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

Revision as of 01:49, 4 May 2012 editUcanlookitup (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers3,529 edits →Reliability of Media Matters← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:50, 19 January 2025 edit undoErp (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,385 edits →Is “Zannettou, Savvas "A Quantitative Approach to Understanding Online Antisemitism". a reliable source for Happy Merchant: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{short description|Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}}
	<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
	{{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}}		{{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 = 120		|counter = 464
			|minthreadstoarchivSee = 1
	|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	|algo = old(7d)		|algo = old(5d)
	|archive = Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d		|archive = Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
			}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__
	}}
	{{Archive box|auto=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=7}}
	__TOC__
	__NEWSECTIONLINK__
	<!--		<!--
	------------------------------------------------------------------------------		------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line 19:		Line 14:
	------------------------------------------------------------------------------		------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	-->		-->
	<onlyinclude>
	</onlyinclude>
	<onlyinclude>
			------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	== Drug Free Australia ==
			== RfC: Bild ==
	Requiring some input on a source being disputed at ]. ] wishes to categorically delete all text describing any observations or criticisms of harm reduction interventions deriving from Australia's peak drug prevention organization, Drug Free Australia . Drug Free Australia is continually cited and quoted in Australian Parliamentary debates and Inquiries and in the media in relation to its critiques of the studies on harm reduction interventions, and more particularly here its analyses of safe injecting site evaluations.
			{{atop|result=Although I'm involved in the discussion the result seem uncontroversial, and so asking for a close at ] wouldn't be appropriate. The result is that there is no change, Bild remians '''Generally unreliable'''. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:17, 16 January 2025 (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) ===
	I note that the same user lodged a Reliable Sources/Noticeboard question on Drug Free Australia’s reliability as a source on 13 October 2010 but its reliability was there affirmed. The relevant source documents in dispute are all found on the Drug Free Australia website , and . Steinberger challenges Drug Free Australia’s credibility in analysing or commenting on harm reduction interventions such as supervised injecting sites and needle exchanges on the grounds that they do not publish their critiques in medical journals (although their critique of a Lancet study on Insite is published as a 1 page letter in Lancet, complete with chart). I note that analyses of safe injecting site and needle exchange outcomes do not require in-depth medical expertise, with no physiology, biology or biochemistry being involved in the outcomes, which are rather just statistical and able to be adjudicated by anyone well versed in statistics. Nevertheless, the Drug Free Australia contributors to these documents on SIFs and needle exchanges are almost entirely medical doctors/epidemiologists/addiction medicine specialists worldwide who each have multiple entries in Pubmed against their name (eg Dupont – 120 articles and letters, McKeganey 64 articles). I am concerned that the MEDRS objection is just an excuse for censoring content that may be too confronting and uncomfortable for some with an unquestioning support of these interventions, based as it is on analyses of all the data available.
			*'''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) ===
	I understand that the requirements of a source will change according to its application in Misplaced Pages, and that peer-review is not an absolute requirement for Misplaced Pages articles, particularly for this kind of critique by such well-qualified teams of medical and social commentators from such a high profile prevention organization in Australia. Your assistance on the issue appreciated. ] (]) 03:50, 2 April 2012 (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)
			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:
	:The specific question Minphie askes in this case, is if findings of a DFA report should be given equal validity to articles in Lancet? The DFA report in question say that the Lancet article is dead wrong and that is authors may have engaged in scientific misconduct. The university of some of the authors (UBC) took the allegation seriously and sent their report for review (by ] of McGill) but dropped the matter, when they found out that the report is "without merit" and "not based on scientific fact" . The authors of the original Lancet article have also written in length on the DFA report and Lancet have not retracted the original article. ] (]) 07:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
			* {{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
			* 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)
			::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.}}
	::I don't have time at the moment to do more than observe that there are multiple gross misrepresentations in the post with which Minphie opened this request. To just mention one very innocuous example relative to some of the others, I'd suggest people actually compare about Drug Free Australia to his claim that "its reliability was there affirmed". The single editor who responded to the previous request actually wrote, "...this seems to be an advocacy group, rather than a scientific research group. In fact it often criticizes scientists." He did suggest at that time that it could be cited with in-text attribution, but I think he might have expressed a rather different set of opinions if he'd had before him information about the organization that I'll make time to post here within the next several days. &nbsp;–&nbsp;<font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 11:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
			::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)
			{{abot}}
			==RfC: NewsNation==
	:::I don't believe that I should let OhioStandard's input go without comment. It is not a 'gross misrepresentation' to say that the reliability of the source was affirmed while providing the link to the previous RS/N input. The advice 'with attribution' does not change the organisation's status to an unreliable source. Every reference to Drug Free Australia in Misplaced Pages has been carefully attributed since. In all fairness, I believe care needs to be taken with accuracy of comments such as this, if fairness is what a Misplaced Pages Noticeboard is all about. Steinberger alternately raises questions about Drug Free Australia's challenging of a Lancet article, which is a whole debate in itself which is at ]. I believe Steinberger should not declare that debate settled, perhaps trying to influence input, when readers of this notice would best make their own conclusions without coaching. ] (]) 14:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 02:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739068436}}
			What is the reliability of ]?
			* '''Option 1: ]'''
	::::User Minphie appears to have missed what I actually wrote about his characterisation, ''viz.'' "To just mention one very innocuous example relative to some of the others ..." More to follow here, with "some of the others", as my time permits. &nbsp;–&nbsp;<font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 16:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
			* '''Option 2: ]'''
			* '''Option 3: ]'''
			* '''Option 4: ]'''
			] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I give this a bump so as this is not prematurely archived. ] (]) 07:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
			===Survey (NewsNation)===
	::::::Alright, I do still intend to comment substantively; apologies for not having done so already. In addition to time constraints, I've really been struggling to overcome my antipathy at needing to spend still ''more'' time here simply because a ] with 370 edits has been using this and other boards as a second home to try to gain support for his singlehanded wikicampaign for over 2 years, now.
			*'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light).
			**NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
			***In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the ], Coulthart said {{xt|"... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"!}} . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including ] and ], all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects.
			***Writing in ''The Skeptic'', Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: {{xt|"Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."}}
			***He wrote a UFO book titled ''Plain Sight'' which ] described as a {{xT|"conspiracy narrative"}} and a {{xt|"slipshod summary"}}.
			***The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for {{Xt|“espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”}}
			***The ] did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking {{xt|"Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary?}} while strongly implying the former.
			***The '']'' has described him as a {{Xt|"UFO truther"}} with {{xt|"little appetite for scrutiny"}}.
			***Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked ] investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians.
			**Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs:
			***In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the ''Washington Post'': ), the channel {{xt|"was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health"}}.
			***In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said {{xt|"... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing"}}. The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to ]'s analysis, a Boeing 737 .
			:] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage ] (]) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. ] (]) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' per Chetsford. – ] (]&nbsp;<b>·</b> ]) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative.] (]) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. Compare ]. ] (]) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' why are we putting ''any'' stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “]” syndrome. ] (]) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. - ] (]) 00:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' I would go with Option 2 but their UFO coverage makes me consider Option 3. I think for anything outside of UFO-related topics they are generally reliable. Other sources should be cited. ] (]) 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::First he was flogging a ] with an ] of 1 (unity), for about six months, trying to use it to refute over 20 studies in some of the world's most prestigious medical journals, such as ''The Lancet'', with it's H index of 432. And now he's back here for the umpteenth time pitching his ''other'' favorite theme, that peer review and the consensus of the scientific community are irrelevant when war-on-drugs elements within any government fling money about to buy the conclusions they demand for their political aims. As ] , re some of the junk research Minphie has championed previously,
			===Discussion (NewsNation)===
	:::::::''The only “research” the Harper government is prepared to rely on, as it fights Insite all the way to the Supreme Court, was not research; was secretly bought and paid for with federal tax dollars; contradicts the actual research; has been disowned internally by the police force that bankrolled it; and would have been disowned publicly by that police force if somebody at the RCMP’s highest ranks or outside it hadn’t put the kibosh on. This is not mere disregard for reliable data. It is an attempt by the state to put falsehood in the place of reliable data.''
			*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)
			== RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu ==
	::::::Sure, ''those'' are the kinds of sources we'd be using to inform our readers about the science supporting harm reduction, if Minphie had his way. Those great “reviews” commissioned in stealth mode by the RCMP itself, that they eventually owned up to, and that RCMP Chief Superintendent for drug enforcement in Vancouver said “did not meet conventional academic standards” until . Good times, and another round in the war-on-drugs propaganda blitz goes to the righteous. More to follow soon, about DFA more specifically. &nbsp;–&nbsp;<font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 07:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
			The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (B and C):
	:::::::I am again concerned that User: OhioStandard has again failed to address either the RS/N request I originally placed here or my outlined evidence while again misrepresenting a number of largely unrelated or distantly contingent issues which appear to have been written to negatively influence any independent opinion here in this forum. Anyone who wishes to draw their own conclusions on these issues aired by User:OhioStandard above will find that the aforesaid disputed journal with a purported ‘H index of 1’ has been discussed extensively on RS/N, and certainly not with any such consensus as OhioStandard would appear to assert from third opinion contributors who had not been involved in the prior Talk page disputes over this source. These RS/N discussions can be checked , and where the prior disputants (myself, Steinberger , OhioStandard and Jmh649 - Doc James can be clearly distinguished from the third parties. Of course the relevant Talk pages have the full discussions. I believe that misrepresentation, particularly of other complex disputes in Misplaced Pages, should not be used to influence the question of Drug Free Australia’s reliability as a source. ] (]) 09:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
			* '''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) ===
	::::::::Says user Minphie, ''"the aforesaid disputed journal with a <u>purported</u> H index of 1"'' Really? "Purported"? The so-called ] - click the wikilink; you'll be surprised - that he's euphemistically referring to as "disputed" here doesn't have a "purported" ] of 1, it ''has'' an H index of 1 as calculated by the only science citation database that bothers to index it, ]. If he sees any other number next to the "H index" reliability metric , then he needs to visit his optometrist. That's the publication that he wants us to consider on equal terms with '']'' and '']'', with their H reliability indices of and , respectively, at the time I write this.
			* 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 ===
	::::::::As I ''painstakingly'' explained to Minphie last June, (]) that so-called "journal", ], he's so fond of for his "science" had, at that time, <u>a grand total of two citations in legitimate, peer-reviewed journals</u> over its 4+ years of publication. And even those were made primarily to <u>ridicule</u> the publication, in effect; one mainstream journal article labelled it a "marketing device" for its parent organization, the ]. See the same talk page section linked to in the first sentence of this paragraph for a look at Minphie's careless and very exaggerated way of counting citations for individual papers and authors, too.
			: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)
	::::::::Uninvolved editors might also like to look at how things turned out when Minphie launched a request with ArbCom last summer to try to push JGDPP "research" results into our articles in this topic area, a request they declined. a link to a diff of the requests page, one edit before the ultimate decline. ( I wish they archived pages; I don't know why they just delete declined requests. ) Arbitrator Elen of the Roads wrote, "'''All the four times''' cited above that this journal has come up at WP:RS, there have been questions about its reliability and suitability as a medical source. Arbcom is not going to challenge that decision." (emphasis added) Then, in reply to arbitrator John Vandenberg's comment, "'''This has gone on long enough'''", Elen responded, of Minphie, "would it not be easier just to block the filing party indefinitely for disruptive editing, given that he is the only one persistently adding it to articles?"
			::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)
	::::::::Minphie is correct, though, about one thing. I haven't yet responded about Drug Free Australia (DFA), specifically. I'm a volunteer here, like most everyone else, and my time is limited. He'll get the more specific response he's asking for, just not at the convenience of his own schedule. But he won't like it. &nbsp;–&nbsp;<font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 12:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
			::These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Read Background: B. ] (]) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::<strike>I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc.</strike> --] (]) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Survey A: Geni.com ===
	:::::::::I reply to the above inaccuracies only because these inaccuracies may be negatively influential if not engaged. First, I again note that these issues have nothing to do with my request on RS/N as to the reliability of Drug Free Australia as a source. Second, I note for the sake of the illumination of readers of OhioStandard’s inaccuracies that an article from the aforesaid disputed journal, the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice (JGDPP) has been cited by no less than the US Institute of Medicine in its 2006 review of the effectiveness of needle exchanges and by the European Monitoring Centre’s 2010 Monograph 10 on Harm Reduction. These are the two most eminent organisations dealing with reviews of the science in the US and Europe. Of course the US Institute of Medicine review cited a direct presentation by Dr Kall to their 2005 Geneva hearing reproduced which any person can easily verify as being the same material as in the JGDPP article . Why does OhioStandard hide this evidence? Third, re my ArbCom request, a reading of the input from all ArbCom contributors involved yields a different picture to the negative view of one ArbCom contributor cited by OhioStandard, as can be verified from a reading of proceedings . ] (] 11:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. ] (]) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''.<strike>'''Question'''. Isn't it already deprecated?</strike>--] (]) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate''' A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			: '''Unsure'''. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) ] (]) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. Really bad. Needs to go away.—] 00:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley ===
	::::::::::The "two most eminent organisations dealing with reviews of the science in the US and Europe" are ''The New England Journal of Medicine'' and ''The British Medical Journal'', respectively, not those Minphie proposes above. What, does he think they don't publish review articles? Government officials and the publications produced by the bodies they fund are notoriously subject to political pressure. For that reason especially, and because they are not peer reviewed, they must be read with greater care: Their quality varies tremendously. And the so-called "]" he likes so well ''still'' has an "H index" reliability metric of , whatever else Minphie might say about it. Finally, on this sub-topic, I'd ''encourage'' people to read he launched; that's the reason I linked to it in the first place. &nbsp;–&nbsp;<font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 17:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate''', per background discussion. ] (]) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Comment'''. I think this source has been often discussed in a superficial way, together with other sources, which does not always lead to a clear perspective. This is not like the other two. It collects a lot of useful extracts from primary sources than can be helpful for getting a grip on a topic. Although it is basically the work of one editor, this editor was assigned to do this for an organization which does make some efforts to maintain a reputation for quality. (The FMG publishes a journal, and it posts some online corrections to Keats-Rohan's reference works for the 11th and 12th century, and she has noted those helpful efforts in print.) On the other hand, Medlands does not use secondary material very much, so it is normally not going to the type of source we would use on WP on its own for anything non-obvious. I note these complications because I see that sources like Ancestry.com and Findmypast also have special notes about how they can sometimes have useful primary materials. To give a practical example of what might go wrong, what I saw in the past whenever this source was discussed, is that it was even deleted from external links sections and so on. I think this is a source that can be used for external links at the very least. I feel hesitant to say that it should NEVER EVER be used even in the main body to be honest, although I don't use it on WP.--] (]) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate''' Crawley has no academic background in history and MedLands is self-published. It is not published by FMG only hosted by them. That it contains a lot of useful information is not the same as it having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, something it doesn't have. Deprecation isn't blacklisting, editors are warned against adding it not blocked. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "'''the source is generally prohibited'''". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) ] (]) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Editors who know the fine print will be the ones using the source correctly, and will know how to handle the situation. The issue is that editors who don't know keep adding this as a reference to support content, and the many discussions on the source show they isn't support for that. Adding a warning when editors post will at least get editors to ask why they are getting the warning, and help them understand the situation.
			:::Deprecation of this source will ''reduce'' the pointless pseudo-legal debates, by reducing the problem of the source being repeatedly readded. Editors should use their own good judgement, but as repeated discussion about this source have shown that isn't happening. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--] (]) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--] (]) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Yes the cost of not having to continuously patrol for this source and have the same discussion about it's reliability again and again.
			:::::::Separately before the two of us fill the survey section with our disagreement (mea culpa), should we move this discussion to the Discussion section? -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Generally unreliable'''. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) ''Generally unreliable'' is the one which says this: {{tq|"questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published"}} I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would ''only'' allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be ''prohibited''. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--] (]) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at ] shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he ''knows'' {{xt!|may be of little factual significance}} at face value just because he finds them "]" ({{xt!|but is reproduced by way of interest}}), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't ]. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. ] (]) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the '''Generally unreliable''' category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then ''only as far as we have to''. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --] (]) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Generally reliable''', in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate''' per ActivelyDisinterested.—] 00:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav ===
	:::::::::::Incidentally, those hansard links Minphie included above make for some ''very'' interesting reading re DFA. &nbsp;–&nbsp;<font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 08:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. ] (]) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--] (]) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as {{xt|genealogy.eu}} and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). ] (]) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
			:'''Comment'''. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the ], Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". ] (]) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Deprecate'''. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; . --] 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			** This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site . And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. ] (]) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. ]. Deprecation will have a positive effect. And while it's always possible that someone in the know, who's really into genealogy, has the ability of figuring out out how the operator of this website makes it have the content that it has, that's not useful for determining reliability.—] 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)===
	== IRmep: actual reliable source evidence re: FOIA docs ==
			{{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)
	{{Anchor|IRmep: actual reliable source evidence}}
			: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)
	Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep) is a Washington-based nonprofit organization headed by Grant F. Smith which “studies US-Middle East policy formulation.” Of particular interest is its <u>Israel Lobby Archive documents</u> which includes thousands of pages of declassified and/or Freedom of Information Act documents, most found nowhere else online. Some seem to be of historic importance, including letters from Henry Kissinger and George Shultz to President Obama and FBI documents related to illegal acquisition of nuclear weapons triggers. Being able to link to documents like this only improves the Misplaced Pages project.
			== Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] ==
	The one past ] reliability for facts only presented evidence of ''unreliablity.'' I think the following evidence that various WP:RS take IRmep/Grant Smith seriously as a source proves both are ''sufficiently WP:RS <u>at the very least</u> to permit linking to its archives of primary source documents per ].''
	* in Israel's ] about the group's activities (that misidentifies it as a Muslim group).
	* Journalist ] writes Smith is doing “the best investigative work” on the Israel lobby .
	* about IRmep/Smith activities.
	*] article on IRmep’s activities .
	* quoting Grant Smith.
	* Mentions in ] , <s>] ,</s> ] .
	*Reuters republication of IRmep press releases: , ,
	*]’s highly regarded ] republication of IRmep press releases: , , , {added later].
	*Paragraph in “Socialism and Democracy online” (sdonline.org) article by ] called .
	*] mentions , .
	* IRmep research in Ben Simpfendorfer, ''The New Silk Road'' (], 2009).
	*Searching only Scholar.Google for just one of the IRmep has published, “Spy Trade”, I found it used in Nathaniel Minnott, Harvard Law School, , Information & Communications Technology Law, Volume 20, Issue 3, 2011.
	*Use as in Richard Bonney's ''False prophets: the 'clash of civilizations' and the global war on terror'' (]).
	*Use as in Jack Ross's ''Rabbi Outcast: Elmer Berger and American Jewish Anti-Zionism'', Potomac Books, Inc., 2011.
	*Media interviews with Grant Smith: ], ], ].
	*] articles by Smith , .
	*] has published more than two dozen .
	''''
	* details about Smith/IRmep's views/activities.
	* op-ed by Grant Smith about intolerance in academia, including vs. critics of the Israel lobby.
	* permitting Grant F. Smith to file an amicus brief in the case of Steven Rosen vs. American Israel Public Affairs Committee et al. (PDF on IRmep site).
	'''':
	*''Spy Trade: How Israel's Lobby Undermines America's Economy'' (Nov 1, 2009): Nathaniel Minnott, Harvard Law School, , Information & Communications Technology Law, Volume 20, Issue 3, 2011;
	*''Foreign Agents: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee from the 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal'' (2007) (1) Used in Jahad Atieh, , ], Summer, 2010, 31 U. Pa. J. Int'l L. 1051; (2)used in Clifford Attick Kiracofe, ''Dark crusade: Christian Zionism and US foreign policy'', Volume 31 of International library of political studies, I.B. Tauris, 2009, p 207.
	*''America's Defense Line: The Justice Department's Battle to Register the Israel Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government'' (Aug 15, 2008) Used in: (1)Jahad Atieh, mentioned above and (2) Pierre Guerlain, , Université Paris Ouest Nanterre, GRAAT On-Line Occasional Papers–April 2009, peer-reviewed journal ''GRAAT'' (Groupe de Recherches Anglo-Américaines de Tours, or Tours Anglo-American Research Group), ], ]
	*''Deadly Dogma: How Neoconservatives Broke the Law to Deceive America''(Mar 3, 2006). Used in (1) Frank P. Harvey, ''Explaining The Iraq War: Counterfactual Theory, Logic and Evidence'', Cambridge University Press, 2011, and (2) review in ] May 1, 2006 at
	:
	* , ], April 08 - 2004; two quotes on trade. (Note that Grant Smith has a Masters in International Management from ] as he reveals in the .)
			This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] on the multiple issues regarding that article.
	The current example under discussion at ] (FARA) is whether we can link to a November 1963 Dept. of Justice letter demanding an organization register as a foreign agent in order to establish the date of and the existence of the letter; the demand itself is mentioned in reliable sources. One editor has been busy deleting all IRmep references from other articles claiming IRmep is fringe because of its “anti-Israel propaganda” and that it is "anti-Zionist garbage". I can provide links to and descriptions of other deletions upon request; most are links to documents. Another editor on the FARA article, who also has deleted IRmep links, declared the IRmep discussion "over". So I come here for more neutral opinions, hopefully from those who agree with ]. '']'' 20:56, 5 April 2012 (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>
	:{{Hilite|(<small>'' <u>Note timestamp</u>. The following was top-posted to keep all cites and publications together on page. Please post any responses at end-of-thread, not immediately below; see ]].''</small>)|#EEFFE6}}
			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.
	:There are some additional citations to IRmep from reliable sources, and works written by IRmep founder Grant Smith which appear in RS publications that I'd like to post. I have time at the moment to add just one, however, but it's one that <u>may surprise skeptics</u>. Anyway, I'll update this list with more as responsibilities permit:
			]: 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>
	:The following cites IRmep research; see note 43:
			]: 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):
	:* Hart, Jo-Anne. {{Spaces|1}}'']'' Vol 85, Issue 5 (Sep/Oct 2005): pages 9-21. (Alt. source) In this 13 page paper, IRmep is cited for its ''Middle East Academic Survey Research Exposition'' that queried Middle East academics about their opinions of Iran's intentions with respect to its nuclear program.
			*
			*
			*
			* (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)
	:Dr. Hart's paper was supported by the U.S. Army ], Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and its copyright is owned by Department of the Army Headquarters. It states that she specialises in Middle East security policy at the ], ]; that she previously taught Strategy and Policy at the ], and that she has often participated in the Army Chief of Staff's annual future study program known as the .
			::There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in ''The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast'' (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. also seems to be a relevant document. ] (]) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq|1=There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle}}<br>]?<br>{{tq|1=citing Portuguese records}}<br>That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above ''']]''' 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. ] (]) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::One example of another secondary source comparing the accounts (after C. F. Buckingham) is Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1997). ''The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama''. pp. 290-291. () ] (]) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--] (]) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?''']]''' 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. ''The Independent'' is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. ] (]) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the ] was a thing according to a Facebook post made by a high school that he attended).{{efn|Machine translation: Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamusa, a native of Al-Shahr and a graduate of the third class of Al-Mukalla High School for Boys (now Bin Shihab High School for Boys)<br>High School Flags<br>Tuesday, September 17, 2024<br>After years of parting, Abu Bakr Bin Shihab High School for Boys in Mukalla embraced Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamoussa, who graduated on the educational ladder for years and is now at the age of retirement. He visited the high school and in his gaze with passion and love for the past years, he climbed the stairs of the high school to the second floor to the office of the principal Mr. Saeed Ahmed Al-Amari, who welcomed him warmly and said that this visit gave us a boost and moral support, and the visit for Mr. Bamoussa was to ask about the old administrators, services and guards who were who were in the period of the sixties and seventies, but unfortunately the administration could not answer this and invites everyone who has information about them to raise it quickly, as Mr. Bamoussa has been working for years on writing a book about the beginning of education in Hadramawt since the time of the Qaitian Sultanate in the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, and he made a very important statement that the first principal of the high school is Mr. Karama Bammin from Tarim and then came after him Mr. Al-Sudani Al-Taloudi and this was a surprise for us and he confirmed this in his book that will see the light after completion of it.<br>May God prolong his life and give him health and wellness to provide us with important information about the history of education in Hadramawt.<br>The high school administration thanks Mr. Mohammed Bamoussi for this visit and this effort exerted by him for this wonderful work, and wishes the officials in the Ministry of Education, the governorate office and the local authority to adopt such people who raise the slogan of education and the slogan of Hadramawt, the land of science, knowledge and culture.}} He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others . He also published a book about the city of Shihr . He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023 {{pb}}{{talkreflist|group=lower-alpha}} ''']]''' 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.] (]) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the ] ] and ] sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) ''']]''' 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. ] (]) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. ] (]) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::@] If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in , which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! ] (]) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Hi, @]. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this:
			::::::"Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India , his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." ] (]) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::{{tq|1=capturing Al-Shihr}}<br>hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? ''']]''' 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder.
			::::::::I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. ] (]) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city ''']]''' 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. ] (]) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{outdent|8}} {{tq|1="Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, '''capturing Al-Shihr''',}} (Never happened btw) {{tq|1= and how important it would be to conquer Diu."}}<br> ''']]''' 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::"Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? ''']]''' 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned ''']]''' 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::capturing a city != sacking it <br>your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here ''']]''' 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. ] (]) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Now show me where in your sources does it say that ''']]''' 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::You were just denying that this happened after I showed you the sources, why are you asking this now? Didn't I just give them above? ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{outdent|7}} What sources about capturing a city did you show me? Those letters clearly show that the portuguese wanted to capture the city and they failed as we have no proof of them being there after the battle was over. But did they lie to whoever they sent this letter to? ''']]''' 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Look bro, the letter doesn't state they failed, it states the Portuguese captured the city and then sacked it. For the fourth time, this DOES NOT mean they retained control of the city. ] (]) 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Jacobin ==
	:&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 16:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
	:Placeholder for additonal sources to be added within 24 hours. &nbsp;–&nbsp;<font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 10:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
			Jacobin is currently listed as "generally reliable" under ]. ] (]) 08:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:''Strike sockpuppet comments''{{Spaces|2}}<s>None of these are an indication that IRmep is a reliable source, quite the opposite.</s>
			:Addendum: I think {{noping|The wub}} sums up my thoughts well. {{tq|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.}} ] (]) 02:55, 14 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. ] (]) 08:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	::<s> calls it 'an organization with openly political motives'
			: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)
	:: is a personal blog, widely described as being part of a "anti-Israel blogosphere." and as "fulsomely, intensely anti-Israel."
			::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)
	:: blog post , on a now defunct blog on the Washington Post doesn't even mention IRmep
			: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)
	::] is not a reliable source ,as has been
			: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)
	:: Jordan Times link does not work
			:: 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)
	::...and so on.
			::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)
	::Republication of IRmep press releases, by wire services that republish press releases (PR Newswire, Reuters) are not an indication of notability or reliability - you pay these companies to publish your press release, and that's what they do. If that was not obvious, the Reuters link carry an explicit disclaimer "Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release. "
			: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)
			:Oppose changing the status per Simonm223 and Hydrangeans. I don't personally love Jacobin, I find their opinion pieces are hit or miss, but I haven't seen it demonstrated that they have poor editorial practices or long-standing issues with factual accuracy. It is not surprising that a reddit community consisting entirely of people from a different political leaning would dislike them, and a social media post reacting to another social media post of one author being mildly annoying doesn't meet my bar for evidence that the publication is not reliable. And as others have mentioned, making corrections when errors are pointed out is what we expect from a reliable outlet, not never making errors in the first place. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 15:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::As a tangential sidenote, the "reddit community" tends to be far-left leaning, and would more inclined to agree with or love Jacobin than to criticize the outlet in any way. ] (]) 15:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Even if correct this is irrelevant. ] (]) 15:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Fair enough. As I said, "a tangential sidenote"... ] (]) 15:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Reddit is a fragmented website full of insular communities. That "r/neoliberal", a community of self described neoliberals, would criticize an outlet with a different leaning, is unsurprising and holds no weight in this discussion. We don't go off of what social media is saying when making these decisions.
			:::Respectfully, I think a fresh RfC should be started ''after'' someone has something demonstrating a pattern of editorial malpractice, disregard for fact, or a worrying blurring of the lines between op-eds and normal articles leading to a failure to accurately present information. We don't derank sources just for having biases, objectivity and neutrality are two different things.
			:::Anyways, I'm not opposed to ever doing an RfC, I just expect at a bare minimum that we have something to go off of so it doesn't just end up being a discussion in which editors !vote based on how they feel about the outlet until some poor soul has to sacrifice their time reading through everything to close the discussion.
