writing. Where these opinions might be due is to be discussed on the relevant talkpages. Their editorial content (i.e. anything published by them without a name attached) is generally unreliable ('''option 3''') as they are into ] conspiracy theories and disinformation. I don't get how anybody is voting 4 or 5 on merit here though, and this board no jurisdiction over their alleged cyber-stalking attempt.] (]) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' per Vanamonde93, the known security risks make this an exception to past precedent, basically they have now entered "]." I would guess anything notable published there would be picked up by on other news outlets and/or scholarly sources that can be cited instead. The Clarence Thomas article mentioned above, for instance, is widely cited and also has a Google Books entry which at least is not a technological risk. ] (]) 17:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' per Vanamonde93. If necessary to use, we can use other sources that refer to the organization, to an offline publication, or use an archival link (which I think would resolve security issues). Perhaps archiving all existing links might be an option as well? -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Since it's relevant apparently, 5 & 4, with older links being converted to archival links if they fall within the allowed uses of deprecated sources. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 08:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3 + Blacklist ''' I have seen enough to make me think that attribution is insufficient here, gunrel leaves the door ajar for citations but not that many, hopefully. Blacklisting their websites seems more of a technical question, but wouldn't it require a 4 first? ] (]) 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) <small>Amended to include Blacklisting ] (]) 15:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
*:They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. ] (]) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? ] (]) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::{{re|JoJo Anthrax|Bluethricecreamman|Abo Yemen|Dronebogus|Doug Weller|MjolnirPants|SarekOfVulcan|Vanamonde93|NatGertler|Boynamedsue|Gnomingstuff|Patar knight|1AmNobody24|Tryptofish|Chaotic Enby|Horse Eye's Back}}
*:::While it's reasonable to assume that "option 5" would automatically include "option 4", some editors seem to think that it doesn't. Please ignore this request if you agree with them, otherwise, you might want to adjust your !vote (i.e., also comment on the reliability) to alleviate any confusion. Thanks. ] (]) 19:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::My comment is only on security grounds. I don't believe that in the current context it is possible to evaluate their reliability independent of those security concerns and so will not be attempting to do so. ] (]) 19:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I did already comment on the reliability in my !vote, but thanks for the reminder! ] (] · ]) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I don't have a strong opinion on this - if it weren't for the security risk I'd be somewhere between options 3 and 4. ] (]) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I do have a strong opinion on this, but am backing it down to 3+5 for NPOV reasons. As said elsewhere, named op-eds might be legitimate references. --] 20:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::If it wasn’t security related I wouldn’t have voted. But I would still allow older cites under a 3 ''if and only if'' they were replaced by wayback machine links. ] (]) 08:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' Don't think this needs any explanation anymore. ] (]) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 6''', ]. We're trying to solve a very real issue of not giving out personal information, but blacklisting isn't really a way to do this. The risk by clicking on the link is something like the risk of clicking on a link to a state-owned media site, or frankly any potentially hostile website. This is because there's no malware required to be installed to get one's IP; the execution is extremely simple because you ''give out your IP when you visit any website'' and, if you allow cookies to be downloaded generally, ''this is the exact way that advertisers track your browsing''.{{pb}}The way that spearphishing to get one's IP address works is that you have to click on a ''very specific link'', and they have to be fairly certain that ''only you'' could have clicked on that link (or that a very small number of people could have done so). Blacklisting one domain name is sufficient to start a game of Whac-A-Mole, but it doesn't really protect us against this sort of thing; all they have to do is register a new domain name that ''outwardly looks like'' something benign and send it to you in an email (or even posting it on a rarely-viewed talk page). And, if they're already engaging sockpuppet burner accounts to do this, we're going to see this often and possibly without even knowing it.{{pb}}If the concern is spearphishing, blacklisting a public website that has some legitimate uses is the wrong approach. In fact, it would wind up making the spearphishing be ''more effective'' by necessity, since people who are alert to Heritage urls would be directed to click on something that doesn't look like one. And perhaps it would even lull people into letting down their guard in this respect.{{pb}}The is used in >5000 articles often as a supplementary/] source. And that's because it's influential in the course of AmPol and it's often useful to include those links in a reference work. This sort of spearphishing would appear to be a new low.{{pb}}What I really don't want is for editors to have a false sense of security here; blacklisting is not going to stop this sort of activity, and it's somewhat trivial to get around this. The proposal would give us as much extra security as blacklisting state-owned media/government-controlled websites from countries known to try to de-anonymize and harass Wikipedians. We don't generally do that, and we really don't need to; it would be ineffective in achieving its goals of protecting our users. (Perhaps I'm off-base here, and the community would want to blacklist those too.) But it really is a bit of a feel-good measure more than an effective one for privacy from a sophisticated actor.{{pb}}The technical solutions offered at ] are in some ways more robust than a blacklist. What the technical solutions ''would'' do is make it harder to trace back traffic to ordinary (i.e. non-spearphishing) links on the website to Misplaced Pages, and it would reduce the risk associated with existing citations. They're not perfect; ultimately nothing can prevent you from clicking the outlink to a burner website, but those solutions don't lull users into the false sense of security that blacklisting the Heritage website would. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 18:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:We can do both. We can remove a ] source that is being far too pervasively used across Misplaced Pages and we can also pursue those technical solutions to protect privacy. And this would have a tertiary effect of pointing out that the Misplaced Pages community will vigorously protect itself from this sort of ] interference.] (]) 18:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:The issues outside of reliability or blacklisting is out of scope for this noticeboard. Discussion about protecting editors from hostile actions should continue on the village pump. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is ''very'' relevant. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Yeah that isn't really a valid reason for blacklisting. The point of closing ] above, and starting a new section, was to focus on reliability issues. That they appear to be taking hostile actions against Misplaced Pages's editors isn't a V/RS policy reason for blacklisting.
*:::Blacklisting won't protect editors, which is something that will proby need WMF involvement, which is why I suggest the VP discussion continue. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::This is a really pertinent point, there are genuine security concerns, we need to discuss them in the correct place. Most of the people here are clueless about online security, I know I am, it's not a reliability issue. The comments on here seem to be completely reactionary, and more about sending a message to the ghouls in question that they can fuck off. Let's be honest, the people voting option 5 are doing so as retaliation. I understand that instinct, I'm fuming about this myself, but it's making us look daft. We shouldn't be getting into bunfights with organisations that are so clearly beneath us. --] (]) 19:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm all for discussing the Heritage Foundation based on the merits of its reliability and protecting Wikipedians from their harassment, but I completely agree with Redtail here. I really doubt that we'd need to blacklist new Primary additions, and Heritage can't doxx Wikipedians through existing citations without doxxing everyone who visits a Heritage link; we don't have trackers on our Heritage reference links. What we should do instead is try and rangeblock Heritage or other stuff already discussed. ] (]) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Basically agree with Red-tailed hawk on everything here. Reliability is always dependent on the statement a source is being used to support, and The Heritage Foundation's website is reliable for statements about what The Heritage Foundation believes in. Blocking them would undermine our ability to write about what The Heritage Foundation believes, while not really addressing their spear phishing efforts. ] (]) 05:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
So, in fact it IS being argued that 5 does not also include 4, so if you also think derpication as well you need to (explicitly) say it, as I now do. ] (]) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5: Blacklist''' (along with '''4: Deprecate'''). For our security as editors, and for the security of our readers – and yes, they brought this on themselves. --] (]) 18:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I want to add: it seems to me that any organization that says that it will do what is described in the ''Forward'' piece, is not a source that we can trust to be reliable. It would be a disservice to our readers to use such a source. --] (]) 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{+1}} ] (]) 23:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I've been continuing to think about this, and I've also been reading the subsequent RfC comments by editors who argue that we should still consider that it's a think tank that can provide citable source material. Some editors have also said that we should not let our emotional reaction against the doxing issue influence how we evaluate Heritage as a reliable or unreliable source. In some ways, I agree that we should not make sourcing decisions based upon emotion. However, we should also not be naive about what a ''legitimate'' think tank does. Think tanks take advocacy positions, but they also are populated by ''thinkers'', people with expertise who think carefully about issues, and seek to publish well-reasoned analyses of issues. But it's frankly laughable to characterize Heritage that way. An organization that says, publicly, that they are going to go after Misplaced Pages editors, as persons, in order to enforce their preferred view of what information Misplaced Pages readers will find, is not an organization that is producing scholarly analyses of information that Misplaced Pages might want to cite. If it's a legitimate think tank, then ] is a think tank, too. Even if they also purport to produce thoughtful position papers, those publications simply ''have'' to be recognized by us as tainted by intellectual dishonesty. There is no passing that off as reliable sourcing. --] (]) 22:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Is threatening WP editors a problem because it indicates the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE? Are such threats in a broader category of "horrible things to say"? Should all sources that say horrible things be deprecated and blacklisted even if they do produce some valuable work, because it indicates intellectual dishonesty? ] (]) 02:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Yes, especially if the said valuable information is extremely low and under debate. (Though blacklisting I disagree with.) ] (]) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::There's a wide range, in both directions, of how much valuable information a source can offer. On WP:RSP the only sources deprecated with antisemitism as part of the justification are Press TV, an Iranian propaganda outlet; The Unz Review, with justification mentioning "racist, antisemitic, pseudoscientific and fringe content" and "many apparent copyright violations"; and Veterans Today, which was blacklisted for abuse and deprecated for "unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and antisemitic conspiracy theories." Unz Review is the only deprecation citing racism. Searching for a few other "horrible things" keywords, I don't immediately see anything else.
*::::With Press TV and Veterans Today it seems there are, I would say, much clearer underlying problems with the sources than is the case with HF. Unz Review seems to have been a clear-cut case — the only such case I see — of cancelling an outlet primarily for being unusably (i.e questionably) rabid, and it being an outlet that no one would miss because it doesn't seem (per its RfC) to provide useful info. HF may be unhelpful to an extent, but not ''that'' unhelpful. Apart from that, sources are flagged for their information being inappropriate for the encyclopedia, not for saying horrible things.
*::::It's also worth looking at Asian News International. They're another organization hostile to Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages's mission, but despite ''that whole situation'', they're only MREL, and the description of why gives no mention to ''that situation.'' That's the most important precedent in this comment.
*::::If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those ] (]) 02:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Well said @], "{{tq|If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those...}}" ] (]) 02:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Because never has a reliable source planned on coordinating a massive attack on what is essentially information itself. If they do that, then I seriously doubt their informational integrity, and that's just in addition to the opening statement above. Deprecation means there's a warning when you try to add a new usage, and that is appropriate here. ] (]) 13:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Where is anything you are saying grounded in policy or guidelines? Cite even one policy or guideline justifying this clear act of angry retaliation. ] (]) 17:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::"Because never has a reliable source planned on coordinating a massive attack on what is essentially information itself" isn't quite true. The US government runs lots of reliable sources, but the US government has also conducted information warfare. It's a big organization with a long history.
*:::::::I'll also direct you (and others interested) to ] and ], in case you haven't seen them already. Again, ANI is MREL, and that's unrelated to its attacks ] (]) 17:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5: Blacklist''', primarily for editor safety reasons. While I agree with Red-tailed hawk that blacklisting this specific source will not be a perfect solution, editors posting unknown websites for spearfishing purposes can be dealt with individually (in fact, I don't think they would wait for heritage.org to be blacklisted to do so, and blacklisting the main site keeps us more alert on that fact). If the Heritage Foundation intends to directly endanger Misplaced Pages editors, blacklisting their website and treating it as potential malware is the minimum we should do. In terms of accuracy, '''generally unreliable''' at least, and neutral on deprecation, although NatGertler's approach (removing the links in existing citations) can also be up for consideration. ] (] · ]) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that this article and any content based on it should be classified as unreliable sources and should be removed entirely. ] (]) 07:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC) NO security is perfect, and if its not they even black list spam (they will find a way). it is about not making is casual. So easy that it just means copying and pasting nickyouriddotcom into a cite. Making it even slightly harder might be enough to prevent its casual use. ] (]) 18:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* I've got a multi-stage vote of sorts, if that makes sense:
:*In general, '''Option 5''' for editor security reasons, as per all above.
:*With specific regard to HF-authored pieces/editorials, '''Option 4''' as they repeatedly publish dis/misinformation intended solely to serve ] theories.
:*With specific regard to op-eds that have an actual name attached to them, '''somewhere between option 2 and option 3''' - ] would typically lean toward the former, but even the op-ed pieces veer into FRINGE often enough that I'm not comfortable with an outright 2. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 18:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Option 3''' Because as Bernards points out, there are still some good links, particularly in archives. And as Red-tailed explains, Blacklisting creates its own set of problems that won't solve what many think it will ie. it's a dangerous solution because it puts a veneer on the problem that looks like solid wood underneath that is not. -- ]] 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Misplaced Pages does not base decisions regarding content on unverifiable documents posted on Dropbox by unknown individuals. Please read ]. ] (]) 07:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' on security grounds, this is a bit atypical but we don't have a large history of sources purposefully turning their links into honeypots with the explicit intent of harming wikipedia editors and readers. ] (]) 18:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::AndyTheGrump, thank you very much for your valuable input. I fully understand the guidelines you mentioned. However, I hope you can understand that this document is an official document from the Korean National Police that proves the Chosun Ilbo article is baseless. If you could let me know how I can provide you with the official document from the Korean National Police, I will send it to you. Alternatively, I would greatly appreciate it if you could suggest another way. ] (]) 09:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Then you should send that document to the media outlet to get them to issue a correction. ] (]) 09:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC) *'''Option 5''' for any web-based source connected to the organisation on grounds of cybersecurity. No comment as to reliability. ] (]) 19:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Blocked as a sock. ] (]) 09:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC) * '''Option 5''' This foundation knowingly and intentionally publishes disinformation, and it has self-identified as a threat to Misplaced Pages and its editors. ] (]) 19:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*Um why does anybody think the links they would use would be to a heritage foundation url? Also, this isn’t a social media site, this isn’t some place where the interests of the users are supposed to trump the interests of the product, that being our articles. If there is some evidence that an actual heritage.org link has been used for some nefarious purpose then you can talk about blacklisting, but other than that this is supposed to be judged based on what’s best for our articles, not our editors. ''']''' - 19:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
*:Yeah, this is the main problem with blacklisting. It’s ], which generally does more harm than good, as I think Red-tailed hawk articulated well. Using heritage.org as the actual spearphishing domain doesn’t line up to the MO given in the leaked slides, which talk about using redirects. It would also be weirdly amateurish to create that kind of paper trail leading directly to the perps, especially now that they (presumably) know we’re onto them and any of their agents caught in such an obvious blunder could be subject to countermeasures. ] (]) 20:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Yes. Their is no reason not to place fingerprint gathering html5 snippets as widely as possible if you want as much tracking as possible. ] (]) 20:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::And consider, Misplaced Pages editors will only be one target. A large tracking network can be a used to doxx other people they dislike (advocates of racial equality, LGBT people, non-capitalists). Its pretty safe to assume they will have middleware somewhere in their webstack to affect fingerprinting. I'd be mad at my cyberattack consultant if they missed the obvious. ] (]) 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5: blacklist any and all known Heritage Foundation websites''' as soon as possible, past and present links included. The organization has made its malicious intentions clear. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' this is purely retaliatory behaviour based on an alleged document. The usage of this source hasn't been shown to be problematic and a few bad articles doesn't inherently make a source unreliable. If you're worried about your safety then block the links yourself, but Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to serve you and your paranoia. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --] (]) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::The document mentions nothing about using phishing links nor would their references serve as a useful phishing link. ] (]) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::The document explicitly calls for using redirects from their web technologies to collect edior fingerprints via html5. ] (]) 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::There's no way for existing URLs to fingerprint Wikipedians without fingerprinting everyone. ] (]) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::They don't mind fingerprinting everyone, and it only makes their campaign stronger. ] (]) 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Fingerprinting everyone is useless for purposes of following and tracking Wikipedians. ] (]) 01:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' (like all think tanks). This seems purely retaliatory. I mean sure, they want to spy on us, but famously so did the NSA, for which we sued the NSA and lost. And it’s not like we are banned from citing US websites. This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity, do you think an FBI agent led attempt to steal our information would use their basic domain? They have millions of dollars they will just buy more or use connections to do it to other sites. This does nothing and is performative. And I don’t find the evidence above convincing, it’s a think tank, producing think tank type fare. ] (]) 21:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:"This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity." This is really badly incorrect. Someone publicly saying they were going to add malicious links to our site to track and doxx our editors is a huge threat. ] (]) 00:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' per {{u|PARAKANYAA}}. Well said. - ] (]) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' There is absolutely no downside to blacklisting this source. Nothing of value is lost, and unreliable information is kept out - it's a win-win situation. ] 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' Those sites are not reliable enough. Privacy wise, those sites are dangerous for editors and readers to visit. ] (]) 21:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' and in case it's considered seperate '''Option 4''' as well. THF are not only publishers of ] but are posing an active threat to ] ] (]) 22:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 5:''' While blacklisting does not preclude HF from using any number of other domains for various malicious schemes, it's the least we can and should do. Any source that seeks to subvert the encyclopedia and harm its editors thereby confirms it is inherently unreliable. HF now demonstrates it is barely this side of a criminal organization. ] (]) 23:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Barely this side of a criminal organization? I would ask if you are serious but you probably are. ] (]) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::They are a criminal operation in many jurisdictions. Running an identity theft ring with a promise of blackmail is a stack of felonies. ] (]) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2-3''' There are a lot of problems with this RfC. First, like them or not, the Heritage Foundation is a widely cited think tank. As a think tank, and like basically all activist type organizations, we should be very careful about directly citing them for anything. However, if they release a report or study that is widely reported on or if they release a metric which is quoted by many source then we are doing our readers a disservice by deciding the source must be avoided. This 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. As for the idea that the source is a danger, what evidence do we have? A single source has made claims. Do we have any corroboration? Absent concrete evidence the idea that we would blacklist the site is a very bad precedent. ] (]) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Why wouldn't we rely on secondary sources? ] (]) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Think tanks are widely cited as secondary sources ] (]) 21:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@] makes the most well articulated point of anyone in this RfC. This would indeed be "very bad precedent" and we should not also retaliate based on the claims of a single source in such bad form. ] (]) 21:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''', at the very least. Heritage Foundation has long since departed from typical think tank-ery into axe-grinding, conspiracy theories, disinformation, and artificially stoking culture wars. Reliable sources from journalism (, '''' and academica ( and ) have identified Heritage Foundation as a publisher of disinformation, falsehoods, and exaggerations. It is unreliable as a source. Obviously, the news from '''', a reliable and reputed journalism outlet, that the Heritage Foundation plans to doxx Wikipedians who contribute content with which they disagree—something that would basically amount to a campaign of ideologically motivated harassment—is also chilling and troubling. It suggests the Foundation, unable to win in the marketplace of ideas, is trying to impose itself by force. This is not the behavior of trustworthy coverage or analysis. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 00:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''', per PARAKANYAA and Springee. Their threat is repellent, and whatever can be done to prevent them making good about it should be done (and is being discussed elsewhere), but that has nothing to do with their reliability as a source. They're a think tank, and are a reliable source for at least ''some'' things. ] (] - ] - ]) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Adding that I agree with restricting links to archive.org versions if it seems that direct links may lead to identification of editors. ] (] - ] - ]) 16:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 1''', though heavily biased to the right and certain qualifications on some subjects may need to be stated if there are any COI concerns related to funding and topics they write about where such funding is directly involved. The alleged "misinformation" appears to mostly just be right wing bias to a very pure degree. However, that has never been reason to question reliability by itself. The same goes for a high amount of left wing bias in any given source. So called "bias" alone is just bias, it does not introduce reliability concerns. Full deprecation does seem to be more of a knee jerk action and not a real and careful evaluation of the numerous citations where alleged reliability may be called into question. ] (]) 03:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:What do you think of the incidents described in the opening statement? ] (]) 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I answered that and offered a !vote accordingly based in policy and not in retaliation for an alleged proposal from the ''Forward'' source. Heritage is biased, though reliable. So '''Option 1: Generally reliable'''. ] (]) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Could you point me to where you answered that? ] (]) 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Couldn't most misinformation be described as bias to a very pure degree? That to me seems like a distinction without a real difference, bias which is so pure as to abandon a factual basis isn't distinguishable from mis/disinformation. ] (]) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Maybe, but then that sure would alter probably hundreds or thousands of these discussions. So if we want to define it one way or the other, that should be baked in to the P&G. ] (]) 02:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' as their own communications indicate that they are a security risk, that they intend of publishing malicious web content in order to identify people who click on their links.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rosenfeld |first=Arno |date=2025-01-07 |title=Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to 'identify and target' Misplaced Pages editors |url=https://forward.com/news/686797/heritage-foundation-wikipedia-antisemitism/ |access-date=2025-01-10 |website=The Forward |language=en}}</ref> '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 4 and maybe 5'''. Based on their (lack of) quality as a source this is an ''extremely'' obvious 4 but their recent outrageous threats were making me think that 5 was also justified, comparable to how we would treat a terrorist organisation. After seeing Red-tailed hawk's comment, among others, I am now less sure about that. What I am sure of is that they publish deliberate ] in intentional bad faith and that makes them utterly untrustworthy and unreliable (with both an upper and lower case "u") as a source for anything at all except for their own claims. Literally nothing that they say can be relied upon unless independently corroborated by actual Reliable Sources, in which case we should just use those Reliable Sources instead. If they say that the sky is blue then a Reliable Source needs to open a window and check before we can say that it is. I see people saying that they may have been more reliable in the past. I have my doubts about that. Sure, they are probably ''even worse'' now than they were before but were they ''ever'' really anything better than a 3 or 4? That said, if that does turn out to be true, and we do decide to blacklist, then I guess we could use Archive.org to refer to contemporaneous copies of their content which we know not to have been subsequently tampered with. --] (]) 04:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 5''' because they have announced they are a security risk, and '''Option 4''' because they have announced they are seeking to undermine collaborative consensus-reaching among editors. ] (]) 04:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 4''' as they routinely publish material chock full of conspiracy theories and outright fabrications.--] (]) 05:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 5, regrettably'''. I would normally have suggested '''option 2'''. But given they are actively trying to dox editors on Misplaced Pages and contributors to other internet sources, that is absurd and is not something that can result in them being tolerated as a source on Misplaced Pages. They do good work - they produce things that, while biased, are reliable, generally speaking. But their efforts have extended to doxxing contributors, and that is unacceptable. Misplaced Pages has an obligation to make ''reasonable attempts to protect'' its users - whether editors or readers - from having their information harvested through links. And since the Heritage Foundation has admitted they intend to engage in information harvesting based on links... nope. Not permissible. '''To clarify''' - my !vote here is '''not''' a comment on their reliability overall. If they cease their information harvesting, I support a further discussion on this topic. But if they intend to (and per reliable sources, may have already begun) use their links to harvest editor/reader information, '''absolutely not acceptable''', and they should be blacklisted until they cease engaging in such behavior. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 05:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' to anyone voting “1”: do you seriously believe that or is it just a protest vote, because I’d say objectively an ideological think-tank should be ''at minimum'' a 2. An activist organization simply isn’t at the same level of trustworthiness as, say ]. ] (]) 08:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Tbf, only one person has !voted option 1 so far, and they then listed a couple of additional considerations.] (]) 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I counted two ] (]) 10:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Irrelevant, it would be for the closer to access the strength of any arguments. If they are weak that will be noticed, it is thus up to the poster to decide if their argument is good enough. ] (]) 11:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''option 2/3''' - Heritage is a very influential think tank. What they publish matters in political discourse. We can not ignore them.
:That said, what they publish is ''opinion'' and there are limited circumstances when it is DUE to mention opinion. So… when discussing what they publish we should be careful to use in-text attribution - to present what they say AS opinion and not as fact. We can and should allow ABOUTSELF, primary source, citations when these are DUE.
:If you need an extreme analogy… we allow citations to ''Mein Kamph'' as an ABOUTSELF primary source for Hitler’s opinion. There are very few situations where it is appropriate or DUE to mention Hitler’s views… but IN those limited situations we allow it. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ])</small> 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Mein Kampf is a book and Hitler is dead. We can reference it without any risk that doing so might leak information about our editors and readers back to Hitler. The more comparable situation would be if we allowed links to an online copy of Mein Kampf which was hosted on a neo-Nazi website operated by an organisation that had previously threatened our editors and readers. --] (]) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' On any other occasion I would have gone for "generally unreliable" and suggest citations to it require attribution, as it's a politically partisan think tank which publishes fringe views and has been known to publish misinformation. But in this case, I think such an extraordinary situation requires us to take extraordinary measures. This goes beyond the question of reliability, as the Heritage Foundation has signalled its intentions to "target and identify" our colleagues on this platform; this represents a clear and actionable ] and it demands a response. Preventing them from using links to their website to carry out their attack campaign is just a reasonable act of self-defence. --] (]) 13:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' for the relibility of what they say as it often conflicts with scientific evidence or facts. They have in effect declared war on Misplaced Pages editors but are an important site so if there is a way of automatically warning readers if they click on a link that they are doing it at their own risk I think that would cover the business of the doxxing. I think that could be a useful facility if it looks like a link should be included in the encyclopaedia but there is evidence it may be malicious in some way. ] (]) 14:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3/Option 6/BAD RFC''' per Red-tailed hawk, Springee, GreenC. The Heritage Foundation is an important think-tank source for representing the views of its faction, and should not be deprecated or blacklisted for that reason. Also 1) WP:RSN is not the right venue for deciding on how to deal with the alleged browser fingerprinting, 2) fingerprinting can be addressed through much less drastic means than blacklisting (e.g. the idea of only allowing archive links), 3) the fingerprinting honestly sounds like fluff to me, and text analysis/facial recognition seems more likely to be the thing that can actually identify editors, and there's little we can do about that besides taking down pictures from profiles. ] (]) 15:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:The planned attack includes fingerprinting users coming from Misplaced Pages, adding tracking cookies, identifying who they are on other sites based on the extensive fingerprinting capable with html5, and using off-wiki data to complete the doxx. So any information connecting IPs to Misplaced Pages is the foot in the door to check say, the fingerprints from html5 being run on a malicious ad campaign via Twitter aimed at people who are interested in some tv show that an ARBPIA area editor also edits about. ] (]) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::All of these techniques are things advertisers like Google Ads already do. You can't connect any particular fingerprint to "edits Misplaced Pages" unless you send out a specific phishing link only Wikipedians would click on, which is something we might want to look out for. However, there's no reason to think blacklisting Heritage will rid us of this threat any more than the US TSA prevents bombings, as they're unlikely to not use another domain. ] (]) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I agree with the '''BADRFC''' !vote as well. A !vote made as retaliation (even pre-emptive retaliation) is not supported in policy or guidelines of any kind that I know of. ] (]) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Very poor option 2 or option 3''' gunrel for a significant number of facts per the arguments above, including some fringe (for now, and will hopefully remain so) views, with particular caution regarding gensex and similar strongly recommended. They are often due either for their opinion, that index mentioned (?), or expert opinions published by them. Regarding the source quality (as in, the jurisdiction of this board), I see no policy-based reason for depreciation or blacklists. Having said that, if it can be plausibly shown that they intend to use their own domains to harm editors (which I consider unlikely because domains are easy to get and unwise to link to yourself), I would support any technical measure, preferably a warning for editors clicking on links (if technically possible). If that can’t be shown, I believe that a ‘punitive’ blacklist is understandable from a human level, but not beneficial to the encyclopaedia. ] (]) 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' - I think that categorizing sources as "reliable" and "unreliable" is an idiotic parlor game. Life is not 1/0 on such matters. It is ahistorical and leads to cultish thinking. That said, I consider the Heritage threat, ''if accurately recounted in the media,'' to be akin to a violation of the NOLEGALTHREATS rule; worse, actually, as it is arguably a call to terrorist vigilantism. I can see banning links to that site on that basis. I question whether this is the proper venue for that determination, however. ] (]) 18:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Being GUNREL or deprecated just means that their publications aren't good for determining when it's due to include their viewpoints in an article. —] 19:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' Short answer: 1. Security is irrelevant to this RfC; 2. WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican; 3. HF should be treated the same as other well-established but POV think tanks like Cato, which is to be MREL. {{pb}}For point 1, apart from this RfC being about reliability and not security, it's hard to believe that any professional phishing attacks would use "heritage.org". Blacklisting their website won't accomplish anything for internet security. As explained by others, it would also be undue to blacklist HF when there are plenty of other organizations and governments hostile to Misplaced Pages. {{pb}} For point 2, I think saying HF is GUNREL for being WP:FRINGE is to lose the meaning of WP:FRINGE. What is fringe? Funky low-traffic websites saying hurricanes are controlled by lizard people. What is not fringe? Possibly the most policy-influential conservative think tank in the US, where half of people are Republicans. There are other arguments that HF could be considered GUNREL (which I disagree with so far), but I think WP:FRINGE is the wrong argument to take. {{pb}} For point 3, while I acknowledge in particular the sources provided by @Hydrangeans (is it appropriate for me to ping here? sorry if not), which I'll put here for convenience, and I admit I can't access the full 3rd and 4th source, I think the concerns highlighted by these sources are best addressed with MREL/additional considerations. HF is an advocacy group, and should be treated like an advocacy group in that not everything it says should be taken at face value — that's what "additional considerations" is for. Cato (MREL source), for example, gets criticized for its potential Big Oil conflict of interest, but they have lots of great work on, for instance, the economic benefits of immigration. I'm less familiar with HF, and though I know they've gotten lots of press for saying wacky things recently (though, again, security concerns irrelevant to this discussion), I do know they've had a long and recognized history of Republican policy work. Of course they'd get press for the wacky stuff, but a big part of the think tank industry is boring statistics and information gathering. If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference. If people don't like the ] because it's "pseudoscientific", they should think hard about the value of the index industry in general ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:As I'm a person who has explicitly called out the Index of Economic Freedom as pseudoscientific let me say that the majority of think-tank indices are crap that is unworthy of including in any respectable encyclopedia. This one is just particularly bad, derived from an outmoded economic treatise penned before the advent of the carbon arc lamp and then not even doing a very good job of cleaving to that in favour of the unproven, unscientific and entirely ideological claim that deregulation is equivalent to freedom. This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. This piece of pseudoscience is also being published by people who have openly declared themselves as enemies of this project. That leaves me feeling... substantially uncharitable. ] (]) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{Tq|This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular.}} {{+1}} 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::What about the democracy indices from ], or ], or ]? Or the ]? The Index of Economic Freedom is not indicative of GUNREL ] (]) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Unrelated, please start a new RFC about those. ] (]) 21:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::This isn't an RfC about the Index of Economic Freedom. This is an RfC about The Heritage Foundation (HF), where the Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) is being given as an example of HF being a bad source. I am comparing HF to other think tanks, and IEF to other indices/indexes, because it is relevant to this RfC ] (]) 21:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::] is in no sense "outmoded". That's like calling the ] outmoded. ] (]) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Because both are. They're classic works, sure, but they aren't ''current'' and ''reliable'' scholarship. If I want to know the sun's mass, I'm not going to look for ''Principia''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s estimate. I'm going to read ''current'' scholarship making those kinds of estimates that have the benefit of an additional three centuries of research and knowledge with which to work.{{pb}}The comparison in any case is still pretty apples to oranges. ''Wealth of Nations'' lies in the social sciences while ''Principia'' deals with hard sciences, and social ideas about how humans function—and, for that matter, the societies within which said humans function—have changed a lot more than, say, the hard facts of gravity and the sun. For example, the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's ''Wealth of Nations'' in its original context referred not to market competition but rather to the , not exactly a prevailing academic interpretation for how economics work. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Instead of us in this discussion deciding the academic or economic value of Adam Smith, I'll ask for RS that the IEF is unscholarly ''because'' it is ''inspired by'' The Wealth of Nations.
*::::The IEF is not a problem with this organization ] (]) 03:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq|If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference}}: No, it wouldn't make sense to reference the Heritage Foundation directly. If what we want to cover is the criticism, we want secondary source coverage ''of'' such criticism; citing such criticisms ''directly'' and just deciding to put them in an article is ] in the pursuit of a ]. Criticism of vaccination is an influential element of American culture, but we don't go out of our way to cite anti-vaxxers; we instead cite reliable sources that independently document and analyze such. The Confederate secession was a major part of American history, but we ought not write Civil War articles by citing 1860s South Carolina newspapers for information about anti-abolitionism; we cite historians and how they have documented and analyzed what's relevant, what's meaningful, what was disinformation, etc. Likewise, if what we want is coverage of the Heritage Foundation and its role as an agitation engine against certain kinds of policies (in your example, education), then we cite journalists, historians, sociologists, education professors, etc. who study and write about organizations like the HF. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 19:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::This is entirely correct. ] (]) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::The difference between anti-vaxxers and Heritage Foundation is that anti-vaxxers are a fringe perspective in the medical field, even if one of them is going to lead the NHS, and that Heritage Foundation is, like Cato, a well-established but POV/advocacy think tank. As for Civil War newspapers, the difference is timeliness: of course historical events have many better sources that are third-party analysis, but we do cite think tanks all over the place. I don't see why HF is substantially different from any other MREL <u>POV, advocacy</u> think tank whose work should be attributed.
*:::To source HF's ''own role'' in policy, of course it wouldn't be used as a source for itself. The same holds for any source, MREL or not ] (]) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Are you saying economics is not a science or social science? Because I am saying that their index is specifically pseudoscientific within the field of economics. No amount of "well its ideology" irons that out. ] (]) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::{{Strikethrough|What are you suggesting out of this, what we delete the ] page?}} ] (]) 21:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::If you mean to say that HF is GUNREL because the IEF is pseudoscientific, then I'd ask for RS that say the IEF is ''pseudoscientific'' (not that it's just ''flawed'', because of course any index is flawed) ] (]) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::What do you think about the second sentence of the Economy of the Republic of Ireland article as seen in ], which begins as follows, reference included (the reference is the Index of Economic Freedom on heritage.org): {{tqqi|] is an ] (3rd on the ]),<ref>{{Cite web|title=Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom|url=https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking|access-date=2022-11-12|website=www.heritage.org|language=en|archive-date=21 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200521231822/https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking|url-status=live}}</ref> ...}} —] 23:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::No matter what happens here that doesn't seem due... ] (]) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::To connect better to the preceding comments in this thread: Even if certain experts may be behind the Index of Economic Freedom, it is still a ''non-scientific'' source (which is different from pseudo-scientific), it can't be treated as a secondary source, and can't be used to directly support statements of fact, such as "X is Y". —] 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::To restate my own point, I don't think the IEF can at all be taken as a reason to call HF a GUNREL source.
*:::::::::I actually think Economy of Ireland is a great example of an article where the IEF (<u>and by extension HF work</u>) can be brought up, since Ireland's corporate economy is based around being a regulatory/tax haven, though I do think the current phrasing especially with parenthesis is weird so early in the article ] (]) 01:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::This exact phrasing, meaning this sentence supported with this citation, does not belong anywhere in the article. —] 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::I think "Ireland ranks 3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom" is perfectly reasonable to include in an article about the economy of a corporate tax haven ] (]) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::It is a reasonable statement to include in the article ] (in table format, for example), but not in the article ], unless this ranking specifically of Ireland, is cited as noteworthy by a reliable secondary source and suitably contextualized. —] 18:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Unreliability in one area does not mean unreliability in all. Has anyone questioned or documented any proof of unreliability of the Index of Economic Freedom? ] (]) 18:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::From ]: "The ] rated Denmark as "]" in 2016. According to the ] Denmark is 2023 the most electoral democratic country in the world." Both statements cite directly from the index ] (]) 18:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::Yes, we need to abandon these kinds of statements in our articles supported directly by the index data. —] 18:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::I think that proposal is beyond the scope of this RfC ] (]) 18:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::Since much of the reason why heritage.org is cited on Misplaced Pages is the IEF, if it comes to pass that citations of IEF are removed in articles about countries and their economies and similar, it will not be a loss, but rather a step in the right direction. —] 18:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::I disagree ] (]) 18:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::::@] is right. ] (]) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq|WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican}}: Reliable sources and the neutral point of view aren't determined by what is politically mainstream, whether Republican or Democrat in the United States, or Labour or Tory in the United Kingdom, or LDP in Japan, etc. The Taliban is a mainstream political faction in Afghanistan, insofar as it's the faction in power, but I don't think we would consider some kind of Taliban-aligned think tank to be a reliable source for Afghani society and politics. Mainstream reliability is determined not by the ideologies of politics but by the rigors and standards of academia and journalism. A , but that belief being 'mainstream' doesn't make it reliable, and we wouldn't treat a source attesting such as one that's reliable for biology or evolutionary anthropology. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 02:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::To clarify, I don't mean to assert that HF is reliable because of being mainstream Republican. I mean to say that WP:FRINGE, specifically, doesn't make much sense to use against what is, in the US, a political and academic giant. They might have some specific views that are fringe, but that shouldn't necessarily disqualify the source — The Economist has called for the legalization of cocaine, which is a fringe position, but The Economist is (rightfully) a well-respected source.
*::TLDR I complain about specifically WP:FRINGE being invoked against HF as reason to deprecate ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::] is a bogus charge with regards the IEF (which has plenty of uncritical ]), but they definitely push fringe positions on climate science. Their output is vast though, and one part of it advocating a fringe theory doesn't necessarily make the whole organisation fringe. ] (]) 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. Other sanctions may be appropriate for the privacy issues, but RSN is not an appropriate forum to pursue them. We cannot retaliate against sources for conduct which is not restricted by wiki accuracy and notability guidelines. And I'm leery of taking such wide action against an organization with a long and complicated history, comprising some intentional lying (especially the last 4 years) but also real and valuable research. Ideally we would give Heritage up to 2020 similar treatment to Cato {{tq|The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.}} (which I think is the only thinktank with an RSP listing) and minimally GUR it for 2020+, but with the RFC as-listed I think we have to err on the side of trusting editors to use their own judgement. This RFC did not arise from an editing dispute and I don't think Heritage is being regularly used inappropriately on wiki. If a dispute does arise, Option 2 will be enough to prefer other sources. ] (]) 20:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. It's a widely used source, not just on Misplaced Pages but also in other RS, including scholarly articles (, ), so ] applies. I'd support every effort to combat their scheme to influence Misplaced Pages but blacklisting them ''as a source'' is not going to help. Blacklisting them would make us look like vindictive amateurs rather than a serious encyclopedia. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
If its relevant would not other RS report it anyway? ] (]) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:The Heritage Foundation is most cited through their ], which is a lot of data that's documented on that article in tables refreshed each year; no secondary source includes all the data included on that article. We could start a discussion on that article's talk page about removing the data under WP:Indiscriminate if we wish, but there does seem to be precedent with global indices to include all countries' rankings, indices, and historical rankings. ] (]) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Secondary sources may not list it because it's minutia from the pro-pollution lobby. ] (]) 21:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::That's exactly what I just meant with the ] part of my reply. ] (]) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yeah Misplaced Pages would be improved by removing their deregulation index in full. ] (]) 21:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yeah. It would be a bit hard, though, since other indices also list everything. I would support such rampant restructuring if I had a clear picture of where the removed data would go. I'd say Wikidata, but that doesn't seem to have such facilities/pages. And no, I don't think it's reputation is that much worse to warrant deletion. Alaexis lists two sources that cite IEF: one source from the unreliable MDPI, but also one source from Nature, which is like top-tier iirc. ] (]) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor. ] (]) 22:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:"{{tq|An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor.}}" How does this in any way comment on the RfC, "{{tq|What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation and should it be blacklisted?}}"
*:This is exactly the sort of comment that is not actually addressing the RfC, but is purely retaliatory and very angry (perhaps understandably, but that is besides the point). Nothing about this sort of comment is rooted in policy, and I hope any closer views such !votes with the correct and proper disregard that they deserve. ] (]) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Reliable sources don't need to resort to hostility to impose their POV. ] (]) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::So their reliability is called into question only due to alleged "hostility" of some kind reported in one source and which hasn't even occurred yet from what I can tell? ] (]) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::If they are unreliable on specific grounds, so be it, but so far mere retaliation is neither valid nor constructive. ] (]) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Nope. Their hostility is the icing on ]. ] (]) 23:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 5''', or at the very least options starting from 3, due to its publication of fabricated and/or misleading information and its widespread use in the project. --] (]) 23:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3 or 2'''. As far as I can tell, their internal memoranda are a wishlist and aspirational, and so far they haven't been successful in any of their reprehensible ideas. As far as the source itself, I tend to see it as verging into pretty unreliable territory similar to Fox News, but it's a think tank, so sometimes they might have some well-researched reports or attributable opinions, and they're one of the largest right-wing think tanks so they have a large body of usable attributed information, similar to other think tanks or advocacy groups, biased, but occasionally useful with real academics working there, so I think full deprecation or blacklisting seems excessive. The reality is, their desire to dox editors is easier wished for than done, and it doesn't expressly impugn the reliability of their past material. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*After some thinking, I'm leaning towards '''option 4''' per Tryptofish above. Besides the extensively documented lying, I (unfortunately?) don't trust a source that aspires to covertly attack and burn down us and our library, and there should be a pretty good reason for someone to click twice on the "publish" button. This won't stop any "link injection", and it shouldn't: Thinking blacklisting would diminish security problems is pure security theater, per RedTailedHawk; it is not something we should do. Deprecating informs newer editors of the situation, and that's something we should do. ] (]) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:We can do both (deprecate the source and blacklist its domain for good measure). ] (]) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I just said blacklisting would bad due to being security theater in my comment. You should read RedTailedHawk's comment for a slightly more in-depth layman's explanation on the technical-ish side. ] (]) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I know what you said and I have read RTH's comment. That doesn't change anything. ] (]) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Hmm, I thought your comment meant that blacklisting would constitute good measure. It'll only make stupid attempts at spearphishing less obvious. ] (]) 01:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::So you said. ] (]) 01:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::So you said. How about you cut it out, huh? —] 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::How about you stop asking me to read what I read and disagree with? ] (]) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::M.Bitton, you're wrong to insist on blacklisting based on this discussion. The real discussion about what to do technically, and blacklisting is a technical and not an editorial measure is had at ]. It is also had at other places, where discussions aren't public. —] 01:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 5''' The sites are not reliable and the new information showing recently shows clear and obivous issues brought up by most here so far. ] (]) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 4''' - Are there any indications at all that their statements are a reliable source about anything that is not embarrassing to themselves? ] (]) 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 4+5''' per the sources above. They routinely publish misinformation, and make no particular claim that I can see towards doing any fact-checking or having any editorial controls in the first place, so they shouldn't have been used as a source to begin with; but the fact that they somehow ended up used in so many articles shows that deprecation is necessary. In the rare case where someone there says something significant, it will be reported in secondary sources and can be cited via those; there is no exception to ] for "they're really important, tho", precisely because unreliable-but-important sources can be cited via secondary coverage. Their threats to use domains they control to dox and out Misplaced Pages editors is just an additional reason on top of this and a reason to take the step of a formal blacklist. While blacklisting obviously won't ''solve'' the problem, it will avoid situations where editors feel they have to click their links in order to evaluate a potentially-viable source, and force them to use lesser-known (and, for most editors, more intrinsically suspicious) domains in order to do any sort of spear-phishing attack. Some editors seem to be saying "well let them use their own domain for those attacks, that'll make it more obvious" - but if we don't blacklist it then it ''won't'', because allowing it means it could also be used in good faith. --] (]) 03:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Routinely publishing misinformation would be a concern, but I haven't been convinced from the discussion so far that they do that. Could you elaborate? ] (]) 03:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:'''Option 5:''' +1 (what Aquillion said) + Think tanks are rarely anything but a source of last resort on Misplaced Pages. We mostly use them when they have useful insight into niche security topics. If any primary research or opinion from the HF is particularly notable and due, it will be covered by reliable, secondary sources, and we can still cover it. We don't need to send users to a website with potentially malicious activity. ] (]) 04:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' This seems like a drastic overreaction. Also, there is a complete lack of policy being cited to support a blacklist. What may or may not need to be done needs to be discussed elsewhere, but much of the survey comments here have very little do with with reliable sources or policy. I hope the closing editor takes note. ] (]) 04:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''5, and 3/4'''. If this had been asked a month ago, I'd've said '''3''' because, as Alalch and others laid out in the RFCBEFORE, they have a reputation for letting politics trump accuracy, leading to mis- and dis-information; in any situation in which their views are DUE, those will (by ]!) have been covered by other, reliable sources; and any ABOUTSELF statements needed on their own article can be handled as exceptions/whitelisted. But '''5''' is also in order: for a source to operate in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, is not only additional evidence that they do dishonest/untrustworthy things and are unreliable, the misuse of their domains in particular merits blacklisting. ''Pace'' those who think blacklisting their main domain is "security theater" because they'll also use other domains, I think it's necessary, as I (a) see no reason to doubt they're using their main domain for the same thing, and (b) view blacklisting them (under their main domain) as a necessary first part of blacklisting them (under any other domains they're caught using). ] (]) 05:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' given the explicit details of the threat they pose to editors here. (same reason that a site like Conservipedia should be blacklisted too). The content they produce would already make them generally unreliable (and I don't know if we ever considered them reliable before so deprecation doesn't sound possible), but we should go the step further to protect WP editors here. I can see limited exemptions to use them as a primary source only on a page about the Herigate Foundation itself if that absolutely needed, but likely not. --] (]) 05:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' This feels cut-and-dry. They're a propaganda wing for a specific hardline ideology and have a long and storied history of simply disregarding factuality. Ignoring all the concerns with them outing editors, I'm amazed it wasn't already considered unreliable.
*'''Option 4, and blacklist''': clearly unreliable. The blacklisting decision should ideally not be here but a matter for the Spam Blacklist discussion pages, but as it ''is'' here, I support blacklisting for security purposes too. If the HF changes course and presents no further security considerations, the blacklisting can and should be revisited without prejudice to a RSN discussion. ''']''' (]) 14:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:+1 on the potential revisiting. Many editors have commented that blacklisting will only make them more determined, or something along those lines (though I think this is implausible given that they are already determined enough to consider what they are proposing). But fewer are considering the alternative: that being blacklisted may incentivize them to reconsider their course of action. No reputable think tank should want to be considered unreliable or be in the insalubrious company of deprecated /blacklisted sources. ] (]) 15:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' – All think-tanks should follow Option 2 at a minimum. However, Heritage Foundation is particularly unreliable in that they've devolved into a mouthpiece for disinformation and fringe garbage. Even if some of their older material may be more useful, I don't see how they're any better than ] at this point. I would also support a separate technical measure, like restricting use to only archival websites, if direct links may lead to privacy issues for editors. ] (]) 18:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 4 and 5''' When it comes to reliability, Heritage was already in 3 territory even years ago and, in my opinion, breached 4 in the past few years when it began actively pushing misinformation and false claims across a variety of subjects, particularly scientific ones. So, deprecate on that alone. Then, in light of the abuse threats through their controlled URLs, blacklisting seems like a safe option to take. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I am open to the arguments about reliability, thus far seen few, but "{{tq|Then, in light of the abuse threats through their controlled URLs, blacklisting seems like a safe option to take.}}" seems not to be based in policy or guidelines, but rather in retaliation. Can you explain to me how if that is not the case, what am I missing? ] (]) 18:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Extraordinary situations call for extraordinary measures (] is also a policy that can be cited if necessary). ] (]) 18:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::We are at that point? We are citing ]? Are there really no guidelines or policy otherwise to invoke in this instance? ] (]) 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Discussion: The Heritage Foundation ===
== Citing a reliable source described as "LTA" and having "a bee in their bonnet" ==
What exactly happens to the 5000 links if we blacklist them? Does a bot go through and remove the https:// from them so they are unclickable? (Seems reasonable.) Or are the citations deleted? (Seems a bit damaging.) Or something else? This will affect how I opine in the above RFC. –] <small>(])</small> 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hat|reason=OP blocked as a known LTA. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)}}
Following on from the above, on the morning Australian senators verbally attack the king, one would think that the 2022 Law Commission report ''Celebrating marriage: a new weddings law'', which states that absence of witnesses does not invalidate a wedding ceremony, is a reliable source. But the editor, Alanscottwalker, who added it to counter mischiefmaking by editors who have slanted ] (now protected for three months) to say that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are liars for confirming that their unwitnessed wedding ceremony of 16 May 2018 was valid has come in for nasty personal attacks. In removing the reference, SSSB described Alanscottwalker as "LTA" and made the unsubstantiated claim that "the BMB" applies. So can we confirm that the Report '''is''' a reliable source? An unwanted complication is that the allegation has attracted the attention of a Single Purpose Administrator Account, which is now buzzing about the article and another article ], making allegations which are ] violations because no evidence has been produced. Having been quiet for 14h 49m, after SSSB posted his attack at 11:55, the Single Purpose Administrator Account erupted at 11:56 with five edits within 60 seconds, after which it became dormant for 2h 16m. ] (]) 11:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:Single purpose Admin account? Seems unlikely. Diff or name please ] ] 13:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::This appears related to the earlier posts by {{useranon|2.101.245.129}}, {{useranon|92.8.150.223}}, and {{useranon|31.120.61.62}}. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}