			:::<b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::This has already been demonstrated by @] and others about their egregious error and then attacking those who pointed out they got things wrong. That is enough to start an RfC. If the RfC holds that they should not change, then so be it. ] (]) 15:52, 16 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)
			*:Yeah, the standard has never been "makes no mistakes". If they made a mistake and then corrected it that's exactly what we expect of a reliable source. ] (]) 16:18, 13 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)
	:And on and on it goes, in a similar vain - these mentions are either in sources that are unreliable themselves, or mentions in RS'es that describe IRmep as a politically motivated group with a virulent anti-Israel agenda. IRmep itself has no reputation for fact checking, accuracy or use of its material by reliable sources. Its website lists no editorial board nor makes mention of fact checking or error correction policy - it is a political advocacy group and an unreliable source. ] (]) 22:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)</s>
			:Agreed. ] (]) 23:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	::There are two outputs from this organization, namely its commentary and the third-party documents it publishes. The former are unreliable and I don't think they should be used (except maybe as attributed opinions in some cases). The documents might be problematic due to being largely primary source material, but if they are handled within the guidelines for primary sources I don't see why they should be considered unreliable. They are not less reliable than, for example, ]'s documents which are widely used on Misplaced Pages. The main problem with documents produced by advocacy organizations like this is their bias in choosing which documents to present, so any sort of meta-analysis based on the selection has to be avoided. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
			::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)
			::::All good points! ] (]) 17:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			Jacobin is a far left news and analysis site, and adds opinion and commentary in their articles. I consider sites like this on the right and left not too far removed from activists, and thus should be ignored. It is popular among left leaning people on twitter, reddit, and elsewhere but we should not confuse social media popularity for it being a valid source. We should trim these low quality heavily opinionated pages and rely upon high quality sources such as Associated Press and so forth. Secondly, they aren't particularity useful as anything they're going to cover will be covered by other proper news sources. ] (]) 23:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::First, User:Zero000 takes pretty much the position that I do, though I do believe the direction of things with IRMEP is that its material is being taken more and more seriously by more WP:RS.
	:::User:Jeff Song highly exaggerates in stating that the list of WP:RS using IRMEP/Smith somehow "proves" these ''documents'' are not credible for use on Misplaced Pages. In response to his specific criticisms:
	:::*] claiming a critic of Israel's most powerful American lobby is politically motivated? Who would have thunk it!
	:::*] is a well known journalist.
	:::*The Washington Post blog may no longer be published but that doesn't mean its author mentioning Grant Smith's work (obviously in this context known for being head of IRmep) is irrelevant.
	:::*You are correct. Looking more closely ] doesn’t seem to be the WP:RS publication I thought it was. So I’ll cross that one off.
	:::*Jordan Times archive seems to be down on a few articles. The article is called "Nuclear-free Mideast" by ] and meanwhile has been reprinted at
	:::*First, do you have evidence that either Reuters or Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch accept money for printing press releases?? Second, do you have evidence that Reuters or Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch will print material it considers UNfactual or UNcredible. Such disclaimers probably are just covering their butts, rather than paying people to track down every factoid. Also ] as well as others state that a press release printed by a reliable source may have some credibility as a WP:RS. And, again, this is not necessarily to use any specific factoid published in these press release as a source for some specific edit. However, it is an excellent indication that Smith/IRmep is not merely politically motivated and virulently anti-Israel, in which case Reuters and the Wall Street Journal’s MarketWatch certain would not be republishing their press releases at all!!
	:::I know some individuals may find it personally extremely emotionally upsetting that Americans will create websites having thousands of documents showing dubious and even criminal activities by Israel or its lobbies in the United States. But that is not an excuse for censoring such material from Misplaced Pages. '']'' 01:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::AS Zero points out source material presented by pro-Israel advocacy groups such as MEMRI, Honestreporting, Palwatch etc is widely cited in Misplaced Pages. In my opinion any blanket ban on IRmep on the basis of it being an advocacy group should also apply to pro-Isreal advocacy organisations such as the ones I have mentioned. ] (]) 13:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::That's right: being biased or partisan does not make a source unreliable. It only makes it biased. Misplaced Pages does not require sources to be unbiased. ''Articles'' should be neutral. ''Sources'' need to be reliable. ] (]) 16:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::::''Strike sockpuppet comment'' <s>Agree. And what is it that makes IRMep reliable? Do they have a reputation for fact checking or accuracy? Do they have editorial oversight? Do they have an error correction policy? The answer to all of these is NO. Conversely, WP:RS tells us which sources are questionable, and to be avoided: Self-published sources (yes, that's IRMep); no editorial oversight (IRMep fits this, too) ; and "websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature" - again, fits IRMep to a T, as evidenced even by the sources Carol has brought in support of IRmep. And, BTW DLv999, pro-Israel advocacy groups such as MEMRI, Honestreporting, Palwatch etc.. a routinely '''removed''' form articles, based on nothing more than their advocacy status - but you of course know this, since you are one of the people doing this: . This hypocrisy is unseemly. ] (]) 17:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)<s>
	:::::::If you really believe those sources are suitable for what they were used for, you are welcome to make a case on the relevant talk pages. But I beg you not to engage in meaningless point scoring and then pretend to hold the moral high ground. ] (]) 18:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::''Strike sockpuppet comment'' <s>I don't think they are suitable, and I don't think IRmep is suitable, on similar grounds. That is a consistent position. You, OTOH, think they are comparable in terms of reliability, yet advocate for the removal of some (as well as actively removing them!), but the retention of others - based on the POV they promote. That is hypocrisy. ] (]) 19:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)<s>
	:::::::::Time to justify your accusations Jeff. Point to any time I have ever advocated for the retention of IRmep as a source. ] (]) 19:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::''Strike sockpuppet comment'' <s>Apologies if I misunderstood your position. I took your comment timestamped 3:26, 6 April 2012 to be in support of keeping IRMep, as you seemed to be arguing that since pro-Israel advocacy groups such as MEMRI, Honestreporting, Palwatch are widely used, that IRMep should be allowed on similar grounds. But perhaps I misunderstood you. If you are saying the IRmep is unreliable and should be removed , the same way you are removing those pro-Israeli advocacy sites, I will strike out my previous accusations of hypocrisy. ] (]) 19:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)<s>
	:::::::::::User:Zero and User:Dlv999 are both saying that IRmep's primary source documents can be taken seriously and used as sources, just like documents on the pages of those advocacy groups can be taken seriously. However, their interpretations of documents, facts, etc. cannot be used. (I don't know for sure if that is in fact the case with all those groups; and I do know there are advocacy groups that make lots of money smearing people whose opinions ARE considered WP:RS on Misplaced Pages. I won't mention the two I know best since I'm not pushing using IRmep's opinions, just saying IRmep's repository of documents is given credibility by various WP:RS that refer to or use or voluntarily publicize them.) '']'' 02:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::::] is correct about the ''Reuters'' and ''MarketWatch'' press releases. If you're a company, these are standard channels you use to get information out to the public. All the publishing news agencies do is act as a bulletin board. They publish whatever they're asked to irrespective of its content, provided the company pays the required fee. So the fact that the ''Reuters'' and ''MarketWatch'' logos decorate these IRmep press releases is meaningless. It doesn't mean ''Reuters'' and ''MarketWatch'' are in any way accountable for what's in the release.—] (]) 15:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::I asked involved editor User:Jeff Song to back up the claim these sites are paid to publish press release; he did not do so. I ask you, another involved editor, to back up your claim they'll publish "publish whatever they're asked to irrespective of its content." Thanks. '']'' 16:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::This web page from Reuters might be relevant: "Designed specifically for the European market, the secure self-publishing capabilities of InPublic enable you to take control of your message and its distribution." It suggests that they do not act in an editorial or fact-checking capacity. ] (]) 16:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::''If'' either or both Reuters and MarketWatch offer that "public relations service" in the US, it would be relevant if proved IRmep qualifies for that probably expensive service; ion any case those are only two of a dozen WP:RS present as evidence. '']'' 17:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::; . ] (]) 17:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::Since this is a topic of general interest to any number of WP:RSN discussions, though not one critical to this one, let's not confuse ] - the parent company that offers Public Relations Services - (as the second link User:Cusop Dingle proved) and its subsidiary ] - the "news agency" which published IRmep press releases. Also, the first (barely reliable?) source only writes about big corporations listings in a . It is possible there is a problem there since those big companies can afford to pay big fees for Thomson Reuters Public Relations Services. But that is not evidence that Thomson Reuters subsidiary ] - the "news agency" - is paid to publish IRmep or other nonprofit group press releases and therefore exercises no discretion in doing so. '']'' 19:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::That ''Reuters'' and ''MarketWatch'' act as hired public relations agencies vis-a-vis the press releases they publish isn't really something that requires a source to establish. It's common knowledge to anyone with an iota of experience in the corporate world. We don't for a second try to argue that the ''New York Times'' or ''Fox News'' stand behind the ads they run, and press releases are basically just a more sophisticated form of advertising. In the case of publicly traded companies, whose operations are regulated by securities and exchange commissions, the company that's the source of the press release is expected to transmit accurate information to the public, even if it twists it in all sorts of ways to make it sound more appealing. When companies publish information considered to be of a misleading nature, they, and not the media that circulated the press release, are held accountable for it.—] (]) 05:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::This was issue was discussed above with ''evidence'' and links, not with personal attacks about someone's alleged knowledge or lack there of in the corporate world. Please see the discussion above. '']'' 12:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
			:You're entitled to favor political moderation as a personal opinion, but to use this as a measure of reliability is a fallacious ], reliant on assuming that truth always lies in or comes from the 'middle' of purported 'opposites'. While Misplaced Pages articles must adhere to a ], our ] is explicit that {{tq|reliable sources are not required to be neutral}}. To use political perspective (such as the ''Jacobin'' magazine's economic leftism) as a reason for doubt reliability depends on providing evidence that the bias somehow distorts its coverage and causes inaccuracies. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	=== non-RSes being used to establish reliability, and RSes establishing unreliability ===
			::It does appear that, failing to find many cases where Jacobin has not corrected an identified error in one of its articles, that the people asking for a new RFC want to prosecute it for being too left-wing. ] (]) 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	#The ''Haaretz'' source doesn't establish that IRmep's a reliable source. On the contrary, it calls IRmep a "U.S.-based Muslim organization" and "an organization with openly political motives." That establishes IRmep as an ''un''reliable source.
			:::I disagree, but an RfC should be started at this point and if there is consensus support for no change to their status then there is consensus support for no change to their status. ] (]) 20:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	#''Mondoweiss'' is a blog and not even remotely a reliable source for anything but its own opinions.
			::::], so starting one should be done for good reason. ''Jacobin'' having made ''and corrected'' an error doesn't strike me as a very good reason. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 00:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	#The Jeff Stein piece is a blog post. Per ] we need to attribute content sourced to a blog – even in the case of blogs hosted by reliable sources – hence not itself an RS for anything but Stein's personal views.
			:::::I read in the last close information presented by @] that it was in fact a problematic close which moved Jacobin from Yellow (its prior state) to Green. I mistakenly was just commenting on that, then self-reverted, but I think that we should also remember ] and not delay a necessary discussion just because it may be "time intensive" for those interested in improving the source reliability determinations that this encyclopedia relies upon. ] (]) 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	#''AccountingToday'' is probably an RS, but nothing it says about IRmep in that article would lead a reader to conclude that IRmep itself is a credible organization.
			:::You're omitting the concerns above about blending of fact and opinion, which is a major aspect of what we consider reliable. Also, heavily partisan sources that engage in advocacy are usually marked as "additional considerations apply" (yellow on ]). And this isn't the only discussion that has brought up issues. You can also see the concerns raised ] and in multiple discussions where concerns have been brought up since then. ] (]) 00:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	#The ''LATimes'' editorial is, of course, an editorial and not a conventional news report. And beyond that, all it's done is published the responses of two individuals to an earlier letter it ran. It doesn't take a position on whether what Grant Smith holds any validity, so how can we use it to establish IRmep's RShood? We can't.
			::::If nothing else, it has been several years and so timewise it seems prudent to revisit those and establish a larger and more thorough ]. ] (]) 00:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	#The ''Jordan Times'' link doesn't load for me.
			:::OP here, my main concern is not that it was not corrected, but that the error was published in the first place. It's good that it was finally corrected, but "a single company controlling a third of housing stock in the United States" is such a contentious claim that it should never have been published in the first place. ] (]) 03:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	# at IRmep indicates that the ''Arabamericannews.com'' piece is nothing more than an IRmep press release packaged as an original report. Note the presence of ] at the IRmep link, though. It's a press release.
			::::That is true, and a serious knock against their reliability when the claim is that egregiously false. ] (]) 16:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	#The ''Reuters'' and ''MarketWatch'' links are to press releases, not to reports originating with these agencies.
			:::::This seems like flogging a dead horse, open the RFC if desired, although as I said above, absent compelling evidence, I don't think things are going to change that much, perhaps green to yellow but it is kinda yellow already because of the well known news/opinion mixing. ] (]) 16:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	#Did you read that essay at sdonline.org? At one point the author tries to argue that "the goal of Zionism" is to control America. No, not a reliable source for establishing that IRmep is a reliable source.
			::::::Yeah. I'm usually pretty critical of news sources - including left wing ones (see, for example, the thread here about Mint Press) - and even I am not really seeing Jacobin as being any worse than any other news site that Misplaced Pages calls reliable. ] (]) ] (]) 12:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	#CounterPunch is ].—] (]) 06:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
			:::::::Strong bias combined with such egregiously bad fact checking is not a good look. Given the questionable close of the previous RfC a new RfC seems like a good idea. I don't see the source as moving below yellow but it's current green status is really hard to justify. Of course, this might be as much an indictment of the simplistic G/Y/R system we use at RSP as anything else. I'm sure Jacobian gets some facts right just as Fox News gets a lot of political facts right. When it comes to Jacobin the better question should be, if Jacobin is the source, should even a true fact have weight? Regardless, I think this answer here is new RfC or just add this discussion to the RSP list and move on. ] (]) 13:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::User:Biosketch already has shared his opinons that IRmep is fringe because of its “anti-Israel propaganda” and that it is "anti-Zionist garbage". I don't know if his use of books.google.co.il means he's an Israeli with a severe POV or even a COI.
			::::::::Except that's not what has been demonstated. Journalists make mistakes. The standard Misplaced Pages looks for is that the outlet corrects these mistakes, ''which was demonstrated even by the original complainant.''
	:::Assuming Biosketch is accurate, if ] chooses to publish a press release as their own work, other ''neutral'' editors will have to opine if that is WP:RS for showing that the ] thinks Smith/IRmep are reliable. '']'' 20:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
			::::::::And do note that, yet again, and I have lost count of how many times I've had to mention this to people upset about Misplaced Pages giving the time of day to sources to the left of Ronald Reagan, ''bias is not a reliability issue as long as that bias does not become a locus of disinformation.'' This has not been demonstrated. Please do try to cleave to policy based justifications for reliable source assessment. ] (]) 13:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::], you don't know if my use of books.google.co.il means I'm "an Israeli with a severe POV and COI"? What does that even mean? And why aren't you confining your comments in this discussion to the substance of the arguments raised against your evidence instead of focusing your energies on what country your interlocutor is editing from? If you aren't capable of formulating a compelling and detached defense of the sources you brought, you could have saved us all valuable time by just accusing me directly and from the start of being "an Israeli with a severe POV and COI." That appears to be what your original case is fast degenerating into anyway. Are you interested in an honest evaluation of the sources you brought here even if the conclusions thereof aren't to your liking, or is it now your goal to disqualify me because my web browser redirects to the Israeli version of Google Books?—] (]) 07:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
			:::::::::Making such an error in the first place isn't good even if they correct it after trying to publicly shame a person who pointed out the obvious error. Your prescription about left of Regean is an odd tangent. Bias doesn't inherently mean the facts will be wrong. However it does open questions of how much weight a biased source should be given, especially when dealing with subjective characterizations or according the source's analysis of facts. ] (]) 14:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::The link to books.google.co.il only is relevant because your comments about “anti-Israel propaganda” and that it is "anti-Zionist garbage" express such a strong POV. The two neutral editors who responded do not see a problem with using the primary source documents on IRmep's website. And unless proven differently, Jeff Song has been blocked as a sockpuppet. So please allow other neutral editors to opine. Thank you. '']'' 12:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
			::::::::::I agree with Springee that, "{{tq|I don't see the source as moving below yellow but it's current green status is really hard to justify.}}" Given the egregious nature of their attack on those who noted their mistake, even a correction shows that the publication is much more of a propaganda shop and less of an actual journalistic organization with journalistic integrity or standards. ] (]) 14:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::And therefore an RfC is beyond warranted. Who would then start that? ] (]) 14:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	(←) This discussion seems to be going off-track (and squabbles over allegations of bias are certainly not what this board is for). Please could we focus on what this board is for, namely, answering specific questions about whether a given source is reliable for a given assertion in a given context? What '''specific''' question about reliability would you like to address? ] (]) 16:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
			::::::::::::If an RFC is started can I ask that it be done in a separate section. The board is overloaded at the moment due to the Heritage Foundation discussion. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::Can you clarify what you are asking for me? There are many other RfC's ongoing beyond Heritage Foundation. ] (]) 15:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Actually this came up because User:Biosketch started a whole new subsection asking many of the same questions already addressed above, as if they had NOT been addressed before. Editor bias is not entirely irrelevant when editors engage in what looks like disruptive behavior. But here are all responses, including references to repeated ones:
			::::::::::::::Sorry I didn't mean to direct the comment at you specifically. The HF RFC contains over 2/5th of all the words currently on the noticeboard, all the other RFCs are tiny in comparison. If an RFC for Jacobin is started in a new section then this prior discussion can be archived without having to weight a month, or more, for the RFC to close.<br>You can see how large each discussion is in the header on the noticeboards talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*Repeated response: ] claiming a critic of Israel's most powerful American lobby is politically motivated? Who would have thunk it! However, Haaretz does NOT claim the documents are falsified and we are only talking about the whether the documents are in fact real and therefore reliable and useable.
			:::::::::::::::without having to "wait" I assume you meant. ;)
	:*Repeated response: ] is a well known journalist and his blog has credibility for his opinion on IRmep.
			:::::::::::::::And this makes sense thanks. ] (]) 16:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*Repeated response: The Washington Post blog may no longer be published but that doesn't mean its author's mentioning Grant Smith's work (obviously in this context known for being head of IRmep) is irrelevant. If he said the documents were fake, I’m sure Biosketch would be happy to use that source.
			::::::::::::::::Lol, thinking about two discussions at the same time. Wait and weight swapped in my mind -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*Accounting Today covers IRmep from the perspective of its area of expertise and that is sufficient; it does claim IRmep documents are fake, does it?
			:::::::::::{{tq|Given the egregious nature of their attack on those who noted their mistake}} — A writer being annoying on social media, then making the necessary corrections anyways, is not fundamentally different from a writer being nice on social media and then making the same corrections. We don't assess how personable the staff is. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 16:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*The LA Times would not publish anything by Smith/IRmep if they thought he was publishing fake documents.
	:*Repeated response: Jordan Times archive seems to be down on a few articles. The article is called "Nuclear-free Mideast" by ] and meanwhile has been reprinted at
	:*See response to ] directly above.
	:*See long discussion of Reuters and MarketWatch press releases among several editors above. Note again that ] as well as others state that a press release printed by a reliable source may itself have some credibility as a WP:RS. And, again, this is not necessarily to use any specific factoid published in these press release as a source for some specific edit, except when it refers to a document on the site. However, it is an excellent indication that Smith/IRmep is not merely politically motivated and virulently anti-Israel. If that were true, Reuters and the Wall Street Journal’s MarketWatch certain would not be republishing their press releases at all!! (And again there is no evidence either is paid to publish IRmep's press releases.)
	:*Paragraph in “Socialism and Democracy online” (sdonline.org) article by ] called . A source used repeatedly on wikipedia. Biosketch writes the author writes: ''"the goal of Zionism" is to control America.'' What he ''actually'' writes is: ''hence, the prime goal of Zionism has been to so control America that this backing would be reliably insured.'' I don't think that's a very controversial statement of the goals of the pro-Israel lobby in many conservative and liberal circles now a days.
	:*Claim ] is not reliable based on ]. However, this discussion as well ] and ] all pretty much agree that each of CounterPunch’s article’s reliability depends on who authored them. Therefore by a professor of economics at Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa would be reliable. by a non-notable activist mentions a point other WP:RS agree with an no one has contradicted: “Grant Smith, author of several books on AIPAC based on documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.” Which no one has disputed yet, and various WP:RS support.
	:Hopefully I won't have to answer all the same questions all over again {{-)}} '']'' 18:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
	::I'm still finding it difficult to understand exactly what the original question is here. As noted at the top of this page, this board works best if you could provide
	::: 1. A full citation of the source in question.
	::: 2. A link to the source in question.
	::: 3. The article in which it is being used.
	::: 4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting.
	::: 5. Links to relevant talk page discussion.
	:I assume the original question was intended to be "Is Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy a reliable source?" This board doesn't work well for such very general questions, as very few sources are ever likely to be of universally unimpeachable reliability. If you're intending to ask "Does IRMEP have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?", then that's a reasonable point for discussion, and it has been discussed, even if the answers are not always what you might have wanted to hear. The one specific point that you raised initially was about a ''link to a November 1963 Dept. of Justice letter demanding an organization register as a foreign agent in order to establish the date of and the existence of the letter''. As a courtesy to the participants at this board, could you explain what source this letter comes from and where exactly IRMEP comes into it? ] (]) 20:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
	::Read the first two paragraphs of ''this'' thread: ]. The operative sentence, which I just reinforced so there's no confusion, is: '' I think the following evidence that various WP:RS take IRmep/Grant Smith seriously as a source proves both are sufficiently WP:RS <u>at the very least</u> to permit linking to its archives of primary source documents per ].''
	::Doing everything in number 1-5 may be necessary when it's a question of one source being used for one item. This is a broader question of whether this Institute and its site's primary source documents can be used in some circumstances. We have one editor (and a banned sockpuppet) deleting all such uses with insulting edit summaries. ''I did offer to provide links to those, and I still can do so, with further analysis.''
	:: But do you really think that , , all saying IRmep/Grant Smith are reliable for the primary source documents but not their interpretation of them are irrelevant to the conversation? Thanks. '']'' 00:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::Ah, I think I understand what the question is now, thanks for the explanation. No, I do not consider the comments irrelevant, I just tend to disagree with them. If we write in Misplaced Pages that a certain document exists and says X, or that A wrote to B saying Y, and source it to a copy of that document or letter published by an organisation O, then we are using O as a source. That means that O has to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The fact that other organisations use material from O is not enough to establish that -- they may have different motives for using the material. Ideally one would have a scholarly source addressing the reliability of O directly. I didn't see that here. There's lots of evidence of use of IRMEP material, but I didn't see an objective assessment of its reputation for accuracy Until then I would say it was a questionable source and advise against using it. ] (]) 06:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::Cusop Dingle wrote: ''Ideally one would have a scholarly source addressing the reliability of O directly.'' That's an ideal for any source, do ''you apply it to every single source you opine on WP:RSN?'' I do see from a search you opine often.
	::::In practice many Wikisources not only do ''not'' fulfill this criteria. Including some that are highly partisan and even criticized in their Misplaced Pages articles for not being reliable. These include, as other editors have mentioned in this discussion, ] (MEMRI) (which is often accused of inaccurate translations) (see ); ] whose constant highly partisan opinion criticisms of media used on Misplaced Pages (; ] (Palwatch) most of whose refs are the Jerusalem Post covering its being banned from Youtube for questionable content but nevertheless is widely used on Misplaced Pages (see ). Are you willing to offer that opinion the next time any of these are brought to WP:RSN?
	::::Or perhaps are you willing to look at a list of deletions of refs to documents posted on IRmep's web site, as I've offered twice to do?
	::::In any case, I'm going to look for some more sources using IRmep/Smith's books because after looking at the refs on the articles on the three "reliable sources" named above, it is clear that IRmep also deserves its own article and having a coherent article rather than list of links will make it easier for people to understand any notability and credibility. '']'' 14:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::I have given my opinion on the question posed here. I am personally keen on Misplaced Pages having the highest possible standards for sources, and on having ''evidence''. If the other sources mentioned here are called into question, I may well contribute to the discussions there, assuming I have the time and feel that my contribution would be constructive. ] (]) 16:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::::OK, no need to compare and contrast. While you may have a personal opinion, the point here is to look at policy. It does ''not'' say we must have a ''scholarly source addressing the reliability of directly.'' So it's useful to stick to the sources we have about the reliability of a source, instead of asking for incredibly high standards which even the most reliable sources may not meet. '']'' 17:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::The object of this board is to achieve ], which involves various editors offering reasoned arguments. ] requires that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". What is the ''evidence'' that IRMEP has such a reputation? I do not say that this "must" be from a scholarly source, only that this would be ideal. I dispute that asking for good evidence of reliability is an "incredibly high" standard -- I say that it is in fact ''policy''. ] (]) 18:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::Here's your whole quote: ''Ideally one would have a scholarly source addressing the reliability of O directly. I didn't see that here. There's lots of evidence of use of IRMEP material, but I didn't see an objective assessment of its reputation for accuracy ''
	:::::::::That is very different from WP:V's statement "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". There is no statement that if there is "no objective assessment of a reputation for accuracy" a source can't be used. Obviously, ''if'' there are positive statement's about its reputation, that's a big help. But it's not mandatory. The whole purpose of WP:RSN is for ''Misplaced Pages editors'' to decide if a listing of a number of reliable sources that consider a source reliable (be it for primary source links, facts, opinions) show it has a reputation for accuracy. That said, it seems to me there were a couple such statements re:IRmep - or implied statements. Do we need to list those to make you happy? '']'' 19:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::It seems implausible that one would establish a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" without evidence, and it seems implausible that evidence other than objective would be acceptable. It isn't a matter of making me happy -- it's a matter of helping the editors at this board assess that reputation, so yes, it would be a good idea to produce that evidence. In the absence of evidence, my assessment, and, I suspect, that of anyone else who is interested, would have to be that lack of evidence implies lack of reputation, and lack of reputation implies lack of reliability. ] (]) 19:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::::The point is that most editors see a lot of WP:RS reporting on or using a source as evidence it's reliable, which is why the WP:RS of sources mostly has been under discussion. Overall, I'm starting to feel like this point should be clarified at this noticeboard's talk page to avoid editors having to have this debate again in the future. Actual statements are just gravy. And since I'll be using such in the article itself, not a burden to look for. '']'' 19:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::I am not sure if Cusop and Carol are agreeing or disagreeing, or a little of both... but they are both essentially correct... when the reliability of a source is questioned, we do need to examine its reputation. Now, one quick to do that is to examine ''how many'' other sources refer to it. But that has its limitations... as it raises the question of whether those other sources have a good reputation or not (a chain of unreliable sources, all referring to each other does not make ''any'' of them reliable). When we are examining the reliability of a source, the question of ''which'' other sources refers to it is far more important than the question of ''how many'' other sources refer to it. ] (]) 19:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::Thanks for comment, Blueboar. I agree that some sources using/referring to/reporting on a source are more reliable than others. I tried to list them from most to least reliable just to make it easy. (Except for later entries, and I have put a few more up now.) And even if several are seen as unreliable, that does not mean that others do not have reliability - or do not generally support the reliability of the source for some or all purposes. If Cusop wants to list the sources he considers unreliable, fine, we can debate it. Or if someone wants to say ''only these six sources show it's reliable,'' that's fine too. I just have a problem with how I interpreted what Cusop said which I won't repeat so we don't have to discuss if I interpreted it right {{-)}} '']'' 20:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
	* '''A 3rd Party Opinion''' - If the documents are U.S. Government documents obtained through FOIA requests, shouldn't the source be considered the U.S. government rather than IRMep? It sounds like IRMep is just acting as the host. If we were relying on IRMep to interpret the documents for us and we didn't have direct access to them, IRMep would need to meet a higher standard, but if we're just limiting coverage to the primary documents themselves, I don't see why we would need to establish anything other than the fact that IRMep is not a blatantly fraudulent organization (as the U.S. government is generally considered a reliable source). Granted, there may be extenuating circumstances I'm not aware of in this rather convoluted debate, but that's my opinion from the peanut gallery. ] (]) 04:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
	:*It isn't necessary to establish that IRmep is a blatantly fraudulent organization because in a sense that's already the default approach we take in situations like this where the source is advocating a fringe political agenda. Rather, the burden of proof lies with those wishing to establish that IRmep ''is'' a reliable source. Particularly in this case that we're dealing with, there are these documents on the IRmep website that IRmep is claiming are authentic, and we're endeavoring to determine where on the scale of reliability IRmep belongs in order to agree what status should be conferred on the documents. The documents themselves are of a highly charged and controversial nature in that they relate to a topic that's frequently a source of conflict between editors throughout Misplaced Pages. It's therefore vital that in order for us to accept IRmep's documents as authentic, we first establish a consensus around IRmep being a reliable source for information - and that's where we're stuck right now. After all, anyone can found an organization, come up with a fancy name for it, and claim to have exclusive access to all sorts of obscure documents. It's our role to be rigorous in our critical standards in proportion to the nature of the claims we're assessing. This is the root of the insistence that IRmep be shown to have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, and that insistence has as yet gone unfulfilled.—] (]) 08:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
	::*@Biosketch's comments directly above only: Criticism of the powerful ], seeking FOIA information about it, disseminating that information, and having it picked up, used, publicized by a variety of sources is hardly fringe; even that article has a few of the many examplels, even if they are sometimes overwhelmed by all the denials. The problem Biosketch describes really seems to be that a number of editors with strong ties to Israel WP:IDONTLIKE IT. (And note that ] has a ] dedicated to rising through the ranks and purging critical information. How successful they have been is a matter of debate.) So again I raise the issue of WP:CENSORSHIP via extreme nitpicking of sources, as say compared to use as WP:RS for extremely (and some might say extremist) pro-Israel sources like MEMRI, Palestine Media Watch and HonestReporting.com detailed above. '']'' 12:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
	===Need uninvolved editors to examine my analysis of a source===
	<small>Moved to a subsection of this thread as it turns out to be the same source being discussed. ] (]) 06:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC) </small>
	At ], there's an issue over the proper use of a source. According to my own analysis, the use of this source fails criteria #2 of ] but no one else is agreeing with me. Can some uninvolved editors examine this source and let me know what they think? ] (]) 03:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
	:The site isn't a reliable source for Misplaced Pages content. Most obvious to me is that there is no true editorial oversight, and the site seems to be a collecting place for material with a specific slant. If any of the content on the site is significant enough to be included on Misplaced Pages you should be able to find it in good secondary and so reliable sources.(] (]) 03:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC))
	::Thanks for putting this here. I have commented under ''Comment by Carolmooredc'' at ] about the evidence presented and that four editors found it WP:RS for presenting primary source documents. It really is a bit much that just as couple dozen evidences of IRmep being reliable at least for documents is ongoing here, an editor tries to get people in trouble for using it as a source of opinion on arbitration enforcement. (Was he afraid the community might suddenly decide its opinions are valid too? Still could happen, of course.)
	::I do not know if LittleOlive has read the very top of this thread that lists all of those sources. Unfortunately the government does not choose to list on any website ''all'' the documents it releases through freedom of information act. And lots of other documents, news articles, etc. often dissappear from their original sites but are still useable from other sites on Misplaced Pages. Four editors and myself above have opined it is useable for such purposes. (Listed under my comment.)
	::Also, I find it interesting that two admins at ] thought Irmep’s opinions also sometimes may be used on Misplaced Pages, though others disagreed. Read whole debate there.
	::*''...Even assuming arguendo that the IRMEP website is not a reliable source for facts (something we need not decide to resolve this case, although it does seem true), it is surely a reliable source for IRMEP's own opinion.... T. Canens (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
	::*''@A Quest for Knowledge: WLRoss and and ZScarpia are trying to include the editorial opinion of the IRMEP organization about the Middle East Media Research Institute. It is not out of the question that one research institute's opinion of another research institute might be relevant or interesting. The two institutes seem to be acting as adversaries, so you might consider whether their views deserve space in each other's criticism sections.This would not run afoul of WP:RS because it's a question of opinion, not of facts. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)''
	::Relevant policy on opinions can be found in WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. So the question is, how expert is IRmep/Smith on their ''opinions'' on topics they write about as evidenced by WP:RS using them? Something to be discussed is some ''next round'' of WP:RSN discussions, anyway. Using above list of two dozen relevant sources. '']'' 14:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::There should be no problem with citing IRMEP publications as a source for their own opinions, provided of course they are stated as IRMEP's opinions, rather than as established facts. Whether those opinions are sufficiently significant to be included in any given article is not an issue for this board. ] (]) 17:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::Oh, I didn't realize there was a second RSN discussion about this source. In any case, isn't this essentially a self-published source and you can't use an SPS for claims about a third-party? ] (]) 17:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::If IRMEP's website says "A is B", then that is a reliable source for the statement "IRMEP believes that A is B". It is not a reliable source for the statement "A is B", without further evidence as to a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Whether that opinion is worth reporting is another matter. ] (]) 17:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Not if B is a claim about a third party. See criteria #2 of ]. ] (]) 17:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::No, that's not correct. If the claim is about the subject and not self-serving, etc. then we can use it directly. Any direct quote can be used provided that it is stated to be their opinion. If it is not reported by any independent reliable source then it is probably not worth our using it. For example, if the website of the X Institute says that "The X Institute is the only impartial think-tank based in Washington, then we can directly state "The X Institute is based in Washington", possibly "The X Institute is a think-tank based in Washington" (assuming the claim to be a think-tank is not self-serving), but not "an impartial think-tank" (definitely self-serving) or "the only impartial think-tank" (relates to other think-tanks). We can however say "The X Institute claims to be the only impartial think-tank in Washington" if we want. ] (]) 18:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::But all of those examples are claims about itself. We can't say "The X Institute believes Obama is a bad man" because Obama is a thirt-party. ] (]) 18:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::We often report opinions about third parties. ] (]) 18:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::No, not unless it's published by a ]. So, if BBC News reports that The X Institute is saying that Obama is a bad man, then we can include it. But if it can only be sourced to The X Institute, we can't include it. ] (]) 18:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Then we do not agree about the meaning of ]. ] (]) 18:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::To summarise: I maintain that an entity's own publication of its opinions are a reliable source for those opinions, and we may legitimately cite them to support the assertion that its opinions are what it says they are. ] (]) 18:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::::You can maintain anything you like, but ] is very clear:
	{{cquote|it does not involve claims about third parties}}
	::::::::::::If you disagree with policy, then you should try to gain concensus to have condition #2 removed from ]. ] (]) 18:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::I do not disagree with the policy, I disagree with your interpretation of it, which I say is wrong. If the X Institute website says "Lincoln was a bad man", then as a self-published source, we cannot use that to support Misplaced Pages saying in its own voice "Lincoln was a bad man", because that is an assertion about a third party. But we can use it to support Misplaced Pages saying in its own voice "The X Institute says Lincoln was a bad man", or better, "The X Institute says 'Lincoln was a bad man'" (in quote marks), because that is not Misplaced Pages making an assertion about Lincoln, it is Misplaced Pages making an assertion about the X Institute. Note that in the case where it's a quote, ] actually prefers the use of the original: "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted."
	:::::::::::::In summary, I say that Quest has taken an overly broad interpretation of "involve". ] (]) 19:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::Where in ] does it say that it's OK to use an self-publish source to make contentious claims about third-parties as long as it's not in Misplaced Pages's voice? ] (]) 19:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
	{{outdent}}		{{outdent}}
			This discussion has really dragged on, especially for something that was prompted by a reddit thread related to one sentence in what appears to be an opinion article. Are editors aware that we have whole articles on ], ] and ] etc? Have editors been following the deconstruction provided by social media users of corporate media coverage of the assault on Gaza? Are editors aware that the BBC employs Raffi Berg, a former CIA propaganda unit employee with Mossad connections, to head its Middle East desk and whose "entire job is to water down everything that’s too critical of Israel"? What about when an IDF embedded CNN reporter visited Rantisi Children’s Hospital with an IDF minder and swallowed the minder's claim about a roster of Hamas members watching over Israeli captives? The document was actually a calendar, with days of the week written in Arabic. Sorry to go off on a tangent but some perspective is needed and, in the scheme of things, a reddit thread is hardly cause for starting an RFC about reliability. ] (]) 16:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	Saying "The X Institute says 'Lincoln was a bad man'" is not making a claim about Lincoln, but only about the X Institute. So that question is irrelevant. ] (]) 19:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
	:Lincoln is a third-party. This is exactly what ] is designed prevent. ] (]) 22:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
	::I shouldn't have brought this up without a concrete example from an actual article (the kind of thing one can bring here.) But in general terms if advocacy groups/think tanks/institutes like MEMRI/IRMEP/etc. has just gotten documents X,Y,Z through FOIA or whatever reliable source about some individual/group and announces "we have documents X,Y,Z and they say blah blah. Note that blah blah is a violation of such and such law (see link to govt web site)." That should be WP:RS. If the group groups/think tanks/institutes say: "...And therefore X,Y,Z should be prosecuted immediately for violation of that law." That would be an opinion which would be open to challenge. Though the community might ultimately agree that opinion was useable. '']'' 00:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::Quest, that is still wrong. Lincoln is a third party, but the fact that someone holds a particular opinion about Lincoln is not information about Lincoln, it is information about the opinion-holder. What SPS is designed to prevent is Jane Smith publishing on her website, say, "I was born in London and my father was John Smith", and us using that to source the statement "Jane's Smith father was John Smith". It is an acceptable source for "Jane Smith claimed that John Smith was her father" (except that if John Smith is still alive, a special BLP rule applies). Look at the article on ], for example. He believes that the world's leaders are giant shape-shifting lizards, and we cheerfully source that, indeed quote, his self-published writings. For another example, look at the discussion on ''hopenothate.org.uk'' at this baord today. We should probably not report an opinion if no independent source has troubled to notice it (because reporting it would be to give it undue weight), but once we have decided to report it, a self-published source is actually a recommended source for an accurate quotation of that opinion. ] (]) 06:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::Carol, that's not right either. Analysis by a non-reliable source cannot be reported as fact. You can say "X Institute reports that the document said Y and claims that this violates law Z". ] (]) 06:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
			:That was only one aspect. A much larger aspect was related to open questions from the last RfC and the questionable close that seemed to have moved it (correctly?) from "yellow" to "green". ] (]) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::I took a look at ] and the claim that he believes that world's leaders are giant shape-shifting lizards are sourced to a secondary source. In Icke's article, it's sourced to an article published by the Guardian. Please cease and desist. This is getting tiresome. ] (]) 12:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::That seems to be incorrect. It is sourced at to one of his self-published books, and his website is directly quoted at . (It is also sourced to secondary sources, as one would expect for a belief which was worth reporting.) If you do not wish to pursue the discussion, by all means let us stop. I have explained your fallacy several times over and have no real desire to do so yet again. ] (]) 16:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
			==RfC: Jacobin==
	::::::Don't change goal posts, please. You asked about the claim that the world's leaders are giant shape-shifting lizards. That is clearly sourced to a secondary source as I just proved. It is NOT sourced to his book. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you are now mispresenting the situation. As for 37, I don't think that "''the race of gods known as the Anunnaki''" really qualifies as a third-party since they don't exist. Yes, you really need to stop. Your arguments have no basis in policy and are now bordering on absurdity. ] (]) 17:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 17:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740070870}}
	:::::::Since the citations to Icke's self-published works are in the first and second paragraph of ''Reptilians and shape-shifting'', which refers in the first sentence to his "reptoid hypothesis", which is that the world's leaders are shape-shifting lizards, I think the goalposts are pretty firmly in place. The reptilian aliens from the planet Draco are certainly third parties. If that doesn't help, try looking at reference in the paragraph above, or , about the plans of the world leaders, or ,,. All cite Icke's SPS work, all refer to third parties, all are there to support our reporting of his shape-shifting lizard theory. The statement that this theory is "NOT sourced to his book" is simply not correct (it is also sourced to other places of course). Any absurdity you see is (either in Icke's theory or) in the failure to acknowledge the rather large difference between "David Icke thinks the world's leaders are shape-shifting lizards" and "The world's leaders are shape-shifting lizards".
			{{RfC|prop|pol|media|rfcid=857ECCA}}
	::::::::There you go again. You falsely claimed that the world's leaders are giant shape-shifting lizards was sourced to his book when it's clearly not. Rather than admit you were wrong, you falsely claimed that 37 was about a third-party when it's clearly not. I hate to break it to you but there are no "reptilian aliens from the planet Draco". What's the point of repeatedly proving you wrong when you refuse to acknowledge your mistakes? ] (]) 18:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
			Which of the following best describes the reliability of '']''?
	:::::::::I have not made any false claims, and I am content to leave my case in the hands of impartial observers. ] (]) 18:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
			* Option 1: ]
	::::::::::I ''am'' an impartial observer. I've never edited that article. Not even once. And if you bothered checking, I'm the 6the most active contributor to this board. ] (]) 18:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
			* Option 2: ]
	] (]) 18:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
			* Option 3: ]
	:::::::::::An impartial observer of ''this discussion''? Really? ] (]) 18:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
			* Option 4: ]
	{{od}} It seems to me after reading the Guardian article, that the statements made within it rely on the fact that David Icke has claimed many times, including his books, that lizards are running the planet. I would interpret that fact to mean that, despite the link to the article, the article's source is still David Icke, which can be cited directly to his books. there is no "research" in that article that provides that opinion otherwise. Ergo, I would probably cite the book additionally, along with the article if someone feel's it's required for some reason. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 19:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
			— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Section break===
	It's getting hard to keep track of the items of evidence that are being added at the top of this thread, and adding such items out of sequence can change the sense of comments like "I have seen no evidence of reliability", which may be referring to some previous iteration of the list. It would be helpful to add any new items of evidence in thread order so they can be discussed as they arrive. ] (]) 17:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
			===Survey: ''Jacobin''===
	:Quite a number of these newer items are examples of IRMEP or Smith having their opinions quoted. Why is this evidence of reliability? One item comments that Smith has a Master's degree. Why is this evidence of reliability? ] (]) 17:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' I am opposed to the use of ] and think that no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2. With that being said, I would list New York Times or the CBC in precisely the same way and I don't believe that any of the complainants have demonstrated in any way that Jacobin is less reliable, per Misplaced Pages's standards, than any other American news media outlet. I am deeply concerned that many of the complaints are about "bias" when reliability does not include a political compass test. This is not grounds to treat a source as unreliable. ] (]) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::It's irrelevant. I used to teach on a Master's Degree - most of the students were admitted without having had an undergraduate degree. It wasn't a bad course and it was in a respectable university, but the students at the end still didn't have the equivalent of a good undergraduate degree IMHO. ] (]) 18:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2/3''', bias is one thing, getting things down right incorrect is another. As was demonstrated in the pre-discussion, the notion around the housing stock was truly an egregious error. This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts. When that happens, "Generally unreliable" or at minimum, "Additional considerations" makes sense as the guidance when using this source. I do not think further deprecation is warranted though since the reporters seem to be of a mixed quality, some are more diligent than others and the bias merging into wanton disregard for facts varies there too. The problem is, we rate sources, not just individual writers, and therefore as far as a source rating goes, "Option 2" or "Option 3" then makes the most logical sense. ] (]) 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	Here are two sources that seem to establish reliability for matters unrelated to Israel: . From my reviewing of the material above and some other sources, it seems the group is sufficiently significant and reliable to merit its use as a source. The concerns about its bias against Israel/Zionism are only significant with respect to the organization's own comments on Israel, but its opinion would be noteworthy enough to mention and it is apparently trustworthy enough to consider any FOIA documents on its site to be authentic.--] (]) 22:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
			*:It was corrected. Your entire case is based on a single incident where a single writer made a single mistake. ''And it was fixed.'' There is absolutely no grounds for "Generally unreliable" on the basis of presented evidence. ] (]) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Thanks for those sources! Obviously when there is a Wiki article on IRmep any day now that ties all this material together its reliability will be easier to gauge. The Masters I just threw in there, but obviously more relevant to an article. Anyway now there are five people and me who think it's reliable for linking to primary sources on the web site, one against, and one whose opinion I will not attempt to characterize so as not to misinterpret. '']'' 00:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
			*::It was corrected only after significant outside pressure and even then the correction was weak and inaccurate. The guy who wrote the article was explicitly mocking the people who pointed out his error and accusing them of something along the lines of being corporate shills. It also wasn’t a single incident as they publish nonsense regarding Russia and Ukraine, including and up to outright conspiracy theories, pretty regularly. It simply is not a reliable source, however much one agrees with their editorial stance.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::As long as it's cited as IRMEPs opinion and based on FOIA documents I see no problem with them as a reliable source. It is exactly how many other advocacy groups such as MEMRI are used in WP. ] (]) 01:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
			*:::So you agree with Iljhgtn's conspiracy theory that this was the purposeful result of pushing bias not an error? ] (]) 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Again no, because IRmep isn't a reliable source, i.e. not a reliable publisher of information; whence it follows that any documents IRmep publishes can't be treated as though they originated with a reliable publisher. If there's another source for these documents that has established credentials – a reputation for fact-checking, editorial oversight, etc. – that's fine and the documents are fine too. But that isn't the case here, and until the issues of IRmep's unreliability are resolved, the documents retain their status of originating with a publisher of questionable credibility.—] (]) 11:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
			**::::I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including ] and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::So you are saying that when IRMEP use FOI to get documents from normally reliable sources then those documents are no longer considered reliable? Since when is an organisation responsible for fact checking documents that have been released to them? Can you supply an instance where IRMEP has published or commented on documents that were subsequently discovered to not be reliable? ] (]) 15:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
			**:::::You misquote the editor (to your benefit), for someone so interested in errors supposedly motivated by bias that seems odd... In context its clearly stronger than that "This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." when nothing suggests that this was the result of narrative pushing (thats how you push a narrative either, as you've pointed out although lingusitically similar its an embarrassing and obvious error). ] (]) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::If a source not considered reliable publishes what they claim to be a document from another party, we cannot use it as a source for the existence or contents of that document. We can use it to say, for example, "IRMEP claims to have documents saying XYZ", but we cannot use it to say "Documents showing XYZ exist", nor can we use it to say "XYZ is true". If IRMEP is considered a reliable source, then we can use it to say "IRMEP recovered documents and those documents say XYZ". We still cannot say "XYZ is true", unless the documents are also froma reliable source. ] (]) 06:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
			***::::::You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::What ] explained in his reply directly above is what I meant in my comment three messages up. It isn't that FOI-related documents need themselves to be reliable in order for us to use them. It's a question of who is publishing them as far as our citations are concerned. If these documents had been published by, say, the ''New York Times'' or ''NPR'' or something, there'd be no debate surrounding the reliability of the documents. But since IRmep appears to be their only source, we're faced with the problem that our only access to the documents is through IRmep, which isn't a demonstrably reliable publisher. That's what I meant. Again, it's not about anything internal to the documents; it's about the medium through which access to them is obtainable. Beyond that, the insistence that an instance be found of IRmep having ever published documents that were later discovered to not be reliable is an inversion of how these discussions are supposed to take place. The onus is on IRmep, as it were, to prove to us that it is a reliable source. To illustrate what the issue is: I can recruit a couple of guys from work, find a D.C.-based agent who'll register me as a company, start a blog with links to internally-hosted documents I claim are authentic declassified communication records, and pay ''PR Newswire'' to publish dozens of press releases advertising my claims. It's certainly conceivable no one's interest will have been sufficiently piqued that they'll care one way or another about the claims I make, so there won't be any actual evidence out there that I'm fabricating anything. At the same time, though, there won't be any evidence confirming my claims either. The absence of negative criticism doesn't make me a kosher source. In this case it just means the media's been indifferent. That's why we need actual ''positive'' evidence indicating that IRmep is a reliable source.—] (]) 07:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
			***:::::::You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) ] (]) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***::::::::No , I’m not. I’m simply asking you to refrain from trying to falsely characterize other people’s comments as “conspiracy theories” in a cheap attempt to delegitimize them since they’re clear nothing of the sort. Not everything you disagree with is a “conspiracy theory”. In this particular case, the article clearly had false info in it. No one has ever said that “information was changed” (as if on purpose) so please stop pretending otherwise. What was said was that “bias creeped in” which I think is a fair characterization. So please quit it with the strawman’ing.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***:::::::::I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we ]. I believe @] is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. ] (]) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***::::::::::Its you who needs to provide a source to substantiate your allegations against a living person. ""This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." is a BLP violation unless a source is provided or the author drops dead. ] (]) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:And what is your source for that? Nobody else is saying that this was the result of bias, the sources say that "third largest corporate owner of housing" became "owns a third of housing" which is a very understandable mistake. You appear to have constructed your own conspiracy theory around this incident. ] (]) 17:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Im sorry but “third largest owner” turning into “owns one third of all housing stock” is NOT an “understandable mistake”. It misstates the actual fact by a factor of 500. Maybe if this was like a student in some freshmen class using AI to write a paper that would be “understandable” (and still get an F) but this is supposed to be a professional, who’s job it is to get this stuff right and this is supposed to be a serious organization that has an editorial board that does fact checking. Which they obviously didn’t do.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) ] (]) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Whats “not math”? The difference between .0006 and .33? You sure? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::And let’s see these “every major and minor publications” that make these kinds of error.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::I note the failure to provide the requested source. ] (]) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:::::Right back at you.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			**::::::, your turn and no stonewalling now provide the source or go away. ] (]) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***::::::Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***:::::::Your source that this was "exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative" and not simply an error is what? ] (]) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I have to say I question your judgment in supporting option 3 "generally unreliable" over ''Jacobin'' publishing and then retracting a single erroneous sentence, and for having a bias/narrative/agenda, when you also !voted option 1 "generally reliable" for ] which routinely publishes fabricated information without retraction. Could you kindly articulate how an admittedly biased outlet with a team of fact checkers is apparently significantly worse than a think tank that churns out misinformation and disinformation ()? <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 20:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' A screenshot of a tweet documenting an already corrected error is insufficient to depreciate a reliable source. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --] (]) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. ] <small>(])</small> 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{ping|Gamaliel}} Mostly ] and at ]. Kind regards,
			:::::Thank you for the links. I will repost once I've read through those discussions. ] <small>(])</small> 18:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2 at the very least, change current assessment'''. It might be easier to comment if editors agree or not to change the current category. My position is based on coverage that mixes opinion with facts and its use of unreliable sources, some of which have been deprecated by this noticeboard (like The Grayzone). I went into more detail about this at ] and at ]. --] (]) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' (intext attribution) ] and ] cover most of the points here. Jacobin publishes opinions peice that should have intext attribution. This is how they are used in the large amount of ] that Jacobin also has. I may not like Jacobin very much but bias, opinion, or minor mistakes do not make a source unreliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' ]: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." The example given was a mistake in a book review, cubsequently corrected, about how much housing stock Blackstone owned. No reasonable editor would use this review as a source for an article on housing or Blackstone and more than one would use a reliable source on U.S. housing for an article about 19th century French poetry. ] (]) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1-ish''' Jacobin are clearly a biased source but they are also clearly as reliable for facts as any other major ]. When they make mistakes, they correct themselves, and that ''improves'' their reliability, it doesn't hurt it. ] (]) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2: additional considerations/bad RFC''' - based on the discussion above, evidently there's some kind of social media uproar about some thing that Jacobin published and later corrected. It's poor timing to hold an RFC on reliability both when emotions are high and when it's in response to an isolated incident, both of which are true here. But ignoring that, it seems (again from the discussion above) that ''Jacobin'' published something that was egregiously incorrect, then retracted or corrected it. That's pretty much the standard we expect of reliable publications: errors are compatible with reliability, it's how the publication responds to and corrects errors that determines reliability in this context. gives ''Jacobin'' a "high" reliability score of 1.9 (out of 10, lower scores are better), which is in the ballpark of the ''New York Times'' (1.4) and ''Washington Post'' (2.1). However, they also give it a "left bias" rating of -7 (a 20-point scale with 0 as completely unbiased), which is on the edge of their extreme ratings. Editors should consider attribution, and/or balancing this source's POV against publications more to the right. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2/3''' While BIAS usually covers issues like, it may not be entirely sufficient for advocacy media, which includes ''Jacobin''. While ''Jacobin'' is a fine publication and I've sourced it myself, the reality is it does not usually report Who/What/Why but almost exclusively publishes explainers and analysis pieces that have a designed structure. For instance, ''How Biden Embraced Trump’s Terror Smear Against Cuba'' is not an editorial or opinion piece, it's presented as straight news reporting in the form of an explainer article. But, as an encyclopedia, we obviously can't start injecting artistic wordsets like "terror smear" into articles. So merely saying that BIAS can cover the case of ''Jacobin'' is not sufficient. For the purposes of encyclopedia writing, there will never be anything chronicled by ''Jacobin'' that is appropriate for WP which we can't find a superior source for elsewhere. They don't do spot news, data journalism, or investigative reporting, which are the three ways we use newsgathering media to reference articles. Simply looking at the current issue, I don't see a single story that is actually reporting things. Each article is an opinion piece lightly packaged as an explainer. So, while I don't think ''Jacobin'' is "unreliable" ''per se'', I don't see any value of using it for the very scope-limited purpose of encyclopedia-writing. ] (]) 18:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	=== Gaging consensus ===
			*'''Option 1''' for facts and 2/inline attribution otherwise for articles that are mainly opinion. The hoohah over an article that was actually about Mark Fisher and since corrected such that it doesn't even mention Blackstone seems like a one off. ] (]) 18:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	This shouldn't need to be said, but since an editor appears to be keeping a tally of ''for'' and ''against'' opinions here, it should be stressed that RSN discussions are traditionally considered authoritative as a function of consensus among uninvolved editors. This was the original position of the editor who initiated this discussion, and it should be in that spirit that the discussion is concluded. Editors whose input is predictable based on their history in the I/P topic area (I include myself in that category) are of course important components in trying to establish consensus, but the greater weight is given to input from editors whose input ''isn't'' predictable, lest this turn into a vote.—] (]) 11:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
			* Nothing in the above discussion or that I've seen in the last year leads me to deviate from my !vote in the previous RfC which was this: '''''Option 2''': mostly a partisan opinion source usable with attribution if noteworthy, but occasionally publishes well-researched pieces by experts in their fields, on topics that might not be covered in more mainstream sources, in particular on the history of the left or on socialist theory.'' I also think that the closing of the last RfC, and in particular green flagging on RSP, did not reflect the consensus of the discussion, as I argued when this came up on this board in 2023: '' I have long been unhappy with the RSP summary of the many RSN discussions of this source, where the consensus has clearly been much more negative than the summary. It is clear that several editors have major issues with its use in specific areas (e.g. Russia/Ukraine, Venezuela) and that this should be flagged, and that it publishes content by a few conspiracy thinkers (Branko Marcetic was mentioned in the last discussion, McEvoy flagged here) and again this isn't highlighted in RSP. So I'd favour a rewrite of the RSP and possibly a change from green to yellow as a better reflection of the community consensus.'' In short: I think we need to approach it in a much more case by case basis. ] (]) 18:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::: My apologies for including myself in the tally. On the other hand, if we're supposed to get uninvolved opinion, don't you think you're opining once would be enough? Creating a whole sections to list things mostly already discussed, and constantly forcing me to clarify or explain, when other noninvolved editors don't see a problem, seems to me to be disruptive of the process, don't you think? Why else do I even have to try to summarize what's going on, unthinkingly putting myself in the consensus, except to deal with fact you keep going on and on and on? Geez, you think there'd be a rule agin' it. '']'' 13:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' My assessment hasn't changed from last time, jacobin publishes mostly opinion so this is largely a moot point and the rest of what they publish often contradicts itself—] 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	: Christ on a bicycle, I logged in a few days ago and have been following this particular train-wreck. Documents obtained under FOIA (or similar government releases) by this group are treated as rock-solid, 100% reliable by my profession. A biased organization? Yes. A reputation for not forging documents or lying about their origins? Also yes. What's really going on here is a sophistic side-game in the battle to control underlying article content (presumably someone doesn't like what a primary document contains, so want to insist the site that hosts it is "unreliable.") As for the opinions of the group being "notable" ymmv. I concede that this back and forth nonsense, squabbling over how many angels can dance on the head of the pin, has become the preferred form of discourse here (rather than direct, logical adult conversation). So it goes.] (]) 11:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
			*'''1 or 2''', I think that most of the time they should be used with attribution but they're generally reliable enough that I don't think we should be requiring attribution. I also question the need for a new RfC... It doesn't seem like there has been anything substantial since last time so this shouldn't have been opened. ] (]) 18:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Could you clarify please can this be cited for its opinions or 3rd party or not?--] (]) 13:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
			*'''Weak option 2''' per above voters (especially AD and Bob), but I won't die on that hill if the consensus ultimately feels differently. '''Strong oppose option 3''', though, for somewhat obvious reasons. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 18:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::@User:Shrike: "Opinions or 3rd party" are not really the subject of ''this'' thread. Frankly, I think that will end having to be done on a ''case by case basis'' since IRmep has done a lot of work on a lot of different issues and there are some where WP:RS quote IRmep/Grant books, opinions, actions, etc. and others where they don't. And one really has to search with very specific key words to find much such info since as we've seen very general searches don't come up with much; but very specific searches are what have come up with the most WP:RS mentions. At this point we are just talking about the documents on the website. '']'' 13:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1/2''' - I don't like Jacobin. They read to me like the socialist equivalent of Christian rock. But they have an editor, publisher and corrections, and I'm reasonably sure they're not actually liars. It's an opinion outlet, like a leftist analogue of Reason. I'm not convinced coverage in Jacobin connotes notability. So I'd give them a strong "considerations apply" - attribute, not ideal for notability - ] (]) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	: @Shrike the question "can IRmep be cited for its opinions or not" has a very clear (but not a very simple answer): '''It depends.''' Let me break it down: 1. All US and other official documents hosted on their servers should be treated as genuine and reliable. 2. IRmep also writes pieces of opinion and analysis. Some of these opinion and analysis pieces are excellent, some less so. In some cases it may be appropriate to quote (with attribution) IRmep opinion and analysis, in other cases, less so. The only sensible way to deal with this is on a case by case basis as a question of editorial discretion. There is no binary "yes/no" "Up/down" judgement to be made here, and an attempt to do so is damaging, because it limits the sophistication and maturity of judgement that needs to be applied to research.] (]) 13:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1/2''' Jacobin's fine. It's left-leaning, but it doesn't cook up facts or make shit up. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 19:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I agree completely. Any disputes regarding the use of IRMEP should be handled on a case by case basis on the article talk page. ] (]) 15:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' <s>or 4</s> They publish outright falsehoods and when they issue corrections these are weak and weaselly. The recent completely absurd claim in one of their articles that Blackstone owns 33% of US single family housing stock is an example (it’s actually 1/10 of 1%). Whether you’re sympathetic to their editorial position is irrelevant. Garbage is garbage and facts are facts and as an encyclopedia we can’t rely on click bait nonsense for sources.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::That would be reasonable if these concerns re IRmep were confined to only one or two or three articles. Centralized discussion might be more efficient, but not profoundly so. Here that's not the case. There are roughly ten articles where IRmep had been linked to prior to my removals before the AIPAC sockpuppet debacle. It wouldn't be economical to have ten different and mostly overlapping discussions simultaneously. That's the rational behind centralized discussions in the first place. The discussion currently in progress at ], for example, has implications vis-a-vis everything we're discussing here, such as whether IRmep's own paperwork all adds up. That isn't something specific to MEMRI; rather, it's a concern relevant to a centralized and general discussion of IRmep.—] (]) 08:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''', with attribution for analysis and opinion pieces. The Blackstone mistake was bad, and the author's petulant attitude upon being corrected leaves much to be desired. But the error was corrected relatively promptly, and they have an editorial team on staff. I'm not in favor of downgrading a source based on a single mistake. However, Jacobin has an explicit editorial stance that informs nearly all of its articles, and if it's used for more than straightforward facts, it should probably be attributed as e.g. "the socialist magazine Jacobin". I'm open to changing my view if others can demonstrate a more sustained pattern of errors or falsehoods. ] (]) 20:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Sometimes WP:RS have commented very explicitly and in detail about certain researches by IRmep/Smith relevant to the article in question. That usually makes that material valid for any use. And people will bring individual cases here anyway. You can't stop them. '']'' 17:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' (with caveats) due to the lack of developments since the last RfC which could actually change the conclusion of ''general'' reliability, as opposed to demonstrating fallibility or bias. I do have some sympathy with the {{tq|no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2}} position articulated above, but I think that comes down to how we interpret "generally reliable" in practice. In other words, "additional considerations" ''always'' apply, in principle. The difference between option 1 and option 2 comes down to ''how likely'' we expect those "additional considerations" to be of practical relevance, and how exactly we should address them. ] (]) 20:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{OD}}Reliability depends on context. At the top of the page, we ask editors to tell us the following information:
			*'''Option 1''', it doesn't seem anything has changed since the last RfC. Corrections and retractions is what a reliable source is expected to do and is a sign of reliability. Mistakes which are far greater than this are commonplace across the array of reliable sources (what matters is whether there are corrections or not) nor does partisanship equate to unreliability. Here the error appears to be about what's more or less a single sentence, an ancillary point or side-note in an opinion piece which has been corrected since. It should be treated no different a manner than any other openly partisan neworgs such as '']'' {{rspe|Reason}}. There is no requirement for reliable sources to be "neutral" or for the matter any standard that suggests newsorgs with an explicitly stated ideological position are any better or worse in matters of reliability than newsorgs that don't have an explicitly stated ideological position. ] and ] are quite clear.&nbsp;
	#.A full citation of the source in question. For example Strickland, D.S. and Worth, B.S. (1980) "Books for the children" Early Childhood Education Journal 8 (2): 58--60.