:@] I'm just noting that it isn't 5000 but cca 1750, please see ]. Sorry for propagating the incorrect number. —] 22:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== Spencer Sunshine ==
:It could either of those two options or it could be that the bot goes through and replaces the references with a <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki>. I guess that should be discussed. '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:] says "Ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting." —] 23:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Spam-blacklisting is not the same thing as a Reliable source/Noticeboard discussion around "blacklisting" a source per the ] list. No action should be taken pertaining to this discussion prior to the formation of a clear closing and consensus being reached. ] (]) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't know why you are making this comment here, and what it's supposed to accomplish, but you are incorrect. Spam-blacklisting is adding an entry to ]. The page ] (the same page I linked to in my previous comment you replied to) is a supplementary page explaining some principles and workings of the spam blacklist. ] is the (pretty basic) guideline about the spam blacklist. But the real instructions that are the most useful are actually in the header of ]. The "Legend" section of the Perennial sources information page (see ]) only explains ''what it means for a particular row in the table of perennial sources to have a grey background and that entry's status to have a particular icon''. RSP does not contain general advice about blacklisting pages. RSP only records when a page is blacklisted in addition to having a status describing the consensus around its reliability. The list of blacklisted domains is the spam blacklist itself. Sometimes, relatively rarely, when a source is discussed at RSN, an ''additional outcome'' may be to add the source to the blacklist; this generally happens when editors discover that the website is simply a spam website. The underlying discussion, the main thrust of the discussion, is a discussion around reliability, consistent with the name of this forum: The Reliable sources noticeboard.{{pb}}The problem with this RfC was that it erroneously began as a discussion around computer safety, which is out of scope. But it has somewhat, partially, corrected itself. —] 01:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think a malware website can not be used as a reliable source. The intent is to misinform and endanger. Nothing reliable about that. ] (]) 01:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


I see arguments above that the Heritage Foundations declared hostility to Misplaced Pages's neutrality means we should treat them as a hostile organization. There are other entities hostile to our neutrality; Donald Trump and the Chinese government are two that come to mind. Neither is what I would call a reliable source, but we don't ban all links to them; they're treated as reliable for a very limited set of cases. What's the difference between these cases? There are governments who have imprisoned Misplaced Pages editors (so I gather; I don't have a reference but I've seen it said). Can those governments be cited for anything at all -- e.g. the names of their ministers? Option 5 seems inconsistent with the way we treat these other hostile entities. ] (] - ] - ]) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I noticed this author cited as a source on the article ], regarding allegations that Rice's satire of fascism comes from actual fascist sympathies. I Googled Sunshine and found Spencer's Twitter, where Spencer's made posts whitewashing communism, has a profile picture containing anti-Semitic imagery and follows anti-Israel accounts. I don't think this person is a neutral source on political extremism and fascism when he actively promotes left-wing extremism and authoritarian left-wing politics. I'd compare this to if you wrote an article on a man accused of being a communist and cited Joseph McCarthy as a source. ] (]) 12:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)


:Donald Trump doesn't have a detailed cyberattack plan to doxx editors here. The heritage foundation does plan on using web technologies to harm editors. ] (]) 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:@] You seem confused. Where does he promote left-wing extremism? "Spencer Sunshine holds a PhD in Sociology and has researched the Far Right for twenty years. He has been published by outlets like the Southern Poverty Law Center, Daily Beast, and The Forward, and is widely translated. His latest book is Neo-Nazi Terrorism and Countercultural Fascism: The Origins and Afterlife of James Mason’s Siege (Routledge, 2024)." ] ] 13:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, it's not that they're hostile, as lots of organizations are hostile; it's that they've identified themselves as having planned a specific, malicious digital attack vector against the community. ] (]) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:It should also be noted that even if Sunshine supported left-wing extremism and authoritarian left-wing policy, and followed, horror of horrors, anti-Israel accounts on twitter, and I am not saying he does such terrible despicable things, that would not make him unreliable. Indeed, even if we accepted he was using anti-semitic imagery on his twitter picture (it's a baby octopus or squid of some kind), that would not make him unreliable. Reliability is not determined by political opinion or choice of twitter photo but by the factors outlined in ].
:::OK, but that vector doesn't seem as hostile as imprisonment to me. Why does the fact that this attack is digital mean option 5 is appropriate (instead of e.g. just using archive.org to avoid direct links)? ] (] - ] - ]) 12:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Comment''', a great many comments !voted purely out of retaliation to try and stop Heritage foundation from taking a certain action that some perceive to be "doxxing". I have a serious question though, "Does deprecating and removing any links to Heritage Foundation, IF the blacklist/deprecation retaliatory measure passes... does this actually stop them from initiating their plan, or parts of it? I am not familiar with all of the details, but with A.I. and other tools these days, couldn't they still try and do things to identify some editors with certain editing patterns or behavior completely independent of whatever happens with this discussion and then do the "doxxing" anyway? This seems to have larger legal implications, unless I misunderstand it, and if that is the case then this seems silly to try and solve with a angry RfC which might not have any real defensive benefit for the community. Has anyone taken this into consideration? Is anything being done about that? If not, why not? ] (]) 03:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. It seems like best course of action when someone or some group questions your intellectual independence is to ignore it and rise above it. Blacklisting and censoring a think tank over something like this would simply be more fuel for the fire. ] (]) 16:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::In fact, a lot of the ignorant comments above will likely create a news story or something that Heritage will then use for more fundraising and even more damage. I just don't get how people are so naive to good intentions and the sometimes very negative consequences. Also, I've yet to see even one single argument grounded in policy and guidelines versus anger and fear. ] (]) 17:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:No, blacklisting one domain will not prevent them from carrying out their plan. As far as legal implications go, one assumes that suitable WMF people are aware, but the HF plan seems to stop short of committing any crimes. ] (]) 17:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Agreed, but again, this would appear to be based in a panic response, not policy or guidelines. ] (]) 17:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::] asks closers to discard irrelevant arguments, which for the purpose of an RfC on reliability would include any arguments that don't address issues of reliability. ] (]) 17:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It takes away one of their attack vectors. The argument that "we shouldn't take away one attack vector because we can't take away all attack vectors" doesn't seem particularly strong to me. –] <small>(])</small> 19:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::yes ] (]) 20:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Reference Subsection ===
:Also, I don't know anything categorical about Mr Sunshine's ethnicity, but given his surname, your implications of antisemitism strike me as extremely unlikely and, to be perfectly honest, offensive. The above seems a rather feeble attempt at disqualifying an author who says something you don't like.] (]) 05:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}


== Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) ==
== Mountain, Harry (May 1998). The Celtic Encyclopedia. Universal-Publishers. ==


*] (PCORI)
We use it quite a bit and the publisher seems ok. But I found these comments which worry me.
"This is wrong:
"BCE 15th-13th century - Warriors of the Tumulus-Urnfield cultures travelled from Turkey across Europe where they settled mainly in Germany, Switzerland and France."
Taken from Dates.
There was a migration of people from what is today Turkey into Europe and they did eventually reach Western and Northern Europe. They introduced farming and are known as early anatolian farmers amongst other names. They arrived however thousands of years earlier than the 2nd millennium bc dates given. They also had nothing to do with the tumulus or urnfield cultures which derived from a totally different group of people, the Indo-Europeans, generally called the Yamnaya these days who came from the Russian steppe.
Not a great start.
From the first page on Cultures:
"The Amazons were a society of female warriors who seem to have their roots in the very early eastern Bronze Age and it was the search for tin and copper, ingredients of bronze, that help spread their culture around the world."
Other than having nothing to do with the Celts this is purely speculative. There is no evidence of an Amazonian culture, let alone one that has motives like metal acquisition, the closest are Scythian cultures who had Women warriors. It may have been contact with such groups that gave rise to the Amazon idea. One has to assume these women had exceptionally large breasts for the removal of one to be necessary as opposed to strapping them. No other culture where females used bows requires such surgery suggesting this is some Greek fantasy.
Further down under Armorica:
"Pictish tribes began to arrive around BC 15th-13th"
There are no such things as Pictish tribes until the Romans make up the term around the 2-3rd century to refer to those 'painted barbarians' to the north. The name Pict comes from a Roman word meaning paint/colour (picture). I suspect the term was devised after the Romans abandoned serious attempts to conquer Britain north of the Antonine Wall. Caracalla was the last to try in 211 but was forced to return to the capital to secure the throne after his father the emperor Severus died. There was a tribe in Gaul called the Pictones, they were even just south of Armorica, but their name is not linked to the Picts. Instead the Pictones is a native Gaulish name possibly coming from a root meaning 'cunning' (suggested by Ernest Negre, Les Noms de lieux en France, 1977)."


Are PCORI statements a ] for medical claims? Do PCORI statements pass ] as coming from a ]?
I can also not find any indication that the author himself is an expert. Eg just says "Designer of this website & author of The Celtic Encyclopedia, Harry Mountain worked independently - and without remuneration - for 40 years to unearth a fuller and truer picture of the ancient Celts: " ] ] 13:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
*The quotes you cite are indeed really big red flags, they seem to be based on ideas current a long time ago and not repeated with any of the careful qualifiers an academic would use. I don't know how reliable it is for topics in the historical era, but I would not be using it for prehistory. In this topic area, that effectively means anything prior to the Roman conquests of a particular region. John Koch's Celtic Culture: a Historical Encyclopaedia would be a better go-to source.] (]) 14:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)


I say yes. The organization is non-governmental, but was established by the United States government, and they have awarded about US$2 billion in grants over the past 10 years. They are a large research organization which takes care in making conventional statements. Also, they have good alignment with wiki community organizations, and have hosted and joined wiki editing events in the United States and with Wikimedia Medicine for almost 10 years. That alignment is because of PCORI's patient advocacy, and because typical people find this organization's statements to be more relevant than those from more industry-oriented medical organizations. While PCORI does drive a lot of research through peer reviewed journals, they also make expert consensus statements in the name of PCORI which are not peer reviewed.
:"Pictish tribes began to arrive around BC 15th-13th" is definitely a red flag. I spent sometime search for use by others, but didn't find anything much certainly nothing by academic sources. This could be due to it being published nearly twenty years ago, so I tried the website as well and found nothing. I would be cautious using it, especially were it conflicts with other sources. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)


{{ping|Zefr}} said that some PCORI statements are "neither vetted by peer-review nor is it mainstream clinical practice", which is correct, but I feel that they still meet MEDRS by being a statement from an authoritative organization. Similarly, {{ping|Whywhenwhohow}} reverted saying the sources were not MEDRS compliant. {{u|FULBERT}} made the statements as Wikimedian in Residence at PCORI, and I collaborate with FULBERT through United States Wikimedia groups and through the University of Virginia, where I also am a Wikimedian in Residence.
== Paywalled sources for Matthew Goodwin ==


Here are the talk notices about reversion. The statements are
An editor called Lamariadegarcia is deleting content from ] because its sources are behind paywalls. Is this allowed? ] (]) 15:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:NO, being behind a pay wall does not mean it is not an RS. ] (]) 15:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:See ], how accessible a source is has nothing to do with how reliable it is. However if this in regard to this edit I would suggest first discussing it on the talk page as the summary could mean that they can't access the source, or that they can but can't verify the claim. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::Scratch that the article is available if you know where to look and does verify the claim, so it is a reliable source for the removed content. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)


*]
== Predatory journal check ==
*]
*]


Here is an actual PCORI statement from the ] article. The reverted claim from this statement was that 40% of patients using a drug have adverse effects.
Hello, would like to know if the "International Journal of Social Sciences" is reliable or predatory see the article in question There seems to be two journals of the same name, one is in NYC which is a known predatory journal while this one is based in Turkey. This article is written by a reputable Ethiopian historian. ] (]) 23:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
*https://www.pcori.org/evidence-updates/comparing-treatments-multiple-sclerosis-related-fatigue
I support using this source for this claim.


Thoughts from others about PCORI generally? Thanks. ]] 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:The journal advertises ]s, e.g. . This is not a reputable journal. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 00:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: The impact factor link on the home page doesn't even mention the "journal". Clearly an unreliable (and, FWIW, editorially/managerially incompetent) source. ] (]) 14:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::: Thanks to you both for taking a look. ] (]) 13:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)


:{{u|Bluerasberry}} - in the case of my , the was just a summary of preliminary results (n=33, i.e., primary research) from the "Treatment of Fatigue with Methylphenidate, Modafinil and Amantadine in MS" (TRIUMPHANT-MS) trial, which had been funded by PCORI.
== Is The Honey Pop a reliable source? ==
:At this early stage,TRIUMPHANT-MS was actually just a ] reported . That study is not a MEDRS source for the article statement, "modafinil has been shown to be effective in managing fatigue in people with MS" when other more substantial sources, including a meta-analysis, are used.
:Further, the PCORI statement is that ''"These findings <u>can contribute to clinician and patient discussions</u> about treatments to reduce MS-related fatigue."'' In other words, the PCORI article is a) a progress report, and b) an advice source for a physician-patient discussion.
:In this case, such a brief update on funding for preliminary research is not an appropriate reference, and does not comment on the wider issue of PCORI as an organization. ] (]) 17:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Reviewing the PCORI website leads to the conclusion that their strength is the cross-sectional diversity in how they evaluate, monitor, then disseminate summaries of research projects, described They are <u>not</u> the publication venue for completed research - the ] sources of journals, books or clinical organizations - but rather their reports are summaries of the research project. For this reason, I would ask why would we cite a PCORI summary when a peer-reviewed publication is the main source? Is there an example of a PCORI final report that you feel is a good MEDRS example?
::There was concern that funded research groups submitting final reports to PCORI had which was caught and adjusted by PCORI before publication.
::As of 2023, the with PCORI to improve the review process for evaluating research funding candidates.
::The ] article needs updating. There are fewer than 30 watchers/editors of the article. ] (]) 03:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Zefr}} Two issues here: The extent to which PCORI publications meet MEDRS, and then presuming that PCORI is reliable, ] that Misplaced Pages reflects PCORI's claim in an appropriate context. Originally I think you were challenging PCORI, but here, I think you are challenging the claim. Do you agree with that distinction and separation, and if so, can you (or I) move your text discussing the claim to ]?
:::This is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, so this is the place to discuss your comments about the organization and your question about why to cite PCORI's summaries instead of the original source. Briefly, there can be multiple approaches to healthcare. Most approaches originate in the ], and it is challenging to escape that. PCORI speaks for itself, but I would describe it as remaining in the healthcare industry (as opposed to exiting it to seek ]), and within that context, recommending ] which prioritizes ]. So for example, many medical recommendations from industry seek to maximize curing disease, but a patient-centered approach could emphasize managing side effects and planning the financial cost of treatment. Regardless of what kind of recommendations PCORI is making, I sustain the notion that per ], Misplaced Pages includes expert institutional claims which may not go through the peer review process of a journal.
:::I think the report we have been discussing is a good MEDRS example. It comes in different forms -
:::* (we were discussing citing this one)
:::*
:::*
:::Misplaced Pages typically does not cite trials, but here, PCORI is elevating the results of this case study into a special report and expert recommendation. We can attribute this to the organization following ]/] guidelines, which was .
:::PCORI gets into cases like this which are fairly unusual. The situation is that there is an ] for a drug (so it is not indicated or approved, but there is evidence for it) and then PCORI is giving an alert about that off-label use. I am not a physician, and I do not know how to untangle expert institutional critiques of off-label drug use, but in general, I just trust PCORI's process and think Misplaced Pages can include PCORI recommendations attributed to them. I do not see this as the same as citing a case study without the backing of an expert org.
:::Base question back to you - how do you feel about including statements attributed to PCORI based on trials, when they conflict with other evidence? ]] 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::If PCORI published a summary of results from a multinational Phase III trial or a systematic review that it had helped to fund, then perhaps that would meet ] (although still not a national clinical guideline that would better meet MEDASSESS). In the case of the reference for modafinil, PCORI is giving an update on a pilot study, which clearly isn't MEDRS.
::::''"how do you feel about including statements attributed to PCORI based on trials, when they conflict with other evidence?"'' Defined on the PCORI website under ''Evidence Updates'': {{tq|''PCORI presents findings from systematic reviews and some of our funded research studies in concise, accessible formats called Evidence Updates. Most Evidence Updates are available in two versions: one for patients and caregivers and one for clinicians and other professionals. These updates, which capture the highlights and context for these new findings, are created and disseminated in collaboration with patients, health professionals, and other organizations."''}}
::::Likely, the PCORI update for a systematic review would be more digestible for the common Misplaced Pages reader, but having the original journal publication would have to go with it as the more complete source. If there was a conflict with another source and both were MEDRS-qualified, ] would say discuss them both.
::::It's ok to copy any of this to the modafinil talk page. ] (]) 03:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Zefr}} I want to ask a general opinion. Suppose that there is an expert medical organization, and suppose that it makes medical claims which it says are expert, but these claims are not peer reviewed through academic journals, not meta-reviews which address existing research, and they claims contradict peer-reviewed meta analysis. Under what circumstance, if any, may Misplaced Pages present such claims?
:::::I recognize that MEDRS is 99% peer-reviewed meta analysis, but part of MEDRS is ], and I see a space for organizations to convene experts and make claims worth inclusion outside of the standard process. In the world there are probably fewer than 20 organizations with standing like PCORI, and then there are probably about 1000 ] organizations globally which also make such statements on occasion. I think MEDORG applies to those organizations for statements which are peer reviewed by physicians through their internal process, but may not be peer reviewed through academic journals and part of a meta-analysis.
:::::I will take this particular example claim to the Misplaced Pages article talk page, but yes or no, will you support the inclusion of non-peer reviewed, non-review article contradictory claims in Misplaced Pages when there is an organization of appropriate standing trying to get those claims out? ]] 17:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::In the graph, ''Referencing a guideline'', at the bottom of MEDORG, an organization like PCORI would be an ''Authoritative editorial board'' at the MEDRS threshold (lower quality). The claim using a PCORI source would have to meet ] and BALANCE if interpretations or results contradict another MEDRS source.
::::::Might be best to get a wider view for your questions at ]. ] (]) 19:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{resolved}} {{ping|Zefr}} We are in agreement! Their claims are at the lower end of acceptable authority, and would not be prioritized over more developed claims, but the organization passes ] and should not be disallowed for failing ]. You had valid criticism of the particular claim being made and for that, I may continue discussion on the article talk page. ]] 19:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:I wouldn't say its non-governmental... It seems to be more semi or quasi governmental (Interestingly enough a notable concept that we seem to lack a wiki page for) ] (]) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|Horse Eye's Back}} I do not think there is a term for nonprofit organizations which have strong government ties, but yes, I understand what you mean. PCORI is a ] which receives government grants through the ]. ]] 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== Law&Crime Network ==
Hi everyone,


Hello! I would like to know your opinion about youtube channel and their news site . Are they reliable source for information about murders/trials? ] (]) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I’m looking for guidance on whether '''''The Honey Pop''''' () should be considered a reliable source for citations on Misplaced Pages, particularly in articles related to K-pop and pop culture.


:Youtube channels are generally not reliable sources. Please see ] for additional context. ] (]) 17:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
''The Honey Pop'' is a fan-driven website that publishes entertainment news, reviews, and articles about music and popular culture, including K-pop. The Honey POP is geared towards 15–25-year-olds and is run by a team of young creatives who are fans themselves. The website's content includes news and opinion pieces that share stories from the fans' own viewpoint. While the site seems to offer well-written articles, I have some concerns about its reliability:
::Since {{rspe|YouTube|]}} is a platform, the reliability of a YouTube video depends on the reliability of the video's creator. In this case, '']'' is a television network and news website that has , which means that the organization's YouTube videos are not ] and not automatically considered ] solely for being published on YouTube. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 19:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:I can't speak to their YouTube channel at all. Re: their website, ] used to be their managing editor (he's now a with ]), and I found him to be a very reliable reporter on legal issues. ] (]) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Their website is RS. However many of the sources there, you have to deal with BLPCRIME, for which you must be cautious anyway. But I have found them to be fine. ] (]) 01:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== Catholic-Hierarchy.org ==
# '''Editorial Oversight''': It’s unclear whether ''The Honey Pop'' has strong editorial oversight or a fact-checking process similar to more reputable outlets. Given that it's fan-driven, its editorial standards may not be as rigorous as more established sources.
# '''Potential Bias''': The site seems to focus on promoting content that is of interest to pop culture fans, which could introduce a certain level of bias or promotional tone that doesn't align with Misplaced Pages's neutrality requirements.
# '''Not Widely Recognized''': While the website might be popular within certain fan communities, it doesn’t seem to be recognized as an authoritative or independent source within the broader media landscape.


'']'' is a self-published source that has been featured in two prior discussions (2016 and 2020). Multiple editors appear to consider it a reliable source specifically because it is used in other independent publications. This is a noted exception for self-published sources that can be found in WP:RS/SPS. However, users also acknowledge that it should never be used in biographies of living people.
Based on these points, my initial assessment is that ''The Honey Pop'' might not meet Misplaced Pages’s reliability criteria (]), but I’d like to hear other editors' opinions. Should ''The Honey Pop'' be considered unreliable and added to the list of sources to avoid, or are there circumstances where it could be used?


Is there more discussion that should be had? Should these details be added to WP:RSPSOURCES? This source is used several thousand times on the English WP, so centralized standards for it might be desirable. ] (]) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Looking forward to your thoughts! ] (]) 14:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)


:Is there any context, any new disagreement about the source that would warrant a new discussion? If not the RSP has ] and can be discussed on ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:The "fan run" part is just marketing blurp, this is a commercial site as seen my its list of staff on its "about us" page. Fan sites generally don't employ a nine member social media marketing team.
:{{Reply|OldPolandUpdates}} Where can that noted exception for self-published sources be found in WP:RS/SPS? ] (]) 19:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:I would be more concerned about the promotional aspects of the site. The "advertise with us" page is very clear that they do advertorials, and it's unclear if these are disclosed in any way. It doesn't have any use by others, but that's hardly surprising for this type of site.
::Mid-paragraph ]. ] (]) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:In general it's probably ] but editors should be cautious over its promotional nature. Obviously it shouldn't be added to the perennial sources list, as it fails the criteria bfor inclusion. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others, that isn't there. The self publisher here is an amateur, a self described "Random Catholic Dude" ] (]) 19:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::The "fan run" part may be a marketing blurp (I highly doubt that) but having a nine-member marketing team does '''not''' prove that a site is reliable, nor does it serve as proof that the site has strong editorial oversight. Even with a marketing team, a site can still be considered a '''fan site''' or '''user-generated content platform''' if it lacks professional editorial oversight. The fact that it leans heavily into promotional content ("") makes it hard to trust as a source for factual, unbiased information, therefore, fails to be ], I think we should consider it more of a fan site and include this in ] ]. I want to ping @] they previously agreed that it should be considered unreliable. ] (]) 08:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::What is WP:EXPERTSPS? It redirects to ]. Do we have standards on who is/is not an expert? If ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is not an expert source, then it is not a reliable self-published source, and this has implications for thousands of WP articles.
:::If you want something included in the project Korea source list you will need to discuss it with the ], that page is maintained separately by them. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::] seems to imply that if one's material is used by reliable publications, then one might be considered an established expert. ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is used in peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and other types of articles. Some of the usage is described here: ]. Therefore, the discussion might revolve around whether ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is used ''enough'' by external publications.
:::I looked up their staff and yes, I still think it is unreliable. I checked that two owners, Brittaney Penney and Iva Morris, were previously a photographer and a Discord community manager. Not a great sign. ] (]) 14:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::If you consider ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' not reliable, then would you also agree that it be depicted as such in the WP:RSPSOURCES table? ] (]) 20:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The reason I proposed the topic here is I wanted more opinions about the reliabilty of this site. Also, this site should not be used in any article, not just in Korea-related articles.
:::::The standard is mid-paragraph ] "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." which does not appear to be the case here. ] (]) 22:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] what should be done to prevent this site from being used as a reliable or sole source in Misplaced Pages articles? ] (]) 18:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'd add it to the unreliable list in ] if this concerns K-pop topic. ] (]) 11:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC) :::::I would also note that there appears to be a consensus from 2020 that this is a SPS, see ] ] (]) 22:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I have added the source to the WP:RSPSOURCES list. Please take a look. ] (]) 23:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::From the wording you've used there ("Other editors do not consider the website to be a ] in its field.") I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others... Its not the website which isn't a subject-matter expert, its the self publisher who isn't. The argument that "some editors have considered the website to be reliable because some of its content has been published in reliable, independent publications" is seperate from the argument about whether or not its a SPS... A SPS which is used by others still has to follow SPS rules. ] (]) 01:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Can you provide the standard that you are using to determine whether someone is an expert? ] (]) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The standard: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, '''whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications'''." ] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::It is possible that I am misinterpreting that, and I did consider that bolded section to basically be similar to WP:USEBYOTHERS. If work that appears on ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is published in the form of a reference in reliable sources (books, peer-reviewed journal articles, dissertations, and reliable newspapers), then isn't this bolded section satisfied? What does the bolded section mean? ] (]) 22:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::No, there has to be works other than the self published ones and they have to predate the self published one. Generally only academics and journalists satisfy our requirements. ] (]) 01:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I have modified the WP:RSPSOURCES entry to better reflect this comment. ] (]) 04:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::It still feels off, you're giving wayyyyyy too much weight to the group that thinks its reliable when that view isn't supported by policy and guideline. You also make the consenus that it isn't an expert SPS look like just an opinion, but we clearly have consensus that the author isn't a subject matter expert by our standards. It also isn't a general opinion that SPS can't be used for BLP, thats solid policy. This comes off more as apologism than what consenus actually is. ] (]) 17:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
* This is a non-expert self published source. We have established that no such "noted exception" exists. ] (]) 17:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*If it is used by reliable secondary sources then it shouldn't be difficult to find the information from the reliable source itself. ] (]) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== RfC: The '']'' ==
== Use of medical literature for claims about relative incidence of dog attacks by breed ==
{{Closed rfc top|'''Withdrawn''' by JJPMaster --]&nbsp;(],&nbsp;],&nbsp;]) 21:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
The ''London Standard'', formerly known as the '']'', has 18,703 links on the English Misplaced Pages. Its reliability has not been discussed since 2018, and there is currently no consensus on its reliability. Therefore, '''what is the reliability of the ''London Standard''?'''
* Option 1: ]
* Option 2: ]
* Option 3: ]
* Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be ]
]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*I think you should also post some examples of the articles from this publication. People would then know why this outlet is now up for discussion. ] (]) 01:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


*Can we stop doing RfCs with no background? That is not what this is for. ] (]) 01:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
In the ] article there is a controversy on whether any medical journals can be used to cite claims that pit bulls are the cause of the most severe dog bites, compared to other breeds, because medical doctors are not dog experts. Nevertheless, there are many papers in medical journals that report that pit bulls cause the most, and often worst, dog attack injuries. For example, says, {{tq|Of the cases in which the breed was known, the Pit-bull was responsible for the highest percentage of re-ported bites across all the studies followed by mixed breed and then German Shepherds. Currently, no prior studies exist that examine bite severity by breed. Therefore, the relative risk of biting and average tissue damage of bite, calculated using the 240 cases seen at our in- stitutions, was used to determine an overall "risk to own" (Fig. 2). Mixed breed and Pit-bulls were found to not only have the highest relative risk of biting, but were also found to have the highest average tissue damage per bite.}} and appears to be representative of the literature.
::@]: I brought it here (a) because of its recent change in format and (b) because it hasn't been discussed in seven years. I figured that the previous discussions would have been sufficient for ], so I didn't think to start a regular discussion beforehand. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 01:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You don’t start off with the RfCs, for which you provided 0 context. ] (]) 02:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{summoned by bot}} I'm with Parakanyaa here. That it hasn't been discussed since 2018 is not sufficient reason for an RFC, in fact it's reason against one. I would have expected some recent discussion prior to an RFC, so that we have some context. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Bad RFC''' because of lack of ]. I have no context whatsoever here. Presumably if it's being brought up here, JJPMaster thinks there's some kind of problem with it, but if so it's not clear at all what problem(s) they think there is. ] (]) 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Bad RFC''' due to complete lack of ]. No discussion in any capacity since 2018. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 04:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Procedural Close'''. There is no mandatory periodical process for the reliability of specific sources. A source is brought here for discussion ''only'' after what the instructions demand, in large fonts, right at the header: {{tq|Please supply the article is used in, and the claim it supports. RFCs should only be started if there have been previous discussions .}} This is a bad RfC and should not be entertained nor continued. -] (]) 12:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
* Unless there's some new context in regard to it's reliability, disagreement between editors or discussion of London Standard's reliability in secondary sources, then there's no need for a new discussion let alone an RFC. Maybe the wording in header and edit warning needs to be stronger. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{Withdrawn}} per above. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 12:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable per ]. Since this newspaper is listed in RSP, we are within our rights to !vote on it. ] (]) 20:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
{{closed rfc bottom}}


== Checking a wikipedia source ==
A second concern is whether this literature review by the American Veterinary Medical Association makes all such claims in medical journals unreliable.


I'm curious as to whether in general I can copy an already existing citation from one Misplaced Pages article to another which says the same thing without having to check that citation. For example, on the page ] there's a citation which I haven't checked, but I'm assuming the person who added it did: <ref>Jacques Downs, ''The Golden Ghetto'' (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1997), 191.</ref>, and I want to use it to link his name on ]'s page. ''This example is the specific one and a little complicated (and I apologize for that), but the question also applies for other cases.'' Can Do I have to check the citation myself first to do this? ] (]) 06:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) ] (]) 06:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
A third concern is whether certain papers in medical journals such as this one that cite advocacy websites like Dogsbite.org and/or Animals24-7.org, previously asserted to be unreliable for Misplaced Pages purposes , should be thrown out because they inherit that unreliability. ] (]) 20:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)


:@] You ''should''. Noone can force you, but sadly often, WP-sourcing is not what it should be. Gbooks and archive.org is sometimes helpful. Note also that you are close to have access to the ]. ] is sometimes useful. ] (]) 09:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:I have some initial thoughts. Looking forward to seeing what others have to say. ] should be cited for information about human health effects of bites from pit bulls relative to other breeds. appears to qualify but its relevance needs to be considered in light of the body of published literature. In this case, the also appears reliable. While a veterinary medicine professional society would not typically be reliable for human health, they have relevant expertise for questioning the conclusions reached by medical sources. It goes too far to say that the AVMA piece {{tq|makes all such claims in medical journals unreliable}} but the AVMA seems to me to be a reliable source to counter some of the findings from the (human) medical literature.
:You should be able to access page 190–191 via Google books here -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:<br />
::The advantage of checking sources yourself is that you're much less likely to see your edits reverted with a comment of ''failed verification, not in source'' later. ] (]) 17:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:The problem with is that it a primary source. Primary sources should not be used to support a conclusion that is debated among reliable secondary and tertiary sources. I saw on the Talk page that the question of whether you can cite a generally reliable source if it relies on Animals24-7 or another unreliable source also came up in relation to a ''Time'' magazine article. Similarly, the issue is that ] as a source for controversial topics in science.
:::Thank you guys very much, I added it. ] (]) 21:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:<br />
:The whole ] section has sourcing issues and probably needs to be trimmed down. I appreciate that this has been contentious. -- <span style="font-family: verdana;">] 🍄‍🟫<i>— ]</i> </span> 23:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:It's late here but quickly on the last point, no a sources doesn't become unreliable because it uses sources that editors consider unreliable. The reliability of sources on Misplaced Pages should be based on Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, those guidelines are for the purposes of Misplaced Pages they won't be universally applicable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 01:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::Essentially what is trying to be done is ] to cite dogsbite.org and animals24-7.org, which as stated by Geogene, were previously determined to be unreliable sources by this community to cite dog bite prevalence among a breed.
::] has guidelines on determining source reliability. The cited source in the article is Time, an otherwise reliable source. They are citing dogsbite.org / animals24-7.org's information about dog statistics in a topic that Time does not typically cover.
::<br/>
::] states {{tq|If outside citation is the '''main indicator of reliability,''' <u>particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies</u>, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims.}}
::<br/>
::] states {{tq|Information <u>provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source</u> or <u>information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication '''may not be reliable''';</u> editors should <u>cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.</u>}}
::<br />
::So wiki guidelines point to not including it. If the original source of that citation is not reliable to be cited directly, then using ] is not advisable for including that source, if it's cited by a source that is publishing a topic outside their principal domain.
::<br />
::So now lets flip that to medical journals citing animals24-7 and dogsbite, and using them to reference unreliable data. Do medical journals typically publish about dogs, dog breeds, factors that affect the prevalence of dog bites? The answer is no. Its information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source outside that sources principal domain. Especially when, you have journals that do cover this topic at hand as their principal domain, stating that breed visualization, which all these medical journals relied upon, are unreliable as proven by multiple studies. In fact, the CDC itself, stopped tracking dog bite data partly because visual identification is unreliable and the inability to make reliable conclusions based on the data. The CDC.
::<br />
::Now, as to {{tq|A second concern is whether this literature review by the American Veterinary Medical Association makes all such claims in medical journals unreliable.}}
::<br />
::No one said that medical data in medical journals is unreliable because of what AVMA and Veterinary Journals say in theirs. That is a misrepresentation as all data was not the argument. Strictly about information outside their domain. Medical journals are not in the field of criticizing dog information presented in a study. Veterinary Journals are. ] states {{tq|Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.}}. Medical Journals are not reliable sources for dog information, especially when Veterinary Journals contradict their claims.
::<br />
::Open to other interpretations to ] Guidelines though and appreciate anyone willing to dive into this hot topic. ] (]) 04:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Essentially what is trying to be done is WP:USEBYOTHERS to cite dogsbite.org and animals24-7.org}} no it's not. If the source is otherwise reliable it doesn't have to follow Misplaced Pages's ''internal'' policies. Editors should be careful of sources being whitewashed, but experts can use sources we don't like. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Would it be appropriate to cite the CDC about the history of France? It's a reliable source, so it doesn't need to follow Wikipedias internal policies right?
::::<br>
::::Or, is it not the most appropriate source for the topic, especially when you have the National Museum of France can be cited counter to the CDCs claims.
::::<br>
::::I am having a hard time understanding why any wikipedia editor shouldn't evaluate different reliable sources to determine what source is the most reliable on a given topic. ] (]) 03:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
* ] is primary research and generally unreliable for ]. It shouldn't be used, and especially not to undercut ] sources. ] (]) 05:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*:Sources are primary or secondary in context. What about the part of the paper where Khan et al. comment on the status of existing literature? ] (]) 05:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*::And also, for example, this social commentary: {{tq|An area of contentious challenge between dog lobbyists and medical providers is that of breed identity, which seems to be a lightning rod for some dog lobby (principally pit bulls) enthusiasts who contend that identification of "the pit bull terrier type dog" is challenging and imprecise. There is precedent for countering this challenge in legal court briefs: "There exists no better method of identifying a pit bull dog than by its appearance. (American Dog Owners Association vs Dade City, Florida; No 89-771-CIV; 1989) and furthermore "pit bulls are readily identifiable...both by dog owners of ordinary intelligence and by enforcement personnel (State of Ohio vs Anderson, Supreme Court of Ohio brief No. 89-2113; 1991) Breed identification via genetic confirmation is not necessary to gain a firm understanding of this area of dog related trauma.}} I'm concerned that applying MEDRS to this entire paper but not veterinary papers will hobble the ability to source medical POVs in a multi-POV controversy. ] (]) 06:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::The source may be useful for ] though a primary research item is never going to be the best. ] (]) 06:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*::The trouble with the "secondary" bit of primary sources is that it is almost always selected/framed/spun with the goal of bolstering the primary finding (one wouldn't want to do the opposite, for obvious reasons) and so not indicative of knowledge in the field generally. This is why MEDRS is as it is: use reviews articles, meta-analyses, systematic reviews or better. Primary sources, not. ] (]) 06:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::In any case, I trust that this primary veterinary poster presentation about animal shelter volunteers that Unbiased6969 posted above isn't usable to make claims about breed identification in attack risks for the same reason? ] (]) 06:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::It's not usable for ], for sure. For other things, dunno - not my area! ] (]) 06:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Agreed, it's not trying to be used for ]. It's being used to show that claims about dog breeds inside medical journals are widely known by the Veterinary Academic community to be unreliable. It's also a visual representation of a study that was done by the authors, and not just some poster as was stated. ] (]) 13:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)


*Dog pages are wild. It's a reliable source. Primary research is likely due in this case, and the secondary parts of the paper are certainly due. Most sources on dog breeds are written by aficionados of that particular breed and suffer from extreme neutrality problems.--] (]) 06:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*:Going though this I'm a bit lost, am I being naive that medical experts would be more knowledgeable about injuries to humans than vets? -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*::No one is questioning whether medical experts are knowledgeable in the field of injuries. It's questioning whether they're experts in statements made by dog breeds in their work.
*::They're not. ] (]) 13:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::It's like saying medical journals can't be used to say cigarettes cause cancer because medics are not tobacco experts. ] (]) 13:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::Respectfully, that's a false equivalency. You visually identify different types of cigarettes reliably and make a reliable decision of their effects.
*::::As pointed out my veterrinary academia, you cannot identify a dog breed visually in a reliable manner and make a meaningful decision. As concluded by the CDC itself in my first comment. ] (]) 14:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::::You reflect what the good sources say. If they say smoking causes cancer, reflect that. If they don't go into the weeds about "light" variety cigarettes or menthol ones, don't say that. ] (]) 14:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Understandable. I'd go one further though. I'd say you primarily present the academic concensus on the topic, then briefly mention the minority/controversial view point. So in this case, present primarily the academic concensus that no breed has been reliably determined to be more responsibe for inuries/deaths. Then mention that some medical studies have made this claim, but relied upon breed identification, which is known to be unreliable. ] (]) 14:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::There are next to no proper scientific papers on dog breeds, outside of those on health problems and wolf DNA. A medical paper which indicates that injuries reported to be by pitbull type dogs represents x per cent of their case load or whatever is entirely reliable for that claim, and is likely to make it due. The fact that sometimes people misidentify pitbulls can also be reported where that is cited. However, we cannot disqualify a RS reporting "people say pitbulls do this" because another RS says "sometimes people mistake pitbulls for other types of dogs".--] (]) 20:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::There are no proper scientific papers on dog breeds? Have you dived into the topic to make such a bold claim?
:::::::::<br>
:::::::::I can show you multiple genetic studies performed on multiple dog breeds trying to isolate aggression to a gene, but repeatedly coming to the same conclusion that aggression in dogs is universal and likely a remnant of their predecessor wolves. Seems like a lot of science from academics to be deemed unreliable.
:::::::::<br>
:::::::::I disagree with your last point. The context of sources should be evaluated and if an otherwise reliable source is being used to make claims outside their domain, which is in counter to information published by those that study the topic, then using that source outside to cite the information in contradiction to academia is improper without giving more weight to academia. ] (]) 22:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Genetics-based studies on dog breeds and aggression do not usually meet the standard for reliable scientific research. It's all "from our sample of 50 dogs" and "reports of aggression by owners". There is not going to be a "gene for aggression", because that isn't how the genetics works.--] (]) 23:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Wait why are genetic studies unreliable but the medical ones brought up earlier aren't?
:::::::::::The Khan paper has a sample size of 182 patients and relied on patients to report what type of dog bit them. The Essig paper calculated bite severity based on a sample of 240, again, relying on patients to report breed.
:::::::::::A cursory glance at canine behavioural genetics research is showing sample sizes of 1,975 with behaviour based on owner questionnaires , sample size of 6,818 w/ questionnaires , sample size 397 w/ questionnaires (notably this one also says "Pit Bull-type dogs showed reduced risk of owner-directed aggression"), sample size 9,270 dogs with questionnaire , etc
:::::::::::Why are owners* untrustworthy for reporting aggression, but reliable for reporting dog breed? (*inevitably many of the patients aren't the owner since some are strays, etc.)
:::::::::::Dogs aren't really my field so I don't know what papers on pit bulls specifically are out there, but behavioural genetics is absolutely a real field of scientific research. More complex than there being a "gene for aggression" sure, but genetic predispositions to aggression based on certain mutations ''is'' a legitimate topic of study
:::::::::::<small>(also fair warning I might not reply to/notice any responses to this comment... real life is busy rn. feel free to ping me a couple times if you need me to respond)</small> ] (]) 00:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::oh quick clarifying comment tho, no idea if the papers I linked are relevant to the overall topic of this thread or the article in question, just referencing them for methods ] (]) 00:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::This seems to be asking for speculation, but okay. Is it not possible that pit bull owners might be less likely to report aggressive behaviors than other dog owners because they perceive their dog as unfairly stigmatized? Are dog owners even able to consistently recognize aggression? The Bailey paper (PMID 33136964) that was much praised earlier says that even the aggression tests used by animal shelters are controversial and often wrong.
:::::::::::::What percentage of dog attacks are perceived by the owner after the fact as having occurred "without warning"?
:::::::::::::Also, dog attacks are extremely rare overall. Is a sample size of 10,000 pet dogs that have (presumably) not attacked before large enough to make actionable predictions about dogs that attack?
:::::::::::::Why would a dog owner know their dog was a pit bull? I assume that's because they researched breeds of dogs, then decided they wanted a pit bull, and then bought a shorthaired, muscular and mildly brachycephalic dog that resembled a pit bull through a "pit bulls for sale" ad. If so, then it seems reasonable to assume their dog is a pit bull until evidence is produced otherwise. ] (]) 01:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::oh, not trying to invite speculation, I might have just been unclear, sorry. My point was just that both genetic studies and the dog bite studies rely on owners/laypeople to report something (behavior and breed, respectively) that some sources say is, at least to some degree, unreliable.


{{reflist-talk}}
::::::::::::::From what I could tell, Boynamedsue was saying that because owner reports of aggression aren't always reliable, a scientific paper that we might otherwise consider reliable, but uses owner reports of aggression, doesn't {{tq|meet the standard for reliable scientific research}}

::::::::::::::In contrast, the dog bite papers that use layperson reports of dog breed, which have also been reported to be unreliable by various sources, remain reliable regardless.

::::::::::::::Essentially, I'm just confused as to why we would discard one set of sources (behavioural genetics) because they use a metric that some consider unreliable, but we aren't discarding the other (dog bite studies).
::::::::::::::If both types of studies are published in high-quality journals by experts in their field, I'm hesitant to say that we as editors should be making that type of judgement call on ''either'' to say "these methods are bad so this source is unreliable".