			:Though the standard disclaimers apply which are to check for whether what they publish has ] for inclusion (not an issue of reliability), use in-text attribution with their political position made apparent when quoting opinion and that the context always matters. That there is a subreddit post critical of a error that was corrected is no basis for determining reliability of sources on Misplaced Pages or starting an RfC, so this is also a '''Bad RfC'''. This discussion has been had at a much greater depth in the ] where it was shown that the magazine in question has quite significant ] and affirmatory coverage from reliable secondary source demonstrating that they generally have a "]" which doesn't needs to be rehashed.&nbsp;<span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	#.A link to the source in question. For example
			:'''Option 1: Bad RfC + L + Ratio''' Creating this RfC immediately after some sort of ostensible social media outrage (ex. I nominated ] for deletion not long after the ], and people got so upset that they brigaded it via external social media) seems like a bad idea. It's been made clear in the past that ''Jacobin'' has a perspective (like literally any media outlet) but don't sacrifice factual accuracy to get there. My previous vote remains true: "While it wears its political perspective on its sleeve, it has proven itself time and again in its robust fact-checking. The issue with conservative and reactionary ] and ]] sources on the WP:RSP isn't that they have a bias – it's that they constantly express said bias through the use of provable mis- and disinformation. Jacobin does not sacrifice factual accuracy for the sake of a bias."
	#.The article in which it is being used. For example ]
			:I would say the same of any other outlet whose perspective coexists peacefully with actual facts. The sort of neoliberalism adopted by American news outlets which we categorize as generally reliable (correctly so) isn't some sort of default worldview that needs to be treated as sacred and less biased than any other. If we're allowed to point to a single incident, then I could just as easily (but wouldn't, because I'm acting in good faith) point to the NYT's 2002–2003 reporting about Iraq and WMDs which was so unbelievably mistaken and grounded in literally nothing that ] to falsely luring Americans into supporting ] based on lies, yet Misplaced Pages (even in the days when that story was reasonably fresh) would balk at the idea of calling them 'marginally reliable', let alone 'generally unreliable'. Meanwhile, this one is literally just a typo in a single article – a bad typo, but one anyone with a brain could understand didn't reflect reality and which was quickly corrected. Reading some of the stories on the front page right now, they report on events similar to what would be covered in a magazine like the generally reliable '']'' and contain no obvious factual errors. <b>]</b> ] 21:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	#.The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting. For example <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".
			* '''Option 2''', mainly per u:BobFromBrockley. The Blackrock error was quickly corrected, so I don't hold it against them. Consider this quote from ] {{tquote|Anglo-conservatives sometimes fantasize about reuniting the dominions ... where workers could be exploited freely.}} A not-insignificant percentage of the content supported by Jacobin is of similar nature. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	#.Links to relevant talk page discussion. See diffs for an explanation.
			*'''Option 1''' A screenshot from Reddit detailing an error which was corrected is not reason to lower our consideration of the reliablity of the publication. ] is generally reliable, not always reliable. Admittedly the publication does contain a lot of opinion peices, however that is already covered by ] and ]. Notably, ] is similarly heavy on opinion pecies and community consensus is that it is ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 22:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	Unfortunately, few do. Maybe start a new discussion (or sub-thread) with this information? ] (]) 20:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' Jacobin is basically the left-wing equivalent to the right-wing British Magazines Spiked and The Spectator. Like these publications, most of its content is opinion orientated, and citing less opinion-focused sources should be preferred. It's clear that the current "generally reliable" rating is suggesting to readers of RSP that Jacobin's opinionated content is usable carte blanche without caveat, which I do not think is accurate. ] (]) 22:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Again, to clarify, the original thread is about using FOIA released and other govt-related official primary source documents that only are lodged on the IRmep site. This thread was started because they were removed from a number of articles. I offered to give specific examples but no one took me up on it, in part because - given all the WP:RS mentioning/quoting/etc IRmep/Grant Smith - several people agreed that it obviously was reliable for displaying such documents. I do agree that if people challenge use of IRmep facts/opinions, be they following secondary source WP:RS and/or primary source official documents on IRmep site, those who disagree can bring specific issues here for community input on a case by case basis as discussed elsewhere in this overly long thread. '']'' 15:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
			:: Some Jacobin pieces have openly pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories , as well as conspiracy theories about the Euromaidan which have not been retracted. The Green RSP rating has mistakenly led people to believe these pieces were reliable , ] ] (]) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::You should probably read farther than the headline. ] (]) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::: The pieces (which are both by staff writer Branko Marcetic) are strongly slanted, but you're perhaps right that saying they are "pushing conspiracy theories" is going a bit far. ] (]) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::"The CIA bungled intel pre-9/11" is somewhat the opposite of a conspiracy theory since it ''literally attributes to incompetence what conspiracists attribute to malice''. ] (]) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			* (Summoned by ping in this thread) '''Bad RFC / No listing''' just as in 2021. Or '''Option 2''', it is a liberal analysis magazine, to be considered frequently as ]. See you at the next 1-day social media hysteria. ] (]) 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*: <small>This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but ''Jacobin'' is not remotely liberal. It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --] (]) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC) </small>
			*::For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. ] (]) 22:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I find it really funny when Americans see somebody holding mainstream social democratic politics and start calling them extreme. ] (]) 22:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1'''. Correcting a mistake is a sign of reliability. The normal caveats about bias/opinion and attribution apply, but not seeing enough to move it down to 2. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' The current summary at ] acknowledges that Jacobin is biased and that editors should take care when using it, which is exactly how it should be. Bias and adherence to factual accuracy are two different things; neutrality is not objectivity and vice versa. We do not need to demote it purely for being biased. Agree with others that an RfC being started based on a Reddit thread of a screenshot of a tweet of an editor who made a mistake which was ultimately corrected is a bit silly. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' as per the analysis by Selfstudier, XOR, and Tayi. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 23:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' ] already has certain considerations and it doesn't mean that 100% of what is published can make it to WP. Editors are expected to use their judgement. The article in question is a ]. I don't see any reason for downgrading them based on a reddit thread. ] (]) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' This entire RfC appears to be politically motivated and is predicated on a correction of a sentence that mixed up "third largest" with "a third of". Many other mainline newspapers have made similar, if not worse, errors before. The question is whether corrections were made when such errors were pointed out. And the correction was made here, meeting requirements of reliability. This is likely also about an opinion article, which makes this even more pointless. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Weapons of mass destruction from the New York Times? Was that ever retracted? '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''3'''. If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than ''Jacobin'' to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it.
			:It's not a matter of some particular instance about mistakes regarding mixing up "third largest" with "a third of" or whatever. Heck everybody does stuff like that. The ''NYTimes'' has has published more (unintentionally) misleading or plain-wrong charts than I've had hot meals. I mean, ''Nature'' finding that "among the 348 documents that we found to include the ] 'fact' that 80% of the world's biodiversity is found in the territories of indigenous peoples] are 186 peer-reviewed journal articles, including some in ], ], and ], and 19 news articles targeted at a specialist audience." Imagine that. I would guess that that's largely because "puts indigenous peoples in a good light" trumps "is true" in the ''emotional hind-brain'' of the leather-elbow-patch set. It's not a lefty thing in particular, right-wingers are just as bad I'm sure.
	=== IRMEP - two separate issues ===
	There appears to be two separate issues here:
	# Citing this IRMEP's opinion about third-parties.
	# Citing documents obtained in FOIA requests.
	The first is not allowed per ] condition #2.
	The second you're not really citing IRMEP. You're citing primary documents that just happen to be hosted by IRMEP. ] (]) 15:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
	:] condition #2 does not apply as this guidline specifically applies to ''be used as sources of information '''about themselves'''''. For use as a source of opinion about third-parties guidline applies ''Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.'' ] (]) 16:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
			:Which just strengthens my point, there're no blinders like ideological blinders, so its not so much a matter of how many fact-checkers you have as in how you maybe are presenting facts which, while individually true, are cherry picked or incomplete or out of context or one-sided or otherwise misleading. It might not even be intentional, exactly. Mind-sets are like that. Better to stick with ''Time'' or other people who are more into just blandly attracting a broad readership rather than with people who have points to make.
	::If you're referring to this edit, Middle East Media Research Institute is clearly a third-party. Nobody has presented any evidence that the author is an established expert who's been previously published by third-party reliable sources. ] (]) 16:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::Several people have presented evidence. You may just have missed reading the entire discussion before commenting. Smith has been interviewed by the BBC News and CNN, his articles have been reported by newspapers such as Reuters . He has authored nine books on the subject, one co-authored with the former head of the CIA's bin Laden search team. We can assume that Smith has some expertise in the area and he has been previously published by third-party reliable sources. ] (]) 00:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
			:They're big and smart enough that reporting their ''opinions'' are worthwhile, of course. "According to ''Jacobin'', consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine. As long as we include the qualifier. ] (]) 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Being reported on and being a published author by third-party reliable sources are two different things. The only link you provided above is to which is credited to Reuters. ] (]) 09:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
			::{{Reply|Herostratus}} not to backseat comment but if "They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine." isn't that a 2? I'm in much the same boat and offered a split 1/2, my understanding is that a 3 shouldn't be used for opinion. ] (]) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Backseat comments are totally fine. I live for them. I'm not sure about the details of our rule, but aren't ''all'' publications are completely reliable ''for their contents''? If the ''News of the World'' says "the moon is made of green cheese" we can certainly say "According to the ''News of the World'', the moon is made of green cheese" if for some reason that was useful. The ref is just so the reader can check that they did indeed print that. Similarly for any opinion or other statement. Since all entities are reliable for their own contents, I assume we are not talking at all about that. Why would we.
			:::What we are talking about is: if entity X says "FBI stats say that African-American violent crime was up 50% in Los Angeles in 2024", can we say that ''in our own words'' because we can be confident that it is true because we know that entity X has a good fact-checking operation? Can we be very very sure that entity X would also point out if violent crime for ''all'' races was also up 50%? Can we be very very sure that this increase is not because the FBI started using a new definition of "violent crime", because entity X would surely point that out? Can we be very very sure that violent crime in the city of Los Angeles is steady and the increase is purely from Los Angeles County (or whatever), because entity X would surely point that out? In other words -- can we be very very sure that entity X would not cherry-pick some facts and leave out others because they are here to make points? We want to be careful about being led by the nose by these people. ] (]) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::"The second you're not really citing IRMEP. You're citing primary documents that just happen to be hosted by IRMEP." I disagree, as I said above: if a source not considered reliable publishes what they claim to be a document from another party, we cannot use it as a source for the existence, let alone the contents, of that document. IRMEP asserts that these are documents released under FOIA and that assertion, assuming the source is not a reliable one, is not enough, because the authority for the assertion is IRMEP. We can use it to say, for example, "IRMEP claims to have documents released under FOIA saying XYZ", but we cannot use it to say "Documents released under FOIA show XYZ", nor can we use it to say "XYZ is true". If IRMEP is considered a reliable source and publishes those documents, then we can use it to say "IRMEP recovered documents under FOIA and those documents say XYZ". We still cannot say "XYZ is true", unless the documents are also from a reliable source. ] (]) 11:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
			::::I think the thing is our due weight policy says that due weight (noteworthiness) is apportioned based on the amount of attention given in reliable sources. I take that to mean opinion in generally reliable sources is worth reporting; opinion in generally unreliable sources isn’t. ] (]) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' The author's attitude certainly leaves much to be desired... but I don't think a single mistake that was quickly fixed – in a blog piece, which generally wouldn't even be cited except in very limited circumstances and with attribution per ] – is a good enough reason to downgrade their reliability. ] (]) 07:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' My opinion is unchanged from the previous RfC. It is absurd that we've opened up another RfC over a minor issue that was quickly corrected, all because a few neoliberal redditors got mad about it. I think citations to ''Jacobin'' should require attribution, but trying to tar them as unreliable over this one case is ridiculous. Log off Reddit, there is nothing worthwhile to be found there. --] (]) 09:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::I agree with Cusop Dingle and this comes back to oversight. Unless a publication has good editorial oversight (and therefore achieves reliability per Misplaced Pages) documents can be changed and those coming to a site would never know. As well, if a potential source is only published in a place that does not have good editorial oversight and no where else, and I don't know if this is the case or not, I would wonder if per weight the content should be included even with an in text attribution. (] (]) 11:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC))
			*'''Option 2'''. I concur with other editors that this RFC should never have been opened. Please be more considerate of your fellow editors' time. ] (]) 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' possibly Option 3. I don't see that the source is any better than it was in 2021. Per {{u|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d}}'s previous comments and references from the 2021 RfC copied below as well as this recent incident. Yes, making a mistake and correcting it is good but when the mistake is so egreious and the author attacks people who note the error how much faith should we put in the source? Last time I also noted that per Adfont's media review (not a RS but still worth a look) this source is more biased than Breitbart!
			::{{tq| Normally, we put these extremely ideological sources in the Option 2 category (e.g., Salon {{RSP|Salon}}, Townhall {{RSP|Townhall}}). Jacobin obviously doesn't report straight news, so it (i) always needs to be attributed and (ii) check to see if it complies with ]. However, Jacobin has additional issues. Its stated political mission is to: {{tq|centralize and inject energy into the contemporary socialist movement}} . So it is more in line with an advocacy group than a news source. Also, it has pretty fringe views. ] identifies Jacobin as part of the alt-left . It's pretty fringe-y on topics concerning Venezuela , the USSR/Communism , and anti-semitism , . I would avoid using Jacobin for those topics. But if you need a socialist/Marxist opinion on something, then Jacobin is definitely a good source to use. ] (]) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) <u>Based upon Noonlcarus's comment, Jacobin does seem to frequently use deprecated/unreliable sources for facts. Some examples include Alternet {{RSP entry|AlterNet}} , Daily Kos {{RSP entry|Daily Kos}} , Raw Story {{RSP entry|The Raw Story}} , The Canary {{RSP entry|The Canary}} , and the Electronic Intifada {{RSP entry|The Electronic Intifada}} .] (]) 04:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)</u>}}
			:As I mentioned above, when a source is this biased we have to ask if that level of bias is going to have too great an impact on both the weight they give various facts thus leading to questionable conclusion and their ability to verify otherwise factual claims as we saw here. I think that puts the source deep into the use with caution territory ] (]) 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::And yet you rated the Heritage Foundation at 2/3 below and didn't find any problem with their extreme ideological bent, saying in their defense that deprecating the foundation {{tq|would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge}}. This is a group that is regularly equated in academic best sources with fascism such as in:
			::# ''Neo-fascist trends in education: neo-liberal hybridisation and a new authoritarian order'' Díez-Gutiérrez, Enrique-Javier, Mauro-Rafael Jarquín-Ramírez, and Eva Palomo-Cermeño, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS). Sep2024, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p125-169
			::# ''Pandemic abandonment, panoramic displays and fascist propaganda: The month the earth stood still.'' By: McLaren, Peter, Educational Philosophy & Theory, 00131857, Feb 2022, Vol. 54, Issue 2
			::# ''THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY THINK TANK.'' By: Stewart, Katherine, New Republic, 00286583, Sep2023, Vol. 254, Issue 9 <small>(note that the think tank that they call "The West Point of American Fascism" in this article is the ] but that they refer to Heritage as participating in Claremont events.)</small>
			::#''The Road Ahead Fighting for Progress, Freedom, and Democracy,'' Weingarten, Randi, American Educator. Fall2024, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p2-9. 8p.
			::So I guess my question is one of consistency: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the fascist-adjacent Heritage foundation? If not why do you believe that the Heritage Foundation is more valuable to the "goal of collecting knowledge" than Jacobin? ] (]) 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::You are missing a major difference. HF isn't a media source, they are a think tank. Jacobin is a media source, not a think tank. I've argued that all think tanks should be used with great care and in particular we should generally not cite them unless an independent RS points to their work. So the question is can we cite HF when a RS mentions the views/claims/etc of HF with respect to the article topic. In that regard I'm suggesting we treat them more like a primary source vs a RS. Jacobin is different and the relevant question is can we treat them like a regular RS as we do with many other news media sources. If Jacobin publishes a claim about an article subject should we cite them? I argue they should be evaluated by the same standards we use for news media sources. By that standard it's strong bias etc means we should use it's claims and reports with caution and should question if they have weight to justify inclusion. In your post above you provided a list of texts but absent links I can't see what they say nor if their arguments are sound or crap but they don't impact the distinction I've made. ] (]) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The list of texts are available via Misplaced Pages library which is why I provided bibliographical information rather than links as links to material on WP library don't work. With the exception of New Republic all are academic journals. And now please answer my original question: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the Heritage Foundation? ] (]) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::If you want to cite those sources to support an argument you should tell us what they say or at least why you think they support your position. As for your question, I already answered. It doesn't matter if the HF is more or less compromised because the purpose of each is different. When it comes to topics of automobiles Honda is more compromised than the AP but they also might be a better source if we are asking about stratified charge combustion in automobile engines. ] (]) 21:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::On this charge I will defend Springee. I don't necessarily agree with them but I'm not seeing the dissonance in their arguments, especially as they seem to be going 2/3 on both (there is not formal vote here but that seems to be the upshot of what they're saying). Their slighlty idiosyncratic argument about the purspose of the source being primary is also one which they've been making consistently for years. With all due respect I think you're being too hard on Springee. ] (]) 21:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I take the idea that a publication being openly social democratic is ''too biased to be reliable'' personally offensive. Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. But I will concede that Springee is being consistent. And I actually agreed that think tanks should be treated as primary sources. Frankly, were Springee to be more reasonable on the "political bias" overreach, we might otherwise be agreeing. ] (]) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::We may not be disagreeing at all given we both are giving them a "2". I'm arguing that their bias is too much to make them a 1. The possible 3, the same score I gave them last time, is a concern regarding things like the issue that started the recent discussion. I was about to post something about really disliking the RSP's simplistic bucketing. It's really not a good system as we really should put more effort into asking if a source is appropriate for the claims being supported and when an encyclopedia should be citing strongly biased sources in general. If we need to use such a strongly biased source is the information DUE? ] (]) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::We do agree on disliking the RSP bucketing system. My personal opinion is no news media source should be treated as a blanket "generally reliable" because reliability is contextual. However I do think that Jacobin is, from a global perspective, not in any way ideologically extreme. Social democracy is a normal left-of-center political position. The extreme-right shift of US politics over the last few decades makes them seem like outliers but that's the real bias problem right there. ] (]) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their page states they offer {{tq|socialist perspectives}} and approvingly includes quotes describing them as supporting {{tq|radical politics}} and {{tq|very explicitly on the radical left, and sort of hostile to liberal accommodationism}}. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::I would strongly advise against getting too side-tracked by having a conversation about "social democracy" vs "democratic socialism" (same goes for any arguments over distinctions between "left" vs "liberal" in this thread). I can say from experience that these semantics rabbitholes are shockingly deep, and they're not at all necessary or helpful for this RfC. All I'll say is that these terms ''are'' commonly used as synonyms by at least some people, and the "Ideology and reception" section of ] notes {{tq|the political diversity of contributors, incorporating "everyone from social democratic liberals to avowed revolutionaries"}}, so I don't think either you or Simonm223 are wrong on this. Different people are gonna use different terms and apply different meanings to each of them. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 03:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::{{tq|Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center.}} Where outside the United States are you talking about? The world where ]? Where ]? Is it Japan, where the conservative ] has been in power since 1955? Or China, where a media outlet that is as critical of the ] as Jacobin is of the ] would have long been banned, and their writers arrested? I think we all need a reality check here, especially if we want to represent reality in our articles. ] (]) 03:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::While I can't speak for them, I'm guessing they probably had in mind specifically other western democracies, as it's common for European countries to have a mainstream Socialist Party with an ideology listed as social democracy (to name a few: ], ], ], ], etc).
			::::::::I'm comfortable speculating this is their argument because it's one that's often repeated in American progressive-left circles. This argument is usually presented as follows: ] is viewed as the furthest left one can go in America, the things his supporters want are not radical to other developed countries (paid time off, universal healthcare, etc), therefore what is far left in America is only moderately left elsewhere.
			::::::::Not saying I entirely agree or disagree with that argument, either how Simonm223 phrased it or how I interpreted it. Just saying I think they had in mind comparable democracies, not the entire world.
			::::::::<b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 16:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Yeah. I don't feel the need to put a million qualifiers on a comment on a WP discussion board when all I really need to say is that the United States has an abnormal political compass compared to its peers. But also there used to be lots of socialists, for instance, throughout the Middle East. American allies killed most of them. ] (]) 18:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::This has become a discussion about Overton windows rather than the source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3 or 2''' - Right-wing outlets that mix opinions in their articles, selectively choose facts to promote a political agenda, or sloppily misrepresent the truth have rightly been marked as unreliable ages ago. There is no reason to have a different standard for other political positions. And regardless of that, outlets that do that cannot be ''relied on'' (i.e. are unreliable) to present an accurate picture of the facts on a given topic, nor are their writers' opinions noteworthy in our articles. Op-eds from even mainstream papers like NYT, WaPo, etc. are routinely removed as sources; outlets like ''Jacobin'' that consist entirely of such articles should likewise not be used (and we have already done this for right-wing opinion outlets like ''Quillette''). The green checkmark at RSP misleads editors into thinking opinions and claims published in ''Jacobin'' are more noteworthy than they really are. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1'''. Folks have said it well already so I won't belabor the point. I can't really imagine an occasion when I would cite ''Jacobin'', but I consider them roughly a left-wing equivalent of ''The Economist'' or ''Reason'' (also publications I'd be unlikely to cite –– all three of these are usually rather predictable and tend to offer shallow analysis). I wasn't sure how we list those other two so I checked RSP just now and saw that they're 1s. Yes, OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument, but I was more interested in getting a baseline on where the community draws the line between 1 and 2. With respect, I object to Crossroads' comparison to ''Quillette'', which leans heavily into platforming fringe ideas and displays little editorial oversight. (Interestingly, on a hoax published in ''Quillette'', revealing the latter's abysmal editorial practices, courtesy of ]) ] (]) 01:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Personally I don’t see Reason and Economist as equivalent, and was surprised to see Reason green flagged for the same reason that I don’t think Jacobin should be. That is, whereas Economist is mostly reporting and some opinion, both Reason and Jacobin are mostly opinion and some reporting. The Jacobin piece on the Quillette hoax looks good to me, but everything else they’ve published by that author wouldn’t be usable for facts as they’re pure op eds. I’d put the Spectator and National Review in the category as Jacobin and Reason. (Whereas Spiked and American Conservative are worse, red flag territory rather than amber.) ] (]) 15:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Additional considerations apply'''. As I indicated in the ] which I started, the mere fact that Jacobin thought it appropriate to publish a statement that ] "owns a third of US housing stock" indicates that they do not do adequate fact-checking before publishing articles. Therefore, one should attempt to corroborate any facts they publish with more reliable sources before relying on Jacobin to support any factual statements in articles. ] (]) 03:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1'''. Our ] is explicit that {{tq|reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective}}. I may not personally love the political perspective of ''Jacobin'', but they don't go out of their way to platform disinformation that flatly contradicts academic consensus about reality. Regarding ''Jacobin'' as unreliable on the grounds of its bias would require evidence that said bias leads it to regularly publish misinformation and untruths. I haven't seen this established.{{pb}}Moreover, the error brought up that somehow has sparked this RFC was both A) corrected in a timely manner, which is what we ''expect'' from a reliable source; and B) a case where ], as the original source was a book review of several books written by Mark Fisher. If cited, it should be cited to warrant information about Fisher or his books or the genre he wrote in, etc. The Blackstone number was {{tq|Information provided in passing}}, and we already know that such info occasionally {{tq|may not be reliable}}, and so we use our best judgment as editors, citing and reading a wide variety of sources and going to the ]. For a topic like ], looks like ''Jacobin'' is a good resource. For Blackstone and housing, try from the journal '']''. Not every source is perfect at every subject, but when a source has a known editorial staff, issues corrections to publications, and is grounded in reality, it's reliable, even if I wouldn't personally enjoy talking politics with the editor.{{pb}}Finally, when a piece published in ''Jacobin'' is an opinion piece, we can just treat it as such, ]. ''The Economist'' and ''The Wall Street Journal'' publish a lot of opinion pieces too, yet GREL they've remained. As the perennial list says of ''The Economist'', {{tq|editors should use their judgement to discern factual content—which can be generally relied upon—from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources}}. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 06:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3''' or '''Option 2''', long overdue for the reasons already set out in this thread. And frankly, the idea that a magazine whose name is derived from the people who instituted the ] was ever acceptable w/o issue is offputting by itself. ] (]) 23:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::Unfortunately, these two separate issues - 1) Citing this IRMEP's opinion about third-parties versus 2) Citing documents obtained in FOIA requests - were merged into the same thread. <s>Looking at the culprit</s>, . I think it's best that Cusop Dingle step away from the discussion to avoid further blunders. This will allow uninvolved editors better able to assess this source's reliability. ] (]) 13:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
			*:For the record, the that in naming the magazine, he was thinking of '']'', a book about the ], not the French. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I don't get why you are so insistent about it being a Self-published source. This clearly is not a self-published source.--] (]) 13:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
			*::Not that that is relevant anyway when assessing reliability. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I fail to understand how IRMEPS reporting of documents is any different to that of any other advocacy group. A good example is MEMRI, they have no oversight yet are often used as a source of comment for the translation of Arabic articles (ie:primary documents that just happen to be hosted by MEMRI). They are often critisized by reliable sources for the unreliability of their translations, it is documented that they do in fact make alterations to text which changes context and some of the "articles" they translate are unreliable in themselves as many are little more than letters to the editor, but this appears to have little affect and they are frequently used as refs in WP articles. The only critism regarding IRMEPs reliability comes from WP editors. ] (]) 17:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
			*::''The Black Jacobins'' is named so because the author analogizes the actions of the Haitians to that of the French Jacobins. It's just adding an extra step (not to mention that the word has a known meaning on it's face, so it's mostly irrelevant.). Regardless, it's clearly derived, and it's frankly silly to even argue semantics. ] (]) 02:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Just to be clear your argument about the name being relevant to reliability is literally arguing ]. Your objection doesn't make any sense. ] (]) 03:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I was referring to the semantics of what counts as "derived from." And no, while the name clearly doesn't ''inherently'' reflect relevance. If a source called "The KGB Times" came up on the noticeboard for reliability, it's perfectly reasonable for a person to point out "Hey, I don't think it's reliable for reasons x,y, and z, andddd the name also doesn't exactly inspire confidence." That's all I'm saying. Don't twist my statement into something it's not. ] (]) 05:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1/Keep the current RSPS summary''' I think a few people arguing for additional considerations are misremembering the current RSPS legend. ''Additional'' considerations doesn’t refer to things like weight, or bias, or that you need to attribute opinion pieces because those are all standard considerations that apply to ''all'' sources. The current RSPS summary already says (in part) {{tq|Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'.}} I can't find anything that indicates that's not still a perfectly good summary. ] (]) 01:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I am concerned that this discussion has become personal and that to me is a sign that those making the personal comments towards other editors have too much vested interest in the discussion. No one should be requesting an editor step away when the arguments have been calm and clearly articulated. For the very reason given above, that documents can be changed, as is possible with no oversight is why this site in not a reliable source, in my opinion. And Misplaced Pages has its own standards for reliability which is what this discussion is about.(] (]) 20:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC))
			*'''Option 1*''' Jacobin is a biased source, something that should obviously be considered by anyone thinking of sourcing them for anything contentious, but their reporting has never been an issue in terms of establishing basic factual information about a situation. One writer for a book review making a dumb statement that was corrected by the source doesn't change that. ] (]) 04:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::You cannot compare misinterpretation of documents (or differing and possibly debatable interpretations) of a language reported by WP:RS to an editor like User:Littleolive oil's WP:OR allegation that someone has falsified a scan of an original document. If they had you know that AIPAC et al with their millions of dollars of resources available to debunk critics would have proved it by now. '']'' 19:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1:''' Nothing of substance has been presented to suggest that this source is not GREL. Most of the reasons being presented for MREL appear to be about bias, but that is not of direct relevance to reliability unless it can be shown that any bias directly impinges somehow on its reliability. That it provides a perspective from a rarefied position on the political spectrum is a moot point in terms of reliability. Arguably it is good to have sources from all different positions on the political spectrum for the purposes of balance, but that is, again, irrelevant to its reliability. ] (]) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::It is a red herring to discuss the practicality of document falsification. The main issue is lack of editorial oversight, and this extends to articles as well as hosted documents.<br />Best Wishes <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 20:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
			===Discussion: ''Jacobin''===
	::::::Just to check: you have read the very beginning of this this thread with a long list of WP:RS regarding IRmep/Smith? <s>And do you understand that despite this diversion, what we are discussing is reliability for hosting documents?</s> See ] If you only are responding to this last small section, you've missed a lot. Please respond so we'll all know. Thanks. '']'' 17:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
			*Seeing as there's substantial disagreement in the pre-RfC section above, I've gone ahead and launched this RfC. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Pings to {{yo|Feminist|The wub|Thebiguglyalien|Super Goku V|Simonm223|FortunateSons|Oort1|Burrobert|ActivelyDisinterested|Hydrangeans|Vanilla Wizard|Iljhgtn|Selfstudier|Horse Eye's Back|NoonIcarus|Harizotoh9|Springee}} who commented above. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Additional pings to {{yo|WMrapids|David Gerard|Bobfrombrockley|Shibbolethink|Crossroads|Herostratus|Dumuzid|Aquillion|Gamaliel|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d|BSMRD|Wugapodes|Ip says|King of Hearts|Chetsford|Tayi Arajakate|MPants at work|Jlevi|The Four Deuces|Grnrchst|Szmenderowiecki|Dlthewave|Jr8825|Thenightaway|Nvtuil|Peter Gulutzan|FormalDude|Volunteer Marek|FOARP|Sea Ane|3Kingdoms|Bilorv|blindlynx|Jurisdicta|TheTechnician27|MarioGom|Novemberjazz|Volteer1}} who commented in the ]. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I think you should also disclose that the previous RfC was initially closed by you (back then under the usernames ] and ]) and the discussions that followed at {{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 6#Jacobin (magazine)}} and {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340#Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability}} led to an overturn on grounds of it being heavily flawed and ostensibly a ], followed by a re-close afterwards. Especially considering your statement in the above section questioning that (re)closure now, which also partially forms the basis for this RfC. Those discussions might also answer your question on why it was (re)closed in the manner it was. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 20:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I've tried to ping everyone from the prior RfC and from the discussion above. This was done manually: I excluded 1 vanished account and I tried to ping people by their current usernames if they have changed names since then. If I missed someone, please feel free to notify them. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Per my prior comments about space constraints I've split this to its own section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I've just moved the RFC out of the discussion again. The RFC shouldn't be made a subsection of the prior discussion, due to ongoing issues with overloading on the noticeboard. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' Editors should bear in mind that reliability does not mean infallibility. It merely means we can use sources where applicable. In this case, the impeached article is a book review, which combines a description of a book and the reviewer's opinions. The only acceptable use of a book review - whoever wrote it and wherever it is published - is in an article about the book reviewed.
	:::::::FYI, I've added a new item to the list at the start of this whole thread that shows sources that have cited IRmep research or documents, and have several more I intend to add over the coming days, as time allows. The particular publication in this instance is the refereed journal, '']'', published continuously by the United States Army since 1922. &nbsp;–&nbsp;<font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 19:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
			Ironically, there can be no article about the book because it lacks notability. It was only reviewed in Jacobin. We are basically working to prevent things that will never happen. Under current policy therefore this source could never be used.
	== U.S. News and World Report as source for criticism ==
			Our time would be better spent ensuring that RS policy is adhered to.
	Oh boy, I just love asking dumb questions at RSN!
			] (]) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	] argues that in our article on the ], we need to "find a RS that presents some factual criticism," because s/he believes that is insufficient to support the statement that the Council on American-Islamic Relations criticized the summit for being organized and attended by non-Muslims/anti-Muslims. The article is from a reliable secondary source, it says that CAIR made these criticisms, and it also says that the conference ''was'' organized and attended by non-Muslims who made anti-Muslim comments such as equating radical Islam with regular Islam. This means that it goes over and above our normal requirements for criticism - we often don't even care if a secondary source can be found, let alone if the criticism is based in fact, but here we have both. I believe RSN will confirm that the removal of the article's criticism section on these grounds is spurious.
			*'''Bad RFC''' because we should not be rating things just for the sake of rating things, but since we're doing this: Jacobin is clearly an opinion outlet, not a news outlet. We shouldn't be relying on them for statements of fact for that reason alone. ] (]) 17:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	–] (] &sdot; ]) 06:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
			*:Notwithstanding my !vote above I do agree this is a bad RFC because there's not ever been an example presented of Jacobin being used to source anything even remotely questionable during the RFCBefore discussion. ] (]) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Well, there was one example that generated the 2023 discussion which was Jacobin being used to source a description of the 2014 Maidan Revolution as "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests", so that's one occasion of it being used to source something questionable. It was also by the same editor on the 9/11 attack page to source the claim that the CIA facilitated the attacks and intentionally withheld information that could have stopped the attacks.
			*::That editor is now blocked (because of their conduct on this noticeboard I think?) but they used the green flag at RSP to justify their edits. ] (]) 10:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Absolutely a bad RfC, I rolled my eyes when I was pinged about this. Nothing fundamental has changed about Jacobin's editorial line or policy since the last RfC was opened four years ago. I can't believe we're hashing this out again because of a single reddit post. --] (]) 10:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*The Jacobin author who wrote the nonsense claim that Blackstone owns 1/3 of US housing stock literally mocked the people who tried to correct him and the correction - which itself was inaccurate and weaselly - was issued only after social media pressure. This is an outlet that very obviously does not care one bit about fact checking if it gets in the way of producing click bait pieces. It’s exactly the kind of source we should NOT be using, especially as the whole media landscape is shifting that way.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	: We do discourage "criticism" sections, but USN&WR is definitely a RS. -- ] (]) 07:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
			*:They issued a correction. This is what we expect of reliable outlets. Your personal characterization of the correction as "weaselly" is your personal opinion on tone and has nothing to do with any Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 19:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Without getting into an "article shape" discussion, this seems RS to me as well. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 14:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
			:::Did this correction at least state what the correct % was? Like, the correction itself tries to make it seem like a minor overstatement rather than, you know, a completely wild exaggeration that tried to take advantage of general innumeracy. “I’m a billionaire!”. “No you’re not”. “Ok that was an overstatement”. Come on. It’s quite disappointing to see how many people are fine with misinformation, weak sourcing and “alternative facts” as long as it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. Whats even more disappointing is when these are people who are claiming to be building a factual encyclopedia. Facts are facts and garbage is garbage, regardless of whether it come from the left or right.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	: USN&WR is absolutely a RS, and there is no need to expressly avoid all well-sourced critiques, as long as they are quoted directly, or framed in the voice of the author, not the 'pedia. See, ] for guidance. ] (]) 02:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
			::::Yes facts are facts and garbage is garbage but as long as we allow garbage like ''New York "Iraq has WMDs" Times'' to be treated as a reliable source I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently. Jacobin is compliant with Misplaced Pages's requirements. If you want to talk about tightening those requirements I'd be open to the discussion at ]. ] (]) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I suppose I could also take this to NPOVN or something, but in the interest of not spreading the dispute across every forum that exists: would you consider this to be an accurate representation of CAIR's criticism?
			:::::Was the weapons of mass destruction bit ever retracted by New York Times? As far as I'm aware it wasn't. Perhaps we should be wasting community time and having a discussion about them? '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::<blockquote>The summit was criticized by the ] as hostile to Muslims. CAIR pointed out that the conference was organized and headlined by non-Muslims, and criticized remarks like those of Wafa Sultan, who claimed that there was no such thing as moderate Islam.</blockquote>
			::::::Yeah my point is just that a lot of editors are establishing a double standard where Jacobin is being held to a higher standard than what Misplaced Pages generally expects from news organizations. I would like it to be measured against the same standard as anyone else. ] (]) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::–] (] &sdot; ]) 03:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
			:::::::Agreed. I'm not the biggest fan of them because there's so much oped stuff but we've never thought that reason to downgrade ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Exactly. And that is kind of what I was getting at when I suggested the right venue for what {{noping|Volunteer Marek}} was concerned about was ]. If we allow these kinds of sources then we allow these kinds of sources. I would be happy to restrict these kinds of sources more than we do but it has to be handled at a policy level rather than via exceptions to present policy. ] (]) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:This does not appear to be an outlet generally characterized as producing click bait. ] (]) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It is not the case that a book review can ''only'' be used in an article about that specific book. For example, they are frequently cited in biographies of authors, in order to demonstrate that those authors meet ]. And an article about the pedagogy of some subject could cite reviews of textbooks about that subject. ] (]) 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			== The Heritage Foundation ==
	I would appreciate some input. Otherwise I suspect this is going to ANI. Roscelese concluded from your lack of an answer above that "RSN has already unanimously rejected this argument on all points." The source in question, USNews, describes the speakers as ranging from 'angry ex-Muslims to devout reformers', which she wants to change to 'anti-Muslim activists', which is her own invention. CAIR calls them 'a bunch of atheists', which USNews calls 'mudslinging'. Roscelese insists that we include the mudslinging, since it's in a RS. (At first she refused even to present it as CAIR's opinion, insisting we present it as fact, since it's in a RS, though she has compromised on that.) In her last version, the criticism started in the introductory paragraph; the article was more about CAIR and their criticism of the summit than it was about the actual summit. This is also a bit of a BLP issue, since we list by name the people, some devout, that are being called atheists by CAIR. She also wants to include an inflammatory statement by one of the speakers which he did not even make at the summit, wording so that it looks like it was part of the summit, and wants to remove mention of a (cultural?) Muslim from the list of organizers, so that it looks like it was organized solely by non-Muslims. I don't understand the edits, and the repeated misrepresentation, unless it is to push her personal agenda. — ] (]) 00:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 16:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739462471}}
	:Gosh, it's almost as though you objected to the presence of a criticism ghetto! Could it be that you just want to pretend no one objected to anything about this conference, rather than integrating the material into the article in the interest of avoiding a criticism section?
			{{Moved discussion to|WP:Requests for comment/The Heritage Foundation|2=Due to how large the discussion has become, and size constraints on the noticeboard, this discussion has been moved to it's own page. <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:Kwamikagami is also (probably deliberately) misrepresenting the ''U.S. News'' source - which characterizes Sultan's remarks, not the comment about atheists, as mudslinging - but this behavior is unfortunately unsurprising after the edits s/he made to the article. It's far from the only thing about which s/he isn't telling the truth in this comment, but it is the one most directly related to the sources, so I'll leave it at that; maybe s/he will see fit to tell the truth later on. –] (] &sdot; ]) 00:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
	::Please read the article one word at a time. It characterized both sides as mudslinging.
	Roscelese has made a mess of the article. She's in an edit war to push a POV which her own source does not support. I've tagged the major points, but it now reads as a joke. I'm here because I don't want to multiply the discussion, but this is really a matter of NPOV and WEIGHT, not RS. — ] (]) 00:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::The USN&WR quote is balanced and neutral, can you provide a better example, or is this the worst? ] (]) 02:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
			== Catholic-Hierarchy.org ==
	== Reliability of '']'' ==
			'']'' 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.
	Hello, I was wondering if the regulars on this noticeboard could help me out. There is currently a talk page discussion on ] concerning the accuracy of the claims made in the article. The article's verifiability seems to be completely dependent on '']'' publishing that this cat is the oldest ever recorded . There is coverage of the cat in other sources, but those sources also depend on ''Guinness'' to back their claims. However, another user claims that the cat breed that the owner and others claim this particular cat to belong to did not exist in the purported year of birth.
			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)
	So the question I pose is, are there/have there been reliability problems with ''Guinness World Records'' in general? &mdash;<span style="color:#808080">]</span><sup><span style="color:#008080">]</span></sup> 14:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
	:I can't answer your question specifically, but there have been hoaxes in the past, but that does not take away from Guiness as a reliable source. I personally have seen that they send employess out to verify claims for the record book, in one case, an employee spent hours counting heads in a video. I would say that Guinness is definitely RS for that assertion. The fact that they are occasionally wrong (hoaxes, or just error), does not make them a non-RS, as, when they find out about it, they will correct the error, as a reliable source should. Just like a newpaper publishing a correction notice. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 15:20, 20 April 2012 (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 statement is currently attributed to the Guinness book of world records, this seems fine. There appears to be no source stating it is a hoax. ] (]) 22:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
			:{{Reply|OldPolandUpdates}} Where can that noted exception for self-published sources be found in WP:RS/SPS? ] (]) 19:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Agreed - the GBWR may not be a perfect source, but until there is equally ] and ] information that contradicts it, an attributed statement seems more than acceptable. The argument on the talk page seems to be one editor's opinion, unverified by any sources I could see. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 23:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
			::Mid-paragraph ]. ] (]) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Clarification: I didn't mean to imply the cat thing was a hoax, just there have been hoaxes played on GBWR in the past, and even so, they are still a reliable source imo. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 00:17, 21 April 2012 (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)
	::::This is beyond the scope of the original question, but what the hey. IMO sources that are generally reliable are reliable for all information contained therein unless there is ''specific evidence to the contrary for the challenged fact''. The reason I bring this up is because I see a lot of ]-pushers who attempt to discredit whole fields of study on the basis of ] being generally evil or having ghost written single (or even several) articles. I see this as similar - people claiming a specific, generally reliable source can't be trusted on the basis of unrelated incidents does not discredit the source in general. Though GBWR may have been hoaxed before, unless there is specific evidence that this is a hoax, I don't think the information can justifiably be removed. This isn't pointedly aimed at you Despayre, it's just something I've seen before (and if anyone has a policy or guideline relevant to this discussion, I'd be keen for a link). ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 00:41, 21 April 2012 (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.
	:::::I'm in complete agreement with you on this point too. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 00:47, 21 April 2012 (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.
	::::::In the present context, it's probably OK to say "sources that are generally reliable are reliable for all information contained therein unless there is ''specific evidence to the contrary for the challenged fact''" (as WLU says above). But I don't see this as a policy or rule. Yes, there are indeed sources that we generally trust, and whose fact-checking we respect, but it still all depends what they are saying and whether it is in their field of expertise. <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 08:45, 23 April 2012 (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 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)
			:::::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 think we need to potentially modify WP:RSSELF so that it better delineates between USEBYOTHER and "'''whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications'''." The two prior discussions about ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' generally featured the following logic: "Work found in ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' has been published by reliable publications. As such, if the work found in ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is the product of the author of ''CH'', then we can say that the author of ''CH'' has had their work published by reliable publications."
			::::::::::::I think the problem is the way "work" and "works" can be interpreted, especially given the dozens of formal definitions for the word "work." I would argue that the bolded section from WP:RSSELF is improved by saying: "'''whose scholarly or journalistic works in the relevant field have previously been published by reliable, independent publications'''." However, we also might want to entirely abandon the word "work" for some alternative.
			::::::::::::What do you think? ] (]) 18:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::That would be a completely different standard which would expand the pool 10,000x. I would also note that you're the only editor I've ever seen get seriously confused by this... If its just a you problem and not an us problem why would we need to rewrite? ] (]) 18:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::My proposed bolded section tries to incorporate your earlier comment about "journalists and academics." If such individuals are the (general) standard, then shouldn't we say that? I want to be clear that I am ''not'' advocating for the adoption of the logic flow used on the prior ''CH'' discussions.
			::::::::::::::Are you saying that using the word "works" is less restrictive than the word "work"? "Works" is probably generally interpreted as multiple discrete intellectual labors such as articles and books. "Work" could be interpreted as any effort expended in a field, well beyond just articles and books. ] (]) 19:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::I'm saying that nothing is broken here, our existing policies and guidelines are adequate even if you don't like the result of their application. ] (]) 20:43, 13 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)
			::::::::::I went ahead and updated the entry. Given the author's status as a "Random Catholic Dude", they cannot be a subject matter expert as defined by Misplaced Pages. And as a self-published source, it cannot be used to support claims about living persons. ] (]) 15:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::The "Random Catholic Dude" description is probably a form of ] that should not alone be used to exclude someone from "expert" status. If an MD-PhD medical school professor referred to themselves as "Some Random Hospital Dude," then we probably should not immediately exclude them from "expert" status over this form of self-depreciation.
			:::::::::::Also, thank you for updating WP:RSPSOURCES. I saw that you added "limited USEBYOTHER". As Red-tailed hawk has shown elsewhere in this conversation, ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' has 1000+ hits on Google Scholar. Would you still consider this as limited USEBYOTHER"? We could probably justifiably update it to "significant USEBYOTHER", although this would not be enough to change the overall status of the source. ] (]) 19:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::A SPS remains a SPS regardless of USEDBYOTHERS... It doesn't change the core status. The difference is that an MD-PhD medical school professor likely meets our standards, it has nothing to do with the self-deprecation. ] (]) 20:40, 13 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)
			*I came into this thinking that this was akin to those military/tank/airplane fan websites inasmuch as it was mostly compiled by one person and it's of the quality of hobbyist work. But I am seeing it get a {{URL|1=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Catholic-Hierarchy.org|2=metric ton}} of hits on Google Scholar, where it looks like it is cited in a ''ton'' of scholarly literature as a source for facts. And, in that weird way, ] considerations come into play.{{pb}}I tried to find sources that specifically analyzed this database or evaluated it in a comparative fashion to other commonly cited databases. It's a bit hard to find specific studies, since the majority of citations are just using this plainly as a source for facts (which itself says something, albeit subtly). But I did manage to find a by economic historian that compared the website against other databases of Catholic hierarchies in the section describing his research methods. What it found was quite simple, and went against my initial impression. Schulz found that, among various Catholic heirarchy databases he had assessed, there was {{tq|a high level of consistency. In case of disagreements between sources they were most often in the range of less than one or two decades – a rather small inaccuracy in relation to the duration of Church exposure up to the year 1500}}. In other words, this database is more or less as accurate as the other ones he had assessed (though, as he notes in his paper, none of the databases are ''quite'' complete).{{pb}}It might just be a weird edge case where we've got a decently reliable database that's also self-published. And that's fine, ] notes that self-published sources {{tq|are largely not acceptable as sources}}, but it <u>doesn't</u> say {{red|are always not acceptable as sources}}—as ] notes, {{tq|common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process}} when assessing issues of source reliability.{{pb}}We should follow common sense here. And, in light of the scholarly literature, the common sense thing to do is to treat it in the same way that we treat other sorts of curated databases regarding Catholic Church hierarchies. That is to say: it's ''okay''; it'll do fine for ordinary historical dates of bishop reigns etc., but when more professional sources exist we should probably use them instead.{{pb}}— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 02:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:For what it's worth, I think that Schulz's sort of meta-dataset would be immensely valuable and be the sort of thing that gets considered when I say that {{tq|when more professional sources exist we should probably use them instead}}. But, alas, the data aren't public (or, if they are, I can't quite find them). — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 02:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:The core BLP problem isn't going to go away though... At best we can say that the source is usable for dead figures but I don't see a policy or guideline path to genuine reliability (even if just on technical grounds). Theres also the general problems that come with online databases (don't count towards notability, almost never due, etc). If it isn't covered in other sources then its almost by definition a level of detail that isn't due. ] (]) 18:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I would support usage within biographies of dead figures who have been shown to be notable by way of other (non-''CH'') sources. Red-tailed hawk's points are hard to ignore. ] (]) 18:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::USEDBYOTHERS is the weakest indication of reliability, remember if thats the way we go the instructions are "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims." This also means that USEDBYOTHERS can't be used as an end run around SPS. ] (]) 18:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Sure. But also this isn't ''just'' a UBO argument as if it were based on reading the widespread citation as implying something; it's an argument that the source has ''explicitly'' been subject to some academic study, and that study came back with a relatively positive review of its accuracy. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 01:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Unless it comes back with the result that its not self published it doesn't matter... Self published is self published regardless of underlying reliability. There is no way in which self published works become non-self published by being accurate, its still treated as self published. ] (]) 21:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Does this source even exists? ==
	;Discussion hi-jack
			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 would say that GBWR are beyond doubt RS—they are extensively covered in other reliable soures and they have very strong fact-checking practises. I'm more inclined to believe a claim by them than say the general media. However, I ran into an issue with them regarding methodology in a particular case, where they published two distinct figures, one in their published book and one on their website! It involved the adjusted box-office gross for ''Gone with the Wind''. The issue is a bit too complex to go into here, but I question their methodology in relation to one of their figures. I would appreciate it if someone could offer an opinion on it. The relevant sections are the last paragraph of ] (along with the table directly below) and the discussion at ]. ] (]) 09:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
	GBWR is most certainly a RS, but its best to attribute in-text when using it to justify inclusion of contentious material. Such as, ''"According to GBWR, John Doe is the greatest actor alive"''. ] (]) 02:16, 29 April 2012 (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)
			: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)
			:::::I think we have enough info to verify that the source exits. That last website I linked clearly mentions a book by a historian named Dr. Abdul Karim with the title "History of Bangladesh". He wrote (according to the Google translation) "about forty books and about two hundred original research articles in Bengali and English" and "taught at Dhaka University from 1951 to 1966. In 1966, he joined the newly established History Department of Chittagong University." Regarding the author of that article, the website states "Author: Teacher, Department of History, Chittagong University zahidhistory¦gmail.com". The article is not from a blog, but from a Bengali newspaper: on which we have a wiki article, see ]. This website pretty much states the same but in English and calls Karim "an authority of the field of medieval Bengal could recognise from a distance if a mosque was from the Sultani or from the Mughal period". The publication list of the Chittagong website lists several works by Dr. Abdul Karim (though it only goes back until 2005): . Doing some further digging, I even found volume 1 of the book on Amazon. The book might be available at some universities in the US: . Google Scholar does have an entry for a book on Bengal 16th-century history by the historian Abdul Karim (even if not for the particular one you are looking for), see (and the internet archive appears to have a scan of that book). The University of Asia Pacific lists even more of his books. Banglapedia (which is written by scholars) might also help in verifying the content, see for example these entries: . ] (]) 17:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Actually, appears to be the Google Scholar entry on (the 1st volume of) the book in question. The title is just not "History of Bangladesh" but "History of Bengal". Google translation probably messed up. ] (]) 17:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] ==		== Sources for Chapel Hart ==
			Hi, I am currently reviewing a GA nomination for ]. I've never heard of the following sources currently being used nor can I find past discussions on them. As such, I would others' opinions on them.
	Is it a RS source to add or not to use in Misplaced Pages ? My edits are being removed.It is a Sri Lankan government website.] (]) 13:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
			*https://texasborderbusiness.com/chapel-hart-music-video-for-new-single-i-will-follow-premiered-by-cmt-on-friday-february-5th/
	:Wrong Vandalism by JohnCD in ]:Wrong It is from the Defense ministry website why cannot I use it.The title itself is LTTE's money talks again %252525252525257E%252525252525257E%252525252525257E%252525252525257E]%25252525252E Why cannot I add the truth.] (]) 13:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
			*https://drgnews.com/2022/09/19/darius-rucker-set-to-release-new-song-featuring-chapel-hart/
	::This user wants to add to the article ] the statement "Sri Lankan defence ministry state that it is funded by money from the ]", using as source the headline "LTTE's money talks again" from the article cited. The accusation may be ''implied'' by that heading, but it is not directly stated in the article, and per ] so serious an accusation requires better sourcing than that. ] (]) 14:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
			*https://www.southernliving.com/chapel-hart-danica-vocal-cord-surgery-6825847
	:Still not RS. Source does not support claim. Entire article (not surprisingly I suppose) reads like a promotional piece for the Sri Lankan government. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 14:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
			] (]) 22:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Apparently, the point at issue here is that Channel 4 aired a controversial documentary about the Sri Lankan civil war, in which it is alleged that war crimes (including extrajudicial killings of civilians) were committed not only by the Tamil Tigers (LTTE), but also by Sri Lankan government troops. There are numerous sources dealing with this (I won't list them here because anyone should be able to do a Google or Bing search, as I did just now, and find them), so there is definitely no valid reason to rely solely on sources that are clearly committed to the Sri Lankan government's position. Additionally, any description of this controversy would belong, not as part of the lead section, but in a later section of the ] article — possibly under a neutral heading something like "Sri Lankan civil war documentary controversy" — and per ], the discussion should fairly represent all major views substantiated by reliable sources, not simply present one view as "the truth". — ]] 16:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::I agree. The Sri Lankan government is a party in this dispute, and as such it cannot be used as a reliable source regarding the funding of Channel 4, but it can be used as a primary source regarding the views of the Sri Lankan government on the dispute. And this clearly does not belong in the lead, but rather, as Richwales has said, in a separate section dealing with the documentary controversy. --] (]) 11:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::The only role the primary sources would have is then in a supporting role to the secondary sources (showing what the Sri Lankan government propaganda says etc). ] (]) 12:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::I think you would have a hard time getting even that much use out of the article, since other than the title, all you've got in the article is that the government disagrees with the report from channel 4. Nowhere in the article does it talk about channel 4 recieving money from the LTTE. It quite simply does not support the statement "Sri Lankan defence ministry states that it is funded by money from the LTTE", which was the question here. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 14:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::This source is a frankly rather witless rant against Channel 4's documrntary which '''at not point''' makes any claim that Channel 4 is funded by the Tigers. Never. The only reference to money is in the headline - which might mean any number of things (that the Tigers can bribe witnesses to make false statements, or fund a lobbying campaign to get the attention of C4 etc etc). In fact that vacuousness of the "claim" in the headkline is of a piece with the general empty ranting about irrelevancies that constitutes the main article. ] (]) 11:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
	:Is the defence.Lk reliable.I want to add ] gets funds and about ] and about ] %2525257E%2525257E%2525257E%2525257E and also add some of them in sinhala wikipedia.] (]) 09:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
			:The Texas Border Business link (now dead but available from the Wayback Machine) is a press release, you can find the exact same wording elsewhere. So it would be reliable in a primary way, as it's from the band about the band.<br>Southern Living appears to be an established magazine, I don't see why it wouldn't be reliable.<br>The drgnews.com article appears to be another press release, as the wording is found in many other sites. Oddly though I can't access any of them, as I get blocked by cloudflare for some reason. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	::'''''At the very most,''''' I would say that Defence.lk may be a reliable source regarding the views of the Sri Lankan government. In a dispute involving Sri Lanka, anything said in Defence.lk is clearly going to reflect one side of the dispute, and thus anything from this source must be used with caution (and probably not just by itself, but only in combination with other sources giving a well-rounded picture of a given situation). If you are asking whether Defence.lk is "reliable" in the sense that a statement from Defence.lk can be used all by itself as an authoritative statement of an objective fact, I would say no, it is not "reliable" in that limited meaning of the word. — ]] 14:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
			::Thank you, I'll take this into consideration for my review. ] (]) 23:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Southern Living tends toward puffery, and I would avoid using them for controversial claims (although they mostly avoid making controversial claims anyway). I would accept an article by them as supporting notability. ] (]) 01:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::My assessment:
			::* The https://texasborderbusiness.com/ source isn't labeled as a press release. Overall, the site looks like a low-quality ] that lightly repackages any information they receive that they think would interest their readers (i.e., their advertising targets). Other sites label it a press release, and I'm sure these other sites are correct. That said, even if we treat it like a press release, press releases can be reliable for the sort of simple fact this one is being used to support.