::::::::::::::The sample size bit was mainly in response to the {{tq|"from our sample of 50 dogs"}} which I assume was hyperbole but didn't seem to reflect any of the sources I saw.
::::::::::::::] (]) 03:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::Just for a slight aside, there are cases where you can have instances like this. In the entomology world (I know it's not an insect), spider bites , and it's a real-world issue that's been brought up related to human doctors. So yes, doctors could be misidentifying something, but there would need to be MEDRS sources making that claim rather than someone trying to claim medical professionals don't have sufficient expertise like what you're responding to. That's the key distinction, but I can unfortunately see how easily the argument being made came up too. ] (]) 15:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Exactly. Medical professions are certainly reliable to say, thats a dog bite. However, not reliable to say thats a dog bite from this specific breed. ] (]) 22:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*:This reminds me of some other arguments other the definition of words, with one group using a more general sense and the other using a hyper specific sense.
*:Maybe the solution is to describe the issue in the article, noting the research results but then mentioning that the general idea of a pit bull doesn't match the veterinary definition. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*::You are then giving ] the primary narrative in an article, and allowing the academic concensus on a topic take the back seat. ] (]) 14:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::I don't think fringe is applicable when discussing articles from a high quality source, describe the discrepancy it's one that is common place even outside this specific issue. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::So, if I am hearing this correctly. Your opinion would be that it's okay to cite vaccine skeptics's claims about autism in x% of people, in the Wiki article about vaccines, so long as those fringe theory claims were sourced from a reliable source thats making those claims outside their principal domain of publication? Because that's the equivalence being applied here. ] (]) 14:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::::No, because the ] on vaccines say different. ] (]) 14:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*:When we have strong ] like ] there is no reason to use primary sources, in fact that's exactly what ''not'' to do. I can only imagine this topic has a POV-problem if editors are promoting low-quality sources and swerving quality ones. ] (]) 13:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*:Medical journals are reliable for medical information. They're not reliable for dog breed related information. ] states that one needs to evaluate whether the source is the appropriate for the claims made. In this case it's not, especially when it goes against the vast majority of Veterinary academia. ] (]) 13:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*::They're certainly reliable for medical information and almost certainly reliable for dog breed information related to it, peer-reviewed ] in high-quality, ], peer-reviewed sources is top-notch however you look at it. If there are equivalent veterinary publications purely on the quesion of 'dog breeds' then they would be preferable, but for dog bite effects on people - which is what this query is about - we'd need MEDRS. Luckily, it exists. ] (]) 13:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::For dog bite effects on people, sure. However that's not what trying to be done on the article page. Instead, the medical journals are trying to be used as sourced to write that pit bulls have a outsized portion of injuries as determined by visual identification, when studies have show that visual identification is unreliable. ] (]) 14:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::], which is a golden source, says:{{tq2|German Shepherd and Pit Bull–type breeds account for the largest subset of severe dog bites reported in the medical literature. Our recommendations to physicians and to researchers, activists, and legislators are also included. However, these data must be heeded and acted on to further understand and minimize severe dog bites in the future, especially those inflicted on children.}} and it also says the dog breed recognition is often flawed, which complicates this finding. Misplaced Pages should reflect this knowledge. It's not hard. ] (]) 14:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:Any attempt to relate severity of bites to dog breed obviously involves assessment of 1. the severity / damage inflicted by the bite (a medical matter in which doctors and academics of medicine are experts) and 2. the breed of the dog responsible (not a medical matter, not one in which those same people are experts).
:But surely point 2 is a red herring - no medical professionals are going to publish papers in medical journals in which they are relying on their own inspection of dogs to determine the dogs' breeds! Papers are likely either blindly believing patient or witness reports about a dog's breed (probably unreliable - the critics have a point) ''or'' have collaborated with relevant experts (police / animal charities / whatever other entity is responsible for breed identification after a dog attack in their jurisdiction) who ''do'' have expertise in breed determination, in which case the criticism has no sting at all. To determine which category any given paper falls into, and therefore whether its breed-related conclusions can be trusted, read the paper and see how they say they determined breed. ] (]) 15:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::It is not the job of Misplaced Pages editors to determine if a high-quality source can be trusted. The job is rather to reflect what it says. ] (]) 15:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::This is question-begging; if a study's methodology is junk, it's not a "high-quality source" in the first place. ] (]) 15:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::It's a wiki editors job to evaluated the context of sources to determine whether the source being used is the appropriate one for that information. ] (]) 22:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::The source's quality (including that of its methodology) is determined by the journal editors and peer-reviewers, not by amateur Wikipedians with an axe to grind. This is fairly basic. ] (]) 05:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::2. would be something valid under the medical purview. Causes of injuries or disease are something medical professionals have to assess all the time such as bacteria, fungi, viruses, etc. and strains of those causing that. If a paper calls for it, you'll likely involve epidemiologists or even more specialized specialists who work on the causative organisms primarily. Frankly, that statement looks like a severe misunderstanding of what epidemiologists do and publish on. ] (]) 16:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::I will point out that studies have shown that visual identification is unreliable, even among professionals. Not sure if that changes your mind on the latter. ] (]) 01:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

*Advocates target all pit bull types, and support ], which is proven not to work. They also tend to be relentless in their quest to include media hype, misinformation, and/or malinformation from police reports that often contain incomplete information primarily based on visual IDs during a traumatic event. Those reports are also used as the basis for the information used by some science/medical journals, and so it goes. It is expected that some of our best editors can also be misled based on similar circumstances, causing them to latch on to a position that results in major ] and ] that never seem to end...and here we are now.
#'''Fact''' - all dogs bite. Many dog owners have been lax in the proper training and socialization of their dogs, particularly strong, muscular dogs, regardless of breed. Chihuahuas can even do serious damage. Bites typically result from improper training, purposeful mistreatment, or leaving small children unattended with dogs, especially children who are unfamiliar with dog behavior.
#'''Fact''' - visually identifying a dog as belonging to a specific breed can be an exercise in futility. Some dogs may look like a particular breed but DNA testing may prove differently. Dogs that are registered with one of the reputable breed associations such as the (], ], ], are better able to positively identify a dog by its pedigree, records of which are kept by the respective breed registry. In many cases, there will be DNA evidence to support the pedigree. For accuracy, DNA testing is required, but rarely done when a child or adult is treated for a dog bite, or when police take eye-witness reports right after a traumatic event. Even some dog owners have been known to misidentify the breed of their dog, referring to them as a "pit bull" when it's a mixed breed. This practice of misidentifying dogs has gone on for decades and has proven harmful to modern purebreds such as ]s, ], and the like, dogs bred specifically to be show dogs. Granted, dogs are being bred illegally as fighting dogs but those dogs originate from specific strains purposely bred for combat, and are not the modern show dogs registered with reputable breed registries.
#'''Breed doesn't determine personality''' - in a most recent study {{xt|..."the largest study of its kind, the team compared the genetic and survey data of nearly 2000 dogs—most of which had their entire genomes sequenced—and survey results from an additional 16,000 pooches. The pups included mixes and purebreds, with 128 breeds represented."}} See
#'''Pit bull''' advocacies have been referred to as racially motivated issues according to the following study .
#'''CDC is against BSL''' - {{xt|The CDC strongly recommends against breed-specific laws in its oft-cited study of fatal dog attacks, noting that data collection related to bites by breed is fraught with potential sources of error (Sacks et al., 2000).}} See Quote: "No breed owns any particular trait." ELAINE OSTRANDER U.S. NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE
#'''Pit bull or pitbull is NOT a breed of dog''' - there is only one recognized breed with "pit bull" in its name, and it is the UKC's ] which is not recognized by the other breed registries. "Pit bull terrier" is a ubiquitous term used by people who, quite routinely, are uneducated about dog breeds, and don't know the difference between ] and ] vs a modern, registered dog with a pedigree and DNA test results documented by a dog breed registry. Those dogs are bred to be show dogs, or dogs that compete in obedience trials, tracking, etc. Scores of innocent dogs have been/are still being euthanized as a result of misidentification and misinformation.
# of breed-specific bans, despite the misidentifications; other breeds that are also banned may include Rottweilers, Dobermans, and boxers.
#Another example of malinformation: see wherein Geogene cites a news article by the BBC which states: {{xt|After the tip-off to the police, Lola was measured and assessed. An American bulldog crossed with an English Staffordshire bull terrier, she was classified as pit-bull-type. Pit bull terriers are one of the four breeds of dog banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 alongside the ], the ], and the ].}} I question "assessed" - was it a visual assessment or a DNA assessment? It also states "Pit bull terriers are one of the four '''breeds''' of dog banned under ...." yada yada. Pit bull terrier is NOT a breed. I consider this information to be questionable at best.
*Sadly, staunch advocates against ] types refuse to relent. WP doesn't allow advocacy editing, so this needs to be addressed. Our project has had more than its share of advocacies, and one of the worst was a multiple sock editor who first went by ]. ] do not allow the inclusion of incorrect, misleading, or malinformation, much of which may be motivated by a misplaced fear of dogs, or inspired by hyped-up media reports with visual misidentifications of dogs, and/or based on incorrect/incomplete police & hospital reports that used the ubiquitous term "pit bull", not to mention small studies of behavior analysis based on the aforementioned. ] ] ] 21:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Atsme}}, are you able to explain what's wrong with my diff you just posted? You seem to be accusing me of wrongdoing there. ] (]) 22:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*::I think her issue may be with the phrase "banned breed"; arguably there is no such thing in the UK. Government documenation at https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/banned-dogs stresses that in the UK we have banned ''"types"'' (defined by physical features/appearance), not banned ''"breeds"'' (defined by ancestry). However, I note that despite this it is common for media sources and police spokesmen to use the term "banned breed" and that basically everyone refers to the UK law as BSL (breed-specific legislation); arguably usage in mainstream sources vindicates using the term "banned breed" in the UK context even if strictly speaking it is a misnomer. I take no position for now; this argument doesn't belong on this noticeboard anyway. ] (]) 02:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
*:Ironically, this comment itself feels like an activist screed, and is highly one-sided. I'll put a counter to just two of your numbered points, though I take some issue with every one of them:
*:1. Even if we accept as true that bites "typically result" from owner negligence (I don't know if that's true), there's absolutely no contradiction between that and the position that some breeds are more dangerous than others. Multiple factors can contribute to the same bad outcome.
*:5. The US government is against BSL? Well, symmetrically, the ''UK'' government is for it, and we have it here. Neither can be assumed to be right; it is not a knockdown argument either way.
*:Misplaced Pages needs to present both sides of this argument; certainly there are good sources available for both. ] (]) 02:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment.''' Shouldn't the first question be whether this is even worth adding to the article at all? From my point of view, "dog breeds with the nastiest bite to humans" seems like fairly trivial information. ] (]) 22:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*:Is bite risk not a fairly prominent controversy with pit bulls? ] (]) 22:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*::Yes, the (real or perceived, depending on which side of the argument you believe) dangerousness of pitbulls is pretty much the single most notable thing about them; conclusions of studies relating to that are very likely to be significant in the context of that issue and thus worthy of discussion in the article (though not necessarily individually, and not not necessarily mean uncritically). ] (]) 02:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::No one is arguing against referencing the controversy around pit bulls in the article. Thats obviously noteworthy and can be source md reliably. Whats being argued is not citing unreliable sources on bite stats because none exist.
*:::<br>
*:::The controversy around pit bulls is absolutely a topic. However, there are no reliable statisitcs about any dog bite data to cite in the article. The CDC itself, discredited their study for being unreliable. This, along with every academic veterinary organization. ] (]) 03:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::{{tq|No one is arguing...}} - yes they are. In the grandparent comment that this subthread is about, @] questions whether this information is even noteworthy enough to include, irrespective of reliability. ] (]) 04:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

:'''Comment''' I think it matters here whether we are asking if the studies are reliable enough for us to repeat their findings in Misplaced Pages's voice as ''objective truth'', or whether we are asking whether they are reliable enough to merely ''neutrally mention the existence of the studies and what they concluded'', with critical viewpoints also mentioned and given similar weight.
:Different commenters seem to be assuming different about which of those levels of reliability we're arguing about. I was taking as an obvious starting point that peer-reviewed research that isn't unambiguously retracted or debunked is at least reliable enough to cite and mention the conclusions of, though not necessarily as objective truth. To my surprise, though, other commenters seem to be arguing that an entire area of published research is all so unreliable that it cannot be cited at all. Such a position seems to me like it requires an extraordinarily robust case against all the published work in that area. I don't yet see such a case given here. ] (]) 04:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

== Should Fortune (Magazine) be seen as a reliable source? ==

Should ] be listed in ]? ] (]) 23:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

:This question would be better asked at ]. ] (]) 00:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:Is there an issue about it's on-WP use? As always, context matters. My knee-jerk reaction is "probably generally reliable", but that is not reason to put it on RSP. ] (]) 07:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:Why should it be listed? Do we have significant disputes regarding it's reliability? More importantly, do we have a history of questions at this noticeboard that should be summarized there? ] (]) 11:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:I'm guessing this relates to this edit to the RSP that was reverted as it didn't meetbthe criteria for inclusion. Discussions that only exists to get sources added the RSP should be excluded from counting as part of it's inclusion criteria. So that a hard '''no''' from me for the original question. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

== Film Music Reporter ==

has been discussed several times before: in , , and . Each time there has been opposition to its use but no consensus recorded anywhere about it being unreliable. The source is currently used on thousands of articles related to composers, films, television, and more, and one such instance is ] which is currently undergoing a GA review where the issue has been raised again. My hope in starting this conversation is that a definitive consensus can be reached and recorded at ] that future discussions can point to.

I think the source should be listed as reliable. I agree with other editors that this is a ], and therefore it must be deemed a subject-matter expert if it is to be considered reliable. For years the site has been publishing accurate reports about film and television music including announcements about composer hirings and soundtrack details. Its reports have been referenced in other reliable sources, mainly entertainment journalist sites such as and . And it is followed on social media by actual composers and industry insiders. I think there is enough evidence to consider it trusted within the film scoring community, and I think the fact that it is used so widely on Misplaced Pages already points to the trust that many editors have in it (note that I am not arguing we should consider it reliable ''because'' some articles already do).

I have notified relevant WikiProjects about this discussion. - ] (]) 09:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:I do agree that the website does post accurate information and is widely used on film pages (I routinely remove the site as a source in the infobox once the poster/billing block is released. The website has it correct every time). However, do we know who owns/writes for the website? Their doesn't provide clarity. Therefore, I'm not sure how it can be listed as reliable on ] without the author/owner details. <span style="solid;background:#a3b18a; border-radius: 4px; -moz-border-radius: 4px; font-family: Papyrus">''']&nbsp;]'''</span> 13:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:Just an aside but the consensus was record in the RSN archives you found, the archives exist to show what conclusions past discussions came two. It hasn't been ''summarised'' any where else. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::As to the sites reliability ] needs prior publishing by a independent reliable source, who runs the site isn't disclosed so it's not possible not check if they have been previously published. The other way they could be reliable is by ] and I'm not seeing a stromg case for that.
::How often a source is used on Misplaced Pages has ''absolutely nothing'' to do with how reliable it is, Misplaced Pages is often used as a reference even though doing so is against ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I clearly stated that "{{tq|I am not arguing we should consider it reliable ''because'' some articles already do}}", I am just pointing out that the source is widely regarded to be reliable by editors across thousands of pages. That is noteworthy context for this discussion. If nothing else, it means there will be a lot of clean-up to do if consensus here is that it should not be used. - ] (]) 13:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::And I'm saying editors think Misplaced Pages is a reliable source for Misplaced Pages content. Sources should be judged by policies and guidelines, USEONWIKIPEDIA is not one of them. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:I just saw that the May 2011 discussion you linked to was from me. Lol. Well my stance hasn't changed much, we still don't know who writes for the website and it's been 13 years later. Hopefully we can learn more this time around. <span style="solid;background:#a3b18a; border-radius: 4px; -moz-border-radius: 4px; font-family: Papyrus">''']&nbsp;]'''</span> 13:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

== aaroads.com ==


== RE: Lambgoat ==
https://aaroads.com is a huge online global database of roads with a stated aim to become the most comprehensive guide there is. That's fine, but a lot of its content is sucked straight out of wikipedia. If you do a for aaroads.com then you'll see that 290 of the 1,038 links returned are actually enclosed within a <nowiki><ref>...</ref></nowiki> article reference. That breaks ] and ] and likely ]. Clearly (to me) this isn't a reliable source and personally I'd like to see it expunged - initially from all references by being listed at ], but ultimately to be blacklisted so it's removed from all article external links as well. In case you're wondering how I came across this it's because they are actively recruiting Misplaced Pages editors to work on aaroads.com - see ] which was posted today. ] (]) 13:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)


just got ], but I have a useage that hasn't come up yet in discussions that I want to get clarity on. Is an , about heavy metal genres, acceptable for use on the relevant Misplaced Pages genre articles, with the exclusion of any BLP claims or controversial statements? I'm pinging the other editors who were involved in that discussion. {{u|JeffSpaceman}}, {{u|Sergecross73}}, {{u|MFTP Dan}}.--] (] &#124; ]) 17:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:There are different nparts of AARoads, the wiki would be CIRCULAR and the rest is UGC. Listing on the RSP has zero effect on it being used on Misplaced Pages, it just means it appears on a list. If you want it added to a source highlighting script you could ask the scripts author. Editor can remove unreliable sources on their own judgement, but it only happens if editors do it themselves there's no automated process for removal. I don't see a need for blacklisting, as it could be useful in an External Links section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks. I get the bit about needing to manually remove and the fact one editor can do it, I just feel that if does get an entry at ] then there is some justification for doing it rather than relying on one editor's opinion. Although I don't personally agree I would certainly be interested in what others think about the External Links section. Perhaps that should be disconnected from this discussion to avoid any confusion? ] (]) 13:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::] is policy, and ] is a guideline, both have as much weight as RSP. ] exists for discussions about external links, they have their own separate guidelines from RS. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Sorry just realised you know all that, I appear to have username blindness. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)


:I have to say, I have ''never'' seen LG do something like this and would not be personally inclined to use it. It's only just over a year old, so maybe it's a new thing they're doing and I didn't keep up. ] <sup> ] </sup> 19:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== RIA Novosti ==
::I found from 2024, so it looks like this might be a new addition to the type of coverage that they do.--] (] &#124; ]) 02:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::As I suspected. I would be loath to use this, I always treated LG as a last resort for routine coverage of bands. To me, it's the lowest tier of source that's still acceptable for use especially on, you know, ] where there isn't surviving online coverage otherwise. They are impressive for cataloguing that far back. ] <sup> ] </sup> 14:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:I would recommend verifying with other, more established reliable sources, and potentially citing those instead per ]. I think routine coverage (as you state, barring exceptional claims or third-party information about living people) is probably viable, but I'm not confident this source should be cited for what you are looking into it being used for. But I'll see what others think and where consensus goes. ] (]) 20:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:They don't mention editorial staff or fact checking on their about us. ] (]) 21:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::They do have an editor, per the , but the role is not explained.--] (] &#124; ]) 02:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::To be fair, you don't see that explanation a lot these days. Especially in the content area LG serves. It's surprisingly slim pickens out there. ] <sup> ] </sup> 14:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== Does this source even exists? ==
Hi there. I made a post on the about a number of sources I came across on the ] which I have some concerns about in terms of reliability. I have already removed one offending source () according to the advice I got on my post.


I saw this ''{{code|ড. মুহম্মদ আব্দুল করিম. বাংলাদেশের ইতিহাস. মগ বিতাড়ন ও চট্টগ্রাম জয়.}}'' cited on an article (here ]) but I couldn't find any source with this name anywhere on the internet, can anyone confirm if it is real or not? ] (]) 16:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I was wondering if someone here could please advise on whether articles by RIA Novosti such as this meet Misplaced Pages's reliability criteria? The outlet is Russian government owned and has links to ]. When I went to remove the Exclusive article above I also found this further article which was mislabelled as Exclusive. Would appreciate a hand from anyone who has a good understanding of Russian media, or just in general as I'm new to all of this. Thanks! ] (]) 13:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)


:If it is a hard copy book (or similar), it may not be on the internet. That said, a lot of library databases are in English, so have you tried searching for an English language translation? ] (]) 16:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:Reliability is a fuzzy thing which some sources achieve, others do not, and still others sit in a grey zone where some content can be reliable and other less so. My recommendation is to absorb the content of ] and make an individual judgement based on the large number of factors related there. Further, you could take a look at ] and compare 'similar' sources to that of RIA Novosti and see how they compare. Mistakes will be made; reversions will happen and some will be fair and others not so. It's part of the overall editing process / experience here. --User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 02:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:I tried google translating it from Hindi to English… not completely successful, but I suspect the author may be ]… something for you to look into. ] (]) 17:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::I've just tried it too and searched it in English but I still couldn't find anything, The only person I could find who has the same name as the author of that source is ] who is not a Historian. ] (]) 17:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] Google scholar does not mentions any book of ] with that name. ] (]) 17:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:The following website is using the same source but is referencing different pages in the source than the wiki article: https://www.teachers.gov.bd/blog/details/686411?page=2546&cttlbasee-smrn-rakheni-cttgramer-itihas-bujurg-umed-khann-cttgram-punruddharer-mhanayk
:It may be a physical source that is only available as a printed book.
:The following website also uses this source and is also mentioning the name "জাতীয় গ্রন্থ প্রকাশ" (Jatiya Grantha Prakash / Jatio Grantho Prokashon) for the publishing house that published the book: https://www.sachalayatan.com/shashtha_pandava/56984. And it looks like this publisher actually exists: https://www.rokomari.com/book/publisher/498/jatio-grantho-prokashon?ref=apb_pg96_p34. ] (]) 17:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::The author appears to be this guy: ]. That wiki article references the following website: https://www.thedailystar.net/in-focus/abdul-karims-discoveries-origins-modernity-bengali-literature-154528. This website is talking about Abdul Karim and the history of Chittagong, and given that the source Koshuri Sultan is asking about is also about Chittagong (translated by Google as "Dr. Muhammad Abdul Karim. History of Bangladesh. Expulsion of the Mughals and Conquest of Chittagong."), I think that this the Abdul Karim who authored the source in question. ] (]) 17:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Or it's this other Abdul Karim who is said to have written a two volume book by the title of "History of Bangladesh": . ] (]) 17:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you for finding these, I appreciate your help. However we still can't verify the source.<br>This article was previously nominated for speedy deletion (under ]) but the author of that article without discussing it properly . ] (]) 18:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:05, 11 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

    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 Science-Based Medicine

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    There is a general consensus that at least some articles on this site can be considered self-published, and substantial disagreement over whether the site's editorial control is adequate, with even some partial supports acknowledging that material on the site may not be substantially reviewed if reviewed at all. As such, material from this site should be used with caution, probably with attribution, and should not on its own be used to support negative or controversial content in BLPs. Particular articles from the site may still be reliable on the basis of self-published sources by experts; those should be considered on an individual basis. Seraphimblade 10:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


    Is the blog Science-Based Medicine in whole or in part, a self-published source? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    Iljhgtn, is there a reason that you chose not to list this RfC on the Maths, science, and technology list? If not, would you mind adding that topic area to the RfC template? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    Never mind, Raladic added it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

    Responses (Science-Based Medicine)

    • Not SPS - Per the previous RfC, there seems to be no reason to rehash this. The editorial practices of SBM show that they do not act like an SPS and that has not changed since the prior RfC. So there appears to be no reason to deviate it from it now. What is the rationale for this repeat RfC other than to try to discredit it? SBM is one of the watchdog media that help keep WP:FRINGE science out of Misplaced Pages. Raladic (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Comment (Summoned by bot), @Iljhgtn has there been in discussion of this on this noticeboard since the last RFC? TarnishedPath 03:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      OP created different RFC here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#"Science-Based_Medicine"_blog which was closed as a bad RFC as it was not neutral and editors pointed out the lack of RFCBEFORE on a reasoning of why this needs to be rehashed. Given that that one was just closed and now this new one was immediately opened again without any RFCBEFORE discussion, it similarly appears to be looking for a problem without information as to why this RfC is here without any new evidence that should change the established consensus of the community. Raladic (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      There was a discussion from a few years ago listed on RSP that seemed very mixed as to whether SBM is a SPS Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    • SPS. Per what they wrote on their site: "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" If people are able to publish directly, by themselves, without being reviewed, then that meets the definition of SPS and we need to treat it that way for BLPs. Noting that this only means that it can't be used for direct statements about living people, but can still be used for statements about the truth (or, more often, otherwise) of views held by living people, the views of the authors about living people, and statements about fringe theories themselves. - Bilby (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      You're citing a literal case where their editorial board retracted a published statement - that is literally acting like a non-SPS such as newspapers do and shows editorial oversight. This wasn't "random stranger published directly", it was a trusted author, and yet, their editorial board decided to retract the published article at the very link explaining their editorial oversight - After careful review, the editors of SBM decided to retract this book review. Because we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness, occasionally corrections need to be made post-publication. In this case we felt there were too many issues with the treatment of the relevant science, and leaving the article up would not be appropriate given the standards of SBM., so this looks like exactly what you'd expect from a non-SPS. You basically just made the case why they are not an SPS. Raladic (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      In that case, they literally stated that they literally allow some people to self-publish on their site. That they might then retract the story if later they find a problem is a good thing. But it does not change how that article appeared there. Medium, for example, is a self-publishing platform, yet they can and do remove articles. This does not mean that we need to treat Medium as if it is not self published. SBM is definitely better than Medium, and I am confident that they have much higher standards. However, as they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      "As they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs". Which people though specifically? Where are the examples of this claim? Please list 5-10 authors at SBM who have self-published articles without any form of review. I do not see any good examples only one article from Harriet Hall that was retracted. Hall is now deceased. I would like to see the other examples. From what I can see none exist. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      It would seem that most of the content is self-published by only a small number (4) of writers, and yes, without any prior review as mentioned about by Bilby. The reliability is also debatable, but the self-publishing aspect of this blog seems as undeniable as WP:SKYISBLUE. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      You haven't provided any evidence of self-publishing. Show us links to the self-published articles, I want to see them. Links and specific names please! Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      This just seems like sealioning but here you go... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      You have linked to several articles by Steven Novella. Where does it claim on those articles they are self-published? David H. Gorski obviously reviewed those articles, he is listed in the link you cited below as the other editor. There are two editors so this isn't self-publishing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      Where are you seeing that? SBM seems to say the opposite, that Novella's articles are not checked by Gorski... Gorski also wouldn't be the publisher in that scenario, you're confusing an editor with the publisher. Novella's publisher would be Novella (either as founder and chief editor or as President of the society). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      The website says "SBM is entirely owned and operated by the New England Skeptical Society" . So if you are after the publisher, not the editors it is that Society. Novella is listed as the current President of the New England Skeptical Society, he is not the publisher. We know that SBM has two current editors. The New England Skeptical Society that publishes SBM has 25 employees including its web manager Mike Lacelle. Its director is Jay Novella . This isn't a single man self-publishing house, an organization is behind it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      Is Jay Novella related to Steven Novella? If so this is getting worse, not better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      Yes it's his son but he is not the web manager for the website so he is not the publisher. He is the Director of Marketing and Technology . My understanding is that all the websites owned by the Society are managed by Mike Lacelle who is listed as the web manager. So if you are looking for the specific man that actually publishes the articles after they are edited it would be him. Like I said the organization has 25 employees, there could be others involved. It's not just Steven Novella in his bedroom publishing this website. Novella is a very busy man, he wouldn't have time for that! Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      No, Jay and Steve are brothers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      Thanks for the correction. The dude looks young for his age, fooled me. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      So between Jay, Steve, and Robert Novella it seems that we have a lot of relatives here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
      What is your source for the organization having 25 employees? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Psychologist Guy: you've claimed three times that the organization currently has exactly 25 employees... It is the core of your argument, but I don't think its true and I can't find it anywhere online... So how are you getting that number? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    1. It's on a company check website that mentioned 25 employees, unfortunately such websites appear to be blacklisted on Misplaced Pages. However, another one less specific says 20-49 employees . I believe there are 4 full time employees - Jay Novella, Perry DeAngelis, Steven Novella, Evan Bertnstein and the rest are part timers. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
      Their website lists the full time employees, there are actually probably 6 full time including the web manager Mike Lacelle. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Psychologist Guy: Those company check websites are hilariously bad, I don't know anyone who would actually take them at face value like that (we all had a good laugh when one listed the twenty odd person consulting group I was working for as "1,000-10,0000 employees"). The NESS website lists associated people but it doesn't appear to make any claim about their employment (volunteer vs paid or part vs full time). It also only lists six people total, a few of which we know have day jobs so they can't be full time employees and one (Perry DeAngelis) is almost two decades DEAD. Six doesn't seem to be any more legitimate a number than 25. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
      I have contacted someone who should know about this; hopefully they get back to me and I can let you know what the current figure of their employees is with documentation if possible. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Psychologist Guy: it has been a week, did you find out anything useful? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Not SPS This isn't a self-published source, the articles are reviewed before being published by an editorial board. The four current editors are: Steven P. Novella, David H. Gorski, Kimball C. Atwood, Mark Crislip. Guest editors can submit articles to the website, all of which are reviewed before publication. Critics of SBM are jumping a single retracted article that this is an SPS. Seems like a bad case of cherry-picking. There is no good evidence this is an SPS. Update There are two editors not four my mistake. The publisher is the New England Skeptical Society. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    That doesn't match what is currently on their website, they appear to only have two current editors who are also the main writers (thats where we get into SPS territory). One of those editors also appears to be the leader of the organization which publishes these two blogs, thats how we get even deeper into SPS territory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for the update. So they have two editors currently. If they have two editors they are not self-published. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    Who is Steven P. Novella's publisher if not Steven P. Novella? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    The link you cited says Steven Novella, MD — Founder and Executive Editor and David H. Gorski, MD, PhD — Managing Editor. They clearly review each others articles, this means it isn't self-published by a single individual. There used to be more editors in the past but some of them died. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    In this case it does appear to be self-published by a single individual, hiring your friends as editors doesn't make your blog not your blog. Also just to be clear what SBM actually say is "we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" so they clearly don't review each other's articles as a matter of course. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's much more than a single man. The SBM website is published by New England Skeptical Society, it says at SBM that they are "entirely owned and operated" by the Society. They have 25 employees currently. At SBM it doesn't claim that Steven Novella is the publisher it just says he is the "Founder and Executive Editor". If you want the exact publisher, it would be the New England Skeptical Society. As stated above, I am not convinced this fits the definition of self-publishing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    The New England Skeptical Society, of which Novella is founder and president. Void if removed (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    Their own statement was "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" Given that, it is clear that in at least some cases, people can publish directly on SBM without being reviewed before publication. - Bilby (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    • SPS, seems to be pretty cut and dried at least when it comes to Novella's pieces (remember SBM claims to be a blog, its generally presenting personal opinions... When its two expert editors want to publish their actual work they do not publish it there but in real journals). I would also note that this discussion should include the sister blog NeuroLogicaBlog. If anyone wants to disagree with me they can lay out what editorial checks and balances would apply to Novella. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      Neurologica is an obvious self-published blog authored entirely by Novella such that I do not think further discussion on that issue is necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      Science-Based Medicine and Neurologica have the exact same publisher. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
      Neurologica's writer is the same as the head of the New England Skeptical Society. It's obviously Steven Novella's personal blog, similar to Gorski's own Respectful Insolence. There's no reason to think it's not a self-published source, unlike SBM which has several editors and apparently does review of at least some of what it publishes (though apparently not all), which is why we are having this discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
      Is it two or several? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
      (How) does the following factor into your assessment that it's an SPS? In their discussion of "Why Dr. Harriet Hall’s review of Abigail Shrier’s Irreversible Damage was retracted," they note that "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing," and that they "have mechanisms of quality control" for articles that are posted without prior review, including "clarification in the comments" and "corrections to the original text of the article." Their page about outside submissions says in part "The volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using an informal peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a 'rough and ready' peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission." FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella) this feels like inaccurate or outdated info and so high time for a review. GREL, sure, but as a group blog still an SPS, with seemingly no consistent publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. Void if removed (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      I was asking Horse Eye's Back, in part because they wrote "at least when it comes to Novella's pieces" and "it does appear to be self-published by a single individual," which suggests that perhaps they don't consider it SPS for other authors. I'm wondering this for Bilby as well, as they'd previously said "I think guest authors can be assumed not to be self-published." FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      With Quackwatch we came to a similar position - articles published by the editor are self published, but articles on the site by other authors are not. I'm ok with something similar here. The only problem is that all they say is "trusted authors" can post directly. I would read that as safe to assume people who do not regularly have articles posted on the site would not be trusted, but it doesn't say only the editors are trusted to publish without prior review. Thus there may be some gray area between the two. - Bilby (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      The others are more a grey area for me, most of what we are currently using on wiki is pieces by Gorski and Novella... And we have discussions elsewhere about some guest authors like Harriet Hall not producing work of the same quality/rigor as Gorski and Novella. Its a bit of an odd situation, normally the editors are not also the authors and even when they are they're normally not the primary and most reliable authors. Its made extra odd because most of the editors/authors are subject matter experts so usable under EXPERTSPS no matter where we come down on general reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    • SPS. It's a group blog with some guest authors. Having multiple contributors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Having guest authors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Retracting a post does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. This language in WP:SPS is particularly relevant: "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". As a pro-SBM editor argued in the aborted RfC, the need for SBM in Misplaced Pages is to enable wikivoice accusations of "grift, fraud and quackery" that cannot be sourced otherwise. In other words, the reason this group blog has been elevated to a reliable source is to work around NPOV. - Palpable (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      I don't see any evidence presented to back up the claim that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." It's not even clear to me how someone would go about studying that. Do you have any evidence that it's true? (And FWIW, the question of whether something is an SPS is distinct from whether it is independent or reliable.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      That is a direct quote from WP:SPS. - Palpable (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      Yes, I'm aware of that. That someone added it to the WP:SPS text doesn't make it true, and since you're the one who chose to quote it, I'm asking you whether you have any evidence that it's true. For that matter, I'd be interested if you have thoughts about how one would go about studying it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      If you have a problem with WP:SPS the appropriate venue is WT:V - Palpable (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Comment. Do some people !voting here have a connection to the source? I see one editor referring to Steven Novella as "Steve" and another who may be affiliated with the New England Skeptical Society. I have seen some surprising interpretations of WP:COI in the past so I'm not sure if this is important, but thought it was worth noting. - Palpable (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      That is also a great point and worth investigating as part of any close here. Looks sus at the very least... Iljhgtn (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    • SPS. I personally think this source is fine to use on BLPs, but there is no way to honestly read our (convoluted, strange) SPS guidelines and not come to the conclusion that it is one. It is a small group of people most of whom publish without prior review on a blog. That they make arguments we like does not make it not a blog. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    • SPS. It's a group blog, but still a blog. Group blogs are specifically called out on WP:SPS. As noted above, SBM "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness". The fact that they later retracted one article doesn't negate that the norm for "trusted authors" (probably including regulars, and definitely including the owners of the site such as Gorski and Novella) is to publish without any editorial review of the author's work. Hence, it is clearly by and large an SPS.
    The claim that we need this to not be an SPS to effectively fight fringe and quackery is often made but I've never seen it backed up with an example of a fringe topic whose Misplaced Pages article would become credulous to pseudoscience without it. There are plenty of published and even academic sources that stuff like homeopathy is pseudoscientific, quackery, etc.; we are perfectly capable of sourcing something like "John Smith is an advocate of homeopathy, a pseudoscientific practice" in just about any case it is needed. SBM being an SPS also doesn't preclude its use in cases of WP:PARITY, as pro-fringe sources themselves are often SPS or otherwise poor. Crossroads 23:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    The germ theory denialism article relies a decent amount on SBM. There are other sources, but until recently there wasn't much critical attention towards that strain of fringe, with SBM having been 10+ years ahead of the curve on describing the contours of its recent resurgence in alt-med communities. In the past few years others such as BBC News, Science Feedback, and Snopes discussed it, though often missing details such as its direct relation to the anti-vaccination movement. Don't know how much this as example changes the overall equation, but was the first to come to mind. VintageVernacular (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    There's no shortage of reliable sources establishing that the germ theory was a huge advance in medicine and that we have basically incontrovertible proof of it for maybe thousands of diseases.
    - Palpable (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    But using any of those sources to draw conclusions about the specific claims of a particular germ theory denialist would be against policy. XOR'easter (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Reliable SPS - can be used to describe fringe theories proposed by people as discredited or as quackery, including on a bio... should not be used to describe people themselves as quacks. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
      Partial SPS - saw some of the info of arguments below from CoffeeCrumbs, and FactOrOpinon. I think the partial peer-review for some articles is... frustrating for a direct answer, but if there is peer-review on an article, it should stand as non-SPS material. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    • SPS - We see at WP:SPS that an SPS has clear rules and restrictions, such as not being used ever for a WP:BLP, absolutely never. Some seem to be arguing that this obvious SPS should for some reason be granted an exception to the clear language of "never" and should be allowed on biographies of living persons in some cases (or in many). There are many reasons why that is not allowed generally, but we have now learned that this source is essentially the soapbox of primarily only two individuals, and most importantly, is not part of a media outlet or organization or inclusive of any external (or even further internal vetting). No, rather, it is a blog. An SPS blog. One perhaps run by scientists, two scientists, but a blog, nonetheless. Again, quoting directly from WP:SPS, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." So here we have this source, which is obviously beyond WP:SKYISBLUE a blog and a self-published source, we must then at the very least clarify that it absolutely must not be used in any circumstances for BLPs going forward, by the fact that it is so clearly a SPS.Iljhgtn (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Partly SPS and partly non-SPS - The site makes it clear that some authors can publish without prior review. I consider their articles to be self-published; for example, I put Steven Novella's articles in this category. The site also says that other articles undergo prior review (e.g., "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing"). I consider the latter to be non-self-published. Examples of authors who clearly aren't regular article authors there and whose articles presumably underwent prior review: Nikolas Dietis and Kiarash Aramesh. For some articles/authors, it's not clear to me whether they fall in the SPS category or instead in the non-SPS category. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    • It seems that posts by some established contributors are self-published (as shown by links above), while guest contributors are not. So the answer to whether SBM is an SPS or not is 'yes'. SPS and not SPS. Certainly the idea that it's fully SPS has no basis. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    • SPS: As noted by other contributors, SBM openly acknowledges that it often publishes content without prior peer review. Consequently, this makes it a self-published source (SPS), with the opinions expressed representing those of individual authors. Like any other SPS, its use requires caution, especially in articles about living people or controversial topics, where ensuring accuracy and neutrality is critical. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Not SPS for reviewed articles They directly state they have editorial peer review for a number, if not most, of their articles. And only a select few don't go through that process (though appear to have after the fact review, considering the retraction, so even that seems to be in question). I will note that this appears to be yet another attempt by WP:FRINGE pushing editors to try and remove skeptical debunking media from negatively covering their fringe topics. Par for the course attempt, honestly. Silverseren 18:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
      It's a day that ends in -Y.... XOR'easter (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
      If we can't tell what is and isn't peer-reviewed and what is SPS material, is that not a problem? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
      And how we will determine which articles have been reviewed? Also note that editorial review and peer review are different things and they do not appear to make a claim of peer review. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
      Right. These "Not SPS" !votes completely fail to respond to this criticism or address this perfectly valid and critically important counterpoint other than to say things along the lines of, "Come on man, THEY SAY that some stuff is reviewed! Let's take their word on it bro! Even if they are generally a blog, they are a trusted blog." Iljhgtn (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
      Poor editorial control is a matter of reliability, but all matters of reliability don't have to be decided by classifying a source as self-published. It's accepted that other sources follow their stated editorial practices, and noone has shown why that shouldn't be the case here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Not SPS for reviewed articles They've got editors, which sets it apart from a standard SPS. Those articles that could be self published are still reliable for most purposes anyway, since they are from subject matter experts. It is also worth noting that while it should not be used for biographical details in general, even if this were to be considered a SPS that would not rule it out for comments on science, medicine, or the reception of fringe ideas, even when those ideas happen to appear on an article with a person's name at the top. - MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Not SPS by virtue of having either pre-publication review or the possibility of editorially imposed retraction. A source that is truly self-published wouldn't have either of those. XOR'easter (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Partial SPS It's a bit awkward since they do so much good work, but "our own editors, however, have earned the privilege of publishing articles without prior review, since they have a proven track record," is extremely concerning. What they describe as an editorial process for these articles, saying that "if any concerns about accuracy, fairness, or completeness come to our attention, we deal with them in a number of ways," is just not enough. The job of an editor is checking before, not just maybe cleaning up after "if," so I would have to say that the articles by their own editors have to be considered SPS until they revise this. Things they actually do vet before putting up, I consider as being subjected to an editorial process, however. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Generally not SPS, though additional scrutiny for articles by Gorski and Novella may be appropriate. Essentially per my previous comment. I'm also frankly not impressed with this RFC, and the manner the proposer starts these discussions in general. Said discussions are not quite up to the point of disruption, but I would nonetheless heavily suggest that they seek advice as to the drafting of their statements and formatting of their proposals and whether adequate prior discussion has taken place, from one of the other editors supporting their point of view. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    • SPS A group blog posting guest postings is still a group blog, and still self-published. Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella, whose blog it is), previous claims to having a robust editorial process seem unconvincing. There is no consistently documented publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and this source is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. Void if removed (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
      I can easily give examples of non-SPS that don't have a documented corrections or complaints procedure, such as here, and whether they have a documented corrections or complaints procedure seems to be more a matter of whether they're an RS rather than whether they're an SPS. Are non-SPS generally reviewed by more than two editors? It seems to me that by your favored WP:USESPS definition for SPS, the guest articles aren't SPS, as author!=publisher. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
      I am responding to suggestions that some sort of allegedly robust editorial and accountability process makes it not an SPS, which I think is a nonsense.
      My favoured definition of SPS is: if it isn't traditionally published (book, newspaper, journal) or something directly comparable structurally, it is an SPS. That is in line with USESPS since it considers virtually all websites to be self-published. It is narrow, yes, but it is also consistent across media. It is also not a reflection on reliability in other ways, as SPS vs GREL are two different concerns.
      I think the "self" in "self-published" causes much confusion, as does the consideration that "publishing" is the mere act of putting information online. A publishing company is more than a person who vets content and presses a button to place material on a website. If we consider something not self published simply because the person who writes it has to go through another person before it is published, that means celebrity social media accounts where an intern reports to a manager aren't self published, which makes a nonsense of the whole thing (ie, virtually nothing is self-published by that standard).
      I consider "science based medicine" to be a publication as a whole rather than something that can be approached article-by-article. There is no distinct, separate, traditional publishing entity, as with a newspaper, a book, or an academic journal. The owners and editors are all the same, and that they solicit other people's content to add to their own publication which they entirely control still makes it their own self-published publication, in exactly the same way as any blog with guest posts.
      I know there are difficult edge cases to the whole "what is a traditional publisher" model, but I don't think a group blog like SBM is even close to that, and considering it to be one (because editors want to use it to make BLP claims about quacks) has turned into a slippery slope IMO. Void if removed (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
      Thanks for elaborating on why you consider the SBM guest articles to be SPS, even though they're not published by the authors. Re: the rest, as others have noted, USESPS is an essay, not a policy; it should be consistent with policy rather than vice versa. I think we need an RfC to clarify what the meaning of SPS is in the WP:SPS policy, and once the RfC about grey matter from advocacy orgs is closed, I'm going to try to create one for WP:SPS, though so far I've found it tremendously difficult to figure out how to word such an RfC. WP:PUBLISHED says "Published means, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form," so that's much broader than your use of it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
      Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources is policy, not an essay. It is clear policy that blogs like Science-Based Medicine not be used for BLPs at a bare minimum. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
      I said "USESPS is an essay, not a policy" (emphasis added). It seems that you're confusing WP:USESPS (which as I noted is an essay) with WP:SPS (which is a policy). People clearly have different opinions about whether SBM is wholly SPS or only partially SPS, and if the consensus of this RfC is that it is only partially SPS, then the part that isn't SPS can be used for statements about living persons despite identifying itself as a blog. Also, the BLP policy is for statements about living persons, wherever they occur, but AFAIK, RS expert blogs can be used for DUE statements about non-persons, even if that statement appears in a biographical article. BLPSELFPUB is also an exception. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
      I'm aware. We have multiple highly debatable and contested terms, at the heart of a core policy, and radically different interpretation of them. When I raised this weeks ago I asked what I was missing, and it turned out I wasn't missing anything except a massive intractable tarpit. I think none of it is obvious. Your objection here is understandable depends very much how you interpret "author", "publisher" and the work being published, and a narrow definition restricted to natural persons means any source with two people can be argued to be not self published. But to me it remains obvious that for a self published book in which my friend writes the foreword, their content is still self published even though I acted as "editor", and I don't see a difference between a self published book with multiple contributors and a group blog with multiple contributors. And the trouble is a lot of the discussions about how we classify X or Y revolve not around what they are, but about how we want to use them, which makes it ever more messy. Personally I would like to see clarity on *why* BLPSPS exists, and define the standard clearly there, because that would inform what sort of sources are acceptable in BLPs, which is really the nub of the matter. BLPSPS feels like it might once have been shorthand for "a source who's probably had the lawyers look it over before publishing it", but that's just my impression/speculation. Absent BLPSPS, the question of whether sources like grey literature or SBM are SPS or not is largely moot. Void if removed (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Void if removed makes a great point. Literally any propaganda shop could just have TWO people and then instantly always not be SPS according to this B.S. argument being pushed for why this source is allegedly "not SPS".............. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
      So basically most local news is self-published as well then. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
      Yes, most local and hyper local news outlets are in fact self-published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Not SPS for reviewed content. Where content is clearly reviewed, definitely not SPS. Where we’re not certain, treat it with extra caution. By the way “blog” and “SPS” are not synonyms. Blog is a format that can be edited and published by reputable organisations, as with eg The Conversation or perhaps the SPLC’s Hatewatch. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
      I would agree with you that your two examples are not SPS, however I have seen people argue the contrary in both cases. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    Everything in The Conversation (website) is effectively an opinion piece and as such is actually treated like a SPS per WP:NEWSOPED. I also don't believe that any of the content in SBM is "clearly reviewed." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Horse Eye's Back makes probably the most important point of this entire discussion, which is effectively "How can we determine clearly which articles by this blog are considered reviewed, and which are not?" many, at least all published by Gorski and Novella are unquestionably 100% SPS and therefore should not touch any BLP. This excellent point has been largely or entirely ignored by the minority "Not SPS" camp which really doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on other than "If this was considered SPS then articles on XYZ subjects would get worse." Sorry. That is not an argument supported by WP policy. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    That argument is directly supported by Misplaced Pages policy. To be clear, I don't think it's an argument that anyone needs to make, but policy overrides guidelines. The only policy-based concern, even granting the application of the SPS label despite the fact that it doesn't really fit, would be about biographies of living people, but an article on a topic like germ-theory denialism isn't a biography of a living person. XOR'easter (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    Both of those links are to IAR, if thats the policy you're claiming trumps the relevant guidelines I would question your competence (especially as you appear to be calling WP:V a guideline). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    Both of those links were deliberate. Like I said, the only part of WP:V that could be pertinent here is the prohibition against using self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, but that fails to apply in two different ways. XOR'easter (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    How does "fail to apply in two different ways"? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    There seems to be a lot more than that which is pertinent, that whole section for example is pertinent not just that one sentence. Many of the "not SPS" arguments also seem to be based on WP:NEWSBLOG. As for it somehow not applying you've lost me, gonna have to explain. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Comment, several editors seem to claim something along the lines of "since Science-Based Medicine is 'reviewed' it cannot be a SPS". This claim would benefit from some proof, ideally other secondary sources validating this claim, and not just the very same source saying that it does so. Alex Jones might claim that he is reviewed and reliable etc. That claim by itself does not make it so. Also, I am not saying that Science-Based Medicine is anything like AJ in terms of reliability etc., and to be clear, this RfC is not about reliability, it is just on whether or not the SBM source is an SPS, which I think it pretty obviously is. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
      When we're looking at obviously non-self-published sources, they usually fit into one of these three models:
      1. Book publisher: External authors submit book outlines and sample chapters; if selected, the publisher contributes substantially towards editing (including developmental editing if necessary), designing, and marketing the book. The author pays for none of this and expects to get paid (at least if sales exceed a minimum threshold). If the publisher rejects the book, then the author is free to sell it to a different publisher.
      2. Newspaper: The publisher/publication hires editors and journalists. The editor assigns stories (to internal staff) or commissions them (among freelancers; alternatively, editors may accept external pitches, in the book-publisher model). The journalists write the stories; the editor and publisher/publication representatives decide whether to publish what the journalists wrote. If an employee instead of a freelancer, the journalist expects to get paid the same even if the article is canned (not published). If a freelancer, and the piece doesn't run, the freelancer is free to sell it to a different publication.
      3. Peer-reviewed journal: The (usually for-profit) publisher or (usually academic) sponsoring body creates the publication and hire editors. External authors submit whole papers; editors send the papers for external review and use that information to decide which ones to publish. The authors usually pay for publication, but this is understood to be akin to volunteer work on all sides, with the money usually coming from a third-party grant rather than the author's own funds. If the journal rejects the article, the author is free to submit it to another journal.
      I wonder if any of these models feel similar to how you imagine SBM to work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
      I have expanded on this concept in a sandbox. I wonder whether people would find that comparison useful in, say, Misplaced Pages:Identifying and using self-published works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
      I do not think any of the above apply to SBM, but I'd like to see you perhaps write up a few methods for what clearly SPS look like, and then we could compare to the above, and determine which SBM most closely resembles. Again, if you write stuff, then you are the publisher, that is by definition "self-published", which is very often the case even if not always for Science-Based Medicine...even by their own admission! Iljhgtn (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
      I don't think defining none self-published sources are the ones we give a free pass because of our social-culture background is a good way to define them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    • SPS. The website describes itself as a blog. According to WP:SPS blogs are considered SPS. In addition, SBM publishes unknown proportions of articles without prior editorial review. Therefore, SBM could only be used with attribution, because it is impossible to tell which articles passed editorial review and which did not. JonJ937 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
      @JonJ937, WP:SPS says "...self-published material such as...personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above)...are largely not acceptable as sources". Are you sure that this isn't a WP:NEWSBLOG? They have an Executive editor and a Managing editor, which are positions that we expect to find in news organizations. Someone in the prior discussion says they sometimes "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness", which is something that sometimes happens with WP:NEWSBLOGS, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
      Still only a "may", not "is", acceptable, and even then we would need to proceed with extreme caution, and almost certainly exclude BLPs from being acceptable for use by the source, see the rest of the quote you left off, "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." Iljhgtn (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
      I think by this point, we all know that you really, really, really don't want Science-Based Medicine to be considered an acceptable source. You don't need to keep pushing for your desired outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
      Normally newsblogs are run by news outlets and SBM is not an established news organization. Even if it was, per WP:NEWSBLOG we are advised to use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. So I don't think SBM should be used for factual statements, it can only be used for statements of opinions. JonJ937 (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
      Exactly. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
      Use with caution and statements of opinion are covered by other parts of the guidelines, separate from SPS. Whether a source is self-published or not doesn't mean it's reliable or unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Mostly SPS. It seems to be the Novella and Gorski show. That doesn’t make it unreliable for topics in which they are recognised experts - neurology for Novella and oncology for Gorski, apparently. That would make them reliable reviewers of any guest content on those topics too. But outside their domains of expertise, they are just blogging. Expertise in one domain does not imply expertise in another - and sometimes it’s quite the opposite, in that smart people who are accomplished in their niche start to think their opinions on everything else are equally robust (looking at you, Elon). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    • SPS. Editorial oversight is insufficiently verifiable nor independent enough to call this something other than self-published. SmolBrane (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    • SPS It seems their peer-review is only for new contributers, the staff is volunteer and they explicitly say that they like to avoid as much editing as possible. There also doesn't seem to be much of editorial indepencence from the owner (New England Skeptical Society) which is an advocacy group. Especially troubling is that the Executive Editor is also the President of NESS. NESS also has two other members of the Novella family on the board. That makes three of the five board members from the same family. This is no what oversight should look like. The group of writers is also small and probably know each other well and are of course, ideologically similar. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Partial SPS Partly unclear, partly not SPS As discussed above, it isn't clear which articles by Gorski and Novella have been reviewed and we should probably lean towards treating those ones like WP:EXPERTSPS just to be safe. They do, however, have a very clear review policy on guest articles (see ) which states volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using a peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission (emphasis added). That's pretty obviously not self-publishing. I do want to note though that this type of discussion would really benefit from more consensus on what an SPS is. Maybe some more experienced editors should consider drafting a big RfC to revise SPS with more detail on what it means in practice (probably after ARBPIA5 is over so admins have more time to focus on it)? CambrianCrab (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    @CambrianCrab:The main problem is that they currently only have two editors (one being the managing editor), so we can be relatively sure that they do not follow that policy becuase it requires a minimum of four editors to follow (the managing editor and at least three others). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Exactly. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Good catch on the number of editors, I missed that the other ones had retired/passed, but I don't really think that makes it SPS since articles are still getting reviewed. Imo, it's a red flag in terms of reliability that either the list of editors and/or review policy is out of date, but no impact towards whether or not it's SPS. CambrianCrab (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    See and that is interesting because I draw the exact opposite conclusion. I think that it could be reasonably argued that SBM is reliable, but that there is no case at all that it is somehow not SPS. When there is one person in most cases writing something and then just directly launching it to the internet on a blog, that is self-published. Which we have no way of knowing if these two editors even check one another, so it is very possible that frequently this is exactly what is happening. However, how different is it really when there are only two editors from one checking on anything. That is practically and definitionally a self-published source by every possible measure for evaluating whether or not a source as SPS or not. We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed? And again, even if that is true, if there are only two editors doing the "reviewing", that is not due diligence, that is back scratching and rubber stamping. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    To be clear, I don't think SBM is unreliable, just that outdated pages would be a red mark towards reliability. Whether or not pages or up-to-date has nothing to do with if something is self-published.
    I don't really follow the rest of your argument. We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed? Yeah we generally take sources at their word on their own policies unless we have reason to question it. SBM is a relatively long-running and well-known outlet run by experts in the topic area. I don't see any reason we should think they're lying about their policy. CambrianCrab (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Those are fair point, review is review and it seems that at least some are seemingly getting reviewed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Not SPS. What someone means by "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" is "these writers aren't dumbasses and we trust them" with an implied "if an issue is found after the piece is out, we'll put out a correction", not "these people are infallible and we will never correct them because reasons". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
      So they are essentially "Not SPS" because they claim to sometimes not be SPS. Got it. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      The purpose of oversight is due diligence, not dumbass detection. SmolBrane (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Partly SPS and generally unsuitable for contentious topics on Misplaced Pages. While SBM is valuable for some scientic topics, it self-described as blog with inconsistent editorial oversight, allowing authors like Novella and Gorski to pubish without review. Gorski, who often takes strong positions, is a polarizing figure, and his articles often reflect a bias and lack of nuance. For controversial topics or biographies, more neutral and independently vetted sources would better meet Misplaced Pages standards. IntrepidContributor (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    • SPS As I've said before on previous RfCs, this is explicitly a self-published source. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Not SPS unless Gorski and Novella wrote the piece: SBM is one of the best sources for coveraging WP:FRINGE and WP:FRINGE activism we have and I'll note some, certainly not all, wanting to make it a SPS tend to have, at best, a WP:PROFRINGE attitude . Simply put, there is editorial oversight of contributors. We don't know if there is for Gorski and Novella, and should act accordingly and treat them as subject matter experts outside BLPs, but we do know that there is for other contributors. I'm somewhat concerned with the shape of this RFC - we have longstanding consensus that SBM is a reliable source and not an SPS. Instead of challenging that, this RFC was opened to challenge specifically the SPS designation in a seemingly roundabout way to question it's reliability.
    I also want to note that per WP:PARITY In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed. - so while I still maintain it's not an SPS, the standards for WP:FRINGE allow non-peer reviewed sources on fringe topics as long as they're reliable, so an SPS designation should not, unless we also agree it's not reliable, be used to go a purge of its use. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    • SPS I think it's important that the arguments about whether Science Based Medicine is SPS or not are removed from our own assessment of the topics they’ve covered, otherwise we infuse topic bias on a process matter and risk floating away from the core question of this RfC. SBM is SPS simply because of the lack of editorial oversight and independence needed for subject matter of medicine.--Evathedutch (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Not SPS when it's "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" it means that you have to become a trusted author first before you can publish without prior review, i.e., the editorial oversight comes from becoming a trusted author. Banedon (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      Editorial oversight means reviewing content prior to publishing to ensure the content being published is factual, etc. It's not about who the author is, it's about the substance of the content. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      Are you suggesting that if I write a letter to the editor of some local newspaper, and it is published, then the newspaper is a SPS? Banedon (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Banedon If it was published without review? Yes. A website that published unreviewed content is not a publisher, it's a self-publishing platform. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Are you suggesting that the editors of the local newspaper basically do nothing? Banedon (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I think you are using the wrong analogy. If you can publish directly, based on your own decision to publish, without anyone else reading or vetting your writing before it appears, you are self publishing. If an editor checks the material and approves it before publication, it is not self publishing. SBM allow some editors to publish without checking or vetting the material before it is published, as you akcnowledged, so in those cases it is an SPS. - Bilby (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      At the very least anything written by Gorski and Novella there seems to be strong consensus that at minimum those articles are very clearly SPS. In other cases, I think it is dubious at best, since Gorski and Novella run the show and whether or not any real "editorial review" is happening on this blog appears to be very, very much in doubt. The analogy of a "local newspaper" and a blog is not actually analogous, and it is weird that an exception was ever carved out for this blog for it to somehow not be considered SPS. Thankfully it appears as if a new consensus has emerged as a result of this RfC in favor of SBM now being considered SPS, or at minimum, anything published by Gorski or Novella absolutely is without a shadow of a doubt SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Bilby: That's where we disagree. By letting you publish directly, the editor is saying they trust you to write content that doesn't need to be edited - and that means it's not SPS. In fact, one could argue it's a higher bar than having to read and vet the writing. Banedon (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      By publishing directly, it is by definition self publishing. By being trusted to publish directly, it means you are seen as reliable. The two are not mutally exclusive. - Bilby (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      We are all making assumptions about "what it means" because SBM is not transparent enough about its editorial policies. It pales in comparison to journals that tackle many of the same topics. This is precisely why it's SPS. Evathedutch (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      Thats right. This "Not SPS" argument is without merit. SBM is not a journal, it is a blog and is 100% SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind. Banedon (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Are you suggesting that they post "bogus content"? If not, how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      "Bogus content" is related to an argument about reliability. Which some contributors to this RfC have mistakenly believed is part of this discussion, it is not. This RfC is on the question of whether or not SBM is SPS, which it so obviously is. Therefore, my response was simply reframing that we are not arguing about whether or not the content is "bogus" at all, instead, we are simply discussing whether or not the "editorial review" which some allege occurs at SBM (with scant evidence), is done by the very same people who publish content (Gorski and Novella).
      Given the self-publication by Gorski/Novella, which evidently is what happens, then the source is a self-published source, and "bogus" doesn't even enter into the conversation. Or at the very minimum, any article published by SBM by Gorski/Novella ought to 100% be considered SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Banedon wrote: "If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind," and you responded "If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks."
      As best I can tell, you did not respond to my second question, so I'll ask it again: If , how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote?
      Just so you're clear, the current WP:SPS characterization "self-published" explicitly refers to reliability. When you say "we are not arguing about whether or not the content is "bogus" at all," that's not entirely true. It's relevant to whether some of the content on the site is not self-published. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      You've moved the goal posts, Banedon is arguing that none of the content on the site is self-published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I know that Banedon's !vote was "Not SPS," but I interpreted Banedon's comment to Iljhgtn (who claimed that SBM is "100% SPS") as a point about outside contributors to SBM (outdated description here). Maybe I misinterpreted. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I think in the case of Gorski and Novella there is absolutely no question that it is SPS, but I am more and more wondering how much "editorial review" actually happens even in other cases. From the link you provided if we review, "How to submit a guest article: Anyone is welcome to submit content to ScienceBasedMedicine.org, regardless of credentials. We’ll publish anything we think is interesting, relevant, well-written, and, above all, scientifically sound. (The less editing we need to do, the better.) The volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using a peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission. Please embed citations as weblinks rather than footnotes or endnotes, it saves us a lot of time. How to submit a guest article for publication on SBM Submit your article by email directly to Dr. Gorski (SBMeditor@icloud.com), the managing editor . If he thinks it has potential, he will distribute it to the editorial staff for further consideration. Please note that none of the editors are paid for our work on SBM, and most of us have demanding day jobs. That means that, more frequently than we would like, the process is less than optimal and not as fast as writers (or we) would like. (For instance, if Dr. Gorski is working against a grant application deadline, you might not hear for a while, because trying to keep his lab afloat trumps his extracurricular activities on SBM.)" There are claims that "at least three of our editors evaluate the submission", but again, I don't trust this, but beyond that, this only applies (if they even do it) to guest submissions, which can be Gorski may post even if he just thinks its "interesting" and "The less editing we need to do, the better" (all well and good, but again, doesn't sound like much "editorial review" is happening even in the case of guest submissions... But again, that is only part of the discussion. The other part that has overwhelming consensus at this point is that anything from SBM authored by Gorski or Novella is SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      No offense, but you just posted a bunch of text that once again didn't answer my question. Here it is again: If , how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote?
      I'm not looking for your personal opinion about SBM, as you've already made that clear in your many comments. I'm not looking for your opinion about the RfC consensus. I'm trying to understand your response to Banedon. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      His comment was, "If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind.". I was not in any way focused at all on the "bogus content" aspect that you are laser focused on, I was refuting the fact that obviously I, Iljhgtn, cannot get stuff published on their page, but that if I could sure, it would not be a self-published source perhaps. Though it is a ridiculous point he made and that is why I am citing the direct text, instead of offering opinion. If that does not answer your query then I am exasperated and we can both just move on from this odd reading comprehension and/or semantics confused discourse we've been having. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yes, I think we're talking past each other, and it's fine with me for both of us to step away from it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      But you're not Gorski or Novella, are you? That kind of renders the entire point moot. Obviously you can't publish bogus content, because you're not trusted, ergo, there is editorial control and it is not SPS. Banedon (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Contributions by the editors are SPS. Definitely contributions by Gorkski, Novella, and the other listed editors are clearly WP:SPS by both the letter and spirit of WP:SPS. By the letter of WP:SPS I don't think contributions by other people are SPS but I do have serious doubts about the editorial policy, and thus the overall reliability, of SBM if they're allowing the editors to regularly publish articles without fact-checking. Loki (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Not SPS. This is a web publication of the New England Skeptical Society, not the personal vlog of Randy from Boise. Just because it's called a blog doesn't mean it's a personal, self-published blog. The premise that organizations publishing stuff written by members of their organizations amounts to self-publishing seems like it can't help but lead to something like, "the LA Times publishes stuff written and reviewed by members of the LA Times so the LA Times self publishes itself". Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society whose leadership overlaps with that of the blog and is largely restricted to a single family, the Novellas. The same man, Steven Novella, is in charge of both so there is no independence here that would make it not self published. I would also note that if the Washington Post ever fired all its professional staff and started hosting stuff by Jeff Bezos and his buddies we would treat it as a SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Did you consider the editorial that Bezos wrote in the Post (re: his decision to block the Post's endorsement of Harris) to be SPS? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yes, but note that we already treat editorials and opinion pieces as SPS so its a bit of a moot point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      That's news to me. Are you saying that an editorial or opinion piece cannot be used unless it either falls under EXPERTSPS or BLPSELFPUB? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Its a bit (some would say a lot) wider than that because WP:ABOUTSELF also applies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I don't understand how ABOUTSELF comes into play, since an editorial / opinion piece is typically representing the view of a single person, though I guess it's occasionally written by more than one, as with something from an editorial board. But even assuming that ABOUTSELF is in play, that says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that we cannot use an opinion piece or editorial in the NYT to make a statement —attributed to the author(s) — about a living person whose relationship to the author(s) is third-party. If that's the case, I think there's a lot of WP content that's in breach of this. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      There might be some (wikipedia is full of violations of any rule you care to name), but most of those uses are as primary (under aboutself) not as third-party sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Whether it's primary is distinct from whether it's self-published. Many opinion pieces are used as third-party sources for attributed opinions about living people. Here's an example: in the Trump and fascism article, the text "Following the January 6 Capitol attack, Robert Paxton, who had initially resisted calling Trump a fascist, announced that the label now seemed necessary," sourced to this opinion piece by Paxton, which is a third-party source for a statement about Trump. Are you saying that you think that text must be removed because the source is SPS? WP:RSEDITORIAL certainly doesn't say that all opinion pieces should be treated as SPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      You argue they're amateurs and unqualified to write the coverage that they do; that doesn't on its own bear on whether they're self-published or not. I've limited the scope of my !vote here to concluding they aren't self-published. Whether they are a reliable publication that isn't self-published or an unreliable publication that isn't self-published is a different question. As for Novella heading NESS and Science-based Medicine—um, well, yeah, duh. The latter is an organ of the former. I'm not aghast that the editor in chief of the LA times runs the LA Times, or that Alfred A. Knopf ran Alfred A. Knopf. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      No, I'm arguing that The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society. The LA Times is owned by Patrick Soon-Shiong, the editor in chief of the LA times is Terry Tang. A book by Alfred A. Knopf Sr. or Blanche Knopf published by Alfred A. Knopf would be considered SPS for wikipedia purposes, that isn't groundbreaking thats totally normal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      To add to this, being an editor and running an interest organization are (and should be) two very different roles. I can't imagine the director of the National Association for People that Can't Edit and Hate Editorial Integrity (NAPCEHEI) would make a good editor in chief for the org's publication. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I said, You argue they're amateurs; you said, No, I'm arguing that The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society (emphasis added). I'm not seeing how I've mischaracterized what you believe about their qualifications when you immediately repeated it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      There is a distinct difference between the LA Times and SBM in that it would appear as if at SBM just Gorski can write something or just Novella and then publish it. That is different that the LA Times or other non-SPS in that those have editorial review by other staff. These staff are known and are publicly verifiable as they have publicly findable jobs as seen here.
      At minimum, it must be acknowledged that material written by Gorski and Novella is SPS. For the record, that is also not saying it is not reliable (as several commenters above continue to be confusing), just that Gorski and Novella work from SBM is SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Forbes.com is owned by Forbes Media LLC. Because it is owned by a company, does that mean we should not regard it as self published? In the case of Forbes.com it is not the ownership that matters, but the ability of people to publish directly as contributors without editorial review. With SBM, I would argue that it is also not the ownership that matters, but whether or not people can publish directly without editorial review. - Bilby (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Forbes.com includes content both from Forbes staff and from Forbes contributors. So some of the Forbes.com content is SPS and some isn't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Presumably, that is because the Forbes staff material is published under editorial control. It is not the ownership that decides if something is an SPS, but the process by which material becomes available after it has been written. - Bilby (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      That was my point, as it seemed you were claiming that we should regard all of Forbes.com as self-published. Why did you conclude that the subset of SBM material that does undergo prepublication editorial review is nonetheless SPS? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I've never assumed that material on SBM that undergoes editorial review is SPS. My only concern is that the argument that the publication belongs to the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not SPS, is not sound. I think you can reasonably argue that some material published by SBM does not under go editorial review prior to publication, and that some material is therefore self published, or you can argue that all material undergoes pre-publication editorial review, and therefore SBM is not an SPS at all. But I don't think you can argue that SBM is owned by the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not an SPS. - Bilby (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I should have been clearer. I was asking because in your Dec.6 !vote, you said that you consider SBM to be wholly SPS (or at least, you didn't qualify your SPS response). FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I think I have been fairly consistent, but to explain my reasoning: it is clear that trusted authors are allowed to self publish on the site, but what is not clear is who these authors are. We khave been assuming that this means the editors can publish directly, and we have assumed that guest contributors probably can not, but we do not know if all guest editors are not trusted enough, nor do we know where the authors that sit between those two come. Given that, rather than say "partial SPS" but not know who is self publishing, I think it is safer to say "SPS" but realise that there may be exceptions. From a BLP perspective I prefer to errr on the side of caution. - Bilby (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • SPS A group blog where the participants can publish without review is a SPS, even if it calls certain people editors and sometimes deletes things (if that were the standard, even much of social media wouldn't be a SPS, because sometimes those sites have deleted stuff like COVID misinformation). I also do not think accepting occasional outside submissions consistutes "review" to the degree those posts become not-SPS. Nor do I think being "published" by an organization the blog authors *also* control consititutes sufficient independence, as some have claimed. I think sometimes the authors can be cited under the WP:SPS subject-mattere expert exception, but only in the specific area of their academic speciality (e.g. neurology, surgery and oncology, family practice medicine) but not in other areas. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:09, 10 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.