			::* The DRG News source is labeled as being from '']'', which appears to be a media outlet/country music magazine. They ''might'' be part of https://www.cumulusmedia.com
			::* ] is a reliable source.
			::] (]) 20:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			== AllMovie ==
	::As for whether Defence.lk is acceptable as a source to be used in the Sinhala Misplaced Pages, you would need to ask this question there. Different language editions of Misplaced Pages are editorially independent, and the standards in place for the English Misplaced Pages may not necessarily be the same as the standards currently accepted in the Sinhala project. — ]] 14:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
			is an online movie database, currently listed under ] with other ] sites as "no consensus". The site has changed significantly over the past few years, and it's my opinion that we should either separate AllMovie and mark it as unreliable or expand the description to explain why it shouldn't be used.
	:::රණකාමි333 has asked me to reply here to the question "''Please let me know if it is okay to use Defense ministry website it or will you remove my edits.''" I think the answers above cover this well. I am not going to say "''You must not use it''" but your edits will be closely scrutinized and, on its own, it is unlikely to be acceptable as a source.
			] used to be a resource with professional reviews, as a sibling site to ] and ]. At some point, the site was acquired by Netaktion (] has a ). Since then, nearly all of the previous content has been removed. The current version is basically a ] ] of Misplaced Pages and Wikidata. They include a simple "Description by Misplaced Pages" label that doesn't meet the terms of our license, and they've republished on their site several articles that I myself have written, without proper attribution. Here's an example of what '']'' looked like , , and . The ratings on the site also appear unreliable, and somehow they manage to include star ratings for many ]s. Recent discussions about AllMovie have happened at ] and ].
	:::In addition to the points made above, I would point out that although Defence.lk is a Sri Lankan Defence Ministry site, the articles quoted from it are written in so violently polemical a tone that I seriously doubt whether what they say can be taken as the official view of the Sri Lankan Government. Take, for instance, their statement that David Miliband is an "''Incompetent neo-imperial meddler''" who "''tried to destroy Sri Lanka''". Defence.lk is not a good source for the statement "''David Miliband tried to destroy Sri Lanka''"; but I do not believe it is even a sufficient source for the statement "''The Government of Sri Lanka says DM tried to destroy SL.''"
			Because the content and editorial practices of AllMovie are now extremely different from AllMusic, I think we should create a separate entry for it and split off any discussions of the post-acquisition version of the site. The current AllMovie site should be considered unreliable, and any archived URLs from previous iterations of AllMovie would be still evaluated under ]. ] (]) 02:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::රණකාමි333, people who come here with a strong wish to push a particular point of view do not often go away happy. Please read ], ], ] and ]. ] (]) 20:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
			:Good catch, and I agree with your proposal. AllMovie's blog post , dated March 24, 2024, suggests that AllMovie's transition from independent content to Misplaced Pages mirror occurred around the beginning of 2024. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 02:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			:Good catch. Yes, I support this.-- ] (] &#124; ]) 23:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			I'd still be careful using Allmovie as a source for things such as ]. Even if they're archived links from pre 2024 as not only did they have the wrong DOB for some actors, but they've never provided any information on how the material is obtained or verified. Which is a huge red flag when it comes to using such pages as a reliable source for BLPs. Prior to 2024, the actor bios had a fact sheet at the bottom. Now if you can find some archived pages of actor bios from TVguide.com, it had the same stuff listed under "fast facts". Which makes it look like Allmovie was web scraping that information from other sites even back then. ] (]) 04:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	A discussion at ] has paused on the question of whether this book is a RS with respect to this paragraph about massacres committed by Muslims:
	<blockquote> These and other indignities have been regularly punctuated by organized massacres and pogroms: in Morocco (1728, 1790, 1875, 1884, 1980, 1903, 1912, 1848, 1952, and 1953), in Algeria (1805 and 1934), in Tunisia (1864, 1869, 1932, and 1967), in Persia (1839, 1867, and 1910), in Iraq (1828, 1936, 1937, 1941, 1946, 1948, 1967, and 1969), in Libya (1785, 1860, 1897, 1945, 1948, and 1967), in Egypt (1882, 1919, 1921, 1924, 1938-39, 1945, 1948, 1956, and 1967), in Palestine (1929 and 1936), in Syria (1840, 1945, 1947, 1948, 1949, and 1967), in Yemen (1947), etc.</blockquote>
			*If a site is pulling its content ''from'' Misplaced Pages, then it is not a reliable source ''for'' Misplaced Pages. Or in fewer words: ]. With sites like this we're obligated to check the sources that they provide for their content, and if we're going that far then we might as well just cite their sources and cut out the middleman. I would say ], but if they're also copying Misplaced Pages content and not properly attributing, then links to the site are ], and that puts them into blacklist territory.
	Here are some snippets from the wiki article ]:
			:Also, ''never'' use a site like this to cite a living person's date of birth. I've come across far too many examples of incorrect DOBs being added to Misplaced Pages bios, then subsequently repeated by an ostensibly reliable source, then later when someone tries to correct the info here other editors keep changing it back to the wrong date with a citation to the incorrect source. Things like this have real consequences for real people in the real world. We need to do better, and it's fine not to have a date when we don't know what the ''correct'' date is. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	* While Harris is "extremely critical of all religious faiths," he asserts that the doctrines of Islam are uniquely dangerous to civilization,<ref name="ill"/> stating that unlike ], ] "is not even remotely a religion of peace."<ref name="salon.com"/>
	* Suggesting that the ] and the '']'' incite Muslims to kill or subjugate ], and reward such actions with ] (including ]), Harris believes Islam is a religion of violence and political subjugation. He asserts that the ] argument of stating that the phenomenon of religious extremism is a consequence of fundamentalism in and of itself is false, and that many other religions such as ] have not experienced the same trends ] and ] have. Harris considers ], which he calls "] of ]dom", as taking the "sting out of death" and a source of peril.
			== MintPress News ==
	Here are some snippets from our own wiki article on the book.
	* In a review for '']'', the editor ] alleged that Harris had allowed his argument to become clouded by his personal politics and by his use of spiritual language.
	* Another review by David Boulton for '']'', also stopped short of a ringing endorsement, describing the book as containing "startling oversimplifications, exaggerations and elisions."<ref>David Boulton, 2005. "." ''New Humanist'', volume 120 number 2.</ref>
	* Writing for '']'', ] was largely encouraging but also expressed considerable reservations about Harris's political leanings, and revealed how he "began to choke" while reading the final chapter on ].
	* ], writing in '']'', quotes Harris as saying "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." Bunting comments, "his sounds like exactly the kind of argument put forward by those who ran the Inquisition." Quoting the same passage, ] ] asks, "ould there be a more dangerous proposition than ''that''?" and argues that the "anti-tolerance" it represents would "dismantle" the Jeffersonian wall between church and state.
	* Critical reviews from Muslims include '']'' by ].
			] was given rather short thrift at an , sending it straight to deprecation. The RFC was attended by 14 editors, 4 of which are now banned or blocked (and contributed 2 of the deprecation votes at the time), including Icewhiz. MPN is definitely strongly left-leaning and, would put it, "hyper-partisan", and this often leads to quite sensationalist headlines, but that is not strictly a reliability matter. The same tracker came out with a mixed reliability assessment of MPN. The main reliability concerns around MPN tend to revolve around the way in which it references and paraphrases other sources, which it does frequently. At the same time, it generally heavily attributes other sources, while not necessarily affirming them in its own voice. As the last commenter in the RFC noted, while they might not themselves use MPN, it was unclear if it reached the high bar sufficient to merit deprecation. I raise this largely because deprecation shouldn't be used casually, but only on those sources where the demonstration of the purveyance of misinformation is ironclad. ] (]) 11:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	Views gratefully received. ] (]) 18:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
			:As one of the participants in the {{rsnl|268|RfC: MintPress News|July 2019 RfC}}, my assessment that '']'' should be ] has not changed. I believe the evidence I listed is more than sufficient to justify deprecation. I have analyzed ''MintPress News''{{'s}} response to being deprecated, and due to its length, I will place my analysis in a separate subsection. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 17:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	: Hi Oncenawhile. That quote is very specific, and really only provides 2 things: 1) a list of dates and locations of Muslim violence, 2) the characterization of those events as "organized massacres and pogroms." What exactly is looking to be supported with that quote from ''The End of Faith''? Is it item 1), the catalog of Muslim violence that you question? If so, then are you suggesting that Sam Harris has lied, invented events that did not occur, and that the book was not fact-checked, and nobody has called this book into question on that? W. W. Norton, the publisher of the book, is top-tier and publishes a lot of college textbooks, and I would not expect that from them. The widespread notoriety of the book would certainly have attracted critics to look into questionable claims. My initial thought would be that this book is indeed a WP:RS for that catalog of Muslim violence. Is it item 2), whether it is acceptable to use this book as source for the common popular use of the word "pogrom"? I'd think it meets that as a WP:RS there too. ] (]) 19:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
			:As a non-participant in the 2019 discussion I would like to say that deprecation was the right choice and reliability issues only seem to have gotten worse since. Note that just republishing Zero Hedge would be enough to get them over the deprecation line even if all of their native work was beyond reproach (which it is not). ] (]) 18:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Exactly so. The book itself was both a best-seller and winner of the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award for First Nonfiction. While it (like most books) has received criticism, the issue here is not regarding the author's overall thesis, but rather on the very narrow question of whether the source is reliable for describing the specific events listed as "pogroms". ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
			:You drew on Ad Fontes Media's analyses in your comment, and AFM is itself considered generally unreliable on the RSP. It's also not accurate to say "The main reliability concerns around MPN tend to revolve around the way in which it references and paraphrases other sources," as can be seen if one clicks though to read all of the RfC comments. I have no direct experience with MintPress, but a bit of searching pulls up info like "According to experts, MintPress news is a disinformation site with opaque funding streams run out of Minneapolis that aligns with the Kremlin’s view of a “multipolar world” and often promotes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. MintPress News has been reprinting copy from Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik since 2016" ( from the ] in 2021), and the ] article cites a number of other sources with similar claims. What's your evidence that they've become reliable? ] (]) 18:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::How can being a best seller suggest reliability? ] was a best seller in its day! And the extreme position of this author is reminiscent of that... ] (]) 04:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
			::Reprinting copy from other websites doesn't automatically or implicitly make any of the content that MPN produces inherently unreliable. It might seem distasteful to republish material from insalubrious sites, but as long as it is clearly labelled, reprinting is all it is. Anything from other sites that we wouldn't use we still don't use if it's syndicated elsewhere. ] (]) 18:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Mein Kampf is absolutely a superbly excellent reliable source (although a primary source) if an article makes an assertion that Hitler expressed a religious basis for his atrocities, and you support it with a cite from Mein Kampf like the quote "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." It ''always matters'' what assertion you are trying to support. Please answer the original question back to you: What assertion is trying to be supported here? Once we have BOTH the questioned assertion and the source used, only then can we make a determination. ] (]) 13:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
			:::If they regularly reprint news from unreliable sources, yes, that does contribute to their being GUNREL, as it tells us that they have no commitment to accuracy. You've also ignored the rest of the quote and the info in the references on the MintPress article. ] (]) 19:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::Mein Kampf is a suitable source for the opinions of Hitler as you say. The End of Faith is a suitable source for the opinions of Sam Harris. Are the opinions of an anti-religious polemicist neuroscientist significant on the subject of Islamic history? probably not. Is a polemical publication by said neuroscientist suitable for the verification of facts in the wiki voice relating to Islamic history? Definitely not, in my opinion. ] (]) 14:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
			::::I'm not sure the NCRI is an RS or a source worth taking cues from. There are journal pieces on the MPN page that are more reliable and insightful. ] (]) 20:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::It's still a viable argument that the book could be a reliable source for the particular list of dates and locations for Muslim violence based on the fact that the book was released as non-fiction plus the strength and reputation of W. W. Norton for fact-checking. Misplaced Pages's basic policy for determining whether something can be considered a WP:RS is "Is the source open to review, does the source fact-check?" and W. W. Norton does fact-check. But before we even go down that road, the whole discussion of whether the Harris quote can be used as a reliable source to support ''something'' might be moot if the ''something'' isn't even dependent on this. So, back to the original question, what assertion is this Harris quote being used to support? ] (]) 14:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
			:::::I'm not going to spend time convincing you that it's reliable. If you find the other sources' critiques to be reliable, then use those. The bottom line is: you question whether it should have been deprecated, but you haven't presented any convincing evidence that it should instead be assessed as generally unreliable. ] (]) 20:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::Hi Zad, the assertion it is being used to support is the characterisation of all the historical events in the quote at the top of this discussion as "pogroms". If you read some of the better sources at ], and some of those currently being debated at ], you'll see that, because the term "pogrom" is loaded with implications, there is a great deal of scholarly debate over what type of events can be categorised as such (although none of the above events feature in the specialist scholarly works on pogroms). It is clear from the reviews of his book listed above that Harris's political pov has influenced his work. So it is not much of a stretch to imagine that Harris could choose to be somewhat "generous" in his apportionment of loaded words like "pogrom" to incidents where Muslims people were recorded to have killed those of other religions. It supports his central thesis that Islam is an evil religion. ] (]) 23:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
			::Also, I don't believe that I've actually claimed anywhere that they've become reliable. I have merely raised questions about their deprecation. ] (]) 18:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::::Regarding your example of ''Mein Kampf'', please review ] and ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 10:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
			:::Isn't that obvious from the fact that you opened this? You are currently contesting the consensus on reliability for MintPress News. The alternative would be that you are engaging in a form of "I'm just asking questions" ]-esque trolling and I think everyone is trying to AGF. ] (]) 19:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	: On the face of it, the book looks like exactly the sort of unreliable polemic that the rules are supposed to exclude. The author is a neuroscientist with a very strong political stance against religion. Nothing wrong with that, but on what grounds is such a person citable for historical events? Zad68's argument doesn't hold water; there are libraries worth of books out there full of complete rubbish that nobody has bothered refuting. In the case of this list of alleged events, Harris says that he got it from books of Wistrich (who is biased but meets ]) and Dershowitz (who is an absolutely unreliable activist). ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
			::::I'm questioning the deprecation. I'm not arguing it is not GUNREL. ] (]) 20:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	::The article ] can be written quite easily since, as anyone may verify at google books, there is an extensive library of academic works by specialists on the phenomenon. Twice now, poor sources, firstly the , which is a far right political think tank, and now Sam Black's book have been used to to document data that are not present (so far) in academic works. As Zero states, Sam Black's book is non-specialist and does not distinguish between good or bad sources in its synthesis. The question is, why the push to use poor sources, when excellent sources abound? The answer probably is, because some editors like that data, and will bend the RS ropes to get it into articles. ] (]) 14:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
			:::::The deprecation looks appropriate to me, especially based on @]'s comments below. ] (]) 16:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::So Nishidani, rather than discuss sources, you'd prefer to use the Reliable Source Noticeboard to speculate and make assumptions about editors' motivations? Please review ], ] and ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 10:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
			:::::That you for clarifying, that isn't at all clear from your initial post. ] (]) 18:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::A far better better page would be one that includes history books discussing individual pogroms rather than a list of years. This would seem a better bit of information to include in Harris' page, not as a raw dump of information in ] (in fact, ] would be most appropriate). The book is ''reliable'', particularly or mostly for Harris' opinion, but I would say it is not ''appropriate'' for this use. May I suggest using the dates and locations to try to find more appropriate works to verify the specific incidents? It would add more information to the page, using better sources, which seems like a win-win. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 14:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
			:::::I really don't understand the objection to deprecating the source then. Sources are not deprecated because they're more unreliable than GUNREL, the "high bar" for deprecation after something is found generally unreliable is "people think it might be a problem". ] (] • ]) 04:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::I agree. Supporting references from actual historians would be much more credible. ] (]) 23:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
			:(Also not part of the original RFC) Looking at what was brought up in the RFC and at the site itself, I think the RFC had the right result. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Robert Wistrich has been suggested as a source, and apparently Harris uses him as one of his sources. Zero0000, what does Harris say? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 10:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
			:I wasn't involved in last RFC, but I will vote to deprecate if you start another one. The front page is nothing but conspiracy theories, and reading through some articles it has a really strange tendency to cite Russian thinktanks and commentators who are never mentioned by any other English-language outlet. ] (]) 23:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::: He just says he compiled the list of events from Wistrich "Oldest Prejudice" and Dershowitz "Case for Israel". No indication which event is from which source, or how the source described them. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
			:The central motivation seems for revisiting to be that {{Tq|the RFC was attended by 14 editors, 4 of which are now banned or blocked}}. People become blocked or banned all the time down the line for transgressions unrelated to particular discussions—when that happens, it does not void their prior contributions. If these users were in good standing at the time of the RfC, and weren't evading a block/ban at the time of the discussion, I don't really see why this motivates a change. And, the close seems to be a reasonable reading of the discussion.
	::::::If Harris is relying on a source that we would not regard as reliable for the material (i.e Dershowitz) surely we must conclude that Harris is also not reliable for the material. ] (]) 13:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
			:Has the general reputation of the source improved since 2019? If so, there could be some evidence of this that would be useful here. I haven't searched for any, but I also haven't seen it brought up in this discussion. And unless there's good evidence that the source has improved its editorial processes/fact-checking reputation in some way since the prior discussion, I don't really see a need to reassess at this time—we'd probably wind up with the same result.
	As others have said, this source ''could'' be regarded as reliable. Are there any "pogroms" the author lists that editors would question were really pogroms? --] (]) 10:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
			:— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 01:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:This is going to be about as reliable as any mainstream source - that is, not by an academic publisher (and Norton's is a quasi-academic publisher, and highly respected, like Blackwell or John Wiley and Sons or Routledge), nor in a scholarly journal - is going to be. He has a well known anti-theistic and anti-religious bias, but he's not being used to support statements of fact on the nature of religion, which could only go so far as to say "Harris's opinion on X is..." (as much as any other religious author). He's being used to cite a list of facts, and that's the kind of stuff that is screened out by a reliable publishing process. He's generally well-regarded, even if he lost his debate with William Lane Craig, and theists (such as myself: I was a partisan of Hitchens, the only worthwhile one of the "Four Horsemen", who happened to be the one riding on a pale green horse; he had more philosophical sense as a journalist than supposed professional philosopher Dennett has as a professor) tend to loathe him. ]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 23:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
			::Has the reputation improved since 2019? Just looking at the post-2019 RSs cited in its own article.
	::The paragraph from Harris' book in which this is quoted is an attempt to prove that Muslims have not lived peacefully alongside other religions. I have added the immediately preceding sentence above "In parts of the Arab world it has been a local custom for Muslim children to throw stones at Jews and spit upon them" for context.
			::*{{tq|The only journalists who thrive in Syria today are those who serve as mouthpieces for the Syrian and Russian regimes. Many of these mouthpieces include American-based, far-left websites such as The Grayzone and MintPress News. Idrees Ahmed, an editor at global affairs magazine New Lines, says such friendly foreign media, even if obscure and dismissed by the mainstream, has “made the job of propaganda easier for .”}}
	::As to Dweller's question, yes there are many that I would question his definition for (if you look them up, most sources do not refer to them as pogroms, and whether they were "organized" is rarely established). The problem though is that the word "pogrom" can be used loosely or strictly, and different people understand it in different ways. That's what we're trying to work through at the RfC on ]. ] (]) 07:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
			::*{{tq|While instances of mass amplification of state-engendered disinformation are cause for concern, equal attention should be paid to the less visible but still vociferous ‘alternative facts’ communities that exist online... These grassroots communities are particularly evident on Twitter, where they coalesce around individual personalities like right-wing activist Andy Ngo, and around platforms with uncritical pro-Kremlin and pro-Assad editorial lines, like The Grayzone and MintPress News. These personalities and associated outlets act as both producers of counterfactual theories, as well as hubs around which individuals with similar beliefs rally. The damage that these ecosystems and the theories that they spawn can inflict on digital evidence is not based on the quality of the dis/misinformation that they produce but rather on the quantity.}}
			::*{{tq| Its bestknown article—falsely claiming a chemical weapons attack in Syria had actually been perpetrated by rebel groups rather than the Assad regime—was cited as evidence by Syria, Iran, and Russia, though it turned out to have been reported by a man in Syria who at times appears to have been based in St. Petersburg and Tehran.493 When staff asked who funded their paychecks, they were told it was “retired business people.”494 The hidden nature of the funding caused some staff enough discomfort that former employees cited it as their reason for leaving Mint Press.495 Local journalists have tried and failed to figure out where Mint Press’s money comes from.49}}}
			::*{{tq|The next five domains (rt.com, mintpressnews.com, sputniknews.com, globalresearch.ca, southfront.org) are alternative media domains that spread master narratives in the Russia’s disinformation campaign.}}
			::*{{tq|Mintpress has been accused of promoting anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and also regularly pushes pro-Russian propaganda, most notably the unfounded claim that a 2013 chemical weapon attack in Syria that killed more than 1,400 people was perpetrated not by the Syrian regime but by rebel groups with weapons supplied by Saudi Arabia. Mintpress News, alongside The Grayzone, which Maté writes for, has continued to publish Russian-backed narratives that the Syrian regime has been framed for further chemical weapon attacks during the years-long war in the country. The sources of both websites’ funding are unknown.}}
			::*{{tq|Some of the American Herald Tribune’s articles did survive in other parts of the echo system. Seventeen of them had been cross-posted on the website of Mint Press News, which had similar sharing arrangements with several other “partner” websites including Project Censored, Free Speech TV, Media Roots, Shadow Proof, The Grayzone, Truthout, Common Dreams and Antiwar.com... The only time Mint Press made much impact (though for the wrong reasons) was in 2013 appeared to be based on rumors circulating in Damascus at the time, and there was no real evidence to support it... Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov cited the story as evidence that the U.N.’s investigators in Ghouta had not done a thorough job.}}
			::*{{tq|Researchers at the Rutgers University Network Contagion Research Institute found his work on a number of sites they classify as disinformation, including Mint Press News, which the institute said promotes anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and which also posts copy from Russia Today and Sputnik, the Russian state-owned news agency.}}
			::*{{tq|The thirteen fake accounts identified by Facebook were promoting the ] website. To build a reputation as an alternative media (progressive and anti-Western) and attract contributors, Peace Data, created at the end of 2019, initially relayed articles from other existing protest media, such as MintPress News or World Socialist Website, or openly pro-Kremlin, Strategic Culture Foundation, The GrayZone or Russia Today.}}
			::*{{tq|On five occasions, Peace Data published articles that it listed as “partners.” Between August 11 and August 19, the website published two articles each from Citizen Truth and MintPressNews.}}
			::So, no, it's reputation hasn't improved.     ] (]) 13:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Also not a participant in the original RfC, but concur with those above that it ended with the correct result. Not seeing any conclusive evidence to the contrary, especially given Ad Fontes is itself not considered reliable per ]. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 16:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I wasn't a participant in the original RfC. I think the RfC should be relisted, as I don't think MPN deprecation was warranted, if anything, I'd support an "Additional considerations apply" designation. ] (]) 08:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Saint Thomas Christians - Community status and cultural identity ==
			=== ''MintPress News''{{'s}} response to being deprecated ===
	Source : Rajendra Prasad: A Historical-developmental study of classical Indian philosophy of morals - pp. 475-491, ISBN 81-8069-595-6 : The section related to ] is authored by C.D Sebastian. Is it reliable a reliable source for the information regarding social status and cultural identity of the community? --''''']''''' ] 11:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
			In July 2019, ''MintPress News'' published {{small|()}} after discovering that they were deprecated. The response falsely claimed that all of my comments in {{rsnl|268|RfC: MintPress News|the July 2019 RfC}} were written by another editor (<ins>{{np|Jamez42}} – misspelled as</ins> {{!xt|"Jamesz42"}}), and then attacked that editor for writing {{xt|"several English-language Misplaced Pages articles on ] of ] politicians as well as on ] and ] who are aligned with Popular Will"}} in a misguided attempt to discredit the author of the RfC comments. However, since those RfC comments were written by me and not by Jamez42, all ''MintPress News'' did was demonstrate their own lack of accuracy and poor fact-checking in their response.{{pb}}One of the pieces of evidence I cited in the RfC was ''MintPress News''{{'s}} most recent "inside story" at the time, , an article that used false information to promote a ] about ]. The original ''MintPress News'' piece claimed:
			{{qb|align=none|Similarly, Microsoft’s that it “will not charge for using ElectionGuard and will not profit from partnering with election technology suppliers that incorporate it into their products” should also raise eyebrows. Considering that Microsoft has of predatory practices, including , its offering of ElectionGuard software free of charge is tellingly out of step for the tech giant and suggests an ulterior motive behind Microsoft’s recent philanthropic interest in "defending democracy."}}
			Above, ''MintPress News'' linked the term '']'' ("increasing the prices of goods, services, or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair by some") to that described Microsoft engaging in ] ("the use of large scale undercutting to eliminate competition") with its ] software. ''MintPress News'' then used that incorrect reading to push their conspiracy theory about Microsoft's ] software. A reliable source would retract this article after discovering such a prominent flaw in the logic of their argument, but as they mentioned in their reaction piece, ''MintPress News'' doubled down by removing the reference to OneCare altogether and pretending that evidence against its conspiracy theory did not exist. In the {{small|()}}, ''MintPress News'' replaced {{!xt|"including "}} with {{xt|"including "}}, with the term ''price gouging'' now linking to another article about a different piece of software (]).{{pb}}In my RfC comments, I also noted that ''MintPress News'' republished 340 articles from {{rspe|Zero Hedge|]|d}}, a source deprecated for frequently publishing conspiracy theories and false information. Despite acknowledging this in their reaction piece, ''MintPress News'' did not take down the Zero Hedge articles from their website. Instead, ''MintPress News'' has since changed their site design to remove the counter for the Zero Hedge articles. The articles are still published on their site, and can be found in a web search using the following query: .{{pb}}Everything I have mentioned here only concerns my comments in the previous RfC and how ''MintPress News'' responded to them. Additional evidence against this publication's reliability can be found in the article '']''. Altogether, I see no reason to change ''MintPress News''{{'s}} status as a deprecated source. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 17:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC) {{small|Corrected username —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			:I'm not sure how MPN issuing a correction admitting their error on that article you mention particularly stands against them. The article also links to a piece by ] (an RSP) that ''does'' discuss price gouging. You may feel that their error undermines the entire premise of the article, but whether or not that is true, the actual necessary correction was published. That is not the usual behaviour of a deprecated source, or even many GUNREL sources. Also, one article does not a good GUNREL argument make. Even the best GREL sources put out the occasional truly atrocious piece. The bar for GUNREL, let alone deprecation, is to show that the issues are systematic and unrectified. ] (]) 18:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Looks RS to me (although I'd rather have a specific statement to apply the source to). While Prasad's expertise might have been called into question, it appears that C.D. Sebastian has published over 80 papers/books all in the area of Indian religious history/philosophy/ethics, and teaches several courses as an Associate Professor of Philosophy at a university in India. The information comes from him, not from Prasad. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 15:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
			:Re: Zero Hedge, they do not masquerade any of that content as their own. On the contrary, each article has a disclaimer stating: {{tq|"Stories published in our Daily Digests section are chosen based on the interest of our readers. They are republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News. The views expressed in these articles are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy."}} And as far as I can tell they have republished or syndicated nothing from ZH since 2019. The editorial detachment is key. I could name several GREL news sites that frequently publish truly psychotic opinion pieces, but which have no bearing on their reliability because of statements just like or similar to this. ] (]) 18:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: MPN's response was wholly inadequate. What MPN should have done was retract its conspiracy theory article entirely, instead of deleting the evidence contradicting it and continuing to push the conspiracy theory. While Microsoft does employ a range of pricing strategies for different products in different markets, MPN intentionally ignoring all of Microsoft's situational use of ] to allege an {{!xt|"ulterior motive"}} based on Microsoft's situational use of ] is misleading. As for Zero Hedge, ''MintPress News''{{'s}} rampant republication of conspiracy theories from Zero Hedge does demonstrate general unreliability; the ] policy states that questionable sources {{xt|"include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion"}}, which covers Zero Hedge content. The inclusion of Zero Hedge content places MPN's editorial judgment into question, as no reputable news website would publish that kind of conspiracy theory material. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 18:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Reprinting external content isn't MPN {{tq|"expressing views"}}. And I'm sure you've looked into the Microsoft story properly, but do you have a source labelling the MPN story as a conspiracy theory? We normally judge sources based on what other sources say about them, not purely on what we think about them. And that's still just one story. ] (]) 18:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::When MPN republishes hundreds of Zero Hedge articles containing conspiracy theories and false information, MPN is expressing the view that such content is suitable to be presented on their website alongside MPN's original content. This kind of poor judgment damages MPN's {{xt|"reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"}} and brings MPN's overall reliability into question. Additionally, this is exacerbated by the fact that MPN directly cites Zero Hedge articles for factual claims in MPN's original reporting (examples: ).{{pb}}As a ] website with a ] rank of , MPN is not popular enough of a publication for most of its content to receive a response from fact checkers and reliable publications. An MPN article not being fact-checked by a reliable source does not mean that the MPN article is valid, particularly when MPN acknowledges that there is evidence contradicting their article and then chooses to delete the evidence to retain the article's narrative. My comments in {{rsnl|268|RfC: MintPress News|the 2019 RfC}} also include quotes of multiple reliable sources describing the quality of MPN content in negative terms, including an excerpt of ]'s book that debunks MPN's promotion of the ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 20:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Regarding your first link , the article is relating/quoting this report from the OPCW: https://www.opcw.org/media-centre/news/2018/07/opcw-issues-fact-finding-mission-reports-chemical-weapons-use-allegations
			:::::Similarly, the rest of your links are articles about others' reporting. You say they directly cite Zero Hedge articles, but Zero Hedge seems to be just one of the sites they quote, in addition to Politico, Salon, New Yorker, Washington Post, and so on. ] (]) 14:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Each of these links shows MPN using Zero Hedge as a source for a factual claim:
			::::::* : MPN quotes Zero Hedge's claim regarding the contents of a primary source, with no additional comment regarding the quote.
			::::::* : MPN publishes Zero Hedge's claim regarding the relationship between two political entities.
			::::::* : MPN publishes Zero Hedge's claim regarding U.S. political spending.
			::::::* : MPN publishes Zero Hedge's estimate of legal fees regarding a political matter.
			::::::* : MPN publishes Zero Hedge's claim regarding the actions of politicians.
			::::::Because {{rspe|Zero Hedge|]|d}} is a source that was deprecated for repeatedly publishing ] and false information, MPN's use Zero Hedge for factual claims on numerous occasions and MPN's republication of hundreds of Zero Hedge articles both contribute to MPN being a ]. MPN using sources other than Zero Hedge does not excuse MPN's use of Zero Hedge for factual claims. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 04:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC) {{small|Fixed link to article #2 again —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 22:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			:::::::<u>Article #1</u> It also links and quotes from the original report/primary source that anyone can check, it doesn't rely on Zero Hedge alone.
			:::::::<u>Article #2</u> It is the same link as Article #3
			:::::::<u>Article #3</u> It cites Zero Hedge on campaign contributions, something that can be checked and verified, as those records are public.
			:::::::<u>Article #4</u> But it does say "estimate", rather than treating it as an absolute and factual value, it is simply relating what ZeroHedge has estimated. The article does not rely on Zero Hedge reporting, but includes
			:::::::<u>Article #5</u> It also links to the Washington Post article that Zero Hedge is using, not relying on Zero Hedge alone for the claim.
			:::::::I don't think MPN is an unreliable source, it doesn't satisfy: {{tq|"have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest."}} Furthermore, it doesn't satisfy the other part of the policy: {{tq|"websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion."}}
			:::::::Citing Zero Hedge once per article, for claims that can be idependently verified, among many other sources that are WP:RS isn't enough to deprecate MPN. ] (]) 08:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::: I've fixed the second link to match my previous comment. Citing Zero Hedge for factual claims is like citing {{rspe|Infowars|'']''|d|y}}; a publication that uncritically cites websites known primarily for publishing conspiracy theories and false information for factual claims in numerous articles, even if done once per article, damages its {{xt|"reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"}}. Trying to push for the use of a source that repeatedly republishes factual claims from conspiracy theory websites is in violation of the ].{{pb}}My comments in the {{rsnl|268|RfC: MintPress News|the 2019 RfC}} do not even mention MPN using Zero Hedge for factual claims in MPN's original articles; my comments noted MPN republishing hundreds of Zero Hedge articles, quote multiple reliable sources criticizing the MPN constant promotion of conspiracy theories, and identify MPN's use of false information to push a conspiracy theory in their most recent "inside story" at the time – all of which contributed to the consensus to deprecate MPN as a questionable source. MPN citing Zero Hedge for factual claims in MPN's original content further worsens its reliability. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 14:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Article #2 cites Zero Hedge for the following: {{tq|"ZeroHedge estimated that the ensuing gerrymandering lawsuits will net Covington millions in legal fees, especially considering that Holder will be directing the filing of all such lawsuits on behalf of Democrats."}} How is that a relationship between two political parties? The article states "ZeroHedge estimated" rather than saying anything with certainty.
			:::::::::Does MPN rely ''heavily'' on Zero Hedge in its original content? I don't think so, because it uses it as one of many sources.
			:::::::::That is why I don't think deprecation is appropriate, rather "additional restrictions apply" as in MPN shouldn't be relied on claims that come only from ZeroHedge. ] (]) 15:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::If it were just the Zero Hedge thing I might see where you're coming from but @] demonstrated above that the outlet has a bad reputation for fact checking and accuracy all on their own. ] (]) 15:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::The has been copied over to the comment. MPN published: {{!xt|"However, an anonymous writer on ZeroHedge, an economic news website, noted on Nov. 30 that while Bilal Erdoğan in his tankers, 'we’ve yet to come across conclusive evidence of Bilal’s connection to .'"}} Here, MPN uses an assertion posted by {{xt|"an anonymous writer"}} from conspiracy theory website ] to make a claim about two political entities (] and ]). Doing this is like publishing {{!xt|"According to ] of '']''..."}} for a claim unrelated to Jones or ''Infowars'', which immediately throws the claim into question due to the poor reputation of the source. A source degrades its own reliability by repeatedly using another questionable source in this way for multiple topics on numerous occasions; the five linked articles are only a small sample.{{pb}}Your comment seems to be ignoring how MPN's use of Zero Hedge for factual claims is only one of many reasons that MPN was deprecated; reliable sources have shown that MPN also publishes a cornucopia of conspiracy theories that MPN created by themselves, a common characteristic of ] that become deprecated on Misplaced Pages. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 23:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Mint has a poor reputation for checking the facts so that first one is satisfied (notice how is an "or" not an and so fulfilling any of the conditions satisfies it). They also express view widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Did you not pay attention to any of the discussion besides the bits that were convenient for you? ] (]) 21:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I see the MPN response included a couple of paragraphs about me, in which almost all the things they say are demonstrably inaccurate even from the links they provide (they attribute a quote to me which is obviously not me, and seem to claim I call al-Nusra "moderate" by linking to a sandbox page here which says pretty much the opposite). I voted 3/4 in the RfC, but on the basis of this response I'd have no problem coming down in favour of 4. ] (]) 12:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			* I don't think I was involved in the 2019 discussion - at least I don't remember being involved in it - but based on the information above it seems like Mint Press is being appropriately deprecated as a source of misinformation. I'd love to see a Misplaced Pages with a broader range of reliable left-wing sources but the key word there is ''reliable'' and this... this is clearly not. ] (]) 13:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Youtube Videos (Livings Persons biographies) ==
	::The context: To balance a primary information in ] : ] uses a quote of 19th century to infer the relative status of different ]s in Kerala. I think, it's a primary information and also an unbalanced view. Hence introduced a new point as follows:
	::"''The inference of relative social position specifically between ''Syrian Christians'' and ''Nairs'' from the above quote is ambiguous as many other historians mention that the Syrian Christians used to go for a ritual bath after physical contact with even ''Nairs''.''<ref>Centre for Studies in Civilizations (Delhi, India) - A Historical-Developmental Study of Classical Indian Philosophy of Morals, Concept Publishing Company, 2009, ISBN 8180695956, p.484</ref><ref>The Asiatic journal and monthly register for British and foreign India, China and Australasia, Volume 13, the Bavarian State Library, p.237</ref><ref>Journal of Kerala studies, Volume 2 - University of Kerala., 1975, p.25</ref>"
	::But, it was reverted by Sitush, reintroduced by me, and subsequently a discussion challenging the reliability of sources was started here: ]. Many more sources (some listed below) were cited, but all of them are being challenged.Sitush argues that Saint Thomas Christians or Syrian Christians were outside the caste system, but hasn't provided any sources to support his view.
	::*Harold Coward - Hindu-Christian Dialogue: Perspectives and Encounters
	::*Benedict Vadakkekara - Origin of Christianity in India: A Historiographical Critique
	::*Duncan B. Forrester -Collected Writings on Christianity, India, and the Social Order
	::So I decided to seek help from this forum. Your guidance in this matter would be highly helpful for further improvement to the articles related to Caste System and Saint Thomas Christians --''''']''''' ] 08:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::AshLey is misrepresenting the sourcing issues, and is also being challenged by someone else for similar problematic edits on ]. What I said was . This is not the best forum for resolving a content dispute. - ] (]) 10:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::Sitush, If you don't have any concern regarding the reliability of information from these sources, I'm quite free to use them for citation and we don't have any issues in this regard. Here, we are discussing the reliability issue only; your concerns on typography, misprint etc of the sources also could be discussed here. Issues related to the content of wiki-article are separate; if needed, we could discuss in related forum.''''']''''' ] 12:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::No., you are fudging the issue. This matter should never have been brought to this board in the first place because it is irrelevant to this board. Now, please, take it somewhere useful. I have explained what the problem is, and it is nothing to do with Sebastian's authority (which I explicitly stated was not at issue). - ] (]) 13:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
			a couple of months ago i had added a source to a driver which sthe said driver had specifically states something i had added to his wikipedia at it got removed by a user due to the fact that to him it was not reliable and i was just wondering if they are reliable. i was told by other wiki users that was acceptable to use as it was the driver himself who said it in the video making it a direct source and if not i would like an explanation as the user when asked did not respond when asked and probably will not respond ] (]) 17:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	== NASSP blogpost ==
			:In general YouTube video's are not reliable, as they are self-published sources and few of them are by {{tq|"an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."}}, see ].<br>However there is an exception if the self-published work is by the subject themselves and is part of a limited set of conditions, see ]. You haven't included any details so I can't say for certain if it would be reliable in your specific situation, as it may or may not be allowed by ABOUTSELF. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	An important part of a dispute at ] is regarding this source: (Mel Riddile, "PISA: It's Poverty Not Stupid", December 15, 2010, NASSP blogs). Is it a reliable source? ] argues that it is and wants to include some of the claims such as a comparison between share of US students in schools getting reduced or free school lunch and share of populations in different nations under ]. See the section here, currently including the blog post material: . It contains the text "The table below summarizes the scores of American schools by their relative poverty rates and compares them to countries with similar poverty rates" as well as a table. It is sourced to the Mel Riddile blog post which makes the strange comparison between getting a free or reduced price lunch and different national poverty lines. (There is also a strange link to some Finnish language data table which is not mentioned by Mel Riddile and does not mention PISA. Seems to be some form OR.) I argue that the Mel Riddile material is not a reliable source. It is a blogpost at '''nasspblogs'''. It is not written by a scholar. Some of the arguments in the blog post are reliable since they cite this source: which in turn seems to be citing this source: (Page 15). However, these sources do not make a strange comparison between between getting reduced or free school lunch and national poverty lines. No sources are given for the statistics. ] can be defined in many different ways and are often not compatible with one another since different nations use different criteria. ] (]) 22:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
			::Ah i see thank you
	:The top of the page is waaay up there now, so you may have missed the suggested format here:
			::Even though the subject was part of the interview I believe myself it would not be reliable as it's a motorsport related podcast and even though the youtube channel also has a website which has been referenced in other articles I believe the youtube channel would not be reliable unless otherwise notified ] (]) 19:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::It depends what the statement is. If the driver says something like 'I'm 23 years old" that's a good enough source. If the driver says "Castrol Oil is superior to every other oils out there" while also being sponsored by Castrol, then no.
			:::For Youtube channel, they are as reliable as their owners/parent company. A NASA video hosted on NASA's youtube channel is as reliable as anything else produced by NASA. A rocketry video hosted by ], not so much for anything but uncontroversial statements about Bob. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 04:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			==Sports reports - Mixed Martial Arts==
	:Before posting a question regarding the reliability of a source, please keep in mind that reliability is often dependent upon context (that is, on exactly how you are using the source). You will get a faster and more useful response if you include:
			A senior "editor" recently reverted some of my posts. I posted sources from https://mma.bg/ - It is a Bulgarian MMA news site. The website began in 2008 - https://mma.bg/pages/mission. The previous website was www.mmabg.com as seen here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210601000000*/www.mmabg.com. There is a lot of dicussion on ] sources when it comes to reports of UFC fights. The general rule is if the bout is listed on the official page, for example: https://www.ufc.com/event/ufc-fight-night-february-01-2025, then, we can put it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/UFC_Fight_Night:_Adesanya_vs._Imavov. But if it is not on the UFC page, we put the bouts on "Announced bouts" based on independent reports. The UFC Events page takes time to update.
	#A full citation of the source in question. For example Strickland, D.S. and Worth, B.S. (1980) "Books for the children" Early Childhood Education Journal 8 (2): 58--60.
	#A link to the source in question. For example <nowiki></nowiki>
	#The article in which it is being used. For example <nowiki>]</nowiki>
	#The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting. For example <nowiki><blockquote>text</blockquote></nowiki>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".
	#Links to relevant talk page discussion. See diffs for an explanation.
			The thing is an editor only accepts reports from websites other than UFC/ESPN (ESPN is the channel that broadcasts UFC), but if the UFC posts a column saying there is a new bout, I feel the report is sufficient to be put on the Misplaced Pages page, since it is merely reporting the company's scheduled bout. Only within hours, other independent news sites would use the official post from the UFC in their reports.
	:<nowiki>#</nowiki>4 is the key there. It isn't very important to say who the other editors involved are, I'm sure it can be figured out from the talk page. While some explanation of the situation may be specifically required, if all your reasoning is already on the talk page, there's not a lot of reason to re-post it here, at least, imo. Anyone else, feel free to disagree. Largely the issue for me here is scale, I can't give you a yes/no for multiple assumptions at once, pick one? It's only an observation of mine, but the shorter and simpler your question is, the more replies you get here. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
	::Updated my post. To clarify, see the section here . It contains the text "The table below summarizes the scores of American schools by their relative poverty rates and compares them to countries with similar poverty rates" as well as a table. It is sourced to the Mel Riddile blog post which makes the strange comparison between getting a free or reduced price school lunch and different national poverty lines. There is also a strange link to some Finnish language data table which is not mentioned by Mel Riddile and which does not mention PISA. Seems to be some form OR. ] (]) 23:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::Well totally off-topic, but first of all, regarding the "NASSP" cell in your table, using bare URLs as citations is definitely frowned upon by the MOS (see ] and {{tl|cite web}}), it should be inside a <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag too, and it should be outside the table, but I digress...
	:::Reading the nasspblogs article, it seems good, and the author seems to know what he's talking about, but go to http://nasspblogs.org and you instantly see the problem. This site is not RS. Why has someone not found the direct statements of Tirozzi and used those? They may be exactly as reported by nasspblogs, but that does not make nasspblog RS. nasspblogs and a few other sites seem to have found quotes from Tirozzi's statements, so we should be able to find them too. I took 5 minutes, seems to be what you were all looking for, although I didn't see Mexico mentioned, or a couple of others. The actual report is somewhere at , it looks like a little more digging is required. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 15:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::Also, having "NASSP" indicated as the source is false, it's NASSPblogs. NASSP.org does seem like it would be generally RS, so that gives a false impression at best. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 15:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::And just to really muddy the waters here, I'll throw out for other editors. I do not have a problem with Dr. Riddile, or Mr. Tirozzi, only with NASSPblogs.org. I think there must be better places to find this source. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 15:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Tirozzi's arguments are here: . While he does not it say it outright he seems in turn to be quoting this source: (Page 15). However, neither of these sources make a comparison between poverty rates and getting a free lunch at school. This is the main claim by Riddile which I object to. It is a very dubious comparison since national poverty rates vary from country to country since poverty is defined differently in different countries. ] (]) 18:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::I think you mean page 23, 15 is "intentionally left blank". Tirozzi's arguments don't include Mexico (for example), I think I referenced that page in my previous comments, it doesn't give you a source for all of that chart. If you do a search in the document you linked, you'll find on page 30 that it does actually talk about lunches and grades. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 00:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::Page 15 (as numbered at the bottom of the page) which has as section called "School Socioeconomic Contexts". Probably page 30 by your count. Yes, it talks about lunch and grades. Which Tirozzi also does. But there is no comparison between getting a free lunch and different national poverty rates of the kind Riddile makes in his blogpost. This is a very strange comparison. Getting a free lunch is not comparable to the many different definitions of official poverty which vary by nation. For example, in some countries everyone gets a free lunch in school. This does not mean everyone is poor. Tirozzi makes no such strange comparison. Riddile does in a blogpost which is not a reliable source. I agree that Tirozzi arguments are fine. Riddile's further arguments are not.] (]) 03:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
			Also, although social media posts are not reliable, there is one journalist, Marcel Dorff, https://x.com/BigMarcel24 - who posts on his social media account reports of bouts. He has never been wrong in the past sixteen years and is a reliable source. But because he posts from his account, it is not considered reliable. It takes a day or two for another site to take his social media post to "report" it on their website.
	== Askmen.com ==
			For example, https://www.mmanews.com/features/matchmaking-bulletin/ufc-fight-bulletin/ - MMANews is considered reliable, but it links to reports of X posts that the site deemed reliable before posting it on MMANews. What are your thoughts on this?
	I'm wondering if this specific article:
			Basically, I would like you to review the following:
	{{cite web|url = http://au.askmen.com/dating/love_tip_100/128_love_tip.html | title = Bathroom Sex Positions | author = David Strovny | date = | work = ] | publisher = ] | accessdate = 23 April 2012 }}
			1) MMA.BG - can it be put on https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources - it is a reliable MMA website in the language Bulgarian that has been reporting accurate news for 17 years<br>
	can be considered a reliable source for sexual health-related topics and for the claim "There are six special sex positions possible for having sex in a bathroom" in the ] article. Previous discussions about askmen.com at RS/N () have found it to be passable for pop culture topics. ] ] ] 02:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
			2) The allowance of UFC/ESPN reports of bouts or injuries to be considered reliable. For example: https://x.com/ESPNKnockOut/status/1878132515854000543 - this X post is by a verified ESPN Knockout account that posted "Jake Matthews vs Francisco Prado", but I cannot use that as a source because it is from a social media post, and it is from ESPN (who is not independent from UFC because they broadcast UFC telecasts). It does not quite make sense and the senior editor's English is too poor to explain this after repeated requests for explanation, so I hope someone can explain it here for me. The editor reverted my post when it was reported here: https://wip.mma.bg/novini/mma-novini/dzheyk-matyus-sreshtu-fransisko-prado-na-ufc-312<br>
			3) Are exceptions for X posts allowed for reputable journalists and official verified company accounts to be used as sources on Misplaced Pages?
			I hope someone can help me answer this, someone with sufficient enough English like most editors on Misplaced Pages. Thank you, because it has been extremely frustrating having edits reverted with poor explanation or logic that makes no sense. Thanks! ] (]) 01:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Askmen is owned by ], which in turn is owned by ]. It has an editorial oversight and meets ]. Askmen is at par with Playboy, GQ, Maxim etc. and specializes in men's fashion, lifestyle, dating coaching, relationship and popular sex guide. So it is fine for information on sex positions. It is used for information on sex position, not on sexual health. --] ] 11:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
			:If it's just a matter of one or two days, just wait for the official announcement. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 10:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:For what it's worth, I would consider articles such as ] to be closer to pop culture than sexual health; this isn't a medial or psychological article so much as a look at a phenomenon. Askmen is as reliable in this context as sources such as ''Cosmopolitan'', which is also used with the same weight. ] ] 13:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
			== RfC: TheGamer ==
	== ]'s date of birth ==
			{{atop|OP has withdrawn the discussion. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 21:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			<s>TheGamer seems to be either user-generated content, or slop listicles. Additionally, it seems to source it's content largely from dubious YouTube content, Reddit posts, or Twitter/X threads. However it is listed as a source in articles such as ] purely in relation to one listicle that ranks Flowey in relation to other characters. What is the reliability of this site?
			* Option 1: ]
	A discussion is occurring here:
			* Option 2: ]
			* Option 3: ]
			* Option 4: ]
			]</s>
	* ]
			<span style="font-family:Kurale; color:#ff0000;">]]</span> 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	We don't have it, but would an official copy of her birth certificate from the state of California be admissible as a primary RS, or is it only allowable if it's been cited in a secondary RS? I don't remember the details about such rulings here and would like the latest interpretation.
			* '''Bad RfC'''. While begun in good faith, this RfC is malformed. The opening statement is not {{tq|neutrally worded and brief}} as our ]. I would also ask why the ] about ''TheGamer'' available at the list maintained by ] isn't considered sufficient. If this is at root a page-specific concern about ], as the opening statement causes it to appear to be, the matter can surely be handled better at ]. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 02:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			Nevermind then. I'll delete the info on the Flowey page that provides no encyclopedic value. The reason I proposed this originally was because TheGamer's content has gotten worse and more sloppy since 2020.<span style="font-family:Kurale; color:#ff0000;">]]</span> 04:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abottom}}
			== GBNews can be reliable for group based child sex exploitation==
	I've been doing my best to keep out sources which we don't consider RS, but have been getting lots of flack and personal attacks from {{iplinks|64.223.235.254}}. Contrary to their charges, I have never deleted a source because of the date, only because the source itself isn't considered reliable here. We currently have three different ages supported by RS.
			Hello everyone, I am making the argument that whilst GBNews is generally speaking not a great source, it has some of the most stellar investigative reporters on group based child sex exploitation, aka rape gangs.
	It would be nice to get some fresh eyes on this situation. -- ] (]) 03:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
			For example, Charlie Peters has written about this extensively, it is his main topic of writing for years. https://www.gbnews.com/authors/charlie-peters
	:Given that you have a quote from her saying "“I don’t like revealing how old I am", and that you have the public record of her birth (when/if you get it), and that there are no records apparently of a Jessica Howard being born in California between 1976 and 1982 when I look that up on the site linked from the talk page, I would say that a bith certificate from the state of California would be admissible as proof that the state at least says that's when she was born, and that's RS. Which could end up with something like "While there are various dates given for her birth, ranging from X to Y, the State of California says she was born on Z.<sup>(birth cert cite here)</sup>". --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 14:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
			I'd genuinely argue he is even as or if not more reliable on this topic than most trusted sources. If you want an insight into why I believe that, without going into just arguing over facts and analysis which I can do in the comments below this thread, read this anecdote from him being the only reporter who bothered to show up to one of the most prolific child sex abuse cases in British history for most of the hearing https://thecritic.co.uk/why-was-i-the-only-reporter/
	::Be careful with using birth cirtificates. See ]. ] (]) 15:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
			Yes, GBNews is genuinely quite a sloppy publication, I'm not here to make an argument that it is not even remotely, but I think the summary ought to be changed from the first to the second.
	::While it says to avoid use of public documents, I don't read that to mean that a document who's sole function is to provide date of birth information shouldn't be used for that. I read that more to mean things like court documents (mentioned) or drivers licences. However, there was also this section further down, which I didn't read before:
	:::''With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Misplaced Pages includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year.''
	::And that would seem to say pretty clearly that we shouldn't use it, so I guess this is a slight alteration of my opinion, (but I'm not admitting my first one was wrong {{-)}}). --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 16:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
			<blockquote><p>There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable.</p></blockquote>
	:::It seems to me that the year of birth could be used from the birth certificate, a primary source, since it is a matter of fact that requires no interpretation. The month and day should not be essential to the article, especially when they do not seem to be generally known and previously published in reliable sources. The month and day is an issue of respecting privacy and not exactly a reliable source issue, since it is not a bigger leap to take month and day from the birth certificate than to take the year. ] (]) 19:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
			<blockquote><p>There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable. It is reliable for specifically group based child sex exploitation.</p></blockquote>
	::::It seems to me that you are wrong. Read what was quoted immediately above your statement. ] (]) 19:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
			I am not sure if it is precedent to specifically name a reporter, but if that is the case then specifically naming Charlie Peters is important here. He isn't the only good reporter on child sex abuse at GBNews but I'd argue he's the best. In essence, ''I''<nowiki/>'d argue and make a fierce case that Charlie Peters of GBNews (and some other reporters), regardless of his employer, is easily one of the most qualified and leading reporters on this specific topic of group based child sex exploitation and I'd make a very long argument that articles specifically by him should be included and it would be worse not better for Misplaced Pages to include them. I am not arguing for Peters (and some other reporters) to be included for other topics at this moment, just specifically the topic of child sex abuse.
	Does the name Jim Hawkins ring a bell? If Chastain does not want her birthdate in Misplaced Pages, going to primary sources is most definitely '''''not''''' the answer. Leave it out unless and until it is published in reliable secondary sources, and in that case only use the year. ] (]) 19:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
			I hope I have formatted this correctly, thank you. ]&nbsp;] 19:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: The name ] did ''not'' ring a bell with me since I wasn't involved in that situation, so I looked it up and here is a diff that can be studied:
			:Sorry but it is the source we judge, not the writer, his work say in the Telegraph can be cited, not his work for GB news. ] (]) 19:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Just to be clear here, I am not saying Peters is the only good reporter. GBNews has some good reporters and they're specifically concentrated on this. I think GBNews is generally slop but I just wanted to cite a specific reporter as an example. I think GBNews' work and information on this very narrow subject is worth considering. ]&nbsp;] 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:This seems backwards, ] claims require exceptional sources, not exceptions for terrible ones. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:GB News is persistently and relentlessly unreliable. We cannot make exceptions for a single reporter (and I say that as someone who believes Peters to be one of the better GB News reporters, though admittedly that's a very low bar). If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that ''weren't'' run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear. ] 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I don't think more sensationalist reporting is going to make that page better. Let's leave GB News off it. ] (]) 19:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Again, I'm being clear here I'm only talking about one narrow subject. ]&nbsp;] 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I was also being very specific to that one page as well. ] (]) 20:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::So you're saying that, specifically on child rape, they're sensationalists. I agree with you that their titles would do better without the incessant capitalisations but their reporting on this isn't errant in any way. ]&nbsp;] 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::So you're basically just saying Peters is a racist and if I can prove he isn't racist you'll be convinced? Here he is covering a white rapist. https://www.gbnews.com/news/two-rotherham-child-abuse-victims-accidentally-left-out-court-rapist-sentencing-office-error ]&nbsp;] 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: I absolutely did ''not'' say that Peters was racist, so don't do that again please. I was pointing out that GB News inevitably covers Asian grooming gangs, but almost never white ones. If Peters broke that mould I ''would'' be convinced. ] 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::: Oh, I've just seen your userpage. That explains it. ] 19:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::> '''Sources (some are invalid and blatantly biased for wikipedia standards but summarise info well. i'll find a proper source for them.'''