    RfC: Bild

    What is the reliability of the German tabloid Bild, including its website Bild.de?

    1. Generally reliable
    2. Additional considerations apply
    3. Generally unreliable
    4. Deprecated

    Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    Responses (Bild)

    • Option 3/4 Bild is a sensational tabloid, that according to Foreign Policy magazine, archived link, routinely violates basic journalistic ethics and is regularly sanctioned for it by German Press Council, being sanctioned by them 26 times in 2021 alone. As evidenced by this piece in Deutsche Welle their process of verification and fact checking is below the standard expected for a reliable source. For those looking for a more comprehensive account of the newspaper and its ethics, I've found this freely accessible short book (less than 100 pages, including references) in German from 2023 on the topic (which can translated using google translate's PDF translate feature) Some quotes from the book (in translation) Driven by a special editorial culture ("We are tabloids after all") and driven by editorial decisions in which sales interests take precedence over media ethics, articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers. ... The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary... EDIT: another quote BILD's journalism does not focus on the task of providing information, but rather on examining a suitable fact for its emotionality and framing it with commentary.} Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
      As an addendum: here are some other examples, including a fake story about migrants committing sexual assault in 2017 , as well as taking scientists quotes out of context to further an agenda regarding COVID during the pandemic Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Option 3 - per Hemiauchenia. I'll add an argument that's weaker but nevertheless entertaining and somewhat indicative, which is that Bild's infamy is so well-established that an acclaimed book presenting a lightly-fictionalized denunciation of its practices is a common inclusion of university German language, German literature and media studies courses. There hasn't been any argument made, however, that our current usage of Bild is so pervasive a problem that deprecation is necessary. signed, Rosguill 22:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Option 3/4. I don't think we should cite Bild anywhere on Misplaced Pages. It's a sensationalist tabloid like the Daily Mail or National Enquirer.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    • 3 at least, and I wouldn't say no to 4. This is one of the weakest sources in the region, though I could see it being cited for special purposes, like examples of "headlinese" that aren't in English, etc. But at this point I don't think it's even usable for WP:ABOUTSELF material; if they claimed something as simple as X number of employees, I would strongly suspect it of being an exaggeration.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    • 3 I honestly have no idea how one could even come to approach the idea that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but if previous discussions haven't been enough, I suppose it's worth piling on. Sources should not be considered reliable until they prove themselves to be. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    • 3/4 Bild is a tabloid and well known for its lack of fact checking and heavy bias. The closest english speaking equivalent would be things like the Daily Mail. In my opinion broadly unusable. Magisch 10:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    • bad 2 for miscellaneous or political content, unusable for the private lives of BLP and particularly recently deceased people it's rather rare that they publish straightforward misinformation, particularly when considering the volume of content published. Having said that, they have a nasty habit of violating both journalistic and actual ethics (and allegedly breaking the law), so using them is probably broadly unwise. There are some rare cases where they can be useful, but as far as usable sources go, they are on the very lowest end IMO, being a tabloid in an area with an otherwise strong media environment. In addition, there doesn't seem to be a significant issue to justify depreciation. Note: this applies to Bild only, other sources owned by that publisher are usually a lot more reliable, even if I personally consider much of what they believe to be rather questionable FortunateSons (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Option 2, provisionally, since no examples of publishing falsehoods and misinformation have been provided so far in this thread and I couldn't find them in the article. See my comments in the discussion section. Alaexis¿question? 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Option 3, I don't see the need for deprecation. Bild is tabloid journalism, and falls far short of the high quality sources that BLP calls for. It shouldn't be anywhere near anything contentious to do with a living, or recently deceased, person. When it comes to it reliability in other areas how other reliable sources view Bild is important, I suggest reading the work by Prof Lilienthal posted by Hemiauchenia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Option 4 Tabloid journalism is generally incompatible with the Misplaced Pages project. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Option 3, there even exist a German blog whose aim is mainly to publicize errors of Bild – Bildblog. But see my comment in the discussion section below. --Cyfal (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Option 3 per ActivelyDisinterested. The Kip 05:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Option 3 so no change. Most of our current usage of it seem to be interviews which per WP:ABOUTSELF would be fine. I see no evidence they’re fabricating interviews. Probably usable for mundane things like sports (they seem to cover that a lot). For any contentious anything should not be cited - but they seem to get a lot of interviews with notable people, so we can keep using that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Option 3/4 per Hemiauchenia... tabloids in general post sensational info that is poorly fact-checked and rife with errors. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
      it's snowing 3 Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Option 3/4. Academic coverage frequently treats it as an archetypal example of a publisher of misinformation. See eg. --Aquillion (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Option 3/4: Tabloids usually fail reliability. It seems this one is no different. ToThAc (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3/4 (depending on whether anyone can make a case that there's some e.g. ABOUTSELF use we would still want them for — but I doubt we should be using them 1,800 times, as Hemiauchenia says we are at present) per Aquillion and Hemiauchenia; as RSP says, a reliable source "has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction"; BILD has the opposite reputation. -sche (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discussion (Bild)

    Bild is currently used over 1,800 times on the English Misplaced Pages per bild.de HTTPS links HTTP links. It is already currently listed on RSP as "generally unreliable". This RfC was prompted by a discussion at WT:RSP, where a user questioned the lack of participation in previous discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    I asked the initial question at WT:RSP since I don't like when we classify sources based on vibes. So I'll play the role of the devil's advocate. I have very little knowledge of the German media landscape and I'm open to arguments in both directions. The sources provided by u:Hemiauchenia make two claims:

    • articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers." ... "The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary" - this should have no bearing on reliability, unless they actually published falsehoods about said celebrities
    • In 2018 Bild fell for a hoax. Someone leaked emails supposedly between a major political party in Germany and a made-up Russian online figure. Bild published an article based on it. This is definitely a failure of their editorial process but they definitely did not do it on purpose and when this became known clarified that the whole thing was a hoax. I don't think that one such issue that happened 6 years ago should automatically lead to GUNREL status. Many other RS fell for hoaxes . Alaexis¿question? 13:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is a massive understatement of what Lilienthal 2023 cited by Hemiauchenia actually says. The better part of the text's 92 pages is a critique of Bild's practices in a systematic fashion, summarized in its introduction (translated): From the perspective of critical readers, BILD is constantly chipping away at its own credibility.
    If that's not enough, the paper includes an 8-page bibliography of other extensive studies of der Bild. It's silly to act like what should decide this source's reliability is some "gotcha" wiki-sleuthing based on recent scandal--we have the verdict of mountains of peer-reviewed research. Make a case based on that, as others have. signed, Rosguill 14:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm just surprised that given the reputation of the source and all these analyses no one has come up with a examples of inaccuracies other than the 6-year old hoax. Unfortunately I don't speak German and so can't read Lilienthal's report. Alaexis¿question? 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Hemiauchenia, I've managed to translate it using Google Translate, thanks!
    These are the key points from the foreword
    1. articles are published that hurt those affected and (can) irritate readers
    2. BILD is running campaigns against political opponents – against Angela Merkel, Karl Lauterbach, Annalena Baerbock, to name just three examples
    3. is said to have felt personally affected . Because he is co-owner of such a property in Berlin. He then prompted BILD editor-in-chief Reichelt to write extremely critical reports about Adidas and the rent freeze
    4. A woman who says she suffered under former editor-in-chief Reichelt is suing the German media group in the USA because she felt let down by her former employer
    5. A particularly drastic case occurred in early 2017, when the Frankfurt edition reported on sexual assaults by men with a migrant background on visitors to a prominent nightlife district - completely fabricated by people the editorial team trusted without checking. The embarrassment was great, and the retraction in the paper itself was inevitable.
    I think I understand the issues with it better now. Would you say that this is a reasonably complete summary or is there something else I missed?
    In my view #5 is most relevant for the assessment of reliability. They certainly didn't a good job as journalists but it doesn't seem like they fabricated stuff and in the end they published a retraction which is what we expect from sources. #2 and #3 show that it's clearly a very WP:BIASED source. I'm still not sure it satisfies the WP:GUNREL criteria. Alaexis¿question? 23:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    Actually the example you gave after your !vote about Bild's campaign against Christian Drosten is pretty convincing. Alaexis¿question? 23:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not really sure what is meant by classif sources based on vibes, but if it means assessing the reputation of a source based on other reliable sources, that's kinda what we're required to do by policy. WP:SOURCE says reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as does WP:RS multiple times. No reputation, no evidence of reliability. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Because of Bild's outstanding importance and high circulation, politicians, celebrities and sportspeople often give Bild interviews. I consider these texts as generally reliable, in contrast to Bild's other articles. I've checked some of the bild.de HTTPS links HTTP links, most of them belong to the first category. --Cyfal (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

    Nigerian newspapers

    WP:RSNP has nothing about Nigerian newspapers, but references a project-list of them which seems rather too optimistic. It seems to me that these newspapers are filled with completely unreliable promopieces. You can see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Martina Ononiwu, where a completely unknown Nigerian/French person supposedly got a US-only award from President Biden. Not a single source outside Nigeria confirms this, there seems to be no reason at all why she would have received this, but it got reported by Vanguard, Guardian, Nation, Roving Naija, The Sun...

    We had similar issues with e.g. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Musa Muhammed (entrepreneur), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Omogboye Saheed Ayodeji, and probably many others which I can't find as easily.

    Isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers which routinely publish such completely unreliable promo pieces as articles? Fram (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    The problem is that if you deprecated these newspapers, there'd be basically no usable Nigerian sources left, which hardly seems good in terms of attempting to fix Misplaced Pages's coverage biases. I do agree that it is standard practice at a lot of Nigerian newspapers to run effectively undisclosed promotional material, and it seems good to note this somewhere on RSP, but I think deprecating them outright would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Here's a relevant BBC News story about the issue from 2015 . Apparently Nigerian newspapers also regularly suppress stories due to advertisier pressure. Another interesting story from 2020 which says realised that their top quality journalism or influential columnists alone weren’t going to win the battle for eyeballs. Enter “viral content” and clickbait headlines. Press releases were repackaged as news stories, fact-checking and verification became redundant. Aanu Adeoye says, “the traditional gatekeepers of journalism (newspapers) in this country don’t give a hoot about the quality of what they’re churning out daily.” In a few years, stories from Nigeria’s top newspapers looked as hurriedly written as stories from blogs. It had become a game of who could break the news the fastest and who could churn out the most news. Nigerian traditional media beat the upstarts at their own game and occupied spots at the top of Nigeria’s most visited websites. But the true cost of this pyrrhic victory was quality control. If even mainstream Nigerian newspapers can't be trusted as factual sources then it's not clear what Nigerian sources can be trusted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    I really don’t get arguments like this one. How does it help Misplaced Pages to use unreliable sources from countries with more limited media landscapes? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    One of Misplaced Pages and the WMF's goals is to be "diverse" and to lessen systemic bias to western nations. Limiting coverage to Western liberal democracies will obviously prevent that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    How does it help the English Misplaced Pages to eliminate practically all English-language sources for about 1 billion English-speakers? There's not an easy answer, here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Much of the editor population vastly underestimates how much of our reader base comes from these regions of the globe.
    Formally deprecating sources is a last resort for widely misused stuff like the Daily Mail (arguably part of the issue there was the perceived credibility of a mainstream Western paper subject to strict British libel laws). Simply following and enforcing existing P&G should address the issues adequately.
    Furthermore, if one of these Nigerian papers were to come under new and improved management or ownership, I doubt WP would take notice with any real celerity.
    RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is a problem with virtually every newspaper published in Nigeria and India. We cannot simply deprecate all news from two of the largest English speaking countries in the world. Or, we could, but we would get called very racist for doing so. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    There is nothing racist about applying basic standards of reliability to sources. If there are newspapers from Nigeria, or India, or the US, or ... which don't have these issues, then they will be treated as reliable sources. But we shouldn't be afraid to label a source as being unreliable just because someone might shout "racism" without good reason. Allowing unreliable sources just because we want to have more articles about a country is probably the worst thing we could do. Fram (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think the damage to the encyclopedia that comes from effectively banning most coverage of two of the most populous countries in the world outweighs the benefit here. We are biased enough towards the West as is. I do not think there are major newspapers in either country without these practices. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Its not bias to refuse to allow falsehoods, it is racist (to my mind) to give them exceptional status. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    If it results in a racially biased coverage how is that not racist? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Becasue we allow other African news media, its just that we do not allow, falsehoods. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    It still has a disparate impact in a racially biased manner. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    No its not, it is based upon lack of truth, no one here has raised race once apart from you. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Whatever the intention banning the entire media ecosystem of a developing country of 230 million people (plus India's 1.43 billion because we would ban them for the same reason) and making our encyclopedia irrelevant to large swathes of the non western world would have a biased outcome - doesn't matter the intention if it gets you the same result. Is that a sacrifice we are willing to accept? Because if so we need to stop pretending we have any interest in "combatting systemic bias". PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, in my opinion it hasn’t been shown that reliability issues already aren’t being handled at in a nationally disparate manner. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    if these sources want to be accepted as reliable on Misplaced Pages, they should give up their practice of publishing paid news and writing puff pieces for anyone willing to pay. - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    If we are going to be banning every single news source of a country of 230 million, then we should be very aware we are doing it. And possibly throw out all the project's virtue signaling over countering systemic bias along with it, if we decide to go that route. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    We should allow perpetuation of misinformation on Misplaced Pages because it would be racist not to? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    It would disproportionately affect the writing and sourcing on articles and topics on highly populated non-Western formerly colonized countries. That’s pretty obviously racist whether it is the right or wrong thing to do (disparate impact or something analogous). If we do it, we will get called racist for it. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it but it is reality. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    It would affect them by prohibiting bad information from bad sources to be included. Sounds good. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Should we do the same and ban all news from India? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    We should ban all shitty sources. If that wipes out all of India’s news (I’d sure be surprised) then yes. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    I can't see how it would be preferable to have our coverage of non-Western developing countries be dominated by propaganda, paid-promotion, tabloids, and un-fact-checked reports... JoelleJay (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    No one is suggesting an either-or dichotomy. We should start by enforcing existing policies with regard to usage of these sources on a case by case basis. Mass deprecation was merely an impulsive suggestion someone made somewhere above, and would self-evidently be overkill unless all other options had been exhausted, which they haven’t. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think this claim should be presumed true but not notable. The PVSA award is given out annually by any number of authorized NGOs to their own volunteers without any US government involvement, and it does come with a form letter in the president's name. Ononiwu apparently received hers from Innovate Africa Corp. There's no reason any US press to write up such a thing, and there doesn't seem to be a public database of honorees. Note however that Ononiwu should not have been eligible for the award because she's not a US citizen or permanent resident. I guess these newspapers went along with exaggerating the award's prestige, but I don't see it as a major problem for reliability on facts. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think it could be worth writing some guidance along the same lines as WP:NEWSORGINDIA, though I'm not sure it rises to the point of a general deprecation yet. Reuters Institute report here might also be helpful in developing such guidance. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    As with WP:NEWSORGINDIA Nigerian news sources are full of undisclosed advertorials. It's a common practice, so editors need to be cautious with anything that uses promotional language. Their use for establishing notability needs to be seen in a similar light.
    Formally deprecating all Nigerian news media just isn't an option, in the same way deprecating all India news media with the same issue isn't an option. I would support changing the language of WP:NEWSORGINDIA, so it highlights the same issue in other countries not just India. I doubt this is an issue limited to those markets, and one that will likely become more of an issue everywhere with the difficulties newsedia currently face. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    I recall at least one instance of them churning out AI generated puff pieces e.i daily times ng puff piece about Pranav Adani and GPTzero analysis of first 5000 words of it. Oddly enough Daily Times NG is listed as a "generally reliable" source for Nigerian topics at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources.- Ratnahastin (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    There's evidence that their promotional articles aren't reliable. But I've yet to see anyone present evidence here that other kinds of news from these sources are unreliable. Does anyone here have evidence of that? If not, I don't see why we'd deprecate these Nigerian news sources in their entirety, and instead I support Hemiauchenia's having added "Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability" to RS/P, perhaps adding something like "especially for promotional news articles." FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Since the PROMO issues seem to be localized particularly to biographies, perhaps we could have guidance similar to what we use at NCORP that calls for heightened Nigerian source scrutiny re: independence when it comes to BLPs. Deprecating them just for BLPs might also be an option. JoelleJay (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I refuse to comment on the instances that led to this proposal because they can happen on a platform with the format adopted by Misplaced Pages. However,  I oppose the proposal to deprecate all Nigerian newspapers on English Misplaced Pages. Applying a blanket judgment based on issues with a few outlets among many is unjust and undermines Misplaced Pages's inclusivity. Nigeria's media landscape, shaped by its diverse population of over 500 languages and 300 ethnic groups, plays a critical role in democracy and accountability.
    "While no media is flawless, treating all Nigerian newspapers as unreliable disregards their contributions and efforts to uphold global standards. Media reliability concerns exist worldwide, yet discussion of this nature is sensitive and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than through blanket exclusions. Adopting this precedent ensures fairness and avoids marginalizing voices from the Global South.
    "I recommend individual evaluations of Nigerian newspapers, involving local expertise and ongoing monitoring, to maintain Misplaced Pages's mission of inclusivity and accuracy. A nuanced approach will preserve diversity and strengthen the platform's credibility."Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Yes banning falsehoods is a sacrifice I am willing to make, be they from White people black people, or yellow people. As I said about Fiox and the Daily Myth, if you do not want to be accused of telling lies, there is a simpler solution, do not tell them. This is my last response here with a firm not reliable. Prove me wrong and I will change my mind, but it has to be proof and not emotive appeals to (so-called) fairness. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    or yellow people
    Uhhh.... JoelleJay (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Obviously meant as in "persons of any color, including colors in which persons don’t exist" and not a reference to the antique Western epithet for East Asians ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's not "obvious", even to those of us who have interacted with Slatersteven enough to presume he wasn't intending to use a racial epithet. JoelleJay (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    I'm against this. Nigerian sources, like all sources, are entitled to be evaluated one by one. EEpic (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Arbitrary break (Nigerian newspapers)

    I've gone ahead and created a new section covering Nigerian news organisations at RSP Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Nigerian_news_organisations. It's a bit stubby at the moment but it's at least a start. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources. —A. B. 20:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Sure, but this is by Nigerian editors who ranking Nigerian sources relative to each other. This is different from the standards that non-Nigerian Misplaced Pages editors have for sources. There are serious issues with quality of Nigerian media across the board, as elaborated on in this article: . It's definitely useful to tell the relative quality of Nigerian sources though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    From direct experience, I have not observed Nigerian editors to be somehow inferior to non-Nigerian editors. They’ve been especially insightful in the several Nigeria-related AfDs I’ve participated in. I invite you to go through the more experienced Nigerian editors’ edit histories and see for yourself. —A. B. 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not saying that their judgment is poor or that Nigerian editors are inferior in any way, but that there are issues with Nigerian press across the board, such as low press freedom that is very different from say, news sources in Western Europe and North America, which should be kept in mind with evaluating their content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I encourage you to engage with folks at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria as you develop guidance on Nigerian media. A. B. 21:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I second this. I conversion about Nigeria WP should not be done without Nigerians editors involvement. Just because you found something wrong in some sources that doesn’t give you the right to assume all is bad. I can literally give you examples of where BBC published falsehood, in 2024! So let’s listen to these editors as they are more familiar with these sources. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Reliable sources can churn out a lot of rubbish once in a while. No matter what anyone says, the likes of Vanguard, Guardian, Daily Times, Punch, Daily Independent, The Sun, etc, would always be notable relating to general issues about Nigeria. Some weeks back, a state in Nigeria held their governorship election. These media houses in question were the source of verified information about the election. When a political appointment is made by the president, it is the same media houses that Misplaced Pages editors would use to establish the claim. If we make them unreliable, it means we are putting an end to Nigerian contents on English Misplaced Pages. These media houses will dish out promotional materials whenever they want and we can do nothing about it (it is business for them). All we can do as Wikipedians is to speedy norminate articles for deletion if they are not notable to be on the Wiki. The major issue we are having now is a result of a loophole in the notability criteria. GNG should not be used ALONE to establish notability. SuperSwift (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    If these media houses(e.g The Daily Times) are churning out AI generated puff pieces then we should indeed add a cautionary clause in the guideline that care must be taken when using these sources to establish notability, especially at venues such as AfD. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    GNG still works. The sources have to be independent. What this means is that in the case of Nigerian media, it's tricky but necessary to try and determine if a particular report is independent of the subject.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Judging articles on a case-by-case basis is something we (Nigerian editors) are already doing and believe it or not, we’re doing a damn good job at it. Deprecating these sources means that articles on Nigerian topics would be deleted in batches——thousands, if I might add——and this doesn’t necessarily reflect the systemic bias we are supposed to be fighting.
    There are tells that give off a sponsored/paid article and every Nigerian editor in good standing already knows this and by this, I vehemently disagree with Hemiauchenia that Nigerian editors are not able to distinguish a reliable source from an unreliable source.
    Also, I think sometimes, what we consider as “poor journalism” (in the Western standard) are just Nigerian journalist (correctly) using Nigerian English to write articles that it seems like it is promo. This does not mean that undisclosed paid journalism does not happen but sometimes, we confuse the two. So, this is me opposing any form deprecations as this will have unintended consequences. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    If this is something Nigerian editors are already doing then what's wrong in codifying this on RSP? Indian sources engage in same practice and we have a section on RSP that tells users what to look for in order to discount press releases and undisclosed sponsored content when evaluating notability, nothing wrong with having one for the Nigerian media. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Ratnahastin, uhm, if Indian editors did so, someone took the liberty of doing it for us (possible due to our incompetence): WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA; no one is opposing it. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 16:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    It is true that Nigerian news outlet like their Western counterparts (RSBIAS?) do publish opinions, promotional and advertorials like reliable news without explicitly marking them as much. In fact, this has long history in African media and it is mostly associated with UPE editors who want to create contents for their gain.

    Yet, deprecating Nigerian sources is not the solution. It will definitely do more harm than good to the visibility of the most populous black nation on earth. This means that we would have no reliable source to either curate or create contents. This is just an indirect way of saying that Nigerian content is no longer acceptable on English Misplaced Pages. This is because reliable sources are the backbone of contents creation. Prior to this discussion, we have been sending a lot of articles with promotional sources to Nigeria AfD noticeboard. This is what we can do from our end. We can neither stop people creating them nor stop the media from doing their business.

    Also, there is currently a section at WP:RSP tagged WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA notifying reviewers and editors of caution in dealing with Nigeria sources. This alongside thorough analysis of Nigerian sources should drastically reduce the promotional articles and create a better future for Nigerian contents on the English Misplaced Pages.Ibjaja055 (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    We cannot disregard Nigerian sources entirely. Yes, there are issues with some outlets, such as publishing promotional content or reworded press releases, but this isn’t unique to Nigeria. Even in countries with established media systems, there are sources that can’t always be trusted. The solution isn’t to write off all Nigerian sources but to evaluate them individually. Some articles might be biased or promotional, and we can avoid those. However, there are also credible reports and investigative pieces from Nigerian media that meet our standards. By treating each source on a case-by-case basis, we strike a balance, avoiding systemic bias while ensuring the content we use is reliable. A blanket approach would only create more gaps in coverage, which isn’t what we want for Misplaced Pages. And as Reading Beans mentioned, we Nigerian editors are already doing a good work judging sources on a case-by-case basis. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    ], the only keep argument is based on just the above "so you want to dismiss all Nigerian sources?". This is why they should not be acceptable because content is being created (and defended) using dubious sources (on the very grounds those sources are being defended here, false allegations of racism or false balance). Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Such a statement from a suspected UPE with limited knowledge around Wp:BIO and Wp:GNG shouldn't hold water let alone be used as a basis or argument for the deprecation of an sources of information. The WikiProject Nigeria volunteer are doing enormous tasks to ensure content that doesn't meet the English Misplaced Pages standard is nominated for deletion. Atibrarian (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Slatersteven, like already stated above, every sources presented in an AfD discussion is analysed carefully. FYI, majority of !delete votes there are Nigerian editors and the only keep !vote there being the paid creator (whom I suspect of UPE). If you can get a deletion discussion where a non-notable article was kept and defend with unreliable sources, I would appreciate it. Like the examples shown, the unreliable of the published articles were always pointed out and the articles were (correctly) deleted. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    No. No. No. my friend, @Reading Beans, I have told you ever and anon that this editor is not into UPE. So STOP THE SUSPICION and even voicing it out. It is affecting the reviewing of my articles. It is a blessing in disguise that my article brought this intense discussion. My take away from here is the guide being created for Nigerian sources and the caution I will employ in future creations. Royalrumblebee (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    What I'm seeing in that AfD, and in the others mentioned that all ended in deletion, is editors using their own good judgement to deal with this issue. Hopefully the new advice at NEWSORGNIGERIA will help encourage other editors to use the same caution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Slatersteven, if someone argues "so you want to dismiss all Nigerian sources?", the response should be "no, we don't. We're rejecting notability based on these specific Nigerian articles, because (a) the articles being used to assert notability all focus on a single "event," (b) the articles are extremely similar and might have been content farmed, especially since they seem overly promotional (e.g., it's not a "prestigous" award, it's solely based on number of hours volunteered and being nominated by a relevant organization), and (c) US government info about the award makes it clear that she's not eligible for that award (as she's not a US citizen or permanent resident), which means that these articles aren't reliable for this content. But the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter. Do you have evidence of the latter? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Which is what Im did say, more than once. To me met with stonewalling "but that's racism" comments (and still am), at which point if the best argument you have is emotive, I have to assume you have no others, thus Im assume its an accepted problem with them. And as this is about "reputation for fact-checking" and the best argument is "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism"...well I have to assume they dio not have said reputation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I'm not sure what the referent of "them" is in "Im assume its an accepted problem with them."
    As for the rest, my argument isn't "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism." My argument is "the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter. Do you have evidence of the latter?" You still haven't presented any evidence that articles from Nigerian news media are generally unreliable. Either you have evidence for that or you don't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    ] ]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Did you actually read those articles? Neither one makes any mention of any of the Nigerian news outlets identified in the OP. The BBC piece is about new websites "established around the time of Nigeria's general elections in February 2023." The SSRC piece is about "the spread of disinformation and how social media has only furthered this spread by providing new, fast-moving arenas for confirming and amplifying such false information" in Nigeria, including uptake by traditional news media, while noting that "The increasing threat to democratic institutions posed by disinformation is a global phenomenon." FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Vangaurd and The nation ]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    "This story is part of a series by the BBC on disinformation and fake news - a global problem challenging the way we share information and perceive the world around us," where this particular article focused on the "spread of fake news in Africa" by looking at how five false stories — one each from five African countries, including Nigeria — was picked up by some news media in those countries. Yes, "The Nation and the Vanguard, both published stories with a very similar theme" to one of those false stories, but absolutely nothing in the BBC article suggests that Nigerian news media are generally unreliable. Is there any country globally where the BBC couldn't write an analogous report? For example, another BBC story in this series is "How President Trump took 'fake news' into the mainstream." FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    You have it in reverse, we judge a source on its reputation for fact-checking, I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not, it down to you to show they do, We do not judge sources based upon how local editors will police pagers, but on the sources alone. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not ] No, you haven't. Nothing you cited says anything about their reputation or suggests that they're generally unreliable. If you believe that something you cited provided evidence of general unreliability, please quote what you have in mind. it down to you to show they do I haven't claimed that they have a reputation for fact-checking, so I have no burden to prove that they do (and more generally, if you want me to show something that I've said is true, just quote it, so we're both clear about the claim in question). What I said is (again): "the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter." Fram proposed "to formally deprecate these newspapers," and you responded with "a firm not reliable." Since you're claiming that they're generally unreliable, you have a burden to show that they're generally unreliable. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    I finally dug up an old AfD comment I'd made after reading a bunch of literature on Nigerian sources:Nigerian newspapers in particular are well known to flout broadcasting rules on paid advertising. Professor Omenugha describes a similar trend in the print media: “In the newspapers, the so called specialised pages of the property, IT and computer businesses and finance pages are prime examples of commercialised spaces. The point is that no attempt is made to let the audience or readers know that these spaces are paid for and they end up holding them as sacred as they would news”. Some journalists also work as paid consultants to politicians and businesses thus threatening professionalism. AIT’s Amarere says it is demeaning to journalism as “some of the concerned journalists now work for companies through which they obtain jobs. They cover their track by saying they are staff of this or that company and run offices outside the newsroom. In this situation it is difficult to balance profession with commercial interest”. "Awards" issued by media are also considered corrupt. “The awards are not free, they are for money and anything that comes with a prize has implications”, says Olumide Adeyinka-Fusika, a lawyer. “If a newspaper names a bank as the best bank of the year and the bank is later indicted for corruption, that newspaper will not be willing to publish the story because that will be like passing a vote of no confidence on their own judgement”. JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Here are some other references: chapter "Corruption in the Nigerian media: the brown envelope syndrome" For example, such practices as pack journalism by beat associations of journalists which operate like cartels, the payment of protection fees by reputation managers of institutions, the granting of awards of dubious credibility to non deserving individuals and organisations are some of the ways in which corruption manifests in the media.Nigerian media and corrupt practicesEven though over 64 % of those sampled believed that acceptance of any form of gratifications was unethical, over 75 % of the
    journalists engage in corrupt practices with impunity. More than half of the 18 media outfits covered by the study are indifferent to certain identified corrupt practices in their organizations.    The Nigerian Press, Brown Envelope Syndrome (BES), and Media ProfessionalismAdewale (2008), in his "The Rot in Nigerian Journalism Is Much Deeper Than We Thought" cited a controversial statement by Graham Greene to back up his position thus: "A petty reason perhaps why novelists more and more try to keep a distance from journalists is that novelists are trying to write the truth and journalists are trying to write fiction". This embarrassing irony aptly describes the state of Nigerian journalism and journalists in particular.Deep rot in NigeriaIn its mildest form, press releases are published almost verbatim. Reporters either have an agreement with the government media men and are ‘settled’ with money, or threatened they will not be paid what is known as ‘qua”, or ‘mobilisation”. Some papers don’t pay salaries, and journalists have to make what they can on commission. In its more malevolent form, journalists are all but owned by powerful men. Newspapers have a straight conflict of interest, they are financially reliant on political adverts, full-page colour hagiographies to governors and other political players. Last year, one paper alone took an estimated £270,000 in advertisements on one edition from supporters of former military ruler Ibrahim Babangida, celebrating his birthday. JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think we need something similar to User:Ms Sarah Welch/sandbox/Paid news and private treaties for Nigerian media as well. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    @JoelleJay the "Corruption in the Nigerian media: the brown envelope syndrome" is an auto-expiring link that doesn't let anyone else use it. Could you provide a better link/where you found the original link? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Clicking the link from this should work. JoelleJay (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    All seriousness aside, In its more malevolent form, journalists are all but owned by powerful men - those powerful men should just buy the newspaper or hell even a whole media empire to rebroadcast their personal opinions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I was pointed to this discussion by @Axad12 after a similar discussion when I ran across Bella Disu. It does seem like much of Nigerian media simply writes whatever the highest bidder is willing to pay for. It seems like these sources should simply be banned except in cases where it is clear that the article was not purchased. 🄻🄰 00:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    unhelpful ChatGPT wall of text
    My humble take and summary from these deep debates:
    Analysis of Nigerian Newspapers as Sources for Misplaced Pages Articles
    The reliability of Nigerian newspapers as sources for Misplaced Pages articles—particularly in Biographies of Living People (BLPs)—has ignited considerable debate within the Misplaced Pages editing community. A complex interplay of skepticism regarding the veracity of these sources and the recognition of systemic biases in coverage dynamics has led to high-stakes discussions. This report delves into the characteristics of Nigerian newspapers that contribute to their portrayal as unreliable, as well as those that underscore their potential value as information sources, and the broader implications for Misplaced Pages's commitment to inclusivity and diverse representation.
    Characteristics Leading to Distrust
    Nigerian newspapers often face criticism for their propensity to publish promotional content, undisclosed advertorials, and sensibly sensationalized reporting. This trend raises significant concerns regarding the integrity of journalism in the country. A primary issue is the commercial influence on editorial decisions, wherein advertising dollars can lead to the suppression of unfavorable stories or the propagation of misleading information to satisfy financial backers.
    High-profile examples, such as the case of a female personality—where numerous Nigerian news outlets reported unverified claims regarding an award from America—underscored the media’s failure to provide corroborative sources from outside Nigeria. Such instances not only reveal a troubling trend toward questionable journalism but also invite closer scrutiny of the claims made by various outlets.
    The environment fostered by these publications has seen a shift toward prioritizing clickable, viral content over factual reporting. This prioritization can obscure quality journalism and make it increasingly difficult for both editors and readers to discern credible information from misleading narratives. Such practices contribute significantly to the stigma that Nigerian newspapers face in the eyes of the Misplaced Pages community.
    Reliability in Context
    While there exists a notable trend of unreliable reporting among many Nigerian newspapers, it is critical to contextualize this within the broader media landscape of Nigeria. Not all publications succumb to dubious practices; several outlets continue to uphold high journalistic standards, successfully publishing well-researched investigative reports and reliable coverage of current events. For instance, reputable newspapers often play an essential role in reporting on significant political developments, including elections, thereby contributing positively to public discourse.
    From the perspective of Misplaced Pages's guidelines for sourcing (specifically WP:RSNP), engaging in a case-by-case assessment of sources is pivotal. This approach emphasizes the necessity for editors well-versed in the Nigerian media landscape to identify which sources maintain their integrity and contribute substantively to Misplaced Pages’s mission. A blanket rejection or deprecation of all Nigerian sources would, therefore, overlook the valuable contributions that some publications make, ultimately hampering the representation of Nigerian voices in global discourse.
    Recommendations for Misplaced Pages Editors
    1. Develop Specific Guidelines: Create detailed guidelines akin to those for other regions, such as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. This document should articulate the acceptable use of Nigerian sources while pinpointing common issues like promotional materials and the nature of reporting practices. Such clarity will assist editors in evaluating sources effectively.
    2. Engage Local Expertise: Encourage the involvement of Nigerian editors in determining the reliability of local sources. Their unique insights can significantly enhance the community's understanding of the nuances of language and reporting styles prevalent in Nigeria.
    3. Enforce Critical Scrutiny: Emphasize the importance of thorough evaluations of articles from Nigerian newspapers, particularly regarding BLPs. Editors and reviewers should be trained to recognize promotional language and ensure the use of independent, verifiable sources.
    4. Adapt to Changes in Media Landscape: Continuously monitor and research the evolving landscape of Nigerian media, documenting improvements in journalistic integrity and the emergence of new, credible news organizations. This ongoing reassessment will allow Misplaced Pages policies regarding sourcing to adapt in line with current practices.
    5. Maintain a Balance in Coverage: While it is essential to prioritize accurate information and avoid systemic bias, it is equally crucial to reflect the diverse perspectives from non-Western countries. Dismissing all Nigerian sources could marginalize important voices, undermining Misplaced Pages's mission of being a comprehensive encyclopedia.
    Finally, the integration of Nigerian newspapers into Misplaced Pages remains a multifaceted challenge that requires a balanced approach acknowledging both their shortcomings and their capacity for delivering credible information. By applying informed scrutiny and developing nuanced guidelines, Misplaced Pages can adeptly navigate the complexities involved in sourcing from Nigerian media while committing to enhancing its inclusivity and representation in global knowledge sharing. Royalrumblebee (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    That's not "your humble take", that's a bloated ChatGPT-generated regurgitation of this discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Comment pretty much everything has already been said; the news media in Nigeria seem to be in the habit of puffing everyone and everything. As with the Indian news sources, we almost have to evaluate each news story on a case-by-case basis. We can keep Nigerian sources, but if we can find coverage from outside of the area, it helps show notability. The sources in the country are in the habit of puffy reporting, we just have to learn to use them. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'd be ok if we create a policy similar to the NewsOrgIndia ... We allow the sources, but to be taken with a grain of salt. Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
      See WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. What did you mean by “…but if we can find coverage from outside of the area, it helps show notability.”? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Hemiauchenia's addition of WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA is helpful but the link to the unvetted WikiProject list is not, in my opinion. It lists, for example, This Day as "reliable" which is the publication I made a thread about which seemed to have drawn the conclusion to disregard promo and use with caution. It also lists pretty much every newspaper which reported inaccurately sparking this thread as "reliable"
      Beyond the issue of promo, Reporters Without Borders state "Nigeria is one of West Africa’s most dangerous and difficult countries for journalists, who are regularly monitored, attacked and arbitrarily arrested, as was the case during the 2023 elections." 🄻🄰 10:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
      @लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक What sort of opinionated and unstructured comment did you just make? What do you mean by "unvetted WikiProject list"? Do you, by any chance, know the efforts I and few other editors who are Nigerians have put to bring up that list? Please be careful when making comments, especially when the topic has to do with one you're not entirely familiar with. As far as I am concerned, you cannot call a list which I have put efforts in contributing to "unvetted", the comment is not only unreasonable but also incorrect.
      I couldn't locate the thread you linked but whatever you brough up there are your opinion. I know the efforts I have been putting at AfD when it comes to Nigerian sources. Be careful, please, with all due respect.
      In a more general note, this thread is not going anywhere, This Day is a reliable source of information whether anyone "who is not a Nigerian" likes it or not, in fact, any source listed in the WikiProject as reliable is indeed reliable. The Herald, Guardian, New York Times, and other UK or US papers all publish nonsense piece as well, no one is permitted to call Nigerian sources unreliable because there are only a few Nigerian editors? I can't tell. I guess when this thread was initiated it was thought that there'd be no editor to oppose. SMH. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
      The link they are referring to has been archived, see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 460#This Day on Bella Disu.
      In regard to who is not a Nigerian There are many non-Nigerians who don't agree with the comment that started this thread. I both support and encourage projects to maintain there own sources lists, as they most likely to have knowledge of that particular area, but they are subject to WP:CONLEVEL and so from to time discussions like this will happen. The net result of this discussion has been WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA, which only writes down the advice that has been given in many other discussions.
      If any editor wants to discuss a particular source they believe has issue outside of what's already covered by WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA I suggest they start a new section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
      @ActivelyDisinterested last time we discussed This Day, you pointed out that they have a tag for advertorials. Currently, top of the advertorials is this article about a former governor's successor's parents visiting him. As you noted, there is no indication on the article that this is an advertorial and it looks like a normal news item. This one is also also in the advertorials category with no indication on the article.
      How can this be a reliable source when advertorials are completely indistinguishable from reporting? 🄻🄰 15:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
      Because otherwise it would result in the making all news organisations in multiple countries completely unusable, and it wouldn't be limited to India and Nigeria. Such undisclosed advertorials are common in a lot of countries, and will likely become more common not less due to the changes effecting news media across the globe. It wouldn't help to improve the encyclopedia by saying that such vast swathes of the news media are generally unreliable, and in many ways that isn't a fit description for the sources. They are reliable for many things, but not for the promotional nature of these advertorials.
      As has been said before the AfDs show that noone is being fooled. Editors are correctly spotting when this is happening and acting accordingly. Promo content being added to Misplaced Pages is certainly not an issue limited to these countries, just look to all the reputation management companies found elsewhere.
      Ultimately it's what effect should be had. We don't want those advertorials being used to add promo content to Misplaced Pages, that is achieved by WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. So do we need to class all those news media organisations as generally unreliable, will that help to improve the encyclopedia? I very much doubt it would. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
      Are they? How are they being spotted? For example, see Eko Heritage Awards - there are many sources here but every single one of them appears more dubious than the two advertorial examples linked above. For an active AfD, see Misters of Nigeria. It was moved out of drafts by an editor who is now blocked and the editors voting keep simply insist that the sources are reliable without any evaluation. 🄻🄰 18:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
      (Pinging you is difficult) Let me be blunter, you deletion rationale in that AfD Sources all appear to be WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA is not only unappealing but also vague. Why? you simply said that "ALL" of them are NEWSORGNIGERIA without telling us what analysis you did that made you come to that conclusion. I figured since we're not doing anything in-dept here, it would make sense to also tell you, since this area is my expertise, that the subject clear-cut passed GNG. If you did any analysis and showed it, then we'd be discussing what you analysed and not something else. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
      I do not get the impression that advertorials are regularly passed off as real news in countries with strong protections for journalism. What the academic papers I linked earlier were emphasizing is that Nigeria has a striking systematic problem with unethical journalism that goes beyond what is seen in respectable broadsheets (the "brown envelope syndrome" being one example) and appears to affect all major outlets. The last link talks about an egregious political advert for Babangida's birthday that ran in the Daily Trust—listed as generally reliable—and characterizes the newspapers as being reliant upon such revenue sources. Some of the other journals note that several newspapers don't even pay their journalists; surely at least those should be considered generally unreliable? JoelleJay (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
      Not sure why you're responding with so much emotion. It would be better to discuss this dispassionately. Your reply doesn't actually explain why a publication like This Day, which publishes disguised promotions, should be viewed as reliable. @JoelleJay also provides very compelling evidence above which has not been rebutted. 🄻🄰 14:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
      Maybe the rather emotionally charged use of "unvetted" to describe another editors work had something to do with it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
      So, my reply is emotional to you, and you think I am dispassionate, lol. I'll entirely ignore this your comment. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    People may defend WP:RSNG, but when I see that e.g. The Nation is considered "generally reliable" but publishes (with a byline!) e.g. this pure promo drivel (used in a new article here, not something I went looking for especially), then it is hard to take that list or the defense of it seriously. It turns out to be (at least in part) a copy of a four year old article from the Vanguard, not some actual journalistic effort by the Nation, but how could one tell? Fram (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Oppose blanket ban. The proponents of the ban have failed to actually demonstrate that all Nigerian newspapers have always been unreliable. As far as I can see, the evidence presented does not, for example, give any indication that the Lagos Daily News or the Daily Times were unreliable in 1925. In fact, they do not even appear to have been mentioned. This source, actually cited above, claims that the quality of Nigerian newspapers was better before the internet. This source, also cited above, only applies to the South-West geo-political zone, and not the other five geo-political zones (something not mentioned above). We need to take one newspaper at a time, and we need to look beyond the last five minutes. James500 (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      • There has been no proposal to blanket ban all Nigerian Newspapers, so you are bold opposing a strawman. Fram (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
        • Expressions such as "isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers" do look like proposals for a blanket ban. Everyone else in this thread seems to think that this is a proposal for a blanket ban. If you are not proposing a blanket ban, perhaps you should rephrase your comments in grammatically and semantically correct plain language that other people can actually understand. Anyway, in view of the statement that there is no proposal for a blanket ban, I have struck my !vote. James500 (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
        • FWIW, I too, interpreted it as a blanket ban, and it's clear from people's comments that many other people did as well. Glad to know that that's not what you meant. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would support RSNG in that I would support projects creating source lists. How specific sources are listed on RSNG is first a matter of discussion at the project level (as the list is only at the project level), and RSN if there is no agreement there. This is the same for all project level lists. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Brainstorming RfCs

    It is clear that referring to the overly optimistic Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources is not a good approach to determine the current reliability of some Nigerian newspapers. If we were to reconsider the status of e.g. The Sun (Nigeria), to list it as e.g. "generally unreliable", what question should be posted in an RfC? Should we first try to find a cut-off date (i.e. "no longer generally reliable from year X on")? Are the above examples and reports sufficient, or is more needed? Or would it be easier to change WP:RSNP, correcting "As such, Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability. Wikiproject Nigeria has assembled a list of sources that they consider reliable/unreliable: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources." to "As such, Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability and verifiability", adding "verifiability" and removing the link to the project-based list? Fram (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    I think correcting WP:RSNP is a good start, simply by undoing this edit which there clearly wasn't agreement to add. 🄻🄰 16:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    What to include or not include on the RSP (outside of the results of discussions at RSN) are probably best discussed at the RSP talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    It was WP:BOLDly added without discussion, though, so I've removed it for now as a first step. --Aquillion (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would suggest that editing the section be done this way. RSP is no different from any other page, edit, discuss on talk page, then third opinion or noticeboard. Exact wording in the section doesn't immediately necessitate an RFC unless there is unresolvable differences of opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would suggest against one RFC to cover all the sources, unless there is a very specific question about the sources (more specific than 'are they reliable?'), as it will likely result in a train wreck.
    If the issue is just to add 'and verifiability', or removing the project link, I would suggest just doing it. Consensus is first built through editing, and the RSP is no different in that matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Whatever way the discussion goes it, I suggest an RFC should be in a completely new section. RSN gets overloaded, and this section is already very large. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Absolutely. Fram (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have been reading old RfCs about unreliable medias to reference. Many of these discussions start with a blanket question. For example: "Is The Sun (Nigeria)
    1. Generally reliable
    2. Additional considerations apply
    3. Generally unreliable
    4. Deprecated"
    From there, editors can make their own arguments so if there should be a cut-off date for reliability. I think we can start with the more egregious media with examples and those who do not view them as unreliable should make the argument for why and when they should be considered reliable. 🄻🄰 19:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    If the TechCabal article is correct, then Nigerian newspapers were better before the internet. This might not apply to The Sun (Nigeria), which began publication in 2001. One of the earliest accounts of "brown envelopes" dates to the Second Republic (1979 to 1983): . On a search of Google Books, I found no references to "brown envelopes" in Nigeria in any book published before 1983. I found no more than 8 such references in books published before 1990, and 5 of those were from 1989: . In the absence of further evidence, I think we could take 1979 as a complete cut off point. Even after that, the evidence is not unequivocal. The study from 1984 says that NAN journalists may not be as corrupt as journalists are depicted: . And the claims of bribery during the Republic seem to relate more to government journalists, than to independent newspapers. The sources also suggest that Next (Nigeria) was more reliable. James500 (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Jeff Sneider / The InSneider

    Used for many claims throughout pages for CBM movies, such as The Fantastic Four: First Steps, Superman (2025 film), Kraven the Hunter (film), and Peter Parker (The Amazing Spider-Man film series), including those which are otherwise unverifiable like Victor von Doom appearing in the first or that Spider-Man was supposed to appear in Madame Web (film) but was cut.

    I really do not see why his claims is so widely allowed and accepted as fact, even though he is undoubtedly more reliable than random blogs or posts on Twitter he's still a journalist making claims without evidence. I would like to establish here definitively if we continue to site theinsneider.com as a source, as we currently do in many articles. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    I did a Google News search and when other outlets report his stuff it is described as a rumour or "reportedly". He is also described as a "scooper". I don't think most of that should be used on Misplaced Pages because of NOTNEWS. Rumours about media that haven't been released yet aren't even news yet. Does he say that he got his info from a source? Then it should be attributed to that source. It also looks like a SPS. So everything sourced to him should be attributed, but even then it probably shouldn't be used. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Right now, much of what is sourced to him is just taken as face value, for example Doom is listed in the cast for the Fantastic Four movie without clarification that it's based off a claim by him. My changes to remove such information from the pages were undone, so there seems to be some ambiguity if he is currently accepted as a RS. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    For any stories about named people (e.g. casting), WP:BLPSPS would probably bar use of this source, since he's self-published. His record on this is at best mixed from a quick search. For example, he reported that Sydney Sweeney would be starring in a new Johnny Depp film, which was swiftly denied, kept posting that it was true, and then a few months later, Penelope Cruz was announced as the co-star.
    I did some digging and apparently he made a recent post, copied here, , in which he says This may speak to my own reckless vanity, but I’d rather be wrong sometimes than sit on 100 accurate stories and stand idly by and watch as Nellie Andreeva breaks every single one of them. Yes, it’s nauseating to get a story wrong — seriously, it makes me sick to my stomach — but it’s an even worse feeling when you don’t report something and then get beat by the competition. If that's his attitude to reporting, then it would probably be best if we don't use him for non-BLP subjects as well. -- Patar knight - /contributions 21:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've removed everything that clearly failed WP:BLPSPS and tried to beef up non-BLP uses of this (e.g. filming dates, projects in development) with better sources that cite his work. Honestly most reputable don't really cite him and hedge by using "rumoured" or "reportedly" and cannot corroborate. Definitely not an ideal source and probably runs afoul of WP:NOTGOSSIP, especially if not picked up by better sources citing him at all. -- Patar knight - /contributions 07:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    In the future it would be appreciated if you notified other editors of such a discussion rather than going on what I would describe as a deletion rampage, making dozens of edits to remove a source that is widely deemed to be reliable. Sneider clearly meets the SME requirement at WP:SELFPUB, he is a long time film and entertainment journalist whose work has previously been published by various reliable sources. The fact that he is now self-publishing his reporting does not now make him unreliable, which is what the wording at SELFPUB caters for. If you take issue with specific claims he has made or the wording of specific claims then the place to discuss those is at the talk pages of the articles in question, not here where the majority of editors will never see it. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    I have notified editors at WP:FILM, WP:TV, WP:MCU, DC Universe (franchise), and Sony's Spider-Man Universe. I think that should cover all the articles impacted so far by this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    For a lot of these pages, the relevant policy isn't WP:SELFPUB, but WP:BLPSPS, since the InSneider is self publishing reporting about living people (e.g. A didn't role B, C got fired because of D, E might be in F). BLPSPS is a bright-line rule and while WP:IAR exists, superhero movie rumours isn't going to justify that. This is especially true when non-selfpublished exist to cover the same claims or when WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies.
    For example, your revert at Black Widow (2021 film) restored The InSneider when the material in the sentence is already fully supported by the already cited The Hollywood Reporter piece and your revert at X-Men '97 restored material alleging very specific allegations of sexual misconduct with young men that is corroborated by independent sources . I've reverted the latter given the serious BLP issues there.
    It's less of an issue when the BLP-connection is less direct such as when it's talking about a film production in general (e.g. G starts filming in H, I was delayed to J, K is in development at L), but even SELFPUB recommends replacing with better sources when possible and I highlighted some reliability issues with Sneider above.
    I have also notified WP:BLPN since this touches on BLPSPS. -- Patar knight - /contributions 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think you are forgetting that there is a very big distinction between Sneider's pieces written for Collider and other RS and those he written on his own blog. He speculates much more and gives unverified, evidence-free information on his blog than he does when working with publications, and he isn't impeded by an editor or journalistic oversight in his own website.
    If you want to see proof that Sneider has made false and provably false claims on his own website before, then there's compilations of all the time he has made false claims thanks to the people at the subreddit for Marvel spoilers. Among the falsehoods he has promoted on his site include that the Fantastic Four movie would start filming in March, that Adam Driver was cast as Doom, that Jack Quaid was cast as Johnny Storm, and that Tom Holland was going to appear as a full role in Across the Spider-Verse. Sneider should be used in articles only when he is writing for reliable sources, otherwise we are inviting unsourced and oftentimes completely imagined speculation on our pages. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Oh wow, so he's basically correct about 2/3 of the time. Not terrible, I guess for online postings, but this would seem to fall well-short for WP:SELFPUB purposes, much less making an exception for WP:BLPSPS. -- Patar knight - /contributions 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think we should be letting some people from a Reddit community dictate what they think is true or false to determine notability on this encyclopedia. I understand Sneider gets a bad rap from some people and in the press, but he does qualify as a WP:Subject-matter expert in the field of entertainment news. I am subscribed to his newsletter and Sneider does a pretty good job clarifying what he is actually reporting from what are his own opinions and beliefs. A lot of what he says in his newsletter tends to be blown out of proportion or taken out of context, and not everything pans out in the film industry. For the Sydney Sweeney thing, I read that as the actress either being in talks or close to a deal but it likely fell apart and thus, Cruz came onboard, not that it was somehow false or intentionally misleading. A lot of the major trades do not cover every aspect of these film productions (because they get ad revenue from major companies involved) but Sneider has a good track record of reporting on industry details, deals, and events as they are in progress, which goes for the Fantastic Four castings and Black Widow. I have been working on adding third-party sources for some of his recent newsletter issues being cited to help make verifying his reports easier, though this takes time. I do not agree with removing his published articles from Collider, Variety, or his newsletter outright as we cannot disregard a source simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT or you don't believe in it. We go by WP:Verifiability, not truth, and report all the facts as presented, which is how an encyclopedia ought to be. I have not found any instances to my immediate recollection where editors cited a Sneider report only for it to be proven intentionally wrong or misleading. The Madame Web report was not disputed or debunked, and the recent reports of Superman and Beyond the Spider-Verse have since been clarified as a matter of semantics, not actually being intentional false news reporting on Sneider's part. A lot of what he says is regurgitated through aggregators and social media which tends to be less reliable or transparent than what he actually says in his newsletter or on his podcast The Hot Mic. I would not go as far as to say Sneider's newsletter reporting is "speculation", as he is an independent working journalist with 20+ years of experience in this profession. He knows his stuff but gets a lot of bad publicity from his social media activity and because some of his reporting hits a nerve with select communities. I would consider him a reliable source, but with clarification needed to specify when he is making an educated guess or providing an opinion alongside what he is reporting from his industry sources. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Also, because @Tinynanorobots questioned what Sneider's sources are, I suppose it ought to be explained that every journalist gets their information from sources. These individuals are usually people who work within the industry they are reporting about, so they are often talent agents, managers, PR workers, producers, involved creatives in a production, etc. who have first-hand information and provide information as a tip to a journalist. Most of these sources prefer to remain anonymous, so we cannot just find who his sources are to verify their tips. That's just not how this industry works. Filming schedules and castings change all the time, so to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS concern because no sources said these were absolutely false, and if you have any reliable sources saying Sneider specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report, that should be presented rather than just going off of some editors' opinions of a controversial figure. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Anonymously-sourced reporting obviously can be used in RSs, but you're not really making a strong case for reliability and encyclopedic quality by defending Sneider with to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS concern because no sources said these were absolutely false,. In respect to the Holland thing, it's not a good look to be confidently stating things about major casting at the tail end of February 2023 that then don't pan out upon release in at the end of May that year. Maybe he was right at the time, though no one else has corroborated this from what I can tell, but even then he would've published too early given he was ultimately wrong.
    specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report would meet the standard for defamation of a public figure, but it isn't the standard for assessing if a particular source is reliable or a good indicator of if something is encyclopedic. If someone gets a lot of stuff wrong in good faith, they're still not reliable, especially in WP:BLPSPS situations. -- Patar knight - /contributions 05:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, using anonymous sources is common in journalism, but is not standard. The standard is to cite their sources. Sure, NYT and WaPo don't always follow their own guidelines on anonymous sources. Usually such guidelines involve mentioning that the information is from an anonymous source and giving clues as to the credibility of the source. When including information from anonymous sources, wikipedia should follow suite. If the NYT cites a "source close to the president" for a claim, the wikipedia article should also mention a "source close to the president" So how much info does Sneider give?
    Also, information should be verified. This might involve asking another source if they object to the publication of the information. Also, really, the studio should be asked to comment. If there is not a comment from the studio or a line saying that comment was sought, then best practices have not been followed.
    The idea that Sneider is a SME is questionable. The reporting in question seems to be a matter of insider knowledge not expertise. Basically, people are leaking the information to Sneider or gossiping to him about who will get the part. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    FYI, we are also not here to be WP:Righting great wrongs. It is completely acceptable to note what an SME reports about an industry topic they have been covering for two decades now. The reports should be judged on a case-by-case basis to determine if Sneider has ever actually intentionally made any false or misleading statements and passed them off as a report directly by himself, and not by sheer opinion or a lack of or misunderstanding of the filmmaking process and journalistic procedures. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Even if he is 100% correct (which he isn't), none of his tweets and InSneider reports can be used per WP:BLPSPS to verify anything about living people since they are self-published. There's presumably no issue with his work in non-self-published sources with editorial control like Collider, but for the self-published stuff in respect to living people (e.g. castings, cut scenes, staffing), Misplaced Pages has a bright line rule against it. The only stuff that is even allowed to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for self-published stories would be for instances where it's being used for stuff that is general enough to not really implicate BLP (e.g. filming schedules, runtime, episode length). -- Patar knight - /contributions 05:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    The whole sum of BLPSPS is that no self-published blogs may be used. Sneider's publishing is via a newsletter and is part of his job as a journalist. In what ways are his newsletter reports violating any core and basic BLP policies or how are they of a major concern to it beyond the X-Men '97 allegations. A lot of journalists nowadays are posting on their own outside of major trades or news organizations because those options have become more prevalent to do so. Anonymous sourcing is also how all journalists operate, so if we say journalists who post on their own cannot be cited as reliable sources for doing their job without disclosing their sources and having a company watch over them, that sets a very bad precedent for the freedom of the press and what we actually allow to be included, let alone mentioned, in this encyclopedia. If it applies to Sneider, it ought to apply to all self-published journalists and newsletters, and I don't see how that could go well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    That's a misreading of BLPSPS, which says: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts— (emphasis added). Unless there's a clear organizational structure (e.g. 404 Media), most newsletters are little more than self-published blogs. There's tons of great journalists with their own newsletters that I think are most likely reliable that I would love to cite (though Sneider may not be one of them), but BLPSPS is crystal clear on this front and for good reason. If you want to start a new discussion somewhere (here, WP:BLPN WT:BLP, etc.) on whether we should move to a case-by-case basis for journalistic SPSs, you can do that, but until then BLPSPS is policy and can't be overridden by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Don't really care about the anonymous sources issue, since that is an accepted norm for journalists. -- Patar knight - /contributions 07:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not all of the instances of Sneider's reports are about people themselves. They are primarily about the Hollywood projects which naturally involve people's jobs and castings. I fail to see how a technicality should prevent us from using a decent source at all. If the issue is of verification, find a third-party source verifying the report. This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that. The InSneider can be separately assessed for reliability for any claims not about living people, but as WP:BLP makes clear in the first sentence, it applies regardless of if the article is a biography or not, so the fact that Sneider is cited on movie articles is immaterial in respect to WP:BLPSPS.
    There's been multiple discussions on this noticeboard about Substack and other newsletters involving much more prominent journalists than Sneider and the consensus has always been that BLPSPS bars their use in respect to living people unless the publication has editorial oversight and a reputation for reliability (e.g. Glenn Greenwald , David Sirota , Matt Taibbi , in general )
    I don't object to the underlying facts per say if they are indeed verifiable through third-party sources. I did try to find non-self-published sources that independently corroborated what Sneider reported, and replaced InSneider with them when I did. I only removed when I was unable to do so. WP:BLPRESTORE makes it clear that the onus to restore material removed for BLP issues is on those who want to restore it to do so in a policy-compliant way, which seems unlikely since nothing in this section has challenged the individually self-published nature of InSneider. -- Patar knight - /contributions 21:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for your lengthy examination of Sneider as a reliable source. I think a potential compromise that I hope the editors here could agree on- is to restructure all current citations to his self-published website so that it clearly states that it is journalist Jeff Sneider reporting. The example on The Fantastic Four: First Steps that spurred me to open up this discussion in the first place, for example:
    Additionally, the character Mole Man is expected to appear, and Robert Downey Jr. is expected to appear as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene.
    could be reworded to:
    Journalist Jeff Sneider reported in 2024 that the character Mole Man is expected to appear, as well as Robert Downey Jr. as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene.
    This would be done for every single citation that uses his personal site. I see your arguments defending his inclusion as a verifiable source, but I also feel as the central issue here- that a lot of pages take him at face value as equivalent to official news from Deadline or Marvel Studios themselves, should still be rectified. We could also add him to the RS list as a source that can be used in the articles with attribution only.
    Thoughts? @Trailblazer101 @Patar knight @Adamstom.97 HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    For anything that involves stories about living people, this would be BLP violation, attribution or not, since The InSneider is a self-published source and that's barred by WP:SPS. If no other sources are writing about it besides a self-published report from Sneider, that's a good indicator that we shouldn't include it on Misplaced Pages. Attribution for stuff like "Mole Man" might be okay depending on Sneider's reliability and how tied that is to a specific actor in the text. -- Patar knight - /contributions 06:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I support attribution being applied to Sneider's reports, and most of the instances where his reports are used already do this in prose while third-party refs are being added to them. The BLP violation reads to me like a bit of a stretch with semantics itself and could probably be re-evaluated when it comes to journalists reporting as part of their job. Reporting on allegations should not be a reason to be barred as a source when major news outlets do the same. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Reporting on allegations a reason to be barred as a source is a straw man. Major news outlets have a reputation for fact checking and reliability, while Sneider has had multiple confirmed reports not pan out. -- Patar knight - /contributions 07:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Which ones have not panned out? Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Sweeny, Lindelof, and Holland make at least three incorrect reports in approximately a year. If I did more spot checks from the spreadsheet, there would probably be more. -- Patar knight - /contributions 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Again, not everything in Hollywood pans out. That does not mean the reports were false. Unless other independent sources confirmed they were false, you are assuming they were not true, which draws into some dangerous POV issues here on your apparent bias. I have asked you to provide sources which confirm Sneider's reports were false, and you have provided none of the sort. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Lots of stuff in all kinds of different fields don't pan out. However, if a source often reports things as confirmed and they don't pan out, there's a reliability/jumping the gun issue and its starts falling into unencyclopedic WP:RUMOUR territory. The end result is that Sneider either misjudged how correct the story originally was or how likely that status quo was going to remain. If you look at the Deadline and Variety archives, they only reported on certainties in respect to the Sweeey/Holland/Lindelof stories (i.e. Cruz hiring/nothing/hiring and departure).
    Genuine question, does Sneider ever issue corrections/retractions or do retrospectives on why he got stories wrong? Obviously sometimes reliable sources get it wrong, and the proper thing to do in that case is to issue corrections/retractions.
    I think I've seen only even heard of Sneider once before (when the X-Men '97/Beau DeMayo story was happening) so to accuse me of bias is wild when you've created a position where it is functionally unfalsifiable that Sneider could ever be wrong. If it pans out, he was correct. If it doesn't, he was correct but things changed afterwards, despite in many cases no reliable sources backing up his original story. Sneider isn't important enough for something like the Columbia Journalism Review or an an actual reliable source to investigate his methods and he uses anonymous sources (which isn't an issue in and of itself) so it's essentially impossible to prove if any of his reports are false in a way that would satisfy you. -- Patar knight - /contributions 22:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think that is an argument for waiting until things are officially announced, before putting them in the article. The problem isn't Sneider, but the kind of reporting that he is doing. He is reporting other people's predictions. He also isn't a SME. He is a reporter that chases leads and reports what may be hearsay or leaks or outright lies by his sources. He is reporting on Hollywood, after all. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    @HadesTTW: I just saw that you pinged me in this message. I agree that a good resolution here would be to add Sneider to the RS list as an SME for entertainment reporting as long as he is attributed, and potentially with the caveat that his self-published sources should be replaced with non-self-published sources if available. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    You can spot check the examples used and some definitely seem to hold up as poor reporting. Besides the Holland/Across the Spider-Verse example I discussed above another one I spot checked was this comment made March 9, 2023, in which Sneider says it's 100% confirmed that Damon Lindelof's Star Wars film would be coming out in December 2025 film. On March 21, 2023, Lindelof's departure is announced.
    I am subscribed to his newsletter Can you confirm if the quotation from the post I cited is correct then? It matched the title of this post from InSneider and it went unchallenged in the thread and seemed to match the style from what I've found.
    not everything pans out in the film industry., I read that as the actress either being in talks or close to a deal but it likely fell apart...not that it was somehow false or intentionally misleading. and A lot of the major trades do not cover every aspect of these film productions. I don't think Sneider is maliciously creating false reports or anything, but if he's reporting too early on things that aren't confirmed yet while the major trade publications are reporting when it's certain, that does not bode well for his reliability nor for the encyclopedic value of his coverage (WP:NOTNEWS).
    removing his published articles from Collider, Variety Pretty sure no one here is suggesting that. The main issue is WP:BLPSPS and then reliability as a WP:SPS. -- Patar knight - /contributions 06:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Sneider's report and those quotes are correct from his newsletter. I have no idea what "thread" you are referring to, but a lot can change and happen in the 12 days between Sneider saying Lindelof's film was confirmed for that release and when Lindelof ultimately exited the film. That's just how Hollywood, and all of business, pans out. You can't seriously hold that against Sneider to say his statement is false when Disney's Star Wars films have pretty much languished with development hell issues for years. Even major trades report on projects in early development and when directors or writers are in talks. That's just what the trades do. They report on the production process, which is always in flux. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for the confirmation. I copied the quotation from a Reddit thread from a film podcast subreddit which I linked in my comment above. I dealt with how the other trades operate and the issues with using Sneider for the truth of what he's reporting above, so I won't repeat them here. -- Patar knight - /contributions 22:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


    Alrighty, I wrote the below on The Acolyte (TV series) and I'm copying this below.

    Jeff Sneider being used as a source in Hollywood reporting.
    Jeff Sneider's reports, found in his TheInSneider blog and also Above the Line, have been covered in several other reliable sources. His career besides his self-published blog: He has had two notable tenures at TheWrap, and in between those two tenures, he had a stint at Variety covering the film industry. This is confirmed here, with information here on his tenure at Variety. Collider also has him listed as Senior Film Reporter, and says he did work at Ain't It Cool News before his venture into trade publications, and at one point he contributed reports for Mashable.

    These following perennial sources have cited his self-published blog, exemplifying WP:USEBYOTHERS:

    Forbes describes him here as, "Jeff Sneider, an industry insider and reporter", and covers his reporting, even providing a link to another site he contributes to, Above the Line.
    and here's him reporting that Kaitlyn Dever was chosen to play Abby in the second season of The Last of Us, which ended up being spot-on correct, via NME:
    • Screen Rant, (noted in the perennial source list as considered reliable for entertainment-related topics but not for controversial statements related to living persons, which in this case, we're sort of concerned about that stuff in relation to Sneider's reporting) covers Sneider in many, many instances.
    and reported by Screen Rant here is an InSneider report that The Bikeriders, (a film with Austin Butler and Norman Reedus) was dropped by Disney's 20th Century Studios. Sneider's report ended up being true, as Disney let the rights go to Focus Features.