			:::::Not all the sources in my user page are valid at all, I've just added them to look deeper in later on to verify myself.
			:::::If you're accusing me of being a right wing grifter so be it, I literally just added an article by Bindle to my user page smearing the right as racist grifters before I read this, I edited McMurdock's article and wrote how he kicked a woman four times, I try my best to be fair. I am not interested in just saying "Pakistani men rape and whites don't", that's absurd. The state has routinely failed children of rape. I'm arguing that GBNews on this topic is good. ]&nbsp;] 20:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::: I suppose even Bindel can be right occasionally. That's not the point though, I followed a few of your links and saw the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page - that's not good on a BLP, whether you are a right-wing grifter or not (I have no idea if that's the case). But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop. It would be ''incredibly'' problematic if we had to define sources as reliable or not depending on which journos were producing the material, especially as their material is routinely filtered through an editorial process which we have defined as unreliable in the first place. ] 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I understand. I regret making my initial point on Peters specifically because you're right that specific journalists do not save a publication. I've been trying to change the position to accomadate this, and say something more so on the lines of "Generally speaking, their covering of child sex abuse is good, can we make an exception for this topic". Is your argument here from the context of me originally saying Peters was good or is your argument here that no matter how good the journalism is on child sex abuse, the rest of the publication is too sloppy to make an exception? " But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop"
			:::::::> the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page
			:::::::Is this on the word 'despite'? This was talked about on the talk page, I agreed it was a mistake. ]&nbsp;] 21:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Again, GBNews is generally slop, we can agree on that. I believe they have good journalists focusing on child rape. ]&nbsp;] 20:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::: We can't separate the two, that's the issue. The ''Daily Mail'' has good journalists as well, the problem in using them is the venue they publish their work in. ] 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I agree the Daily Mail is total slop as well, but if they had excellent journalism on one specific topic that would warrant an exception. That's what I'm arguing here. ]&nbsp;] 20:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I'm not going to repeat that as you have made clear that was not your intent, but I'm not trying to strawman you. I've misinterpreted what you're saying here as you calling Peters / GBNews / their audience racist (though that is not what you are saying), I am confused on what you exactly are you trying to say with the below. May you please elaborate?
			::::"If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that weren't run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear." ]&nbsp;] 20:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::: GB News is a right-wing channel (and, to be fair, it is transparently so); it tells its viewers what they want to hear. Much of the right-wing audience believes that child abuse is mostly committed by Asian gangs, because that's what right-wing narratives have told them, even if it's false. GB News doesn't actually ''say'' that is true, but it reinforces those ideas by focusing on such cases. ] 20:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I'm not accusing you of calling them 'racist', but what exactly would you call the behaviour your describing, if not racist.
			::::::Yes, GBNews is obviously a right wing channel. I believe you can criticise nearly all political journalistic publications that aren't state funded of pandering to their audience. CNN, the Telegraph, the Guardian, Fox, etc. I find it all a bit obnoxious.
			::::::I do however have qualms with the idea that GBNews is, how do I put this, 'filtering out or downplaying' rape gangs when they are not Pakistani / Bangladeshi? You say the majority of these perpetrators are white, I believe that is true of CSAM online but I amn't sure that's true at least on a per capita basis for rape gangs though I have collated a lot of sources which I intend to read when I have the time, as you've noted on my talk page, so I'll be better informed to answer this in the future.
			::::::In essence, your hesitance or better put refusal to add an exception to GBNews on rape gangs isn't derived from a sense that they're journalistically or factually incorrect outright but rather they have underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. If I'm understanding what you are saying correctly which I'll need confirmation on as I do not wish to strawman you. ]&nbsp;] 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::: Yes, that's exactly what GB News does (though I would not go as far as saying it is "factually correct" ''all'' the time). It is, however, understandably more careful with its narratives with this subject than it is with others (although it does publish nonsense like , notably not by Peters). ] 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::That's an opinion piece that more falls under geopolitics. That wouldn't fall into what I, or the other user, is arguing to include.
			::::::::If we can agree that at least ''nearly all'' the time they are factually correct on this very specific subject, and the wealth of information is enormous, we can just put a warning that GBNews has something along the lines of "accusations of underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias" in a general sense (but is better on this subject (and thus the exception being made) as you noted and I agree), but that if possible, should be substantiated with another source, but is still acceptable on this very specific subject, even independently, especially if there are no other sources available. That's reasonable, I believe. Thoughts? ]&nbsp;] 22:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::: I'm not convinced, I have to admit, and I wouldn't vote in favour of it. Though I ask, could it be any worse that allowing the ''Telegraph'', a paper which posts rabidly transphobic opinion pieces, to be used on trans-related topics (as was allowed in a recent RfC)? It's unlikely. ] 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::As long as what is written is factually true, the agenda behind it just has to be made known to the editor beforehand to caution them. We shouldn't restrain facts and deprive people of them because we deem the authors morally repugnant. ]&nbsp;] 23:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Comment''' Whilst I agree that GB News should be approached with caution (and I wouldn't touch their climate change reporting with a barge pole), I think Charlie Peters is an exceptional reporter. I would generally trust what he has to say before, for example, ''The Guardian'' or ''The Times''. I think that by barring his reporting on GB News we are probably barring the country's most pre-eminent authority on gang-related CSE. IT's worth bearing in mind that coverage of this topic has now become highly-politicised, but Charie probbaly brings the most balanced and fact-based perspective to the coverage of the issue. We could treat his reporting on GB News on this particular issue as an instance of expert ]. If other sources are reporting the same thing then fine, bit I honestly believe we would be devaluing Misplaced Pages's coverage by excluding him. The fact remains he is not interchangeable with other journalists at other news outlets, because he brings a wealth of research and statistics to the table, and has probably interacted with grooming gang victims more then any other journalist. ] (]) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I know this sounds silly but it is refreshing hearing more knowlegable Wikipedians explain what I'm trying to articulate so eloquently. I do want to be clear however that I think GBNews' coverage on gang CSE is excellent, not just Peters. The main contention seems not to be on if it is factual, no one here seems to be disputing this, but rather if it has underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. You can read my last comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269267836 as I try to ] what another user is saying to the best of ability. ]&nbsp;] 21:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Are there any third-party sources that validate the claim that GB News and Peters are the best sources on this topic? ] (] • ]) 05:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::*
			::What do you mean? How would that work? Are you asking if reputable sources cite GBNews regularly on this topic? If so, yes I've read many articles, especially the Telegraph, mentioning them if I recall correctly. ]&nbsp;] 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Well, according to ],{{tq|If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims.}} That seems to be one way it works. Normal editorial processes are that we use secondary sources to evaluate the significant views among published reliable sources, and UBO is in most cases relatively weak validation for other claims. ] (] • ]) 07:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: If you're going to start an RfC on this topic (which would be required to carve out an exception for GB News), it would be far better to present such evidence as opposed to a simple opinion of "I think it's reliable". ] 08:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'm not sure there are any sources out there that flat out stipulate that Charlie Peters is the best source for this topic, but he is increasingly becoming the "go to" source in this area. report how he "broke" the latest story about the Government declining the national inquiry into CSE in Oldham, and other news outlets have approached him to co-author their articles, presumably for his insight, such as and . ''Deadline'' profile him —it is worth bearing in mind he was a specialist in this area before working for GB News, having made a documentary about the Rotherham cover-up. Maggie Oliver—a former police detective who blew the whistle on the cover-up in Greater Manchester and now works with survivors—holds his journalism in . In reality, as NotQualified has noted, other news outlets have re-used facts first reported by Peters in their own stories, so there is no way to really avoid his core reporting. Part of the reason for this is because , so they are dependent on those that have. For the record, I do think there is a difference between the core facts as reported by Peters and the framing of these stories by GB News in its broadcasts. ] (]) 10:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::If other sources have reported on the details, then they should be used. That way editors waste less time arguing about the source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::You get less depth and less nuance from news outlets which repackage his work, usually for sensationalist reasons. Peters has interviewed the survivors and their families extensively. He attended the trials and the sentencing. If other news outlets are happy to re-use his material I don't see why it should be any issue here. ] (]) 12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Any other source is going to be less sensationalist and so less controversial. The issue is doing the simple option so as to avoid wasting time arguing over which source to use rather than something more useful. GBNews is by it's nature always going to be controversial, so using a different source for the same information is the best option. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That is an ad hoc approach which only works for one news story at a time. Simply put, what if other sources don't. This is why it is important the exception is carved out. ]&nbsp;] 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::If a single news source is the only source that picks up a detail, that probably goes to show that detail shouldn't be included (] / ]). That other news sources decide not to include certain details may well be because they do not believe the details are important, or that they are presented properly. I would say it goes to shows why there shouldn't be a exception given. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@] this statement can be applied to any source in any discussion... ]<sub>]</sub> 21:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Yes, choosing the least contentious source to support a detail is always a good idea (regardless of the article). Arguing other a contentious source when others are available isn't a good use of editors time. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The New York Times says {{tq|No British media outlet has revived the grooming scandal with the zeal of GB News, a hard-right cable news channel that went on the air in 2021, a decade after The Times’s investigation into grooming gangs.}} which does not exactly sound like a ringing endorsement. It instead sounds rather more like exactly the sort of {{tq|unduly represent contentious or minority claims}} we're supposed to take care to avoid. If a primary source has been published in multiple places, I see no compelling reason why the reliability of GB News even needs to be discussed, and it seems like nobody wants to use the secondary parts. ] (] • ]) 11:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Surely that's a ] issue to be determined in the context of what is being written, rather than a ] issue. ] (]) 12:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Even if it isn't a "ringing endorsement", it does sound like NYT agrees it has the largest wealth of knowledge on this issue, which is one of the reasons I'd argue it's critical to allow. If that knowledge was erroneous, I'd obviously agree it shouldn't be included, but that knowledge as discussed on this talk discussion seems to be virtually always correct.
			::::> If a primary source has been published in multiple places,
			::::And what if it isn't. Misplaced Pages as a whole suffers. ]&nbsp;] 17:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{tqbm|And what if it isn't.}}
			:::::] and ], even were it to be considered reliable. ] (] • ]) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Other sources are reporting on Peters “breaking” the story in that he revived a myth that was taken up by Elon Musk who then intervened in uk politics and got far right grifters competing with each other for his attention, making Peters’ “reporting” noteworthy, but not reliable. ] (]) 15:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::post sources ]&nbsp;] 15:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::A few examples:
			:::::*FT: “How a handful of X accounts took Elon Musk ‘down the rabbit hole’ on UK politics… In the past week, Musk has also amplified posts on the grooming scandal by former prime minister Liz Truss, former Labour MP Kate Hoey, former Reform politician Ben Habib and people linked to broadcaster GB News.”
			:::::*Yahoo News: “News of Philips's rejection letter was then reported by GB News on 1 January, sparking an intense debate about whether such an inquiry was needed. This was picked up by Elon Musk who began posting prolifically about the issue, levelling harsh criticism at the government and at one point calling for Philips to be jailed for rejecting the request.”
			:::::*BBC: ”Debate around grooming gangs was reignited this week after it was reported that Phillips rejected Oldham Council's request for a government-led inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation in the town, in favour of a locally-led investigation. The decision was taken in October, but first reported by GB News on 1 January.”
			:::::*BBC Verify: “In one post, Mr Musk alleged that "Gordon Brown committed an unforgivable crime against the British people" and shared a video clip from campaigner Maggie Oliver appearing on GB News. In the clip, Ms Oliver alleged: "Gordon Brown sent out a circular to all the police forces in the UK saying 'do not prosecute these rape gangs, these children are making a lifestyle choice'."… But BBC Verify has carried out extensive searches of Home Office circulars issued across that period and found no evidence that any document containing this advice exists.”
			:::::*New Yorker: “The onslaught began on January 1st, when Musk responded to a report by GB News, a right-wing cable-news channel, which said that the country’s Labour government had rejected a national inquiry into non-recent sexual abuse in Oldham, a town just outside Manchester, in northern England. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the actual story is more complicated than that.”
			:::::*NYT: “No British media outlet has revived the grooming scandal with the zeal of GB News, a hard-right cable news channel that went on the air in 2021, a decade after The Times’s investigation into grooming gangs… Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform U.K., an anti-immigrant party, has praised Mr. Peters, saying he had “really reignited this story” and demonstrated that “these barbarities have taken place in at least 50 towns.”… The cumulative effect of Mr. Musk’s inflammatory posts has been to energize Britain’s populist right.”
			:::::] (]) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I’m just here to say that a source being ''generally'' unreliable doesn’t mean they can’t be reliable in specific circumstances. That is, if you want to make a case that a specific subset of GB News output is reliable enough to support statements in a specific article, you can make that argument on the Talk page of the article and it doesn’t need to be carved out as a formalised exception on ]. ] (]) 17:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Absolutely agree with this, both "''generally'' reliable" and "''generally'' unreliable" are not absolutes. Either way you may be required to convince other editors (on the articles talk page) that a specific source should, or shouldn't, be used. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Considering that there is quite a lot of academic material on this subject that isn't currently being used in these articles I'm somewhat reticent to start making exceptions for generally unreliable news media organizations out of some sort of belief we are missing sources. ] (]) 17:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The specifics would be a discussion for the articles talk page, but in general I'd agree. Less news and opinion sources, and more academic sources would be an improvement for many articles. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			If other sources do not follow though with a story, there may well be reason why, and one of those is they can't confirm them. This is what they are RS, they do try to fact-check before publication. So if a reputable publication does not report it I have to ask the question why is the only source reporting this an iffy one? ] (]) 17:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Thanks for this comment, this was also my interpretation when reading the thread, and surprised no-one else referenced the obvious here: If Charlie Peters is such a respectable journalist (let's assume he is for the sake of argument), then why is his work not published in respectable and reliable sources such as The Telegraph that he previously worked for? While trying to avoid a discussion on this journalist career path and choices in life, it does seem remarkably odd that there aren't reliable sources reporting his coverage indepth. This makes me suspect that it's because it's much easier to publish for GB News than it is other news orgs that do fact-checking and thorough reviews. Baring in mind, its not just WP that considers GB News as generally unreliable, there is rough consensus among UK journalism that it is a trashy tabloid-like source. So why is such a respectable journalist writing such great contributions for a trash can? Without intending to speculate much further than I already have, it could be because what he writes for GB News isn't as reliable as what he has written elsewhere. Generally if there were topics that I would say GB News was specifically unreliable for, it'd be along the lines of Reform Party coverage (it's a quasi-primary source at this point), and contentious topics such as the far-right riots, Tommy Robinson, and grooming gangs. Feel free to accuse me of a broad stroke, but I'd otherwise consider GB to be generally reliable for entertainment and culture topics (similar to NYP). ] (]) 00:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: I don't think we have an exact parallel situation here:
			::Just to be clear here, it isn't just Peters, I'm arguing that generally their coverage on group based child sex exploitation is good. Peters has written under multiple papers. I do not know why he works for GBNews particularly right now but he brings spectacular journalism to it. ]&nbsp;] 00:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Nah.''' If there's news that doesn't suck it'll show up elsewhere. Per {{u|CommunityNotesContributor}}, that it ''isn't'' showing up elsewhere raises an eyebrow - ] (]) 10:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Strong disagree with OP. In fact, i’d say that the fact that the Telegraph has taken up Peters’/GBNews’ reporting might lead us to the rule that the Telegraph, is not reliable on this highly contentious topic. Example: here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/04/grooming-gangs-scandal-cover-up-oldham-telford-rotherham/ Peters and a co-author claim to catalogue the “cover up” of the grooming scandal “to preserve the image of a successful multicultural society” — yet every single factual claim in their article is taken from a pre-existing primary source (a 2010 W Midlands police report, a 2013 sentencing report, the 2014 Rotherham Jay inquiry, the 2015 Rotherham Casey report, the 2019 Manchester police report, the 2022 Telford Inquiry and the 2022 national independent review) that to my mind prove that far from a cover up this has been extensively investigated and publicly addressed for well over a decade. There is no actual investigation here; they rely on the investigation done by others and use it to spin an inflammatory conspiracy theory. I think it might be time to downgrade the Telegraph not upgrade GBNews. ] (]) 15:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Regarding this article, is it usual for reliable sources to correct the content of articles without referencing a change? This was first published on , and modified by with attribution to GB News added (can verify with ):
			*:* {{tq|"In Jess Phillips’s letter to the council, '''revealed by GB News''', she said she understood the strength of feeling in the town, but thought it best for another local review to take place.}}
			*:* {{tq|"The state must leave no stone unturned in its efforts to root out this evil. As one victim, '''told GB News''', "..."}}
			*:It's good they corrected the article with necessary attribution for unverified claims, however it took 4 days to do so, and they failed to reference such changes in the article, including the original date. Not a good look imo. ] (]) 15:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer ==
	::* For some odd and seemingly irrational reasons Hawkins was extremely sensitive about several types of publicly available information appearing here, and he even seemed to come unglued about it. A sysop even mentioned to him that his behavior and objections were triggering the ].
			Is this sigcov , reliable for ]? ] (]) 09:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::* By contrast, Jessica hasn't objected to Misplaced Pages, or anywhere else that I know of, about the publication of her date of birth, only that she doesn't think that actresses "should be asked about their age", that they "should be allowed a degree of mystique when it comes to their ages", and she doesn't "like revealing" her own age. She hasn't forbidden anyone else from doing so that I know of. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that "Chastain does not want her birthdate in Misplaced Pages", but we can show a bit of sensitivity by limiting anything here to only her birth year.
			:The first link goes to a summary of a detailed software review by Friedrich Blase, the “Innovator-in-Residence” of the Ontario Bar Association. It looks like Dr. Blase, whose references writings on legal technology, might qualify as a subject matter expert, so I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. The second link goes to a blog, which would not be a reliable source. ] (]) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Did Howard Dean get paid to give speeches promoting the MEK? ==
	:: What's really ironic about this is the ]. Her secrecy only creates more interest in the matter. She would be wise to just settle the matter before more digging ends up uncovering some kind of ] (everyone has things they'd rather not see published here, no matter how trivial they might be).
			{{u|Hogo-2020}} and I have bit of a dispute : can we list that Howard Dean as among the American officials who received either cash payments or some other form of compensation for making speeches promoting the ]?
	:: So...if we can ascertain her birth year, that should be good enough. -- ] (]) 03:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
			Sources:
			*A telephone interview with ] that was published on a newsblog on ]. Smith writes that Dean "said that while he's given paid speeches for the group, his advocacy is pro bono."
			*An editorial by ] in '']''.
			**The editorial links to a '']'' article, which writes "Mr. Dean confirmed to the Monitor that he received payment for his appearances, but said the focus on high pay was “a diversion inspired by those with a different view.”"
			*An article in '']'' which says "Dean himself has acknowledged being paid but has not disclosed specific sums". Dean's advocate responded to that article, according to Salon, saying "On the issue of the MEK, he is not a paid advocate. He was paid for a handful of speeches, but has not been paid for his advocacy."
			''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 13:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	: So far we have three different ages given in published, secondary, RS (even more when one figures +/- one year, depending on the exact month). Since we have no certainty, we're just listing what RS say. It would be nice if she settled the matter in an interview. Then we could drop the sources that have gotten it wrong. -- ] (]) 16:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
			:@] I don’t think the reliability of any of these sources would be in question by most editors - this seems a bit more of a content dispute on the surface. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 01:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	=== Unresolved situation: Is ''Time Magazine'' a RS? Is IMDB a RS? ===
			::@], well Hogo that the guardian piece is an ], the politico piece is a ] and there's no consensus for salon at ]. These are all ]-based arguments.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 03:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The issue at hand is whether a couple of op-eds provide sufficient evidence to justify adding to Misplaced Pages that a politician was paid for making speeches. Then, there's also the question if this would be in line with ]. ] (]) 07:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			* There are two issues here, neither of which is really a ] issue directly (but they touch on how different types of sources can be used and the considerations that come with them.) First, since those are all either opinion pieces, interviews, or quotes, they would have to be ''attributed'' if used; they can't be used to state facts in the article voice - looking over the article history, it previously said {{tq|In 2012, Seymour Hersh reported names of former U.S. officials paid to speak in support of MEK, including former CIA directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss; New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton}}. If the listed sources were all you could turn up for including Dean in that list with that sort of wording, it's not enough for that specific wording - you can't say as fact that he was paid, and cite an opinion piece from Greenwald to support that. (That said, is there a problem with citing the CS Monitor article directly? Citing it via an opinion piece by Greenwald seems weird; the Greenwald piece is a weaker source due to being opinion.) Either way, second, as is often the case when dealing with largely opinion sources published in RS / ] venues, is the ] issue - the question is then whether Greenwald etc. are noteworthy enough for their opinions about this to be in the article, or whether the sum of all of them is enough to put it over the top, or the like. --] (]) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I should add, looking at ], it feels to me like this is a result of a dispute over previous wording that probably reflected the ''broad strokes'' of what the sources support but which wasn't quite correct in terms of both the specific source it relied on and how it summarized it - finding individual sources for every person in that list, yet trying to retain it as a list whose original version was really an inaccurate paraphrase of a different source, is going to constantly run into problems like this and may produce ] issues. I would suggest discarding that list and instead reconsidering what the section should say from the top, after reviewing the best available sources individually. Why this list of people? Why those specific names? Just because they were in the Shane source, which ''doesn't'' say they were paid? I suggest going back to the drawing board, looking at the relative level of coverage for each and whether it's something we can use for fact or just attributable opinion, then deciding who to cover and how to cover them based on that. --] (]) 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I think that this is solid advice. ] (]) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Those are great points. It would be great if you can help discuss on that talk page.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 01:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] thanks for your input. Understand the point about CS Monitor. But my next question is this: Ben Smith, a journalist working for a reputable source like POLITICO, wouldn't just fake or distort an interview. Smith isn't stating his opinion, he's giving the results of the interview. To me Smith is a stronger source than CSM because CSM doesn't actually say where they got the info from. In either case, is the CSM source enough to state it without attribution or would it also require attribution? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 01:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: Stumbled across this. The Christian Science Monitor investigation into the MEK paying Dean and many others (which I happened to edit). https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0808/Iranian-group-s-big-money-push-to-get-off-US-terrorist-list . I don't understand the dispute here. Dean is on record in this article admitting he was taking their money.] (]) 01:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Is REAL, Journal of Almería Studies an rs for ] ==
	We need active participation from experienced editors, and preferably an admin ready to do some blocking. The personal attacks (including outright lies) from SPA {{iplinks|64.223.235.254}} continue, with a pronounced IDHT attitude and refusal to seek to understand our policies here. NPA and AGF aren't followed at all. RS isn't understood, with a denial that '']'' be used as a RS. They also insist that IMDB is a reliable source for her age, and refuse to accept our policies about the use of IMDB. -- ] (]) 02:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
			See. The link doesn't go to the source cited and I can't find that aource. ] ] 16:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:A quick search of the archives for this page will show you that IMDB has often been found not to be RS. On the other hand, TIME has almost always been considered to be RS (actually, I don't know of an instance that it wasn't), but without a specific source reference, I can't give you a specific yes/no answer either, but it's very likely that TIME is RS to start with (imo). --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 05:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
			:Found a Spanish Misplaced Pages article on the explorer. ] ] 16:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: I agree on both counts. The IP fails to realize that when we say "RS", we're using the word "reliable" in a slightly different sense than the general meaning. The IP refuses to even study the policy. If a source is verifiable and consistently there, and there is some form of fact checking, we usually consider it "reliable" (stable), even if it occasionally makes mistakes. In this case a source which mentions Chastain's age is from a short blurb about her written by ] for Time's coverage when she entered the list of ] most influential people of the world. , by ], '']'', published April 18, 2012. It is the fact that his comments are published by Time Magazine that make them eligible for use in the article, not whether he's right or not. We just quote him, and the IP wildly objects, because the IP went to high school with her and knows her real age.
			::I found a link to the pdf but which I don't read well. ] (]) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] @] My Spanish is at a passable level, from a first glance I’m not seeing anything outlandish/indicative of unreliability but I can take a deeper look a bit later. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 01:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The journal isn't peer-reviewed, so it's not a top quality source, but it is a serious journal, in the sense it is something we would usually accept as reliable in general. The writers seem reasonable-ish. However, it's not a good enough journal that an outlandish article would become reliable. I'm reading the article now, and a couple of things strike me as a bit off, but maybe it's just because I've been drawn to it here. Will give a bit more info later today.] (]) 07:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: I have repeatedly made it clear that I have no particular preference regarding her age, and I have supported the inclusion of any and all RS that mention her age (until we have definitive certainty for it). The IP refuses to believe me and keeps attacking me and lying by insisting that I have deleted all sources that don't back up an age of 30 years old. Well, that's patently false. The IP also claims I have edited the article for months, but I made my first of few edits on April 10. The IP is the only one contesting any of my comments, but claims that others have done so. Not true. Only one new editor with two edits (one on the talk page) has shared the IPs POV, and I strongly suspect it's a registered sock of the same IP. The same lack of logic, lack of reading comprehension, and same language. An SPI would block based on ] alone...;-)
			::OK, the article appears to be claiming Lorenzo Ferrer Maldonado completed a crossing of the ] in 1588. Between February and March. This is an extraordinary claim, I don't think the source is good enough to state that in the article.] (]) 07:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::And if I'd checked, I'd have found out that he made up the story although it was taken seriously 200 years later. ] ] 09:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The article is really odd, it is drifting towards the genre of ''x was actually Spanish/Catalan/Indian/Hungarian'' and ''the Masons hid the evidence of how they built pyramids so they could continue Akenhaton's religion''. They use a photoshop reconstruction of how a woodcut of Ferrer might have looked and suggest a Spanish conspiracy to hide the fact they had discovered the Northwest passage, so the English and Dutch couldn't use it. They also claim that "Anglosaxon scholars" now accept Ferrer's claims, but fail to cite them. Valeriano Sánchez Ramos seems to be a quite decent local historian of eastern Andalucia, whereas Alfonso Viciana Martínez-Lage is more of a general writer but has published some academic stuff. I can't quite make my mind up if this is a sort of ''folie à deux'', or whether they are publishing an academic joke.] (]) 17:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::They managed to get published in Boletín de la Real Sociedad Geográfica (Tomo CLX (2023), p. 115). But still I wouldn't give it much weight unless there are other scholars that concur with them. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I'm really surprised at that, I would have to say this is covered by ]. It is hard to understand how the editorial team might have accepted for publication an article which suggests an ice-free passage existed in the winter of 1588. You need specialist ships, and often icebreakers, to do it in summer today.] (]) 07:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::That someone was able to navigate the northwest passage at that time is definitely bthe type of exception claim that ] talks of. This would require multiple high quality sources, so this source alone would not be reliable for the claim. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			== D Gershon Lewental 's personal text page ==
	:: I'd appreciate some participation from others. I'm tired of the uncivil behavior and personal attacks. -- ] (]) 06:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
			Hi everybody. D Gershon Lewental has an article in ] with subject of "" ... and . He had a personal . Does this link text also reliable source for wikipedia ? ] (]) 19:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::The TIME article you cite says she's 30, but that means that her birthday could fall on either of two years (1981 or '82 depending on when her actual birthday is). The fact that the other editor went to school with her is completely irrelevant, and is definitely not RS. If his behavior is disruptive, the place to report it is ]. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 06:41, April 26, 2012‎ (UTC)
			:This looks like a ] case. I mean obviously his page is self-published but he does appear to be an expert in the field of Middle Eastern history. So - per the guidance at EXPERTSPS - it's likely reliable with the caveat (probably not needed for a history article) that it absolutely cannot be used for information about living people other than the author. And, of course, ] is still relevant and will likely assign greater due weight to traditionally published material. ] (]) 19:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::'']'' is of course a highly reliable source, but this matter is evidently extremely contentious and we don't know what source ''Time'' relied on.
			::If there are secondary sources for what he says in his page, it would help. Those can be cited. ] (]) 20:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::My view, which I will add to the talk page if it would help, is that the ''infobox'' should not mention her age at all (and it didn't when I last looked). If (as I understand) we have fairly reliable sources for two conflicting years of birth our ''text'' can say, plainly, that her year of birth has been differently reported as X and X, with a footnote for each.
	::::I agree with others, this would all change if she stated the date clearly herself, but that's her choice. We should respect it, and stick to reporting reliable sources. We must not do original research, and anyway we cannot cite the birth record because we cannot prove that it applies to this person. <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 13:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
			==''Pirate Wires''?==
	:::::In general terms (without given context) Time Magazine is considered a reliable source (on the level of "serious" newspaper publication). The IMDB however is generally '