    BarntToust 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    I also find the Mary Sue story about Johnny Depp and Sydney Sweeney to be drama mongering. Their punchline about Sneider's story amounted to "and internet users were pissed about the actress potentially working with the subject of the Amber Heard lawsuit" - like who cares about internet people being ticked? Was there doxxing? was anonymous or a world government involved? No!
    If Sneider gets something wrong, nobody gets mangled or tangibly harmed. The WP:BLPSPS policy is for claims concerning living people themselves, not films and casting processes or anything of the like. and for randoms who are not, something that is not what Sneider is doing.
    Let's WikiLawyer the concept of this policy and apply it to the Moon. Even though the chunk of rock is the subject of the article, there are parts of the article for the Moon which concern living people, like Buzz Aldrin and how he walked on it. Holy hell! the very association of living people to a subject of an article clearly not about people means we must NEVER use any WP:EXPERTSPS about the Moon in the article because it is WP:BLPSPS.
    I don't think that Sneider should be used to state facts about casting. I certainly don't believe we need to add a person to a cast list because he says something on his podcast: while I question his nature of jumping the gun on reports, I don't believe the rationale should be that the info he reports is concerning a living person. I figured that saying RDJ was gonna be in Fantastic Four was bold, but it's concerning that a character is going to be in a film, not some claim about a person's life and times. Besides his casting scoops, I think he gives worthy insight into the film industry and its processes. I think that his branding is corny and I'm concerned that once he implied a joke about suicide after losing a scoop to a THR reporter but hey, Kubrick was cruel yet he was still held in high regard for his work. Same thing for Sneider. BarntToust 21:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed, I started this discussion because I was bothered by the Fantastic Four page where he's used for the cast list. I hope we are able to at least agree that he shouldn't be cited without attribution, lest he gets something wrong (not maliciously, but because his sources may have been wrong, or events changed in the production process that he was not aware of). Advocating him to be deprecated for BLP violations is a massive stretch that I do not agree with- he's generally reliable, and I trust that his self-published site can be used for article content. He just shouldn't be taken as absolute fact. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 01:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Precisely. I agree with all of that. The Fantastic Four page's cast section is something that is being discussed at Talk:The Fantastic Four: First Steps and would be best handled there rather than here, though I agree with the core points with the attribution and use with non-BLP content. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think it's best if we formalize it here, anyways. It's my hope that we can get a consensus enough to write an entry on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which would be helpful for everyone editing CBM articles that refer to his claims. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    I would prefer listing Sneider at perennial sources. The WP:MCU taskforce already has an entry for his reports at WP:MCURS, for reference. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Just to note that this wouldn't meat the criteria for inclusion on the RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't know, saying someone was going to get a job, and then it turns out they didn't might have a negative effect on their career. A casting director might wonder why they weren't chosen. This is just speculation, and it probably helps the actors, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. The stakes are low either way, and it makes sense to wait for an official announcement. As it has been said, things don't always pan out. Speculation on casting seems like news to me. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    All three of the listed Forbes articles are written by Forbes.com contributors (RSP entry), which are generally unreliable due to lack of editorial oversight. Please note that Forbes.com contributor articles do not count toward WP:USEBYOTHERS. As a policy, WP:BLPSPS takes precedence over the WP:USEBYOTHERS guideline. — Newslinger talk 02:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    alright, we can consider the other 97 out of 100 joking exaggeration sources I've laid down here. We've still got use by Hollywood trades, reliable entertainment websites, and other popular sources. My point stands still. BarntToust 02:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    I believe that Sneider's reporting of casting is 90% of the time on point, but the margin of error warrants attribution and additional consideration. I do not believe that info about a person being cast in a film constitutes personal information, and thus I believe that BLP does not apply to that extent. I believe additional considerations and attributions should apply for the first reason, rather than depreciation for a grossly WikiLawyered reading of BLP policy. I believe he is considered reliable for general behind-the-curtains technical info about Hollywood, having been at it for a long-o time and that he would know about these things. BarntToust 02:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    WP:BLPSPS is a bright-line rule that prevents self-published sources from being used for third-party claims "about a living person". The policy is phrased with the word "Never" to emphasize that routine exceptions for claims such as film castings are not appropriate. This language is repeated in the WP:SPS policy in more explicit terms: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Like the remainder of WP:BLP, this rule applies to all claims about living persons, and not just "personal information". — Newslinger talk 02:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Okay. We seem to agree to not use it as a third-party source. We seem to agree to give Sneider attribution and consideration of due weight in these reports he does.
    If there are any concerns, I suggest you turn to the great policy that is ignore all rules. BarntToust 02:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    What do you mean by behind-the-curtains technical info about Hollywood? Like what a gaffer is? Or the type of camera used? Or does he know more about things like how casting directors and location scouts work? I thought he was a reporter that covered the Hollywood beat. Does he do anything besides report what industry people tell him? Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    I wonder if reporting what industry people tell you is, uh, what trade journalism is the definition of? BarntToust 19:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think he is a trade journalist, either. A trade journal covers an industry with people in that industry as the target audience. Jeff Sneider describes him as an Entertainment Journalist and describes him writing for publications aimed at the general public. His own website describes itself as Scoops and insider analysis. This isn't about being an expert, it is about being in the know and chasing down leads. A lot of the articles are even labelled "Hot Rumor". He is a reporter, he reports things. The nature of what he reports means that it involves making predictions as well as discussing rumours and other gossip. A lot of it involves upcoming movies, that is, events that haven't happened yet. It also means a lot of his stuff isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    know what? I think his insights have merit. Glad to see you found the article about the journalist that I wrote. Did you see the part where he threatened to drive his car into a tree when he lost a Christopher Nolan scoop, then got fired from Variety? Or when he said something racially insensitive and got fired from Mashable? I personally enjoyed the part where he went on about getting his butt kicked by Uwe Boll in a boxing match.
    Anybody think that he does a self-published newsletter because he can't hold down a job? BarntToust 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    It did strike me as surprisingly negative considering the defence he is getting here. It is basically a hit piece. The boxing thing was confusing, it is probably undue. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Reliable sources describe Sneider the way that they do, so that should be reflected in the article. This is a rationale that is based on a concept which is probably best explained by Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
    As for the boxing match, that is a notable event he was involved in. Fighting the director of one of the worst films is plenty notable for inclusion. BarntToust 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    I like Paul Tassi's work, but per WP:FORBESCON, he can't be used in USEBYOTHERS analysis. However, he, like the other links in this post generally refer to Sneider's reports as in terms of rumors instead of certainties. The one exception is Screen Rant article, where it is corroborated by THR, and they suddenly switch to writing in certainties. The last three links here from the major trades are clearly doing their own independent corroboration of Sneider's story and doing the polite thing in journalism and crediting him with being the first to break the news.
    As for accuracy, many of the links were about the Beatles casting, which Sneider was actually wrong about Charlie Rowe as George Harrison, which was immediately denied, and ultimately ended up being wrong. The many commentary pieces about the rumored casting that it sparked might justify inclusion, but the miss doesn't speak well to his reliability. So even from your own links, it seems that for content that doesn't run afoul of WP:BLPSPS and is encyclopedic enough to include, it would have to be attributed and written as though it's a certainty. -- Patar knight - /contributions 04:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    I have not kept up with this discussion over the holidays but I see a bunch of dubious arguments have taken place. Trailblazer was correct above when he said that Sneider makes it clear when he is noting rumours versus reporting on something that his sources have confirmed to him, and the high-profile instances where he "got something wrong" are not examples of him lying but clearly examples of things being true or potentially true at the time which did not pan out. Several instances have been mentioned where a potential casting was reported but did not pan out. That is not a lie or a "miss" or anything of the sort, he is reporting on people being eyed by a studio or even entering negotiations but he can't guarantee that everything will work out in the end, and his wording reflects that. The exact same can be said for any of the Hollywood trades who have reported on potential casting that ended up falling through. The level of scrutiny being put on the accuracy of his reporting here is a bit ridiculous considering the same would not be done if he was still writing for TheWrap or Variety, which is what WP:SELFPUB protects. If any of these reports had come from a journalist who was still working at the trades we would not be having this conversation at all. As for WP:BLPSPS, its wording is oddly vague. "Never use self-published sources... as sources of material about a living person" -- what does that even mean? Any sentence that mentions a living person cannot be sourced to any self-published source, regardless of what that source is or what the sentence says? If an expert on the life of Donald Trump had a meeting with him and then tweeted out something Trump had said, we could not include that in any articles even if it was not a detail about Trump's personal life? I think it is crazy to say that we can't use a tweet or a blog post from a person we otherwise consider to be reliable to note when an actor is being considered for a role in a film or that they may have a scheduling conflict that could prevent them from doing a certain job. I am sure the wording at BLPSPS could not have been meant to prevent that. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    In your example, if that expert's tweet contained anything of substance, a reliable source would mention it, and you would be free to cite that reliable source. Alternatively, you could wait until the WP:BLP policy no longer applies to Trump, although I highly doubt that the tweet would constitute due weight in any Misplaced Pages article if no reliable source mentions the tweet by that time. In all other cases, yes, WP:BLPSPS would prohibit that tweet from being cited on Misplaced Pages to support a claim about Trump, despite the tweet being written by an expert, because the tweet is self-published. — Newslinger talk 22:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    There are situations where DUEWEIGHT allows a mention even if there is no wider coverage, which is the case here where useful context is being provided. Regardless, I still think the vague wording at BLPSPS is being used to inappropriately prevent additions that should not be covered by it. A subject-matter expert on the entertainment industry is providing noteworthy context on the development process for high-profile film and television articles, we are not talking about unreliable sources making exceptional or contentious claims about individuals and their personal lives. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    The WP:SPS policy, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer", is as explicit as can be. That longstanding requirement has been part of the verifiability policy since February 2007, and part of the biography of living persons policy when it became a policy in July 2006. (It was added to the latter page as a guideline requirement in April 2006.) If you would like to contest these policies, you are free to do so on their respective talk pages. — Newslinger talk 23:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    I was going to mention the wording in WP:V, as it's more explicit, but Newslinger beat me to it. I've found this annoying in the past, where the project of a living person is detailed in a otherwise reliable third party self-published source. However that exact situation is meant to be covered (and excluded) by it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    As I and others have said, the policies against self-published sources used for anything about living people is a bright line rule. And as for WP:DUEWEIGHT and ignoring the self-published/BLP issue, if the only source that mentions an aspect of an article subject is a self-published newsletter, then it would more likely to be undue to include based on the proportion of RS coverage. Misplaced Pages is not the great place to right great wrongs about what reliable sources should be covering. -- Patar knight - /contributions 06:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am not denying what BLPSPS says or how long it has said it, I am taking issue with the way it is being applied. I do not agree that we are violating BLPSPS by sourcing film production and development information to a self-published SME. I also do not agree that it is UNDUE to include information that only a single self-published SME has provided, particularly when it aligns with other details from other reliable sources. I'm not advocating for building an entire article based on such a source or for prioritising it over contradictory reliable sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    When I went through and removed most of the mainspace uses of InSneider, the overwhelming majority were reports of people being cast, people being considered for a acting/directing role, when an already cast role was going to make a secret appearance in a film, or creative decisions that can only be made by a very small number of people at a studio (i.e. director, producer, executives) that the guidance at WP:BLPGROUP leans towards applying the policy.
    If something aligns with what other reliable sources have said, then it would be best to use what those sources have said instead of a SPS. But in any case, UNDUE is not an avenue to bring in content that doesn't meet our verifiability/sourcing policies. -- Patar knight - /contributions 17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Again, we are not writing a biography about James Gunn or Peter Safran and using Sneider to source claims about their person. Sneider is used to write about the particulars of film production.
    One side of this discussion is looking at the forest, while the other side is focused on the trees. BarntToust 16:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    BLPGROUP doesn't seem to be relevant to this discussion, it is talking about "corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons" and specifically refers to harmful claims, neither of which apply here. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    The subsection is about when BLP applies to "legal persons" AND "groups". It does not displace WP:BLPSPS and in no way limits the applicability of BLP to groups to instances of potentially harmful material.
    The first part of the paragraph is a clarification about how legal persons existing as a term of art in law doesn't mean that they are always covered by BLP, which is meant to protect natural persons. The second half of the paragraph applies to all groups and tells us to look at each group on a case by case basis to see where it fits on the spectrum between groups that are small enough that BLP should apply and ones where they are too large. The part about harm is simply noting it is part of the analysis. For creative decisions on films, the people actually making that decision would be very small, so it should attract BLP protections, which means BLPSPS applies. -- Patar knight - /contributions 03:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    The fact that people make creative decisions on films does not mean we cannot use self-published sources to support those creative decisions, that is such a ridiculous stretch of what the policies say and mean. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Besides the stories involving named people where BLP would obviously apply, the level of creative decisions that InSneider reports on and that Misplaced Pages uses him for are those that would clearly be attributable to a very small number of people (5-10 max). They're typically stuff such as what projects a studio is considering, what characters will be cast, and what the plot of film will be about.
    We're not using InSneider for lower-level stuff like what belt buckle was used on a particular costume, what brand of communication devices the PAs use, or what shade of a color was used in a particular CGI shot. -- Patar knight - /contributions 15:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm going to leave this discussion with two absolutes. #1: Sneider is a dude who knows the industry of which he speaks about, and so long as we consider in-text attribution and consideration of due weight, we are fine. #2: ignore all rules. if BLPSPS or otherwise are keeping us from something helpful and insightful to the subjects of articles, it's within our power to ignore it. These policies don't exist to keep us from expanding the encyclopedia with expertise, especially from sources who don't have to worry about holding back information from seeing publication because of ulterior motives. That is where self-published sources are at an advantage ahead of traditional media. If you wish to hear tales of another subject-matter expert journalist putting a major media organisation on blast for withholding information for ulterior motives, see #Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson on this very page. NYT censored CEO killer Luigi Mangione's face for shady purposes. Not saying all legacy media is compromised, but I'm saying I enjoy seeing self-published journalists actually giving uncompromised coverage of their subjects that is made possible by self-published status. Just like Sneider. If general association, not even direct, with living people makes these sources unusable despite clear merits, then ignore all rules. BarntToust 17:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    The one policy that WP:IAR does not bypass is consensus. From this discussion, there is no consensus on ignoring the WP:BLPSPS and the WP:SPS policies to use Sneider's self-published claims about living persons. That type of content would be permissible on a wiki hosting site like Fandom – which typically uses minimal reliability requirements for the sake of completionism, but Misplaced Pages's sourcing standards are higher than that of most Fandom wikis. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful", particularly if it does not meet Misplaced Pages's reliability requirements. — Newslinger talk 17:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    A few editors here are trying to stretch the BLPSPS and SPS policies to prevent Sneider from being used at all, which shouldn't override the existing community consensus and clear evidence that he is a reliable source for film-related reporting. HadesTTW suggested wording that is a good start towards a common-sense solution where Sneider is used, with attribution, for reports on film-related coverage where better sources do not exist. This should lead to a compromise, with Sneider being used in situations where his reports are improving articles while editors become more aware of whether he should be used (and not using him in situations where his reports genuinely fall into BLPSPS territory, could be replaced by a better source, or some other issue such as DUEWEIGHT). All that is preventing us from moving on to that conclusion and ending this discussion is the idea that BLPSPS and SPS apply to every little mention of a living person in a source, which I maintain is ridiculous and inappropriate. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you do not agree with excluding self-published sources from being used for claims about living persons, you may propose a change to the relevant policies at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons. What you believe is "ridiculous and inappropriate" is actually how these policies have been applied on Misplaced Pages for 18 years, per community consensus. — Newslinger talk 18:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I never said I was against the central ideas of BLPSPS, I completely understand why we want to have a higher standard of verifiability when it comes to exceptional/controversial claims about real people who may take issue with said claims. That makes sense from multiple angles. What I take issue with is using the same standard for non-exceptional claims that happen to involve people. In my opinion, there is a very big difference between not trusting a SPS to report on claims of sexual misconduct (which I accept) and not trusting them to report on basic casting and filming details for a movie. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    exactly! If I actually paid any attention to X-Men 97, I would have rm'd that in a hot second. Sneider making claims that Beau DeMayo was doing heinous stuff to his staffers is some outrageous content that I would insist we wait on reports by NYT or WaPo or The Times, any particular source of merit to include those claims in the article. Outrageous claims require usage of especially reliable sources like newspapers of record. BarntToust 19:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    In the 18 years since that BLPSPS policy was enacted, the industry of journalism has changed drastically with a variety of seasoned journalists and subject-matter experts publishing their reports on their own accord, and I believe it is about time that the policies are updated to compliment such changes to update with the times. I do not think Sneider's status as a self-published source should discount his reliability with his actual reporting in his newsletter, and am more than happy to raise concerns for the policy to be updated elsewhere, but that is not the central issue to determine reliability in this discussion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Most people on this board are aware of the poor state of traditional journalism and the rise of indie outlets. I myself noted in a section below that Ken Klippenstein, who has a track record of good journalist work and whose stories I think are accurate, should nonetheless not be used without corroboration and/or discussion by non-SPS RSs because he's a BLPSPS. If any of you think there's appetite in moving from the current bright-line rule to another system for BLPSPSs (e.g. limited carve out where RSN endorses use with attribution), that might be a worthwhile discussion to have. As its stands though, BLPSPS is quite clear and the overwhelming majority of the uses of InSneider are in such cases.
    If we do want to go back to discussing the reliability of InSneider for non-BLP claims, I would start with something I asked earlier, are you as a subscriber to InSneider, able to provide examples of if he retracted, corrected, and/or explained why he missed on the Sweeney/Day Drinker, Holland/Spider-verse, Lindeloff/Star Wars stories? Getting a story wrong isn't fatal to use as a reliable source since even the best sources aren't 100%. However, for assessing new sources, correcting mistakes is an indicator of reliability (as long as the miss rate is not too high), but not addressing them is a sign of unreliability. -- Patar knight - /contributions 02:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    The language in WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS does not provide an exemption for self-published content about other living persons that is deemed to be uncontroversial. The "central idea" of this requirement is to ensure that any claim (not just controversial claims) about a living person passes adequate editorial oversight before it can be included in Misplaced Pages. There is nothing special about Sneider or his self-published newsletter that would warrant an exception to this requirement, which applies to every other individual who meets the WP:EXPERTSPS criterion. If anyone wants to amend this requirement, which has been applied on Misplaced Pages for more than 18 years, a discussion at WT:V, WT:BLP, or WP:VPP would be the first step to enact the change you are looking for. Such a change, if it gains community consensus, would apply to all sources of this kind and not just Sneider's content. Until then, the use of Sneider's self-published claims about other living persons remains a violation of core content policies. — Newslinger talk 06:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Once again, that is your interpretation of the policies which is clearly not shared by all editors. I fear a discussion at one of those other places will have similar luck due to a few editors that like things the way they are, but I am happy to give it a go. As for wrapping up this discussion, I still think we should return to the wording that I suggested above in response to HadesTTW. I am not concerned about these apparent "misses" that Patar knight keeps harping on about. Some of these may have been genuinely wrong, but not many of them (which is the case with almost all reliable trade sources as well). Most would have been accurate at the time but then things changed due to the developing nature of films (i.e. Lindelof leaving his SW film, Driver being considered for FF but not getting the part). The Sweeney instance seems to be a blatant case of him getting it wrong and being called out immediately, but that one time isn't enough to make him an unreliable source especially when nearly everything else he has reported aligns with other sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've started a policy talk page discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability § Self-published claims about other living persons. — Newslinger talk 20:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    I don't have a particular problem with using Sneider as a source, as long as we attribute his speculations properly. He has a generally good track record and is used by reliable sources. But I have come across situations where we report his speculations as fact. When he has an expectation that is not attributed to an official or at least genuinely connected source, if we choose to report that expectation at all, it needs to be attributed as "Sneider's expectation that such and such will occur", not as a Wikivoice statement that "such and such will occur." Rlendog (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Telegram (software)

    Once Telegram gets mentioned on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, its shortcuts would be WP:TELEGRAM and WP:RSPTELEGRAM.

    Telegram is unreliable because:

    • Telegram is an alt-tech platform, which means that it is highly unreliable as a source because it is used by the alt-right to evade censorship and publish far-right opinions and pseudoscientific conspiracy theories.
    • Telegram is a self-published source because it is a social networking service.
    • Most far-right things (such as Red Ice, The Light (newspaper), and Nicholas J. Fuentes) have escaped to Telegram after getting suspended on several mainstream social networking services.
    • Telegram has been described as a "safe haven for spammers and crypto scams" because of how most Telegram groups are flooded with cryptocurrency scammers and other types of spammers. However, t.me links are barely seen on Misplaced Pages (or i just don't see them often).
    • Pavel Durov has been arrested in France.

    Telegram would either be WP:GUNREL (like all other self-published sources) or WP:DEPREC (because it is alt-tech). However, if t.me links are commonly used to violate WP:NOTSOAPBOX, it would be WP:SPB.

    67.209.128.52 (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    I wasn't aware there was anyone suggesting that it might be reliable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Telegram doesn't need to be on the RSP, it's obviously unreliable and I don't see anyone arguing that it is reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed, it's just a user-generated source (WP:USERGEN). Reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF claims and posts by respectable experts/journalists/reliable sources, unreliable generally. Ca 16:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Aside from the fact that the alt-right i.e. literal neo-Nazis use it (which is something you can say about almost every social media platform at this point), Telegram, as a platform where anyone can create content with no clear editorial oversight, is a self-published source and unreliable, except in cases such as basic self-descriptions. I thought this was pretty obvious. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 00:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson

    Ken Klippenstein is cited in the Media outlets section of this article. He's an independent journalist who self-publishes and doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist. Reliable or not? I say no. Some other editors from that article might come here with more context. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    permalink of the 'Media outlets' section. Mr. Klippenstein is being used to cite:
    1. Klippenstein also alleged that The New York Times directed their staff to "dial back" on showing photographs containing Mangione's face.
    2. A report on the killing by the NYPD was obtained by independent journalist Dan Boguslaw, and published by Klippenstein on December 26. The report focused on Mangione's motive and people who express sympathy for him, whom they labeled as "extremists". Klippenstein alleged that multiple media outlets had access to the report, but selectively quoted it in a way that focused on Mangione. He said that "By withholding documents and unilaterally deciding which portions merit public disclosure, the media is playing god."
    1. Klippenstein, Ken (December 11, 2024). "NY Times Doesn't Want You to See Shooter's Face". kenklippenstein.com. Retrieved December 15, 2024.
    2. "Read the NYPD's Mangione report the media won't publish". Ken Klippenstein. Retrieved 28 December 2024.
    Some1 (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's crap. "Media reactions" or "in the media" sections in Misplaced Pages articles too often, like this article, become dumpsters where Wikipedians simply like to show off how good they are at finding random sources and shoehorning them into an article, for reasons. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Right, but the focus here is on the reliability of Ken Klippenstein and whether or not his statements (sourced to his own website and attributed) are usable in the article. Some1 (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist That's not accurate, as you could have confirmed by checking out the references in the Klippenstein WP article that note that he's been a journalist for outlets like The Nation and The Intercept. Both of those are generally reliable on the RSP. He's also seen as serious by other journalists (e.g., in this Columbia Journalism Review interview, which describes him "as one of the most fearless reporters of the Trump era").
    His self-published work cannot be used as a source for WP content about living or recently dead people (e.g., about Mangione's letter), per WP:BLPSPS. He could be used as a source on a BLP if the WP text sourced to him is not itself about a person (e.g., if it's about mainstream media). But in this case, I don't see how to disentangle his statements about the press from content about Mangione. Some other news outlets have reported a bit about the content currently sourced to Klippenstein, such as this Hill article, noting Klippenstein's apparent publication of Mangione's letter. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I was just going to say something similar - it's definitely inaccurate to say he hasn't written for other reliable sources in the past. It's true that his own stuff would fall foul of WP:SPS, but his stuff picked up by other reliable sources is usable, conceptually, with proper context and attribution. Sergecross73 msg me Sergecross73 msg me 15:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Hell no, get rid of this Kenny guy now. WP:BLPSPS: this content directly involves a living person (Luigi), and to make self-published claims about info regarding these living persons is against policy. And, Kenny boy over here is using his blog to write WP:BOLD things about an American newspaper of record. BarntToust 16:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    BarntToust - Dial it back a bit. WP:BLP applies to all BLP is all Misplaced Pages spaces. You calling him weird names like "Kenny Boy" probably doesn't constitute "written with the greatest care and attention". Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    If this was like WaPo or The Times writing this about NYT then yes I would support inclusion. This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here. "Ken" should be more concerned that he is writing damning blog posts accusing a reputable newspaper of compromised journalistic integrity. Who else will pick this up? Who else will corroborate this bold as all hell claim with trusted journalistic process? BarntToust 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    "This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here" is false, as is "he is writing damning blog posts." More than one person here has noted that he's a reliable journalist. Unbandito explained why he chose to start his own journalism Substack (not a blog). There are a number of established writers using Substack to host their reporting; here's WP's incomplete list. It's bizarre that you put his name in quotation marks, especially after calling him "this Kenny guy" and "Kenny boy." Nothing is stopping you from answering your own questions. I already noted a couple of sources that had picked it up; here's another. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I personally believe that bold claims against these news organisations need other comparable news organisations to corroborate them, to establish wp:due weight. the spreading of claims by sources who are especially biased and opinionated means nothing. "Ken" can make a bombshell accusation against NYT for spineless reporting but can we get The Guardian or some other prestigious institutions to back these claims? BarntToust 18:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    A reminder that WP:RS states "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject," so I don't agree that his reporting "means nothing." This thread started off with the false claim that he "doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist" and the question "Reliable or not?" The false claim has been addressed. The question shows that people have different opinions. Whether some mention of Klippenstein is DUE is not a matter of reliability and belongs on the Talk page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Having been employed by two ultra-partisan outlets for some short period, and then by "The Young Turks" which is marginally better than InfoWars, does not indicate this individual's self-published works meet the encyclopedia's reliability standards. And it has not been shown that I made a false claim, only if you think these ultra-partisan sources are "mainstream". Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent, which is laughable. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    He was employed by The Young Turks before he worked for The Nation and The Intercept, not after, and those aren't the only other media for which he's written. Partisanship doesn't determine whether a given media outlet is/isn't mainstream media. They're both listed on Harvard's Index of US Mainstream Media Ownership. Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent Please quote whomever you're referring to, because I don't see any comment suggesting that. I'd be happy to be corrected, but otherwise, it's counterproductive to characterize people's comments as more extreme than they actually are. Again: people clearly have different opinions about whether he's "Reliable or not?" You have your opinion, and I have mine. Personally, I consider the Columbia Journalism Review interview as evidence of his reliability; if they happen to focus on someone who's unreliable, I think they say so, as here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Funny, Misplaced Pages lists The Federalist as "generally unreliable due to its partisan nature" yet they're listed as mainstream on Harvard's index. Seems like some kinds of partisanship are more acceptable than others. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I didn't claim or imply that all MSM on Harvard's list are reliable. Reliability, partisanship, and mainstream media status are all distinct dimensions. A source can fall into any one of their 8 combinations. The full RSP sentence is "The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature and its promotion of conspiracy theories." Maybe you think a source that promotes conspiracy theories is reliable, but I don't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think a source promoting conspiracies is reliable, and I'm not disputing the decision against The Federalist. I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here. Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview, and I disagree. Even the content in question isn't just a professional critique of editorial decisions, but it's couched in nefarious undertones, even going so far as to accuse MSM of "playing god." Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here. That's a very general claim for which you've provided no evidence and that also seems way beyond the scope of this particular thread. Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview... Another very general claim, though this one at least touches on the thread's topic. Focusing just on Klippenstein, if you have evidence that he "frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a conspiratorial worldview" and not reliable, you should present it. If you do have that evidence, then you really should have presented it when you first asked "Reliable or not?" FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would just refer you over to the article's talk page where discussion of this issue has continued, and a resolution has been reached. As to Klipp's conspiratorial worldview, see his latest media rant which I also submitted in talk.. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't see how anything on the talk page provides evidence for your claim that he "frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters," and either you have evidence of that or you don't. So far, it looks like you don't. The only thing I see in your link relative to a "conspiratorial worldview" is his claim that "every self-appointed moral arbiter from politicians to major media outlets conspired to forbid the public from engaging in debate about how inhumane our healthcare system is," which hardly rises to the level of "frequently." FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    is that a conspiracy or is that just actually saying a taboo? BarntToust 19:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's a BLP violation to keep calling him a conspiracy theorist is what it is. One that Jonathan f1 seems quite committed to. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Like I explained to you on the talk page, I'm using his own words. He's alleging that politicians and major media outlets "conspired" against the public. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Him using a turn of phrase one time doesn't give us cause to start throwing insults at him on Misplaced Pages talk pages. Please provide a couple of reliable sources calling Klippenstein a conspiracy theorist or desist immediately. Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    if it looks like a duck, do we need reliable sources? I don't think we should explicitly be throwing around the Alex Jones-word, but rather show don't tell. Keeps BLP vio away. BarntToust 22:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not putting him in the same bucket with Alex Jones, but his repeated attacks on major media followed by a remark about them "conspiring" with each other is what it is. But okay, to move past all this pointless tone policing, I'll find a new phrase. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not going to rehash his entire career as a journalist here, and particularly his time with The Young Turks which will certainly provide you with ample evidence of this. It isn't even relevant here -the articles in question are attack pieces where he is either implicating major media outlets in a plot or calling their journalistic ethics into question. That we are even debating inclusion with no corroboration from high-grade sources is remarkable. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Again, I said if you have evidence that he "frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a conspiratorial worldview" and not reliable, you should present it. You're the one who made the claim, and you're the one with the burden of proof for it. Don't try to shift the burden onto me. I'm not "debating inclusion" of any specific edit right now. I'm telling you that if you can't or won't substantiate your claim, then you should retract it, as it's an unsubstantiated contentious claim and a BLP violation. The BLP policy applies to any statements about living persons on all WP pages, including this one. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'll retract it just to move on from this. My objection to Klippenstein in this particular case does not hinge on this little side issue. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why did you put his real name in quotes like that? Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    As an indicator that I generally distrust Substack reporters and their methods. I can't believe that anything will pass as qualified journalism nowadays 😐 BarntToust 18:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    In this case, I'd say keep it. Klippenstein obtained and published the manifesto, which mainstream sources begrudgingly admitted was the same one they refused to publish. It appears that the citations in this article are of secondary coverage of his work, which makes them even more admissible. Klip is not just some guy, he has journalistic credentials and a past of reliable reporting for multiple reliable orgs. He's one of a number of journalists who was laid off from major outlets in the last year or so as part of a broader trend of restructuring in media that is ongoing. He and others like Ryan Grim and Jeremy Scahill have moved on to independent work, but despite the loss of their association with an established organization, their reporting remains influential and they've made a number of valuable contributions to our knowledge of and discourse on current events. I worry that Misplaced Pages policy, which assumes that mainstream media has a static financial and ethical position in perpetuity, is not adequately nuanced to accommodate major shake-ups in the press such as what we're seeing today. I think it's also worth noting that while Ken publishes on substack, at least in some other articles he's written (such as his publication of a US intelligence report on Israeli preparations to strike Iran) he employs an editor to review his work. This is the same sort of self-publishing that mainstream RS do, and another argument in favor of his reliability. Unbandito (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    "multiple reliable orgs."
    Really, like what? The Young Turks? I'm aware that Nation and Intercept are considered generally reliable, but there's also consensus that they're opinionated, biased and partisan, and should be used with caution. Klipp doesn't work for any of these publications anymore; he self-publishes on substack and has made a career for himself publishing MSM polemic. That's what this section includes currently -Klipp's self-published polemic directed at NY Times, CNN etc. Even if this appeared in The Nation, there'd be weight issues. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, The Nation and The Intercept. All media has bias, and any media-literate person should understand this. I think weight arguments are a lot stronger regarding content that is more than a few sentences or a short paragraph long. I don't think the due weight for this content is zero, and therefore I think the material is appropriate. If there is a significant view in opposition to Klippenstein, I think the page would be better improved by expanding it. Unbandito (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Of course all media, and all humans, are biased, but when a consensus on here comes with that caveat, you know you're not dealing with a gold standard RS. And this is only relevant here if you think his past employment with these outlets, however brief, in some way lends credibility to his self-published substacks. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think what his past employment in media shows is that he has the training and follows the same standards of verifiability as prestige media organizations. I think it's worth noting that when a fake version of the manifesto was making the rounds, Klippenstein declined to publish it and called it out as misleading because he couldn't verify its authenticity. Regardless of where he's publishing them, I think his publication of several leaked documents ahead of the mainstream press as well as his history as a FOIA journalist shows that he is well connected to valuable sources of information and is engaged in "real" investigative journalism of the sort that prestige outlets are increasingly unwilling to pay for when opinion pieces get them just as many clicks.
    His perspective on the unwillingness of the media to publish a document which they had verified is true is granted some additional relevance by the fact that he is the one who published the document and inquired to these organizations as to why they hadn't, as well as by the fact that journalists from those legacy organizations leaked internal communications to him which showed the decision those organizations had made.
    I think that this is frankly a strong example of the way that Misplaced Pages's current RS policies are inadequate to handle the reality that with the traditional media in financial and organizational crisis, sometimes breaking news is going to be published by small independent outlets or individuals. Any conception of reliability that uniformly dismisses sources like Klippenstein as if they're some random blog post by John Q. Public while reifying legacy media despite the history of its errors and shortcomings and the media studies scholarship that problematizes a simplistic conception of source reliability, is sure to exclude some valuable material and include a lot of junk. Without getting too far off topic, I think the solution to this is to emphasize verifiability and source consensus over things like editorial process and organizational prestige, and to attribute wherever there is controversy or disagreement. Unbandito (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Anyone using phrases like "MSM polemic" ought to be stepping well away from deciding the reliability of any sources, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    NY Times and CNN are mainstream media, a polemic is "a piece of writing expressing a strongly critical view of someone or something." Thus, Klippenstein's hit pieces on MSM are polemics. I don't see why me knowing what these words mean implies I need to "step well away" from assessing reliability. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    if someone else reports on it, its not sps, its secondary coverage of SPS, which should be admissible in BLP, right? I think we can't directly use any details in his blog that aren't vetted and cited by another non-SPS news source Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, secondary sources can be used for a BLP, if they are RSs. For example, this LA Times article confirms that Klippenstein published Mangione full "manifesto." And this Mediaite article could be used re: his criticism of other media for not releasing the whole thing, though RSP says "There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement." Perhaps there are other reliable non-SPSs that are better sources for the content about Klippenstein's criticism of other media; I'm not going to take time right now to search further. There may still be questions about due weight, whether a claim needs to be attributed, etc., but those are distinct from the question of reliability and what can be used for BLP material. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    See, this is the thing, we've got LA Times, a high quality RS for news, so there's no reason to cite Klippenstein. But that covers the manifesto issue, which I wouldn't object to including. But the hit piece on those MSMs? Yeah, that's not found in LA Times or any other source on that level, only a "marginally reliable" source. I do not think Klipp is any position to critique editorial decisions at these publications, and do not see how that's due weight anyway. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I had to read the section again (didn't remember it from memory) so let me rephrase this:
    • I don't object to the bit about media not publishing the manifesto, and this could be sourced to the LA Times (the secondary source referencing Klippenstein).
    • The next line about the NY Times not showing the suspect's face -no RS is talking about this and I personally find it irrelevant.
    • The last part about media outlets selectively quoting from the NYPD report -this exceeds weight limits and makes the section read like a hit piece against MSM, all sourced to one man. Klippenstein objects to the NYPD using the term "extremists" to describe the suspect's supporters, and cites a report by security firm Dragonfly to argue that the risk of violent attacks on corporate leaders will likely remain low. If you read his source, they, too, use the word "extremists" to describe people who support the killing.
    Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I read his work and personally trust Klippenstein. However, his substack is clearly a self-published source. Unbandito's comments on broader issues with Misplaced Pages, while interesting, don't address the WP:BLPSPS issue. Ultimately, Klippenstein is the person with final approval on what he wrote.
    I would consider Klippenstein's views WP:DUE if they are reported on by reliable sources. Based on what I know and see here, I can't consider him to meet the WP:EXPERTSPS criteria in this topic area. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with Chess here - WP:EXPERTSPS is appropriate here. Klippenstein is a respected journalist. He's also self-publishing. But, in this case, he's an expert who is self-publishing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    See talk page (article linked up top). Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'll endorse this as position as well. Klippenstein has a good track record with reputable outlets and hasn't had issues so far on his own, but is ultimately a WP:BLPSPS that should only be included when corroborated and/or discussed by non-SPS RSs. That appears to be the case with the manifesto itself, but not the other reports. -- Patar knight - /contributions 01:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Pretty much yes. There's no issue with the manifesto content, but the other reports are not mentioned in any secondary RS of any quality (ignoring Washington Times and the art website). There's also the fact that he's mentioned 3 separate times in a section of only 8 lines, which is hard to defend. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I merged the 'Media outlets' section with the 'Other' section. An editor made a good point on the talk page that according to Klippenstein's article, he's a FOIA document expert, and that much of his journalism draws on information he has uncovered from records requested at state and national levels of the US government, which also frequently include information from leaked documents. Some1 (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Regardless of expert status, BLPSPS applies and would bar the use when it's not corroborated. It seems the new combined section has some sources that discussion Klippenstein's work in and of itself, which partially solves that issue. The issue then is if the amount of coverage is DUE. Klippenstein is an established journalist and some inclusion is probably due given the coverage, but a lot of the paragraph is repetitive, so I would probably cut it down by half. -- Patar knight - /contributions 19:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Could you comment in the article's talk page, because despite what is being said here in this thread, certain editors still think he's a "certified rando", "a random blogger", and unreliable 1, 2, 3. Some1 (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    From what I can tell, a consensus has not yet been achieved here. I don't wish to step on anybody's toes, but I have reverted User:Toa Nidhiki05's blanking of a large portion of the disputed section here. Kire1975 (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please see WP:ONUS: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You should self-revert your reversion until consensus has been reached in one way or another. Astaire (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    But WP:NOCON is also relevant: When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion is still ongoing, so I don't see that as relevant yet. Astaire (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    The material that User:Toa Nidhiki05 removed had been in the article since December 13 without any dispute (until now). Some1 (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ken Klippenstein is a bit of a weird special case because he's an experienced reporter whose Substack is nevertheless still clearly an WP:SPS but because he has very different views on the direct publication of source documents (like manifestos) than much of the rest of the media, he is reasonably often the main source of the full text of a document that the rest of the media acknowledges exists, is real, and that Klippenstein's version of the text is correct, but refuses to actually publish the text themselves. A sort of one-man Wikileaks situation.
    I honestly think that since he is clearly reliable in these situations he is actually a fine source for these sorts of documents, presuming we bear in mind that:
    a) Documents published by him should be clearly acknowledged in the text to be sourced to him alone.
    b) Just because Klippenstein is reliable for the text of the documents he publishes doesn't mean that the documents themselves are reliable for facts or that Klippenstein is endorsing or even has checked their factual claims.
    c) Klippenstein doesn't have to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines and so it's very possible that documents he publishes don't follow BLP guidelines for some reason. AFAICT usually what he publishes is about public figures but that doesn't have to be the case, and in cases where a document has private information about a private figure we shouldn't repeat it. Loki (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    RfC: NewsNation

    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)

    Is this article declaring the Newport Tower a 12th c. baptistry a reliable source for the tower??

    The autho rhas emailed me demanding it be added to the Newport Tower article as it has been peer reviewed.. Other non-peer reviewed papers of his can be found here. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    For reference the tower is Newport Tower (Rhode Island) The answer is no. The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming. Even academic presses slip up sometimes and Istanbul University Press is frankly quite a bit distant from Rhode Island such that I would be cautious about the level of rigour of its fact checking (if any) on the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    In addition to this, the author is retired from the U.S. Navy and a student of aeronautics, while this paper involves a great deal of cartography, religious history, etc. In other worlds, far outside of the author's field, even if there was some question about its reliability. Looking at the non-peer reviewed papers, I see that the author also believes the Kensington Runestone is legit. Woodroar (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hemiauchenia, that WP article has an entire section on alternative hypotheses, so it's not clear to me that "The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming" is a reason to exclude this hypothesis. Given that context, what does it means to be a RS for a fringe theory? A source may be reliable for the existence of the fringe theory but unreliable otherwise.
    It's unclear to me whether this chapter is truly peer-reviewed. It appears in an edited book, and the editors are on the faculty of Istanbul University, but it's not clear to me that they have expertise in this area, whether they reviewed all of the chapters for accuracy or only for things like pertinence and organization, or if they sought any outside review for any of the chapters. Their Google Scholar info: , . The book was just published, and I couldn't find any reviews for it. What the author of the chapter "demands" is irrelevant. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    The question is, does this source add anything to the "Norse hypothesis" such that it is worth adding the article to include it? I think the answer is no. There's no evidence that this paper has had any impact on the wider discourse surrounding the tower. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    I haven't read the paper, but the abstract says "Two Turkish cartographers, the earliest being Maximus Planudes (c. 1260-1310), and later, Piri Reis (c. 1465-1553), illustrated the North American Baptistery on their respective cartographic works." I know nothing about the "Norse hypothesis" and so cannot judge whether this is something new; the current WP text makes no mention of Turks, but perhaps that's just a matter of what was judged to be DUE. The book link above says that the book was only published last week, so at this point the chapter cannot possibly have had any impact on wider discourse. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    It seems the text is mostly taken up by attempting to divine meaning from certain blotches on an old map. This is not a particularly convincing hypothesis for what it's worth. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Peer review is only as good as the peers in question... Istanbul University and history have a rather fraught history when it comes to Turkish nationalist historiography (which I would fit this under given the elements of Turkish exceptionalism). We have a long history of disregarding those views because academics outside of Turkey do (especially as it concerns claims of Ottoman voyages of discovery, the Kurds, and the Armenian Genocide). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    No, obvious crank. I would take it as evidence that Istanbul University Press is not reliable. I imagine he was stationed at the base in Newport and got interested, but he should seek professional training in history and learn to read some relevant languages before leaning in on a claim this unlikely. There's really nothing in his article except some maps so extremely magnified that they don't resemble anything in particular. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu

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

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

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    Far Out Magazine

    Would Far Out Magazine be considered a reliable source for music and the arts? 2600:100C:A21D:971A:1418:AFA9:3465:D674 (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Only RSN-comment I could find on it here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_458#Rockpasta.com. I can't find an "about"-page. Currently it's used on WP quite a bit, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Comments at Talk:Far Out (website) indicate caution is called for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    I make it a point to remove this source whenever I see it because of the fact that, beyond the WP:CIRCULAR concerns noted on the talk page linked above, many of their articles seem to republish content from years ago, while titling them to make it sound as if new insight has come out recently. For a few examples as of late, see , , and are all examples of this website recycling content from other, more reliable sources that can (and should) be cited instead. For all I know, there may be minor instances where this site can be used, but I'm familiar enough with Far Out Magazine to say that, for the most part, their content is clickbait churnalism, and in particular, should not be used for information about living persons. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Credit to User:Binksternet for explaining the unreliability of this source on this user talk page message. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    TL;DR, no, Far Out is unreliable; it's a website that engages in churnalism. See this discussion at WT:ALBUMS. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 14:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Minimally reliable, there may be some use but in general I don't think they're reliable for the reasons that have been mentioned (especially the churnalism/CIRCULAR concerns). I don't think that this is suprising, they are what it says on the label... "Far Out" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Are the sources in these articles primary or secondary?

    Are the sources in these two articles primary or secondary? 1874 Waitemata by-elections and 1886 Waitemata by-election. The book provided is just a collection of parliamentary records, elections, terms served etc. an example is here: Traumnovelle (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Those articles are sourced to contemporary newspapers, which would be secondary sources; one of which, the New Zealand Herald, is included in the "perennial sources" page and categorised as "Generally reliable". Daveosaurus (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      • Newspapers are interesting to discuss because their classification evolves with time. Historians usually classify recent newspaper reports as being secondary, but old reports are classified as primary (this is because the sources used by the newspaper have been lost, and so the newspaper becomes the earliest available record of the events… with more modern sources based on that old newspaper). Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      Reliability isn't the issue here. It is if the sources are primary or secondary. Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, and Berkeley considers contemporary newspaper articles as primary sources: Traumnovelle (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2025 (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)

    Bossip

    Hello. I am debating on improving the "4 da Fam" article for a possible WP:FAC nomination. I have a question about a potentials source. Would Bossip be considered reliable and high-quality enough for the FAC process (or for Misplaced Pages in general)? I would be using the following source: Rappers Be Lyin: 10 Greatest Rap Lies. The About Us page says that the site has earned awards in the past and has been mentioned in various reliable sources. I am hesitant about it as Bossip is a "gossip" website. Apologies if this site was already discussed before, and thank you for any help and insight on this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Looks marginally reliable to me. Like it's not great. But by the standards of pop culture media it's not as bad as it might be. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for the response. That is fair. I had a similar opinion about to be honest. If I do decide to work on this article in the future, I may use other sources first and then see if this one would even be necessary in the end or not. For the purposes of a FAC, which has stricter requirements for sources, it may not be the best option for that context. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    What exactly would 'Before she was the illest female in her Dillard’s department, Amil was the illest in all of Hip-Hop, making $40K/guest verse as the Roc’s first lady? Riiiiiiiight.' be used to source? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    It would be used as a negative review for the song as it is criticizing Amil's lyrics. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah. The use of slang isn't the issue here. Reliability isn't a register of specific vocabulary. I suppose the question would be whether, Amil was, in fact, making $40,000 per guest verse previously. Should they be reporting that factual statement accurately and should they have a decent history of accuracy in reporting and clarity in corrections when they make an error then the rest is just aesthetics. Simonm223 (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    It wouldn't be reported in the article as a factual statement. The "$40,000 per guest verse" bit is part of the song's lyrics and would be addressed in that context, not as an absolute fact. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Seems pretty odd if not outright illogical to use a gossip website if you're going to bring this to FAC. The typical reviewer there expects the cream of the crop of sources, not tabloid gossip. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 00:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Read some of the articles on the site and it's overly unserious and pretentious BS; my advice is to not use this source. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 00:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Okay. Thank you for the response. I agree with your assessment. I have removed it from the article. I am honestly not sure why I used it in the first place. I just thought that it would be beneficial to open a discussion about it here to get further feedback. I believe my question has been answered, and hopefully this can be used to help any other editors in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Science-fiction fanzines

    I see the question of science fiction fanzines has come up many times in the archives. My question is fairly simple. Writer and translator Philippe Hupp, the founder of the Metz science fiction festival, sent a letter to PKD Otaku, a sercon fanzine that is notable in the PKD community and is often referred to by PKD scholars, but is admittedly obscure in the grander scheme of things when it comes to reliable sources. In the letter that they published (pp. 4-6), Hupp goes into some historical detail of his relationship with Philip K. Dick and how he was able to get him to speak at the festival in 1977, and provides important historical documents (correspondence, photos) that is reprinted with permission by PKD Otaku. Currently, I'm citing this letter in an article about the festival to say some basic facts about the history. While Hupp and Metz have been covered by numerous reliable sources in France and elsewhere, I believe this kind of exclusive historical detail has only been revealed in PKD Otaku. Is it acceptable for me to carefully cite this info from Hupp (it is, after all, about him and his relationship with PKD) and point to PKD Otaku as the source? The article I am working on, If You Find This World Bad, You Should See Some of the Others, is currently on GAR, and it has been pointed out that this fanzine may not meet the criteria for a RS. It does have two editors, however, but I think it is safe to say it is self-published like most fanzines. It would be a shame for this historical information to be ignored. What is the best course of action? If it isn't acceptable to use as a primary source, I've thought that a brief mention of it in a footnote might be okay. Please let me know your thoughts. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    If it's the only source available, and the facts are not controversial, and cited as being from Hupp's account of things, it seems fine to me. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I believe it meets that criteria, however, I will revise it further to make sure that it does. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Beebom.com

    Beebom has been in a few discussions previously about reliability but they've had few responses. I'm asking about their reliability after their reference in Game Science where their opinion is being used as fact WP:RSOPINION. Issues below also make it difficult to establish reliability via WP:SOURCEDEF.

    I'm not familiar enough with Beebom to know their overall reporting but I've come across issues.

    • They don't have a masthead so I don't know who their writers are or what their expertise is. The most they have is an About Us page with a few higher roles not in editorial and then two editors without any information. This makes it difficult to establish their level of independence and editorial control. A previous RS discussion pointed out some of their content being written by "Beebom Staff" which is still the case but not often.
    • Their editorial guidelines are limited and don't disclose important information. For example, they don't state a separation of ads from editorial. They don't mention here the affiliate programs they're in or the sponsorship deals they do. They don't mention their Beebom Gadgets storefront where they sell phones and make videos on them. However, they disclose having an Amazon affiliate program in their privacy policy. But they don't disclose the other "affiliate partners" they use. These issues brings into question conflicts of interest which they don't have a policy on. Alongside other basic guidelines like a corrections policy or how they handle accepting samples (if they do).
      • A 2016 interview explains that they make money from sponsored posts and partnerships. This isn't included in their editorial guidelines. I bring it up since they feature this interview on their About Us page, but Misplaced Pages blocks links to the interviewer's site, YourStory.
      • They used to tag sponsored posts as "#sponsored" 5 years ago but stopped. It seems they now use a byline named "Partner Content" for those articles. But they don't mention anything about a sponsorship or partnership in their latest article under this byline. Nor is there anything about this in their policies. So I can't confirm if they do this for all paid content or not.
    • I tried looking into their gaming coverage after seeing them on the Game Science page and found a clickbait news article where they deliberately lie. The headline is, "Black Myth: Wukong Is Now the Most Played Steam Game of All Time", which they almost immediately state isn't true. While also stating "Yes, Black Myth Wukong is now the most-played Steam game of all time!" This makes me question their overall fact checking and reliability when they lie in a news headline.

    I can't find much mention of Beebom aside from their own social media on google. Even after removing their social media, I can't find anything. Snakester95 (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    It should probably be removed as a source for the example you brought, since an "opinion" piece is not "reporting." As for the site as a whole, it seems to fit more the model of YouTube gadget reviewer, and could probably be used as a source for certain product reviews where appropriate. But they haven't shown that they have much editorial oversight. The two editors I see listed do not have bios. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    So I did a bit of digging and they haven't really been keeping their website up to date. One of the two editors has now moved into the position of "content strategist". This looks like a very marginal source. I've definitely seen worse in the video game space but I'd personally hesitate to use it for anything controversial. I would also suggest that opinion from this source is likely undue unless there is a named author on the byline with some sort of expertise independent of the outlet. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Jacobin

    What's worse about this Jacobin take on housing: the woeful lack of fact checking or the smug attempt to blame you for noticing?

    Jacobin is currently listed as "generally reliable" under WP:RSP. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    There are definitely issues with Jacobin, and a reevaluation of its reliability is probably going to come sooner or later. I don't think a Reddit page full of amateur pundits, who are in turn discussing another social media discussion, is going to give us anything meaningful to work with. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Not a good look, but I will note that the article referred to says at the bottom: Correction: An earlier version of this article overstated the amount of US housing stock that Blackstone owns. So far as I can tell, the sentence in question is removed from the current version of the article entirely. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    That would indicate, notwithstanding snark on Twitter, the website for snark, Jacobin actually did the thing we expect of a reliable source and made a correction to an article with a factual error, identifying with a correction notice that a correction had been made. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think this justifies a significant increase in caution towards the author at the very least. In general, an in-depth look at it's reliability is probably due, even though a Reddit discussion isn't evidence. FortunateSons (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's strange that it was closed as 'generally reliable' in the first place, when most respondents voted either 'no consensus' or 'generally unreliable' in the last RFC. Hi! (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Had a quick perusal of the r/neoliberal subreddit. It appears to be discussing one sentence in one (possibly opinion) article in Jacobin. Are you asking whether that particular article is a reliable source for that one sentence? Burrobert (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just as an aside, RFCs are not votes (if they were then reliability would be based on the personal opinions of those taking part). I can't speak for the closer of that RFC, but it appears those saying that Jacobin is 'general reliable' had better policy based reasons. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sources making corrections, as has happened in this case, is a sign of reliability. Things that happen on social media, and reactions on social media, are mostly irrelevant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    The original RfC that supposedly found Jacobin to be reliable really is a bit of a tenuous close. A simple beancount in that RfC would lean against treating it as WP:GREL, and I'm not really able to discern why the arguments for reliability were so much stronger than those in opposition that an affirmative Option 1 consensus was declared instead of a no-consensus close (at minimum). I do think that it's ripe for re-evaluation. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The author's behavior would be annoying if we were chatting at lunch and I personally dislike the smugness, but reliability isn't a personality contest, and as Simonm223 points out the article itself was corrected and the erroneous information removed. That's basically what we expect a reliable source to do—fix itself when an error gets pointed out. So long as the actual content produced is dependable or gets fixed to become dependable, that's reliability. Anonymous Reddit complaints trying to score Internet points aren't a compelling reason for overturning the prior RfC. Evidence of a pattern of unreliable reporting and failures to make corrections would be more persuasive. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    I don't think reviewing this again is going to change anything much, the "worst" outcome is likely a 2, but because it often mixes news and opinion, even a 1 is going to be caveated with caution or attribute, so absent falsehoods, etc might as well let sleeping dogs lie. Selfstudier (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    • I think it is time for a review of the past discussion and time to bring up Jacobin for a reliability check. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I don't hold Jacobin in any particular high regard but, as I mentioned above, publicly issuing a statement of correction when a factual inaccuracy is identified is the standard Misplaced Pages expects from reliable news media. So I guess my question is, aside from it having a bias that is different from the NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus, what, precisely, is it that makes Jacobin less reliable? What is the basis for an RfC? Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      What does "NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus" mean? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • It looks like they handled this appropriately, can you explain what the issue would be? Your comment is a little light on details, its basically just spamming a reddit discussion... Maybe tell us what you think? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    A new discussion on Jacobin is long overdue, particularly per Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin. It's clear that Jacobin is not reliable on all topics, and at the very least additional considerations should apply in these cases. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Agreed. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    An RfC next would be worthwhile. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed. It's good that this was later corrected, but it's such a blatant error that should never have made it through a decent editorial process in the first place. There's even a (less serious) error in the next sentence: Monsanto hasn't existed in 6 years. Combined with the past concerns and the borderline result of the past RfC, it's time for a discussion whether "generally reliable" is still a fair assessment. the wub "?!" 17:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    All good points! Iljhgtn (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors

    The discussion is partially non-topical for this forum. The discussion about the issues that belong here continues below in § The Heritage Foundation.—Alalch E. 19:16, 8 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.

    Taking this here based on a recommendation from Aquillion. The conversation began at the PIA arbitration evidence talk page where a report from forward was shared . According to this report, the Heritage Foundation plan to use facial recognition software and a database of hacked usernames and passwords in order to identify contributors to the online encyclopedia. A copy of the Heritage Foundation proposal deck is available here. This Heritage Foundation plan to dox wikipedia editors also would include creating fake Misplaced Pages user accounts to try to trick editors into identifying themselves by sharing personal information or clicking on malicious tracking links that can identify people who click on them. It is unclear whether this has begun.

    Clearly this situation is alarming in the extreme and the discussion at the arbitration case brought forward the very reasonable suggestion of a project-wide block of all Heritage Foundation domains. So why here? Well Aquillion suggested a reasonable first-step toward this would be to get the site deprecated and blacklisted via RS/N. So that's what I'm here to do. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    I am unsure about a retalitory deprecation (or whatever). Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    No this would be a preventative deprecation. The idea, to my understanding, is to remove the ability of Heritage Foundation domains to interact with en.wp as much as possible. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Is that not best done with range blocks, to prevent them from setting up accounts? Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think this is a discussion to be had at the Village Pump, as it's not a matter of reliability. Deprecation wouldn't have the effect that your looking for, you would need blacklisting and I don't think this would fall within the normal process of blacklisting. So a discussion at VP seems more appropriate as it's something outside of prior policy or guidelines. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    A village pump discussion was created and the suggestion to bring the conversation here actually arose from discussion of that conversation at the arbitration page. Honestly I'm pretty nervous about a pseudo-governmental organization trying to interfere with individual Misplaced Pages editors in this way so I'll happily take the conversation to whatever board we think is most appropriate. But right now we've got a whole lot of conversations pointing to different places as a precis to discussing the actual problem. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hostile actions by a third party against Misplaced Pages or it's editors isn't a reliability issue, and this isn't a forum for anything but reliability issues. If anything it sounds more like safe guarding, a much bigger issue that should probably involve the WMF. However if editors want to start a discussion about it's reliability, per the sources below, that would be a seperate matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I will point out that part of what I said there was that they're already used on some 5000 pages, and are probably already depracable for publishing obvious disinformation (especially since the 2020 election.) I wouldn't have suggested going through RSN to deprecate them if I didn't think they were also worthy of deprecating on their own merits, entirely separately from the threats to use their websites to dox Misplaced Pages editors; but deprecating them would make it easier to add them to the spam blacklist and would help avoid situations where editors are forced into a situation where they have to consider whether to click a link to an obviously Heritage Foundation-controlled site in order to verify a presented source. I suppose we could just move ahead with trying to get those sites added to the spam blacklist without deprecation, but for a site that also publishes disinformation, it seems easier to get it deprecated first, since it ought to be an easy call. --Aquillion (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Apologies if I misinterpreted. I'll admit that reading the thread at the arbitration case upset me rather considerably. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    That is a more valid reason, there do seem to be issues with the recent work. Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    This discussion should be closed and a proper thread should be opened with substantiated concrete claims about problems with this source. —Alalch E. 15:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    The thread itself is the precursor to an RFC. That said, they've published misinformation or disinformation about climate change, the FDA elections and politics, and more. --Aquillion (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's enough to open an RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can I suggest closing this section and starting another, to afford accusations that questions of reliability are based on animosity to the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    +1 I think it's time we started a RfC (perhaps in a new section, as suggested by AD). M.Bitton (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, new section. —Alalch E. 18:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    An RFC is in a new section already? You mean a new RFCbefore section? Titled Heritage Foundation? (ie without the dox part) Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    New level 2 section. —Alalch E. 19:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I certainly have no objection to closing this discussion and opening a new one to host an RfC / RfC Before.Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    References

    1. Washington, Haydn; Cook, John (2011). Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. London: Earthscan. p. 75,77. ISBN 978-1-84971-335-1. OCLC 682903020.
    2. Fisher, Michael. "Heritage Foundation". Archived from the original on August 8, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
    3. McKie, Ruth E. (2023). The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 19–50. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2. ISBN 978-3-031-33592-1 – via Springer Link. Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...
    4. Wubbena, Zane C.; Ford, Derek R.; Porfilio, Brad J. (1 March 2016). News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education. Routledge. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-68123-401-4 – via Google Books. For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.'s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...
    5. Kessler, Glenn (March 31, 2021). "The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 11, 2021. Retrieved April 2, 2021.
    6. Bensinger, Ken; Fausset, Richard (September 7, 2024). "Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 7, 2024. Retrieved September 7, 2024.
    7. Fields, Gary; Swenson, Ali (July 12, 2024). "Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force". Associated Press. Archived from the original on July 13, 2024. Retrieved July 13, 2024.
    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.

    Could someone who can read Bengali take a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tamluk Royal Family?

    Hello, I started the title AfD in response to some users recreating a rejected draft in mainspace and they responded by filling the discussion with sources that don't pass WP:SIGCOV. I'm unable to read some of the sources, though, in particular one that the users claim has a whole chapter on the subject of the article. Could someone who can read the Bengali sources take a look at the discussion and see if the article passes WP:GNG? --Richard Yin (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    You may have more luck asking at WT:WikiProject Bangladesh or WT:WikiProject West Bengal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks, will repost there (West Bengal, since it's the Wikiproject whose scope covers the article's subject). --Richard Yin (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    The Heritage Foundation

    The Heritage Foundation has published misinformation or disinformation about climate change, the FDA elections and politics, and more. It has been publishing obvious disinformation especially since the 2020 election. Its website heritage.org is used as a source on some 5000 pages (correction: I copied "5000" with this search link from another editor uncritically. "heritage.org" includes all of "english-heritage.org" links; the real count is around 1750 —00:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)). I'm inviting editors to consider whether this source should be deprecated. Another thing to consider are possible other sources such as websites and publications operated by or published by the Heritage Foundation.—Alalch E. 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    We should definitely be avoiding using sources that intentionally put forward disinformation. Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    What about the Index of Economic Freedom? —Alalch E. 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Nothing of value would be lost if we had to do away with that one. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I like how the United States is 0.6 points away from not being green in that index. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    What about the books published by the Heritage Foundation?
    What about https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future as a source in Laffer curve? —Alalch E. 19:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Not sure I would want to go direct to deprecation unless they are demonstrably churning out falsehoods.
    On a quick search, I only found this discussion in the archives, about the Daily Signal, which looks like a pretty partisan affair. Selfstudier (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    A lot of these are country rankings on the foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. Not sure if we want this used or not. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I was a bit flip above with my comment regarding that index but I guess my question would be what value it is? I mean, let's be honest, the methodological claim in our own article on the index The creators of the index assert that they take an approach inspired by Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations suggests they've derived their index from theories in an outdated treatise on economics from 1776. Furthermore we could probably reproduce the index just by measuring how deregulated any given economy is. I'm not sure what neutral value there is to Misplaced Pages giving breathing space to an index that equates economic deregulation with freedom on the basis of a 250 year old book. Simonm223 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I mean, just as an example, their benchmark for Government spending is $0. IE: The ideal case, for this index, is that there is no government at all. Simonm223 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    That just means you personally disagree with them. I could turn it around on you by asking what value there is to the contributions of editors who describe themselves as socialists in their userboxes.
    Obviously the index in question is from a particular point of view, but I don't see any evidence adduced that it's not reliable for descriptions of countries according to that POV, which is something that can be of interest. --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oh do stop. I've heard that particular WP:NPA violation a thousand times. My argument is that they have no valid methodology and a WP:FRINGE WP:AGEMATTERS perspective, it is not that they are an extreme right-wing group. Simonm223 (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't know much about their methodology; that's something that could be explored. As to the perspective, I think the reference to Smith is more normative than descriptive. I don't think you can apply AGEMATTERS to moral propositions. --Trovatore (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's a moral proposition tp build your economic worldview on a text that predates electricity? Simonm223 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's a moral proposition to value lesser regulation per se (as opposed to achieve some other goal). --Trovatore (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Their index is pseudoscience. We aren't supposed to use that in Misplaced Pages except to critique it. Simonm223 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's a bold claim. Evidence? --Trovatore (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don’t really care about whatever their wacky economic index dealio is, we just flat-out shouldn’t trust an organization that wants to systematically attack our userbase and will most likely harvest any data it finds for that purpose. It’s like reaching for a source in a bear trap. Dronebogus (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    What about https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB850689110237569500 (archive.is). We are not worried that the Wall Street Journal will systematically attack our userbase etc. —Alalch E. 11:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    It appears that the use in these pages are not problematic and supported by WP:EDITCON, replacing sources in 5000 pages would be a ton of work. I would like to first know in which pages did the actual use of this source appear unreliable, such as promoting WP:FRINGE. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think they can be counted as a reliable source but I see no objection to saying what they think since they are important if it is obvious they are being quoted as a heavily biased party. They make it fairly clear what they are rather than trying to be deceptive about their aims which at least is a mercy. Really most of these 'think tanks' and 'foundations' and 'institutes' and even 'research organizations' are like that and we'd be well off if they were specially marked as such instead of being mixed up with reliable sources. NadVolum (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would consider it WP:GUNREL since it’s self published and openly partisan. HenrikHolen (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's not self-published in the sense we use that term. Lots of reliable sources publish their own materials, including e.g. serious thinktanks. It may be GUNREL, but SPS is not a valid policy-based argument in this case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    There was recently (may still be going on) a very extensive discussion about whether WP:SPS applies to "gray" sources such as think tanks and advocacy groups. This line of reasoning probably is coming out of that discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    There was an RFC as well, there wasn't a consensus on how to define such sources but there was consensus against always considering them to be self-published. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think it can be used, but like with most such sources attribution is appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Horse Eye's Back Please review reference no. 6 in Special:PermanentLink/1264352480 (Additionally, each state is entitled to select a number of electors to vote in the Electoral College, the body that elects the president of the United States, equal to the total of representatives and senators in Congress from that state). Is the source adequate? Would we want to replace it? —Alalch E. 23:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah thats somewhere where I just don't see using Heritage (or any other think tank) being due. That seems like a place where academic sourcing should be pretty easy to find. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks. What do you think about the following paragraph found in Special:PermanentLink/1262085410#History, supported by the Project 2025 publication, with attribution: The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, dubbed the Space Development Agency "a model for the military". In their 2025 Mandate for Leadership, they call to develop new offensive space capabilities to "impose will if necessary". They further claim the Biden administration "has eliminated almost all offensive deterrence capabilities" in space that were planned under the Trump administration. Is this where "attribution is appropriate", or should this entire paragraph simply be removed unless there's a secondary source on the fact that the Heritage Foundation has said so and so. —Alalch E. 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Given what we now know, this can be cited as another example of their modus operandi: do what they say, or else. M.Bitton (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    It could go either way, I'm not familiar enough with the topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    It might be 'reliable' that the HF said what they said they said, but is it relevant? This is getting into questions about whether the content is even WP:DUE. Lots of people say lots of things about lots of stuff, but Misplaced Pages doesn't quote it all. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    There's the reputed Index of Economic Freedom, for one. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think the issue is them being unreliable. I think the issue is them tracking the IP of anyone who visits their sites and trying to doxx editors with that info. There might be a way to just archive all the links and then replace the links with links to the wayback machine or something to avoid sending people directly to their site. Photos of Japan (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's not a topical matter on this noticeboard. —Alalch E. 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't know about that. If a source is willing to go to such extent to silence people, then I don't see how it can possibly be considered reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, if a source is operating in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, that is directly relevant to an evaluation of whether they are a reliable source; namely, it's (additional) direct evidence that they do dishonest and untrustworthy things and are unreliable. Together with the other evidence of unreliability presented in OP's first post, I think they have gone beyond unreliability, into territory where deprecation and blacklisting is in order. -sche (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support blacklisting Abo Yemen✉ 07:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Minor point but it's used on 1700 pages not 5000. The search caught false positives such as english-heritage.org. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support blacklisting. I don't wanna get doxxed.. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 21:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Serious, non-sarcastic question... Does blacklisting actually prevent and/or stop any alleged doxxing? Or is it merely a retaliatory action and !vote I am seeing? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    They have threatened to start doxxing people on Misplaced Pages. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 22:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    And also have said they will do it with links. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's unlikely that any professional phishing campaign by HF would use heritage.org, and if their home website were blacklisted, they would proceed to use other websites Placeholderer (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Should just be considered unreliable for unreliability in general, but the implications they would go to doxxing is icing on the cake to suggest blacklisting at this point. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    As with ALL think-tanks, I think they should be considered WP:GUNREL; though if some of their reports see WP:USEBYOTHERS than those could be used with attribution.---Avatar317 06:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Could we see some evidence of doxing please? If this is something they do to people it is a safety concern and we probably need to deprecate. As for the rest, I think they are an over-used fringe source, but there are probably times when their attributed opinion is due. The Economic Freedom Index was something you used to see quoted a lot in newspapers and on TV in the UK, not so much now. It shouldn't be mentioned in our Economy of Narnia or Socialist Republic of Zenda type articles.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    This expose in the Forward, a respected progressive Jewish outlet, is the main source of information on this scheme. Dronebogus (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Support blacklisting. I don’t know if it’s “spam” per se but an organization that has stated an intent to dox editors is obviously just a simple threat to user safety. And I don’t think there’s any debate their content is all garbage, disinfo, and propaganda. Even WP:ABOUTSELF content should easily be obtainable via respectable 3rd-party sources. Dronebogus (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Support blacklisting. User:Headbomb am I right in thinking your script marks this as unreliable? Doug Weller talk 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Heritage.org is marked as unreliable, yes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Support blacklisting of this Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". M.Bitton (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Support blacklisting. The Heritage Foundation produces two things: disinformation and opinion. I don't think the opinion of a disinformation vendor is particularly noteworthy except in WP:ABOUTSELF contexts. With such minimal value to use of this group as a source let's just show them the door. Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Support blacklisting. The site is published by an ideologically-motivated group which is well-documented for making false claims of fact, using dubious methodologies in their work, and is now engaged in efforts to damage this very project. There's absolutely no use, and much potential harm to come from using them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    RFC: The Heritage Foundation

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

    What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation and should it be blacklisted? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Poll: The Heritage Foundation

    • Option 5: Blacklist: Multiple examples of the foundation publishing complete misinformation. The use of links to try to determine and datamine user identity moves to a trust issue and indicates a need to blacklist links to protect users and editors. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Pinging @Dronebogus@Doug Weller@M.Bitton@Simonm223@MjolnirPants, they voted above before I made this RFC. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Barnards.tar seems correct... We need to be able to cite some of their opinions, and pure blacklist would harm our mission... but i'm not certain its worth using their material if this is the new world we are in.
      is there a way to place warnings on links when you click on them that would warn users about this scenario though? that would be a good compromise.. otherwise keeping vote for 5Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I honestly don't see how blacklisting such a garbage source would harm this project. M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Bluethricecreamman: There is a way to warn users attempting to add these links (filter 869), but warning users who click on them would likely require some JavaScript magic that's above my pay grade. JJPMaster (she/they) 23:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support option 5 - Allowing this website to exist on wikipedia is a danger to editors' privacy and safety. The Heritage Foundation needs to be blacklisted ASAP Abo Yemen✉ 15:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      The Heritage Foundation is not a website. It's an organization. You can treat the website as one of its publications. There may be other websites. There are further publications, such as the paperback yearly Indices of Economic Freedom: https://isbndb.com/book/9780891952930. We can't blacklist paperback sources. What's the status of that going to be? How does your recommendation answer this question? —Alalch E. 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Not our problem. We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization. Abo Yemen✉ 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      They are works published by the organization. If an organization is such an unreliable source (in the conception of an organization as a source as per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources § Definition of a source; that's point no. 3), which is the framing of this RfC, as to be "blacklisted", should we really retain the status quo wrt its printed works? —Alalch E. 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Do paperbacks get special dispensation in policy from reliability requirements? If (say) David Irving published a paperback would it magically become reliable? Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yes, according to Abo Yemen. He said: We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization—Alalch E. 16:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Ay dont be quoting me on that. I didn't give a complete answer. I have no idea how unreliable this source is but according to other editors, it is not reliable. But if the paperback was reliable enough compared to stuff they publish on their website then i dont see why it shouldn't be used. All i did was try to give an answer to your question ig Abo Yemen✉ 17:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      They don't. M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      What is the status of 2017 Index of Economic Freedom, Institute for Economic Freedom (a printed work) going to be then, according to you: perhaps a deprecated source? —Alalch E. 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Whatever we decide, but (again) it being a paperback has no relevance. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      This is an RfC, Slatersteven, it's the time when things are decided. Saying "Whatever we decide" is clearly not moving things forward. —Alalch E. 17:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Its status now is that is is an RS, its status when this is over will be determined by this RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Please start engaging more meaningfully. It doesn't appear that you're getting it. How do you blacklist a printed work? Only web domains can be blacklisted. What is the consequence for the printed work as the outcome of this RfC if the consensus is to "blacklist the Heritage Foundation"? —Alalch E. 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      We do it all the time, we have plenty of blacklisted printed works (the Daily Mail for one). Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? So it would not, in fact, be covered by any ban on the heritage foundation. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      If Daily Mail is blacklisted, how is this possible (edit: I intentionally broke the link later after a complaint that a source highlighter script is painting too much red):
      • {{cite web |last1=Earle |first1=Geoff |title=Justin Trudeau glares at Trump amid his threat to absorb country |url=https://www.d ailymail.co.uk/news/article-14267497/justin-trudeau-glares-trump-jimmy-carter-funeral-canada-threats.html |website=Mail Online |access-date=9 January 2025 |date=9 January 2025}}
      ...?
      I'll help you: Daily Mail is not blacklisted.—Alalch E. 17:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      ]. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      That's not an entry marked as blacklisted. Please find me an entry which is in fact blacklisted, for me to believe that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking when discussing specifically blacklisting something. —Alalch E. 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Ahh I see, well yes we cannot blacklist spam if is hardcopy, but we can depreciate it, and it can be assumed that if you choose 5, you are choosing to also depreciate it. Are you you arguing that if you vote 5 it will not cover hard copy? Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I think there is a misunderstanding of what is meant "blacklisting the source". Please see this comment below. M.Bitton (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Ok, I'll give more responses to your slightly earlier comment: Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). Yes, nothing says so; I wasn't arguing otherwise. But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? Does not appear to be. The sole publisher of this paperback edition is The Heritage Foundation.Going onward... You said that this country ranking, which is a primary source and an unscientific publication from a think tank, is a RS. On no day would that simply be a reliable source. So I'm going to circle back to my original question, to which you replied with the rhetorical question of Do paperbacks get special dispensation .... That original question, mildly rephrased, is:How does the recommendation to blacklist heritage.org the website for safety reasons answer the question of how to treat the reliability of The Heritage Foundation as a source, whereby "source" means publisher, consistent with Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Definition of a source, which is how this RfC's question is also formulated (What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation ...)?Your answer to this question is that blacklisting an organization's website creates an assumption that all publications from that organization which can not be blacklisted are treated as deprecated sources. This answer is possible, but it is not what, say, User:NatGertler thinks. He wrote: ... we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question .... —Alalch E. 18:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Hey Alalch can you change the source you change this to a normal link because the entire section is now colored red because of the source reliability gadget thing Abo Yemen✉ 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yes, I'll break the link. My highlighter doesn't work like that. It only colors the link red, not the whole section. —Alalch E. 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Ultimately I think this is somewhat moot as, notwithstanding the safety concern, they're also a deeply unreliable fringe source that has been spammed all over our project. As such I do sincerely think there is a justification for options 4 and 5 even if this group wasn't trying to target Misplaced Pages editors. That they're also doing this is, in my view, an inflaming element but I think that getting this pervasive fringe source out of our project is a good for the project on its own merits. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Also this is an online source, so may be a security risk. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      You are mistaken. The link I posted is a link to a database entry on the website isbndb.com. It contains information about a printed work published by The Heritage Foundation. —Alalch E. 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 already said why, garbage source that’s a threat to user safety. Dronebogus (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support option 5 and option 4 per my statements above. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I added option 4 to my support message to clarify I support both blacklisting and deprecating this source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3, with Option 5 post 2016 and Option 4 for any hard copy after 2016. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Only blacklisting/deprecating content from a certain time period is not possible unless the domains are different. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Aaron Liu You're correct separately about blacklisting but you're not correct separately about deprecating, but maybe (probably) that's not what you meant specifically ("blacklisting/deprecating" was probably not separately addressing deprecating)—see Lenta.ru at WP:RSP; deprecated status only extends to content published from March 2014 onward. I.e., it's possible to deprecate content from a certain time period. —Alalch E. 00:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Alalch E. Interesting, it looks like it's possible only if you can do some regex trickery. Heritage does not include article dates in their URLs, though. Not even their static content includes them (unless you can somehow decipher "824-MHT-304". Aaron Liu (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yeah, that is interesting. In the present case, if blacklisting for ostensible security reasons, the date isn't a factor. —Alalch E. 03:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3: generally unreliable. Too many examples of them publishing bunk. However, blacklisting would also be wrong, because they seem to have a deep archive of relevant material, such as this article by Clarence Thomas which we link to on his article. For readers who want to read the subject's writings, that is a useful link. Putting the heritage.org domain on the spam blacklist would prevent this. This is far from the only example. Furthermore, the call to blacklist seems to be a misguided attempt to prevent the doxxing op that they have planned. Blacklisting will not prevent any of that plan being executed. It's just the wrong tool. By all means aggressively block accounts and IP addresses implicated in doxxing, but blacklisting their domain is a completely unrelated action. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 and Option 4. this is literally a Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". M.Bitton (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 maybe the doxing threat would be a good enough reason, but the fact it publishes misinformation is an overwhelming reason. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 for pre-2016 (meaning: same status as the Cato Institute and the other "yellow" think tanks) and Option 4 for 2016 and later. While spam websites can get spam-blacklisted if they're recognized as obvious spam in discussions held in this forum (happens rarely), I oppose the notion that this forum has an ability to decide to blacklist a non-spam source for computer security reasons, because the subset of editors at large interested in reliability of sources used on Misplaced Pages, who are predominantly the editors commenting here, here do not have the competence to make an informed decision on matters of user safety. Facts and arguments should be collected in a discussion devoted to that specifically, which discussion has a chance of attracting editors with suitable knowledge and skill, and decisions should be made going forward from that (i.e., this (permalink)), not from value judgements.—Alalch E. 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Actually, we do have the competence and the right to decide whether a source should be blacklisted in this appropriate venue. M.Bitton (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Disagreed. I.e., agreed for spam, disagreed for safety.—Alalch E. 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'm noting that multiple other editors also disagree in a discussion a bit further below, or state that blacklisting is pragmatically poor on its own merits as a protective measure. —Alalch E. 00:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 We can't control what they do with their site, and they've indicated their willingness to use malicious applications and methods to harm Misplaced Pages. Allowing links from our site to theirs is a fundamental cybersecurity concern, given their announced intention to target our editors. And given their use of misinformation, their all but explicitly stated goal of engaged in broad political activity to undermine the constitution of their home nation, which is also the host nation of this project and whose constitution outlines fundamental principles of this project, there will be no appreciable loss to the project from doing so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 - blacklist website for cybersecurity reasons. Not sure about non-website references. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 blacklist for security reasons, noting that they have brought this on themselves - I would otherwise oppose blacklisting, as they sometimes carry content from individuals whose opinions we would give weight to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 Blacklist -- but this does not mean removing the reference. Rather, we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question, but with their announced intent to use links to try to break Misplaced Pages privacy, they are a malware site and should be treated as such. This needs to be done to all links to their websites, regardless of date. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 They are often publishing pure opinion, and what they publish is definitely the opinion of the people writing. Where these opinions might be due is to be discussed on the relevant talkpages. Their editorial content (i.e. anything published by them without a name attached) is generally unreliable (option 3) as they are into WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories and disinformation. I don't get how anybody is voting 4 or 5 on merit here though, and this board no jurisdiction over their alleged cyber-stalking attempt.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 per Vanamonde93, the known security risks make this an exception to past precedent, basically they have now entered "find out." I would guess anything notable published there would be picked up by on other news outlets and/or scholarly sources that can be cited instead. The Clarence Thomas article mentioned above, for instance, is widely cited and also has a Google Books entry which at least is not a technological risk. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 per Vanamonde93. If necessary to use, we can use other sources that refer to the organization, to an offline publication, or use an archival link (which I think would resolve security issues). Perhaps archiving all existing links might be an option as well? -- Patar knight - /contributions 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Since it's relevant apparently, 5 & 4, with older links being converted to archival links if they fall within the allowed uses of deprecated sources. -- Patar knight - /contributions 08:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3 + Blacklist I have seen enough to make me think that attribution is insufficient here, gunrel leaves the door ajar for citations but not that many, hopefully. Blacklisting their websites seems more of a technical question, but wouldn't it require a 4 first? Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Amended to include Blacklisting Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      @JoJo Anthrax, Bluethricecreamman, Abo Yemen, Dronebogus, Doug Weller, MjolnirPants, SarekOfVulcan, Vanamonde93, NatGertler, Boynamedsue, Gnomingstuff, Patar knight, 1AmNobody24, Tryptofish, Chaotic Enby, and Horse Eye's Back:
      While it's reasonable to assume that "option 5" would automatically include "option 4", some editors seem to think that it doesn't. Please ignore this request if you agree with them, otherwise, you might want to adjust your !vote (i.e., also comment on the reliability) to alleviate any confusion. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      My comment is only on security grounds. I don't believe that in the current context it is possible to evaluate their reliability independent of those security concerns and so will not be attempting to do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I did already comment on the reliability in my !vote, but thanks for the reminder! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I don't have a strong opinion on this - if it weren't for the security risk I'd be somewhere between options 3 and 4. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I do have a strong opinion on this, but am backing it down to 3+5 for NPOV reasons. As said elsewhere, named op-eds might be legitimate references. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      If it wasn’t security related I wouldn’t have voted. But I would still allow older cites under a 3 if and only if they were replaced by wayback machine links. Dronebogus (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 Don't think this needs any explanation anymore. Nobody (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 6, Mu. We're trying to solve a very real issue of not giving out personal information, but blacklisting isn't really a way to do this. The risk by clicking on the link is something like the risk of clicking on a link to a state-owned media site, or frankly any potentially hostile website. This is because there's no malware required to be installed to get one's IP; the execution is extremely simple because you give out your IP when you visit any website and, if you allow cookies to be downloaded generally, this is the exact way that advertisers track your browsing.The way that spearphishing to get one's IP address works is that you have to click on a very specific link, and they have to be fairly certain that only you could have clicked on that link (or that a very small number of people could have done so). Blacklisting one domain name is sufficient to start a game of Whac-A-Mole, but it doesn't really protect us against this sort of thing; all they have to do is register a new domain name that outwardly looks like something benign and send it to you in an email (or even posting it on a rarely-viewed talk page). And, if they're already engaging sockpuppet burner accounts to do this, we're going to see this often and possibly without even knowing it.If the concern is spearphishing, blacklisting a public website that has some legitimate uses is the wrong approach. In fact, it would wind up making the spearphishing be more effective by necessity, since people who are alert to Heritage urls would be directed to click on something that doesn't look like one. And perhaps it would even lull people into letting down their guard in this respect.The Heritage foundation is used in >5000 articles often as a supplementary/WP:PRIMARY source. And that's because it's influential in the course of AmPol and it's often useful to include those links in a reference work. This sort of spearphishing would appear to be a new low.What I really don't want is for editors to have a false sense of security here; blacklisting is not going to stop this sort of activity, and it's somewhat trivial to get around this. The proposal would give us as much extra security as blacklisting state-owned media/government-controlled websites from countries known to try to de-anonymize and harass Wikipedians. We don't generally do that, and we really don't need to; it would be ineffective in achieving its goals of protecting our users. (Perhaps I'm off-base here, and the community would want to blacklist those too.) But it really is a bit of a feel-good measure more than an effective one for privacy from a sophisticated actor.The technical solutions offered at the Village pump are in some ways more robust than a blacklist. What the technical solutions would do is make it harder to trace back traffic to ordinary (i.e. non-spearphishing) links on the website to Misplaced Pages, and it would reduce the risk associated with existing citations. They're not perfect; ultimately nothing can prevent you from clicking the outlink to a burner website, but those solutions don't lull users into the false sense of security that blacklisting the Heritage website would. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      We can do both. We can remove a WP:FRINGE source that is being far too pervasively used across Misplaced Pages and we can also pursue those technical solutions to protect privacy. And this would have a tertiary effect of pointing out that the Misplaced Pages community will vigorously protect itself from this sort of bad-faith interference.Simonm223 (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      The issues outside of reliability or blacklisting is out of scope for this noticeboard. Discussion about protecting editors from hostile actions should continue on the village pump. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is very relevant. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yeah that isn't really a valid reason for blacklisting. The point of closing #Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors above, and starting a new section, was to focus on reliability issues. That they appear to be taking hostile actions against Misplaced Pages's editors isn't a V/RS policy reason for blacklisting.
      Blacklisting won't protect editors, which is something that will proby need WMF involvement, which is why I suggest the VP discussion continue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is a really pertinent point, there are genuine security concerns, we need to discuss them in the correct place. Most of the people here are clueless about online security, I know I am, it's not a reliability issue. The comments on here seem to be completely reactionary, and more about sending a message to the ghouls in question that they can fuck off. Let's be honest, the people voting option 5 are doing so as retaliation. I understand that instinct, I'm fuming about this myself, but it's making us look daft. We shouldn't be getting into bunfights with organisations that are so clearly beneath us. --Boynamedsue (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm all for discussing the Heritage Foundation based on the merits of its reliability and protecting Wikipedians from their harassment, but I completely agree with Redtail here. I really doubt that we'd need to blacklist new Primary additions, and Heritage can't doxx Wikipedians through existing citations without doxxing everyone who visits a Heritage link; we don't have trackers on our Heritage reference links. What we should do instead is try and rangeblock Heritage or other stuff already discussed. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Basically agree with Red-tailed hawk on everything here. Reliability is always dependent on the statement a source is being used to support, and The Heritage Foundation's website is reliable for statements about what The Heritage Foundation believes in. Blocking them would undermine our ability to write about what The Heritage Foundation believes, while not really addressing their spear phishing efforts. Photos of Japan (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    So, in fact it IS being argued that 5 does not also include 4, so if you also think derpication as well you need to (explicitly) say it, as I now do. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Option 5: Blacklist (along with 4: Deprecate). For our security as editors, and for the security of our readers – and yes, they brought this on themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I want to add: it seems to me that any organization that says that it will do what is described in the Forward piece, is not a source that we can trust to be reliable. It would be a disservice to our readers to use such a source. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      +1 M.Bitton (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I've been continuing to think about this, and I've also been reading the subsequent RfC comments by editors who argue that we should still consider that it's a think tank that can provide citable source material. Some editors have also said that we should not let our emotional reaction against the doxing issue influence how we evaluate Heritage as a reliable or unreliable source. In some ways, I agree that we should not make sourcing decisions based upon emotion. However, we should also not be naive about what a legitimate think tank does. Think tanks take advocacy positions, but they also are populated by thinkers, people with expertise who think carefully about issues, and seek to publish well-reasoned analyses of issues. But it's frankly laughable to characterize Heritage that way. An organization that says, publicly, that they are going to go after Misplaced Pages editors, as persons, in order to enforce their preferred view of what information Misplaced Pages readers will find, is not an organization that is producing scholarly analyses of information that Misplaced Pages might want to cite. If it's a legitimate think tank, then Antifa is a think tank, too. Even if they also purport to produce thoughtful position papers, those publications simply have to be recognized by us as tainted by intellectual dishonesty. There is no passing that off as reliable sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Is threatening WP editors a problem because it indicates the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE? Are such threats in a broader category of "horrible things to say"? Should all sources that say horrible things be deprecated and blacklisted even if they do produce some valuable work, because it indicates intellectual dishonesty? Placeholderer (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yes, especially if the said valuable information is extremely low and under debate. (Though blacklisting I disagree with.) Aaron Liu (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      There's a wide range, in both directions, of how much valuable information a source can offer. On WP:RSP the only sources deprecated with antisemitism as part of the justification are Press TV, an Iranian propaganda outlet; The Unz Review, with justification mentioning "racist, antisemitic, pseudoscientific and fringe content" and "many apparent copyright violations"; and Veterans Today, which was blacklisted for abuse and deprecated for "unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and antisemitic conspiracy theories." Unz Review is the only deprecation citing racism. Searching for a few other "horrible things" keywords, I don't immediately see anything else.
      With Press TV and Veterans Today it seems there are, I would say, much clearer underlying problems with the sources than is the case with HF. Unz Review seems to have been a clear-cut case — the only such case I see — of cancelling an outlet primarily for being unusably (i.e questionably) rabid, and it being an outlet that no one would miss because it doesn't seem (per its RfC) to provide useful info. HF may be unhelpful to an extent, but not that unhelpful. Apart from that, sources are flagged for their information being inappropriate for the encyclopedia, not for saying horrible things.
      It's also worth looking at Asian News International. They're another organization hostile to Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages's mission, but despite that whole situation, they're only MREL, and the description of why gives no mention to that situation. That's the most important precedent in this comment.
      If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those Placeholderer (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Well said @Placeholderer, "If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those..." Iljhgtn (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Because never has a reliable source planned on coordinating a massive attack on what is essentially information itself. If they do that, then I seriously doubt their informational integrity, and that's just in addition to the opening statement above. Deprecation means there's a warning when you try to add a new usage, and that is appropriate here. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Where is anything you are saying grounded in policy or guidelines? Cite even one policy or guideline justifying this clear act of angry retaliation. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      "Because never has a reliable source planned on coordinating a massive attack on what is essentially information itself" isn't quite true. The US government runs lots of reliable sources, but the US government has also conducted information warfare. It's a big organization with a long history.
      I'll also direct you (and others interested) to this Signpost article and WP:ANIGATE, in case you haven't seen them already. Again, ANI is MREL, and that's unrelated to its attacks Placeholderer (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5: Blacklist, primarily for editor safety reasons. While I agree with Red-tailed hawk that blacklisting this specific source will not be a perfect solution, editors posting unknown websites for spearfishing purposes can be dealt with individually (in fact, I don't think they would wait for heritage.org to be blacklisted to do so, and blacklisting the main site keeps us more alert on that fact). If the Heritage Foundation intends to directly endanger Misplaced Pages editors, blacklisting their website and treating it as potential malware is the minimum we should do. In terms of accuracy, generally unreliable at least, and neutral on deprecation, although NatGertler's approach (removing the links in existing citations) can also be up for consideration. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    NO security is perfect, and if its not they even black list spam (they will find a way). it is about not making is casual. So easy that it just means copying and pasting nickyouriddotcom into a cite. Making it even slightly harder might be enough to prevent its casual use. Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    • I've got a multi-stage vote of sorts, if that makes sense:
    • In general, Option 5 for editor security reasons, as per all above.
    • With specific regard to HF-authored pieces/editorials, Option 4 as they repeatedly publish dis/misinformation intended solely to serve WP:FRINGE theories.
    • With specific regard to op-eds that have an actual name attached to them, somewhere between option 2 and option 3 - WP:NEWSOPED would typically lean toward the former, but even the op-ed pieces veer into FRINGE often enough that I'm not comfortable with an outright 2. The Kip 18:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3 Because as Bernards points out, there are still some good links, particularly in archives. And as Red-tailed explains, Blacklisting creates its own set of problems that won't solve what many think it will ie. it's a dangerous solution because it puts a veneer on the problem that looks like solid wood underneath that is not. -- GreenC 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 on security grounds, this is a bit atypical but we don't have a large history of sources purposefully turning their links into honeypots with the explicit intent of harming wikipedia editors and readers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 for any web-based source connected to the organisation on grounds of cybersecurity. No comment as to reliability. Daveosaurus (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 This foundation knowingly and intentionally publishes disinformation, and it has self-identified as a threat to Misplaced Pages and its editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Um why does anybody think the links they would use would be to a heritage foundation url? Also, this isn’t a social media site, this isn’t some place where the interests of the users are supposed to trump the interests of the product, that being our articles. If there is some evidence that an actual heritage.org link has been used for some nefarious purpose then you can talk about blacklisting, but other than that this is supposed to be judged based on what’s best for our articles, not our editors. nableezy - 19:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yeah, this is the main problem with blacklisting. It’s security theater, which generally does more harm than good, as I think Red-tailed hawk articulated well. Using heritage.org as the actual spearphishing domain doesn’t line up to the MO given in the leaked slides, which talk about using redirects. It would also be weirdly amateurish to create that kind of paper trail leading directly to the perps, especially now that they (presumably) know we’re onto them and any of their agents caught in such an obvious blunder could be subject to countermeasures. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yes. Their is no reason not to place fingerprint gathering html5 snippets as widely as possible if you want as much tracking as possible. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      And consider, Misplaced Pages editors will only be one target. A large tracking network can be a used to doxx other people they dislike (advocates of racial equality, LGBT people, non-capitalists). Its pretty safe to assume they will have middleware somewhere in their webstack to affect fingerprinting. I'd be mad at my cyberattack consultant if they missed the obvious. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5: blacklist any and all known Heritage Foundation websites as soon as possible, past and present links included. The organization has made its malicious intentions clear. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 this is purely retaliatory behaviour based on an alleged document. The usage of this source hasn't been shown to be problematic and a few bad articles doesn't inherently make a source unreliable. If you're worried about your safety then block the links yourself, but Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to serve you and your paranoia. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      The document mentions nothing about using phishing links nor would their references serve as a useful phishing link. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      The document explicitly calls for using redirects from their web technologies to collect edior fingerprints via html5. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      There's no way for existing URLs to fingerprint Wikipedians without fingerprinting everyone. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      They don't mind fingerprinting everyone, and it only makes their campaign stronger. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Fingerprinting everyone is useless for purposes of following and tracking Wikipedians. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 (like all think tanks). This seems purely retaliatory. I mean sure, they want to spy on us, but famously so did the NSA, for which we sued the NSA and lost. And it’s not like we are banned from citing US websites. This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity, do you think an FBI agent led attempt to steal our information would use their basic domain? They have millions of dollars they will just buy more or use connections to do it to other sites. This does nothing and is performative. And I don’t find the evidence above convincing, it’s a think tank, producing think tank type fare. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      "This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity." This is really badly incorrect. Someone publicly saying they were going to add malicious links to our site to track and doxx our editors is a huge threat. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 per PARAKANYAA. Well said. - Amigao (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 There is absolutely no downside to blacklisting this source. Nothing of value is lost, and unreliable information is kept out - it's a win-win situation. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 Those sites are not reliable enough. Privacy wise, those sites are dangerous for editors and readers to visit. Ahri Boy (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 and in case it's considered seperate Option 4 as well. THF are not only publishers of WP:Fringe but are posing an active threat to WP:NOTCENSORED Bejakyo (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5: While blacklisting does not preclude HF from using any number of other domains for various malicious schemes, it's the least we can and should do. Any source that seeks to subvert the encyclopedia and harm its editors thereby confirms it is inherently unreliable. HF now demonstrates it is barely this side of a criminal organization. soibangla (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Barely this side of a criminal organization? I would ask if you are serious but you probably are. Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    They are a criminal operation in many jurisdictions. Running an identity theft ring with a promise of blackmail is a stack of felonies. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2-3 There are a lot of problems with this RfC. First, like them or not, the Heritage Foundation is a widely cited think tank. As a think tank, and like basically all activist type organizations, we should be very careful about directly citing them for anything. However, if they release a report or study that is widely reported on or if they release a metric which is quoted by many source then we are doing our readers a disservice by deciding the source must be avoided. This 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. As for the idea that the source is a danger, what evidence do we have? A single source has made claims. Do we have any corroboration? Absent concrete evidence the idea that we would blacklist the site is a very bad precedent. Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Why wouldn't we rely on secondary sources? 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Think tanks are widely cited as secondary sources Placeholderer (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Springee makes the most well articulated point of anyone in this RfC. This would indeed be "very bad precedent" and we should not also retaliate based on the claims of a single source in such bad form. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3, at the very least. Heritage Foundation has long since departed from typical think tank-ery into axe-grinding, conspiracy theories, disinformation, and artificially stoking culture wars. Reliable sources from journalism (Associated Press, New York Times and academica (Springer International and Routledge) have identified Heritage Foundation as a publisher of disinformation, falsehoods, and exaggerations. It is unreliable as a source. Obviously, the news from The Forward, a reliable and reputed journalism outlet, that the Heritage Foundation plans to doxx Wikipedians who contribute content with which they disagree—something that would basically amount to a campaign of ideologically motivated harassment—is also chilling and troubling. It suggests the Foundation, unable to win in the marketplace of ideas, is trying to impose itself by force. This is not the behavior of trustworthy coverage or analysis. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2, per PARAKANYAA and Springee. Their threat is repellent, and whatever can be done to prevent them making good about it should be done (and is being discussed elsewhere), but that has nothing to do with their reliability as a source. They're a think tank, and are a reliable source for at least some things. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Adding that I agree with restricting links to archive.org versions if it seems that direct links may lead to identification of editors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1, though heavily biased to the right and certain qualifications on some subjects may need to be stated if there are any COI concerns related to funding and topics they write about where such funding is directly involved. The alleged "misinformation" appears to mostly just be right wing bias to a very pure degree. However, that has never been reason to question reliability by itself. The same goes for a high amount of left wing bias in any given source. So called "bias" alone is just bias, it does not introduce reliability concerns. Full deprecation does seem to be more of a knee jerk action and not a real and careful evaluation of the numerous citations where alleged reliability may be called into question. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      What do you think of the incidents described in the opening statement? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I answered that and offered a !vote accordingly based in policy and not in retaliation for an alleged proposal from the Forward source. Heritage is biased, though reliable. So Option 1: Generally reliable. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Could you point me to where you answered that? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Couldn't most misinformation be described as bias to a very pure degree? That to me seems like a distinction without a real difference, bias which is so pure as to abandon a factual basis isn't distinguishable from mis/disinformation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Maybe, but then that sure would alter probably hundreds or thousands of these discussions. So if we want to define it one way or the other, that should be baked in to the P&G. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 as their own communications indicate that they are a security risk, that they intend of publishing malicious web content in order to identify people who click on their links. TarnishedPath 03:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 4 and maybe 5. Based on their (lack of) quality as a source this is an extremely obvious 4 but their recent outrageous threats were making me think that 5 was also justified, comparable to how we would treat a terrorist organisation. After seeing Red-tailed hawk's comment, among others, I am now less sure about that. What I am sure of is that they publish deliberate disinformation in intentional bad faith and that makes them utterly untrustworthy and unreliable (with both an upper and lower case "u") as a source for anything at all except for their own claims. Literally nothing that they say can be relied upon unless independently corroborated by actual Reliable Sources, in which case we should just use those Reliable Sources instead. If they say that the sky is blue then a Reliable Source needs to open a window and check before we can say that it is. I see people saying that they may have been more reliable in the past. I have my doubts about that. Sure, they are probably even worse now than they were before but were they ever really anything better than a 3 or 4? That said, if that does turn out to be true, and we do decide to blacklist, then I guess we could use Archive.org to refer to contemporaneous copies of their content which we know not to have been subsequently tampered with. --DanielRigal (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 because they have announced they are a security risk, and Option 4 because they have announced they are seeking to undermine collaborative consensus-reaching among editors. Sita Bose (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 4 as they routinely publish material chock full of conspiracy theories and outright fabrications.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5, regrettably. I would normally have suggested option 2. But given they are actively trying to dox editors on Misplaced Pages and contributors to other internet sources, that is absurd and is not something that can result in them being tolerated as a source on Misplaced Pages. They do good work - they produce things that, while biased, are reliable, generally speaking. But their efforts have extended to doxxing contributors, and that is unacceptable. Misplaced Pages has an obligation to make reasonable attempts to protect its users - whether editors or readers - from having their information harvested through links. And since the Heritage Foundation has admitted they intend to engage in information harvesting based on links... nope. Not permissible. To clarify - my !vote here is not a comment on their reliability overall. If they cease their information harvesting, I support a further discussion on this topic. But if they intend to (and per reliable sources, may have already begun) use their links to harvest editor/reader information, absolutely not acceptable, and they should be blacklisted until they cease engaging in such behavior. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment to anyone voting “1”: do you seriously believe that or is it just a protest vote, because I’d say objectively an ideological think-tank should be at minimum a 2. An activist organization simply isn’t at the same level of trustworthiness as, say a newspaper of record with a notable ideological bias. Dronebogus (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Tbf, only one person has !voted option 1 so far, and they then listed a couple of additional considerations.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    I counted two Dronebogus (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Irrelevant, it would be for the closer to access the strength of any arguments. If they are weak that will be noticed, it is thus up to the poster to decide if their argument is good enough. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • option 2/3 - Heritage is a very influential think tank. What they publish matters in political discourse. We can not ignore them.
    That said, what they publish is opinion and there are limited circumstances when it is DUE to mention opinion. So… when discussing what they publish we should be careful to use in-text attribution - to present what they say AS opinion and not as fact. We can and should allow ABOUTSELF, primary source, citations when these are DUE.
    If you need an extreme analogy… we allow citations to Mein Kamph as an ABOUTSELF primary source for Hitler’s opinion. There are very few situations where it is appropriate or DUE to mention Hitler’s views… but IN those limited situations we allow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Mein Kampf is a book and Hitler is dead. We can reference it without any risk that doing so might leak information about our editors and readers back to Hitler. The more comparable situation would be if we allowed links to an online copy of Mein Kampf which was hosted on a neo-Nazi website operated by an organisation that had previously threatened our editors and readers. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 On any other occasion I would have gone for "generally unreliable" and suggest citations to it require attribution, as it's a politically partisan think tank which publishes fringe views and has been known to publish misinformation. But in this case, I think such an extraordinary situation requires us to take extraordinary measures. This goes beyond the question of reliability, as the Heritage Foundation has signalled its intentions to "target and identify" our colleagues on this platform; this represents a clear and actionable threat of harm and it demands a response. Preventing them from using links to their website to carry out their attack campaign is just a reasonable act of self-defence. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3 for the relibility of what they say as it often conflicts with scientific evidence or facts. They have in effect declared war on Misplaced Pages editors but are an important site so if there is a way of automatically warning readers if they click on a link that they are doing it at their own risk I think that would cover the business of the doxxing. I think that could be a useful facility if it looks like a link should be included in the encyclopaedia but there is evidence it may be malicious in some way. NadVolum (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3/Option 6/BAD RFC per Red-tailed hawk, Springee, GreenC. The Heritage Foundation is an important think-tank source for representing the views of its faction, and should not be deprecated or blacklisted for that reason. Also 1) WP:RSN is not the right venue for deciding on how to deal with the alleged browser fingerprinting, 2) fingerprinting can be addressed through much less drastic means than blacklisting (e.g. the idea of only allowing archive links), 3) the fingerprinting honestly sounds like fluff to me, and text analysis/facial recognition seems more likely to be the thing that can actually identify editors, and there's little we can do about that besides taking down pictures from profiles. GretLomborg (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      The planned attack includes fingerprinting users coming from Misplaced Pages, adding tracking cookies, identifying who they are on other sites based on the extensive fingerprinting capable with html5, and using off-wiki data to complete the doxx. So any information connecting IPs to Misplaced Pages is the foot in the door to check say, the fingerprints from html5 being run on a malicious ad campaign via Twitter aimed at people who are interested in some tv show that an ARBPIA area editor also edits about. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      All of these techniques are things advertisers like Google Ads already do. You can't connect any particular fingerprint to "edits Misplaced Pages" unless you send out a specific phishing link only Wikipedians would click on, which is something we might want to look out for. However, there's no reason to think blacklisting Heritage will rid us of this threat any more than the US TSA prevents bombings, as they're unlikely to not use another domain. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I agree with the BADRFC !vote as well. A !vote made as retaliation (even pre-emptive retaliation) is not supported in policy or guidelines of any kind that I know of. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Very poor option 2 or option 3 gunrel for a significant number of facts per the arguments above, including some fringe (for now, and will hopefully remain so) views, with particular caution regarding gensex and similar strongly recommended. They are often due either for their opinion, that index mentioned (?), or expert opinions published by them. Regarding the source quality (as in, the jurisdiction of this board), I see no policy-based reason for depreciation or blacklists. Having said that, if it can be plausibly shown that they intend to use their own domains to harm editors (which I consider unlikely because domains are easy to get and unwise to link to yourself), I would support any technical measure, preferably a warning for editors clicking on links (if technically possible). If that can’t be shown, I believe that a ‘punitive’ blacklist is understandable from a human level, but not beneficial to the encyclopaedia. FortunateSons (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment - I think that categorizing sources as "reliable" and "unreliable" is an idiotic parlor game. Life is not 1/0 on such matters. It is ahistorical and leads to cultish thinking. That said, I consider the Heritage threat, if accurately recounted in the media, to be akin to a violation of the NOLEGALTHREATS rule; worse, actually, as it is arguably a call to terrorist vigilantism. I can see banning links to that site on that basis. I question whether this is the proper venue for that determination, however. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Being GUNREL or deprecated just means that their publications aren't good for determining when it's due to include their viewpoints in an article. —Alalch E. 19:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 Short answer: 1. Security is irrelevant to this RfC; 2. WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican; 3. HF should be treated the same as other well-established but POV think tanks like Cato, which is to be MREL. For point 1, apart from this RfC being about reliability and not security, it's hard to believe that any professional phishing attacks would use "heritage.org". Blacklisting their website won't accomplish anything for internet security. As explained by others, it would also be undue to blacklist HF when there are plenty of other organizations and governments hostile to Misplaced Pages. For point 2, I think saying HF is GUNREL for being WP:FRINGE is to lose the meaning of WP:FRINGE. What is fringe? Funky low-traffic websites saying hurricanes are controlled by lizard people. What is not fringe? Possibly the most policy-influential conservative think tank in the US, where half of people are Republicans. There are other arguments that HF could be considered GUNREL (which I disagree with so far), but I think WP:FRINGE is the wrong argument to take. For point 3, while I acknowledge in particular the sources provided by @Hydrangeans (is it appropriate for me to ping here? sorry if not), which I'll put here for convenience, and I admit I can't access the full 3rd and 4th source, I think the concerns highlighted by these sources are best addressed with MREL/additional considerations. HF is an advocacy group, and should be treated like an advocacy group in that not everything it says should be taken at face value — that's what "additional considerations" is for. Cato (MREL source), for example, gets criticized for its potential Big Oil conflict of interest, but they have lots of great work on, for instance, the economic benefits of immigration. I'm less familiar with HF, and though I know they've gotten lots of press for saying wacky things recently (though, again, security concerns irrelevant to this discussion), I do know they've had a long and recognized history of Republican policy work. Of course they'd get press for the wacky stuff, but a big part of the think tank industry is boring statistics and information gathering. If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference. If people don't like the Index of Economic Freedom because it's "pseudoscientific", they should think hard about the value of the index industry in general Placeholderer (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      As I'm a person who has explicitly called out the Index of Economic Freedom as pseudoscientific let me say that the majority of think-tank indices are crap that is unworthy of including in any respectable encyclopedia. This one is just particularly bad, derived from an outmoded economic treatise penned before the advent of the carbon arc lamp and then not even doing a very good job of cleaving to that in favour of the unproven, unscientific and entirely ideological claim that deregulation is equivalent to freedom. This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. This piece of pseudoscience is also being published by people who have openly declared themselves as enemies of this project. That leaves me feeling... substantially uncharitable. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. +1 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      What about the democracy indices from The Economist, or V-Dem, or Adam Przeworski et. al? Or the World Happiness Report? The Index of Economic Freedom is not indicative of GUNREL Placeholderer (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Unrelated, please start a new RFC about those. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      This isn't an RfC about the Index of Economic Freedom. This is an RfC about The Heritage Foundation (HF), where the Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) is being given as an example of HF being a bad source. I am comparing HF to other think tanks, and IEF to other indices/indexes, because it is relevant to this RfC Placeholderer (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      The Wealth of Nations is in no sense "outmoded". That's like calling the Principia outmoded. Placeholderer (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Because both are. They're classic works, sure, but they aren't current and reliable scholarship. If I want to know the sun's mass, I'm not going to look for Principia's estimate. I'm going to read current scholarship making those kinds of estimates that have the benefit of an additional three centuries of research and knowledge with which to work.The comparison in any case is still pretty apples to oranges. Wealth of Nations lies in the social sciences while Principia deals with hard sciences, and social ideas about how humans function—and, for that matter, the societies within which said humans function—have changed a lot more than, say, the hard facts of gravity and the sun. For example, the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations in its original context referred not to market competition but rather to the Providence of God, not exactly a prevailing academic interpretation for how economics work. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Instead of us in this discussion deciding the academic or economic value of Adam Smith, I'll ask for RS that the IEF is unscholarly because it is inspired by The Wealth of Nations.
      The IEF is not a problem with this organization Placeholderer (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference: No, it wouldn't make sense to reference the Heritage Foundation directly. If what we want to cover is the criticism, we want secondary source coverage of such criticism; citing such criticisms directly and just deciding to put them in an article is original research in the pursuit of a false balance. Criticism of vaccination is an influential element of American culture, but we don't go out of our way to cite anti-vaxxers; we instead cite reliable sources that independently document and analyze such. The Confederate secession was a major part of American history, but we ought not write Civil War articles by citing 1860s South Carolina newspapers for information about anti-abolitionism; we cite historians and how they have documented and analyzed what's relevant, what's meaningful, what was disinformation, etc. Likewise, if what we want is coverage of the Heritage Foundation and its role as an agitation engine against certain kinds of policies (in your example, education), then we cite journalists, historians, sociologists, education professors, etc. who study and write about organizations like the HF. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      This is entirely correct. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      The difference between anti-vaxxers and Heritage Foundation is that anti-vaxxers are a fringe perspective in the medical field, even if one of them is going to lead the NHS, and that Heritage Foundation is, like Cato, a well-established but POV/advocacy think tank. As for Civil War newspapers, the difference is timeliness: of course historical events have many better sources that are third-party analysis, but we do cite think tanks all over the place. I don't see why HF is substantially different from any other MREL POV, advocacy think tank whose work should be attributed.
      To source HF's own role in policy, of course it wouldn't be used as a source for itself. The same holds for any source, MREL or not Placeholderer (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Are you saying economics is not a science or social science? Because I am saying that their index is specifically pseudoscientific within the field of economics. No amount of "well its ideology" irons that out. Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      What are you suggesting out of this, what we delete the Index of Economic Freedom page? Placeholderer (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      If you mean to say that HF is GUNREL because the IEF is pseudoscientific, then I'd ask for RS that say the IEF is pseudoscientific (not that it's just flawed, because of course any index is flawed) Placeholderer (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      What do you think about the second sentence of the Economy of the Republic of Ireland article as seen in Special:PermanentLink/1268161574, which begins as follows, reference included (the reference is the Index of Economic Freedom on heritage.org): Ireland is an open economy (3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom), ... —Alalch E. 23:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      No matter what happens here that doesn't seem due... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      To connect better to the preceding comments in this thread: Even if certain experts may be behind the Index of Economic Freedom, it is still a non-scientific source (which is different from pseudo-scientific), it can't be treated as a secondary source, and can't be used to directly support statements of fact, such as "X is Y". —Alalch E. 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      To restate my own point, I don't think the IEF can at all be taken as a reason to call HF a GUNREL source.
      I actually think Economy of Ireland is a great example of an article where the IEF (and by extension HF work) can be brought up, since Ireland's corporate economy is based around being a regulatory/tax haven, though I do think the current phrasing especially with parenthesis is weird so early in the article Placeholderer (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      This exact phrasing, meaning this sentence supported with this citation, does not belong anywhere in the article. —Alalch E. 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      I think "Ireland ranks 3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom" is perfectly reasonable to include in an article about the economy of a corporate tax haven Placeholderer (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      It is a reasonable statement to include in the article Index of Economic Freedom (in table format, for example), but not in the article Economy of Ireland, unless this ranking specifically of Ireland, is cited as noteworthy by a reliable secondary source and suitably contextualized. —Alalch E. 18:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Unreliability in one area does not mean unreliability in all. Has anyone questioned or documented any proof of unreliability of the Index of Economic Freedom? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      From Politics of Denmark: "The Economist Intelligence Unit rated Denmark as "full democracy" in 2016. According to the V-Dem Democracy indices Denmark is 2023 the most electoral democratic country in the world." Both statements cite directly from the index Placeholderer (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yes, we need to abandon these kinds of statements in our articles supported directly by the index data. —Alalch E. 18:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      I think that proposal is beyond the scope of this RfC Placeholderer (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Since much of the reason why heritage.org is cited on Misplaced Pages is the IEF, if it comes to pass that citations of IEF are removed in articles about countries and their economies and similar, it will not be a loss, but rather a step in the right direction. —Alalch E. 18:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      I disagree Placeholderer (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Placeholderer is right. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican: Reliable sources and the neutral point of view aren't determined by what is politically mainstream, whether Republican or Democrat in the United States, or Labour or Tory in the United Kingdom, or LDP in Japan, etc. The Taliban is a mainstream political faction in Afghanistan, insofar as it's the faction in power, but I don't think we would consider some kind of Taliban-aligned think tank to be a reliable source for Afghani society and politics. Mainstream reliability is determined not by the ideologies of politics but by the rigors and standards of academia and journalism. A majority of Americans believe a creator deity was involved in the origins of humanity, but that belief being 'mainstream' doesn't make it reliable, and we wouldn't treat a source attesting such as one that's reliable for biology or evolutionary anthropology. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      To clarify, I don't mean to assert that HF is reliable because of being mainstream Republican. I mean to say that WP:FRINGE, specifically, doesn't make much sense to use against what is, in the US, a political and academic giant. They might have some specific views that are fringe, but that shouldn't necessarily disqualify the source — The Economist has called for the legalization of cocaine, which is a fringe position, but The Economist is (rightfully) a well-respected source.
      TLDR I complain about specifically WP:FRINGE being invoked against HF as reason to deprecate Placeholderer (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      WP:FRINGE is a bogus charge with regards the IEF (which has plenty of uncritical WP:USEBYOTHERS), but they definitely push fringe positions on climate science. Their output is vast though, and one part of it advocating a fringe theory doesn't necessarily make the whole organisation fringe. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2. Other sanctions may be appropriate for the privacy issues, but RSN is not an appropriate forum to pursue them. We cannot retaliate against sources for conduct which is not restricted by wiki accuracy and notability guidelines. And I'm leery of taking such wide action against an organization with a long and complicated history, comprising some intentional lying (especially the last 4 years) but also real and valuable research. Ideally we would give Heritage up to 2020 similar treatment to Cato The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed. (which I think is the only thinktank with an RSP listing) and minimally GUR it for 2020+, but with the RFC as-listed I think we have to err on the side of trusting editors to use their own judgement. This RFC did not arise from an editing dispute and I don't think Heritage is being regularly used inappropriately on wiki. If a dispute does arise, Option 2 will be enough to prefer other sources. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2. It's a widely used source, not just on Misplaced Pages but also in other RS, including scholarly articles (, ), so WP:USEDBYOTHERS applies. I'd support every effort to combat their scheme to influence Misplaced Pages but blacklisting them as a source is not going to help. Blacklisting them would make us look like vindictive amateurs rather than a serious encyclopedia. Alaexis¿question? 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    If its relevant would not other RS report it anyway? Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    The Heritage Foundation is most cited through their Index of Economic Freedom, which is a lot of data that's documented on that article in tables refreshed each year; no secondary source includes all the data included on that article. We could start a discussion on that article's talk page about removing the data under WP:Indiscriminate if we wish, but there does seem to be precedent with global indices to include all countries' rankings, indices, and historical rankings. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Secondary sources may not list it because it's minutia from the pro-pollution lobby. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's exactly what I just meant with the WP:Indiscriminate part of my reply. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah Misplaced Pages would be improved by removing their deregulation index in full. Simonm223 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah. It would be a bit hard, though, since other indices also list everything. I would support such rampant restructuring if I had a clear picture of where the removed data would go. I'd say Wikidata, but that doesn't seem to have such facilities/pages. And no, I don't think it's reputation is that much worse to warrant deletion. Alaexis lists two sources that cite IEF: one source from the unreliable MDPI, but also one source from Nature, which is like top-tier iirc. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor. XOR'easter (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      "An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor." How does this in any way comment on the RfC, "What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation and should it be blacklisted?"
      This is exactly the sort of comment that is not actually addressing the RfC, but is purely retaliatory and very angry (perhaps understandably, but that is besides the point). Nothing about this sort of comment is rooted in policy, and I hope any closer views such !votes with the correct and proper disregard that they deserve. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Reliable sources don't need to resort to hostility to impose their POV. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      So their reliability is called into question only due to alleged "hostility" of some kind reported in one source and which hasn't even occurred yet from what I can tell? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      If they are unreliable on specific grounds, so be it, but so far mere retaliation is neither valid nor constructive. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Nope. Their hostility is the icing on the cake. M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5, or at the very least options starting from 3, due to its publication of fabricated and/or misleading information and its widespread use in the project. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3 or 2. As far as I can tell, their internal memoranda are a wishlist and aspirational, and so far they haven't been successful in any of their reprehensible ideas. As far as the source itself, I tend to see it as verging into pretty unreliable territory similar to Fox News, but it's a think tank, so sometimes they might have some well-researched reports or attributable opinions, and they're one of the largest right-wing think tanks so they have a large body of usable attributed information, similar to other think tanks or advocacy groups, biased, but occasionally useful with real academics working there, so I think full deprecation or blacklisting seems excessive. The reality is, their desire to dox editors is easier wished for than done, and it doesn't expressly impugn the reliability of their past material. Andre🚐 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • After some thinking, I'm leaning towards option 4 per Tryptofish above. Besides the extensively documented lying, I (unfortunately?) don't trust a source that aspires to covertly attack and burn down us and our library, and there should be a pretty good reason for someone to click twice on the "publish" button. This won't stop any "link injection", and it shouldn't: Thinking blacklisting would diminish security problems is pure security theater, per RedTailedHawk; it is not something we should do. Deprecating informs newer editors of the situation, and that's something we should do. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      We can do both (deprecate the source and blacklist its domain for good measure). M.Bitton (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I just said blacklisting would bad due to being security theater in my comment. You should read RedTailedHawk's comment for a slightly more in-depth layman's explanation on the technical-ish side. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      I know what you said and I have read RTH's comment. That doesn't change anything. M.Bitton (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Hmm, I thought your comment meant that blacklisting would constitute good measure. It'll only make stupid attempts at spearphishing less obvious. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      So you said. M.Bitton (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      So you said. How about you cut it out, huh? —Alalch E. 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      How about you stop asking me to read what I read and disagree with? M.Bitton (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      M.Bitton, you're wrong to insist on blacklisting based on this discussion. The real discussion about what to do technically, and blacklisting is a technical and not an editorial measure is had at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. It is also had at other places, where discussions aren't public. —Alalch E. 01:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 The sites are not reliable and the new information showing recently shows clear and obivous issues brought up by most here so far. ContentEditman (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 4 - Are there any indications at all that their statements are a reliable source about anything that is not embarrassing to themselves? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 4+5 per the sources above. They routinely publish misinformation, and make no particular claim that I can see towards doing any fact-checking or having any editorial controls in the first place, so they shouldn't have been used as a source to begin with; but the fact that they somehow ended up used in so many articles shows that deprecation is necessary. In the rare case where someone there says something significant, it will be reported in secondary sources and can be cited via those; there is no exception to WP:RS for "they're really important, tho", precisely because unreliable-but-important sources can be cited via secondary coverage. Their threats to use domains they control to dox and out Misplaced Pages editors is just an additional reason on top of this and a reason to take the step of a formal blacklist. While blacklisting obviously won't solve the problem, it will avoid situations where editors feel they have to click their links in order to evaluate a potentially-viable source, and force them to use lesser-known (and, for most editors, more intrinsically suspicious) domains in order to do any sort of spear-phishing attack. Some editors seem to be saying "well let them use their own domain for those attacks, that'll make it more obvious" - but if we don't blacklist it then it won't, because allowing it means it could also be used in good faith. --Aquillion (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Routinely publishing misinformation would be a concern, but I haven't been convinced from the discussion so far that they do that. Could you elaborate? Placeholderer (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Option 5: +1 (what Aquillion said) + Think tanks are rarely anything but a source of last resort on Misplaced Pages. We mostly use them when they have useful insight into niche security topics. If any primary research or opinion from the HF is particularly notable and due, it will be covered by reliable, secondary sources, and we can still cover it. We don't need to send users to a website with potentially malicious activity. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 This seems like a drastic overreaction. Also, there is a complete lack of policy being cited to support a blacklist. What may or may not need to be done needs to be discussed elsewhere, but much of the survey comments here have very little do with with reliable sources or policy. I hope the closing editor takes note. Nemov (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • 5, and 3/4. If this had been asked a month ago, I'd've said 3 because, as Alalch and others laid out in the RFCBEFORE, they have a reputation for letting politics trump accuracy, leading to mis- and dis-information; in any situation in which their views are DUE, those will (by definition!) have been covered by other, reliable sources; and any ABOUTSELF statements needed on their own article can be handled as exceptions/whitelisted. But 5 is also in order: for a source to operate in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, is not only additional evidence that they do dishonest/untrustworthy things and are unreliable, the misuse of their domains in particular merits blacklisting. Pace those who think blacklisting their main domain is "security theater" because they'll also use other domains, I think it's necessary, as I (a) see no reason to doubt they're using their main domain for the same thing, and (b) view blacklisting them (under their main domain) as a necessary first part of blacklisting them (under any other domains they're caught using). -sche (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 given the explicit details of the threat they pose to editors here. (same reason that a site like Conservipedia should be blacklisted too). The content they produce would already make them generally unreliable (and I don't know if we ever considered them reliable before so deprecation doesn't sound possible), but we should go the step further to protect WP editors here. I can see limited exemptions to use them as a primary source only on a page about the Herigate Foundation itself if that absolutely needed, but likely not. --Masem (t) 05:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 5 This feels cut-and-dry. They're a propaganda wing for a specific hardline ideology and have a long and storied history of simply disregarding factuality. Ignoring all the concerns with them outing editors, I'm amazed it wasn't already considered unreliable.
    • Option 4, and blacklist: clearly unreliable. The blacklisting decision should ideally not be here but a matter for the Spam Blacklist discussion pages, but as it is here, I support blacklisting for security purposes too. If the HF changes course and presents no further security considerations, the blacklisting can and should be revisited without prejudice to a RSN discussion. Sceptre (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      +1 on the potential revisiting. Many editors have commented that blacklisting will only make them more determined, or something along those lines (though I think this is implausible given that they are already determined enough to consider what they are proposing). But fewer are considering the alternative: that being blacklisted may incentivize them to reconsider their course of action. No reputable think tank should want to be considered unreliable or be in the insalubrious company of deprecated /blacklisted sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3 – All think-tanks should follow Option 2 at a minimum. However, Heritage Foundation is particularly unreliable in that they've devolved into a mouthpiece for disinformation and fringe garbage. Even if some of their older material may be more useful, I don't see how they're any better than WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS at this point. I would also support a separate technical measure, like restricting use to only archival websites, if direct links may lead to privacy issues for editors. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 4 and 5 When it comes to reliability, Heritage was already in 3 territory even years ago and, in my opinion, breached 4 in the past few years when it began actively pushing misinformation and false claims across a variety of subjects, particularly scientific ones. So, deprecate on that alone. Then, in light of the abuse threats through their controlled URLs, blacklisting seems like a safe option to take. Silverseren 18:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      I am open to the arguments about reliability, thus far seen few, but "Then, in light of the abuse threats through their controlled URLs, blacklisting seems like a safe option to take." seems not to be based in policy or guidelines, but rather in retaliation. Can you explain to me how if that is not the case, what am I missing? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Extraordinary situations call for extraordinary measures (WP:IAR is also a policy that can be cited if necessary). M.Bitton (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      We are at that point? We are citing WP:IAR? Are there really no guidelines or policy otherwise to invoke in this instance? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discussion: The Heritage Foundation

    What exactly happens to the 5000 links if we blacklist them? Does a bot go through and remove the https:// from them so they are unclickable? (Seems reasonable.) Or are the citations deleted? (Seems a bit damaging.) Or something else? This will affect how I opine in the above RFC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Novem Linguae I'm just noting that it isn't 5000 but cca 1750, please see Special:Diff/1268481621. Sorry for propagating the incorrect number. —Alalch E. 22:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    It could either of those two options or it could be that the bot goes through and replaces the references with a {{cn}}. I guess that should be discussed. TarnishedPath 23:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting says "Ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting." —Alalch E. 23:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Spam-blacklisting is not the same thing as a Reliable source/Noticeboard discussion around "blacklisting" a source per the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list. No action should be taken pertaining to this discussion prior to the formation of a clear closing and consensus being reached. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't know why you are making this comment here, and what it's supposed to accomplish, but you are incorrect. Spam-blacklisting is adding an entry to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. The page Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting (the same page I linked to in my previous comment you replied to) is a supplementary page explaining some principles and workings of the spam blacklist. Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist is the (pretty basic) guideline about the spam blacklist. But the real instructions that are the most useful are actually in the header of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. The "Legend" section of the Perennial sources information page (see WP:RSP#Blacklisted) only explains what it means for a particular row in the table of perennial sources to have a grey background and that entry's status to have a particular icon. RSP does not contain general advice about blacklisting pages. RSP only records when a page is blacklisted in addition to having a status describing the consensus around its reliability. The list of blacklisted domains is the spam blacklist itself. Sometimes, relatively rarely, when a source is discussed at RSN, an additional outcome may be to add the source to the blacklist; this generally happens when editors discover that the website is simply a spam website. The underlying discussion, the main thrust of the discussion, is a discussion around reliability, consistent with the name of this forum: The Reliable sources noticeboard.The problem with this RfC was that it erroneously began as a discussion around computer safety, which is out of scope. But it has somewhat, partially, corrected itself. —Alalch E. 01:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think a malware website can not be used as a reliable source. The intent is to misinform and endanger. Nothing reliable about that. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    I see arguments above that the Heritage Foundations declared hostility to Misplaced Pages's neutrality means we should treat them as a hostile organization. There are other entities hostile to our neutrality; Donald Trump and the Chinese government are two that come to mind. Neither is what I would call a reliable source, but we don't ban all links to them; they're treated as reliable for a very limited set of cases. What's the difference between these cases? There are governments who have imprisoned Misplaced Pages editors (so I gather; I don't have a reference but I've seen it said). Can those governments be cited for anything at all -- e.g. the names of their ministers? Option 5 seems inconsistent with the way we treat these other hostile entities. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Donald Trump doesn't have a detailed cyberattack plan to doxx editors here. The heritage foundation does plan on using web technologies to harm editors. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, it's not that they're hostile, as lots of organizations are hostile; it's that they've identified themselves as having planned a specific, malicious digital attack vector against the community. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    OK, but that vector doesn't seem as hostile as imprisonment to me. Why does the fact that this attack is digital mean option 5 is appropriate (instead of e.g. just using archive.org to avoid direct links)? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment, a great many comments !voted purely out of retaliation to try and stop Heritage foundation from taking a certain action that some perceive to be "doxxing". I have a serious question though, "Does deprecating and removing any links to Heritage Foundation, IF the blacklist/deprecation retaliatory measure passes... does this actually stop them from initiating their plan, or parts of it? I am not familiar with all of the details, but with A.I. and other tools these days, couldn't they still try and do things to identify some editors with certain editing patterns or behavior completely independent of whatever happens with this discussion and then do the "doxxing" anyway? This seems to have larger legal implications, unless I misunderstand it, and if that is the case then this seems silly to try and solve with a angry RfC which might not have any real defensive benefit for the community. Has anyone taken this into consideration? Is anything being done about that? If not, why not? Iljhgtn (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. It seems like best course of action when someone or some group questions your intellectual independence is to ignore it and rise above it. Blacklisting and censoring a think tank over something like this would simply be more fuel for the fire. Nemov (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      In fact, a lot of the ignorant comments above will likely create a news story or something that Heritage will then use for more fundraising and even more damage. I just don't get how people are so naive to good intentions and the sometimes very negative consequences. Also, I've yet to see even one single argument grounded in policy and guidelines versus anger and fear. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      No, blacklisting one domain will not prevent them from carrying out their plan. As far as legal implications go, one assumes that suitable WMF people are aware, but the HF plan seems to stop short of committing any crimes. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Agreed, but again, this would appear to be based in a panic response, not policy or guidelines. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      WP:DISCARD asks closers to discard irrelevant arguments, which for the purpose of an RfC on reliability would include any arguments that don't address issues of reliability. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      It takes away one of their attack vectors. The argument that "we shouldn't take away one attack vector because we can't take away all attack vectors" doesn't seem particularly strong to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      yes soibangla (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Reference Subsection

    References

    1. Washington, Haydn; Cook, John (2011). Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. London: Earthscan. p. 75,77. ISBN 978-1-84971-335-1. OCLC 682903020.
    2. Fisher, Michael. "Heritage Foundation". Archived from the original on August 8, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
    3. McKie, Ruth E. (2023). The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 19–50. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2. ISBN 978-3-031-33592-1 – via Springer Link. Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...
    4. Wubbena, Zane C.; Ford, Derek R.; Porfilio, Brad J. (1 March 2016). News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education. Routledge. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-68123-401-4 – via Google Books. For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.'s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...
    5. Kessler, Glenn (March 31, 2021). "The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 11, 2021. Retrieved April 2, 2021.
    6. Bensinger, Ken; Fausset, Richard (September 7, 2024). "Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 7, 2024. Retrieved September 7, 2024.
    7. Fields, Gary; Swenson, Ali (July 12, 2024). "Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force". Associated Press. Archived from the original on July 13, 2024. Retrieved July 13, 2024.
    8. Foundation, Heritage (1 February 2023). "Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise" (PDF). The Heritage Foundation. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 November 2023. Retrieved 1 September 2023.
    9. Rosenfeld, Arno (2025-01-07). "Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to 'identify and target' Misplaced Pages editors". The Forward. Retrieved 2025-01-10.
    10. "Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom". www.heritage.org. Archived from the original on 21 May 2020. Retrieved 2022-11-12.

    Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)

    Are PCORI statements a WP:Reliable source for medical claims? Do PCORI statements pass WP:MEDRS as coming from a medical organization?

    I say yes. The organization is non-governmental, but was established by the United States government, and they have awarded about US$2 billion in grants over the past 10 years. They are a large research organization which takes care in making conventional statements. Also, they have good alignment with wiki community organizations, and have hosted and joined wiki editing events in the United States and with Wikimedia Medicine for almost 10 years. That alignment is because of PCORI's patient advocacy, and because typical people find this organization's statements to be more relevant than those from more industry-oriented medical organizations. While PCORI does drive a lot of research through peer reviewed journals, they also make expert consensus statements in the name of PCORI which are not peer reviewed.

    @Zefr: said that some PCORI statements are "neither vetted by peer-review nor is it mainstream clinical practice", which is correct, but I feel that they still meet MEDRS by being a statement from an authoritative organization. Similarly, @Whywhenwhohow: reverted saying the sources were not MEDRS compliant. FULBERT made the statements as Wikimedian in Residence at PCORI, and I collaborate with FULBERT through United States Wikimedia groups and through the University of Virginia, where I also am a Wikimedian in Residence.

    Here are the talk notices about reversion. The statements are

    Here is an actual PCORI statement from the Modafinil article. The reverted claim from this statement was that 40% of patients using a drug have adverse effects.

    I support using this source for this claim.

    Thoughts from others about PCORI generally? Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Bluerasberry - in the case of my revert at Modafinil, the PCORI report was just a summary of preliminary results (n=33, i.e., primary research) from the "Treatment of Fatigue with Methylphenidate, Modafinil and Amantadine in MS" (TRIUMPHANT-MS) trial, which had been funded by PCORI.
    At this early stage,TRIUMPHANT-MS was actually just a pilot study reported here. That study is not a MEDRS source for the article statement, "modafinil has been shown to be effective in managing fatigue in people with MS" when other more substantial sources, including a meta-analysis, are used.
    Further, the PCORI statement is that "These findings can contribute to clinician and patient discussions about treatments to reduce MS-related fatigue." In other words, the PCORI article is a) a progress report, and b) an advice source for a physician-patient discussion.
    In this case, such a brief update on funding for preliminary research is not an appropriate reference, and does not comment on the wider issue of PCORI as an organization. Zefr (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Reviewing the PCORI website leads to the conclusion that their strength is the cross-sectional diversity in how they evaluate, monitor, then disseminate summaries of research projects, described here. They are not the publication venue for completed research - the WP:MEDASSESS sources of journals, books or clinical organizations - but rather their reports are summaries of the research project. For this reason, I would ask why would we cite a PCORI summary when a peer-reviewed publication is the main source? Is there an example of a PCORI final report that you feel is a good MEDRS example?
    There was concern that funded research groups submitting final reports to PCORI had "spin" language, which was caught and adjusted by PCORI before publication.
    As of 2023, the National Academy of Medicine is collaborating with PCORI to improve the review process for evaluating research funding candidates.
    The PCORI article needs updating. There are fewer than 30 watchers/editors of the article. Zefr (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Zefr: Two issues here: The extent to which PCORI publications meet MEDRS, and then presuming that PCORI is reliable, WP:Verifying that Misplaced Pages reflects PCORI's claim in an appropriate context. Originally I think you were challenging PCORI, but here, I think you are challenging the claim. Do you agree with that distinction and separation, and if so, can you (or I) move your text discussing the claim to Talk:Modafinil#Clarification_on_a_WP:MEDRS_sourced_claim_that_was_reverted?
    This is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, so this is the place to discuss your comments about the organization and your question about why to cite PCORI's summaries instead of the original source. Briefly, there can be multiple approaches to healthcare. Most approaches originate in the healthcare industry, and it is challenging to escape that. PCORI speaks for itself, but I would describe it as remaining in the healthcare industry (as opposed to exiting it to seek alternative medicine), and within that context, recommending evidence-based medicine which prioritizes person-centered care. So for example, many medical recommendations from industry seek to maximize curing disease, but a patient-centered approach could emphasize managing side effects and planning the financial cost of treatment. Regardless of what kind of recommendations PCORI is making, I sustain the notion that per WP:MEDORG, Misplaced Pages includes expert institutional claims which may not go through the peer review process of a journal.
    I think the report we have been discussing is a good MEDRS example. It comes in different forms -
    Misplaced Pages typically does not cite trials, but here, PCORI is elevating the results of this case study into a special report and expert recommendation. We can attribute this to the organization following WP:ACCORDINGTO/WP:INTEXT guidelines, which was the original attempted edit.
    PCORI gets into cases like this which are fairly unusual. The situation is that there is an Off-label use for a drug (so it is not indicated or approved, but there is evidence for it) and then PCORI is giving an alert about that off-label use. I am not a physician, and I do not know how to untangle expert institutional critiques of off-label drug use, but in general, I just trust PCORI's process and think Misplaced Pages can include PCORI recommendations attributed to them. I do not see this as the same as citing a case study without the backing of an expert org.
    Base question back to you - how do you feel about including statements attributed to PCORI based on trials, when they conflict with other evidence? Bluerasberry (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    If PCORI published a summary of results from a multinational Phase III trial or a systematic review that it had helped to fund, then perhaps that would meet WP:MEDORG (although still not a national clinical guideline that would better meet MEDASSESS). In the case of the reference for modafinil, PCORI is giving an update on a pilot study, which clearly isn't MEDRS.
    "how do you feel about including statements attributed to PCORI based on trials, when they conflict with other evidence?" Defined on the PCORI website under Evidence Updates: PCORI presents findings from systematic reviews and some of our funded research studies in concise, accessible formats called Evidence Updates. Most Evidence Updates are available in two versions: one for patients and caregivers and one for clinicians and other professionals. These updates, which capture the highlights and context for these new findings, are created and disseminated in collaboration with patients, health professionals, and other organizations."
    Likely, the PCORI update for a systematic review would be more digestible for the common Misplaced Pages reader, but having the original journal publication would have to go with it as the more complete source. If there was a conflict with another source and both were MEDRS-qualified, WP:BALANCE would say discuss them both.
    It's ok to copy any of this to the modafinil talk page. Zefr (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Zefr: I want to ask a general opinion. Suppose that there is an expert medical organization, and suppose that it makes medical claims which it says are expert, but these claims are not peer reviewed through academic journals, not meta-reviews which address existing research, and they claims contradict peer-reviewed meta analysis. Under what circumstance, if any, may Misplaced Pages present such claims?
    I recognize that MEDRS is 99% peer-reviewed meta analysis, but part of MEDRS is WP:MEDORG, and I see a space for organizations to convene experts and make claims worth inclusion outside of the standard process. In the world there are probably fewer than 20 organizations with standing like PCORI, and then there are probably about 1000 medical specialty organizations globally which also make such statements on occasion. I think MEDORG applies to those organizations for statements which are peer reviewed by physicians through their internal process, but may not be peer reviewed through academic journals and part of a meta-analysis.
    I will take this particular example claim to the Misplaced Pages article talk page, but yes or no, will you support the inclusion of non-peer reviewed, non-review article contradictory claims in Misplaced Pages when there is an organization of appropriate standing trying to get those claims out? Bluerasberry (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    In the graph, Referencing a guideline, at the bottom of MEDORG, an organization like PCORI would be an Authoritative editorial board at the MEDRS threshold (lower quality). The claim using a PCORI source would have to meet WP:WEIGHT and BALANCE if interpretations or results contradict another MEDRS source.
    Might be best to get a wider view for your questions at WT:MED. Zefr (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Resolved @Zefr: We are in agreement! Their claims are at the lower end of acceptable authority, and would not be prioritized over more developed claims, but the organization passes WP:MEDORG and should not be disallowed for failing WP:MEDRS. You had valid criticism of the particular claim being made and for that, I may continue discussion on the article talk page. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    I wouldn't say its non-governmental... It seems to be more semi or quasi governmental (Interestingly enough a notable concept that we seem to lack a wiki page for) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Horse Eye's Back: I do not think there is a term for nonprofit organizations which have strong government ties, but yes, I understand what you mean. PCORI is a 501(c)(3) organization which receives government grants through the Affordable Care Act. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Law&Crime Network

    Hello! I would like to know your opinion about Law&Crime Network youtube channel and their news site Law&Crime News. Are they reliable source for information about murders/trials? SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Youtube channels are generally not reliable sources. Please see WP:RSPYT for additional context. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Since YouTube (RSP entry) is a platform, the reliability of a YouTube video depends on the reliability of the video's creator. In this case, Law & Crime is a television network and news website that has a masthead listing its editorial staff, which means that the organization's YouTube videos are not self-published and not automatically considered generally unreliable solely for being published on YouTube. — Newslinger talk 19:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    I can't speak to their YouTube channel at all. Re: their website, Adam Klasfeld used to be their managing editor (he's now a journalism fellow with Just Security), and I found him to be a very reliable reporter on legal issues. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Their website is RS. However many of the sources there, you have to deal with BLPCRIME, for which you must be cautious anyway. But I have found them to be fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Catholic-Hierarchy.org

    Catholic-Hierarchy.org is a self-published source that has been featured in two prior discussions (2016 and 2020). Multiple editors appear to consider it a reliable source specifically because it is used in other independent publications. This is a noted exception for self-published sources that can be found in WP:RS/SPS. However, users also acknowledge that it should never be used in biographies of living people.

    Is there more discussion that should be had? Should these details be added to WP:RSPSOURCES? This source is used several thousand times on the English WP, so centralized standards for it might be desirable. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Is there any context, any new disagreement about the source that would warrant a new discussion? If not the RSP has inclusion criteria and can be discussed on WT:RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    @OldPolandUpdates: Where can that noted exception for self-published sources be found in WP:RS/SPS? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Mid-paragraph here. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others, that isn't there. The self publisher here is an amateur, a self described "Random Catholic Dude" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    What is WP:EXPERTSPS? It redirects to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Do we have standards on who is/is not an expert? If Catholic-Hierarchy.org is not an expert source, then it is not a reliable self-published source, and this has implications for thousands of WP articles.
    Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources seems to imply that if one's material is used by reliable publications, then one might be considered an established expert. Catholic-Hierarchy.org is used in peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and other types of articles. Some of the usage is described here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_203#catholic-hierarchy.org. Therefore, the discussion might revolve around whether Catholic-Hierarchy.org is used enough by external publications.
    If you consider Catholic-Hierarchy.org not reliable, then would you also agree that it be depicted as such in the WP:RSPSOURCES table? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The standard is mid-paragraph here "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." which does not appear to be the case here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would also note that there appears to be a consensus from 2020 that this is a SPS, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#Catholic-Hierarchy.org Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have added the source to the WP:RSPSOURCES list. Please take a look. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    From the wording you've used there ("Other editors do not consider the website to be a subject-matter expert in its field.") I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others... Its not the website which isn't a subject-matter expert, its the self publisher who isn't. The argument that "some editors have considered the website to be reliable because some of its content has been published in reliable, independent publications" is seperate from the argument about whether or not its a SPS... A SPS which is used by others still has to follow SPS rules. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you provide the standard that you are using to determine whether someone is an expert? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    The standard: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    It is possible that I am misinterpreting that, and I did consider that bolded section to basically be similar to WP:USEBYOTHERS. If work that appears on Catholic-Hierarchy.org is published in the form of a reference in reliable sources (books, peer-reviewed journal articles, dissertations, and reliable newspapers), then isn't this bolded section satisfied? What does the bolded section mean? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    No, there has to be works other than the self published ones and they have to predate the self published one. Generally only academics and journalists satisfy our requirements. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have modified the WP:RSPSOURCES entry to better reflect this comment. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    It still feels off, you're giving wayyyyyy too much weight to the group that thinks its reliable when that view isn't supported by policy and guideline. You also make the consenus that it isn't an expert SPS look like just an opinion, but we clearly have consensus that the author isn't a subject matter expert by our standards. It also isn't a general opinion that SPS can't be used for BLP, thats solid policy. This comes off more as apologism than what consenus actually is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    RfC: The London Standard

    The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Withdrawn by JJPMaster --Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 21:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    The London Standard, formerly known as the Evening Standard, has 18,703 links on the English Misplaced Pages. Its reliability has not been discussed since 2018, and there is currently no consensus on its reliability. Therefore, what is the reliability of the London Standard?

    JJPMaster (she/they) 23:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    @PARAKANYAA: I brought it here (a) because of its recent change in format and (b) because it hasn't been discussed in seven years. I figured that the previous discussions would have been sufficient for WP:RFCBEFORE, so I didn't think to start a regular discussion beforehand. JJPMaster (she/they) 01:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    You don’t start off with the RfCs, for which you provided 0 context. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • (Summoned by bot) I'm with Parakanyaa here. That it hasn't been discussed since 2018 is not sufficient reason for an RFC, in fact it's reason against one. I would have expected some recent discussion prior to an RFC, so that we have some context. TarnishedPath 02:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Bad RFC because of lack of WP:RFCBEFORE. I have no context whatsoever here. Presumably if it's being brought up here, JJPMaster thinks there's some kind of problem with it, but if so it's not clear at all what problem(s) they think there is. Loki (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Bad RFC due to complete lack of WP:RFCBEFORE. No discussion in any capacity since 2018. The Kip 04:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Procedural Close. There is no mandatory periodical process for the reliability of specific sources. A source is brought here for discussion only after what the instructions demand, in large fonts, right at the header: Please supply the article is used in, and the claim it supports. RFCs should only be started if there have been previous discussions . This is a bad RfC and should not be entertained nor continued. -The Gnome (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Unless there's some new context in regard to it's reliability, disagreement between editors or discussion of London Standard's reliability in secondary sources, then there's no need for a new discussion let alone an RFC. Maybe the wording in header and edit warning needs to be stronger. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
       Request withdrawn per above. JJPMaster (she/they) 12:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable per WP:NEWSORG. Since this newspaper is listed in RSP, we are within our rights to !vote on it. James500 (talk) 20:55, 10 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.

    Checking a wikipedia source

    I'm curious as to whether in general I can copy an already existing citation from one Misplaced Pages article to another which says the same thing without having to check that citation. For example, on the page George Robert Russell there's a citation which I haven't checked, but I'm assuming the person who added it did: , and I want to use it to link his name on Jonathan Russell's page. This example is the specific one and a little complicated (and I apologize for that), but the question also applies for other cases. Can Do I have to check the citation myself first to do this? Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Wikieditor662 You should. Noone can force you, but sadly often, WP-sourcing is not what it should be. Gbooks and archive.org is sometimes helpful. Note also that you are close to have access to the WP:LIBRARY. WP:RX is sometimes useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    You should be able to access page 190–191 via Google books here -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    The advantage of checking sources yourself is that you're much less likely to see your edits reverted with a comment of failed verification, not in source later. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you guys very much, I added it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


    References

    1. Jacques Downs, The Golden Ghetto (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1997), 191.

    RE: Lambgoat

    Lambgoat just got discussed recently, but I have a useage that hasn't come up yet in discussions that I want to get clarity on. Is an article like this, about heavy metal genres, acceptable for use on the relevant Misplaced Pages genre articles, with the exclusion of any BLP claims or controversial statements? I'm pinging the other editors who were involved in that discussion. JeffSpaceman, Sergecross73, MFTP Dan.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    I have to say, I have never seen LG do something like this and would not be personally inclined to use it. It's only just over a year old, so maybe it's a new thing they're doing and I didn't keep up. mftp dan 19:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    I found another music history article from 2024, so it looks like this might be a new addition to the type of coverage that they do.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    As I suspected. I would be loath to use this, I always treated LG as a last resort for routine coverage of bands. To me, it's the lowest tier of source that's still acceptable for use especially on, you know, older subjects where there isn't surviving online coverage otherwise. They are impressive for cataloguing that far back. mftp dan 14:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would recommend verifying with other, more established reliable sources, and potentially citing those instead per User:MFTP Dan. I think routine coverage (as you state, barring exceptional claims or third-party information about living people) is probably viable, but I'm not confident this source should be cited for what you are looking into it being used for. But I'll see what others think and where consensus goes. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    They don't mention editorial staff or fact checking on their about us. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    They do have an editor, per the staff page, but the role is not explained.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    To be fair, you don't see that explanation a lot these days. Especially in the content area LG serves. It's surprisingly slim pickens out there. mftp dan 14:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Does this source even exists?

    I saw this ড. মুহম্মদ আব্দুল করিম. বাংলাদেশের ইতিহাস. মগ বিতাড়ন ও চট্টগ্রাম জয়. cited on an article (here Bengal Sultanate–Kingdom of Mrauk U War of 1512–1516) but I couldn't find any source with this name anywhere on the internet, can anyone confirm if it is real or not? Koshuri Sultan (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    If it is a hard copy book (or similar), it may not be on the internet. That said, a lot of library databases are in English, so have you tried searching for an English language translation? Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    I tried google translating it from Hindi to English… not completely successful, but I suspect the author may be Abdul Karim (historian)… something for you to look into. Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've just tried it too and searched it in English but I still couldn't find anything, The only person I could find who has the same name as the author of that source is Md. Abdul Karim who is not a Historian. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Blueboar Google scholar does not mentions any book of Abdul Karim (historian) with that name. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following website is using the same source but is referencing different pages in the source than the wiki article: https://www.teachers.gov.bd/blog/details/686411?page=2546&cttlbasee-smrn-rakheni-cttgramer-itihas-bujurg-umed-khann-cttgram-punruddharer-mhanayk
    It may be a physical source that is only available as a printed book.
    The following website also uses this source and is also mentioning the name "জাতীয় গ্রন্থ প্রকাশ" (Jatiya Grantha Prakash / Jatio Grantho Prokashon) for the publishing house that published the book: https://www.sachalayatan.com/shashtha_pandava/56984. And it looks like this publisher actually exists: https://www.rokomari.com/book/publisher/498/jatio-grantho-prokashon?ref=apb_pg96_p34. Nakonana (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    The author appears to be this guy: bn:আবদুল করিম সাহিত্যবিশারদ. That wiki article references the following website: https://www.thedailystar.net/in-focus/abdul-karims-discoveries-origins-modernity-bengali-literature-154528. This website is talking about Abdul Karim and the history of Chittagong, and given that the source Koshuri Sultan is asking about is also about Chittagong (translated by Google as "Dr. Muhammad Abdul Karim. History of Bangladesh. Expulsion of the Mughals and Conquest of Chittagong."), I think that this the Abdul Karim who authored the source in question. Nakonana (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Or it's this other Abdul Karim who is said to have written a two volume book by the title of "History of Bangladesh": . Nakonana (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for finding these, I appreciate your help. However we still can't verify the source.
    This article was previously nominated for speedy deletion (under WP:A11) but the author of that article without discussing it properly . Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Categories: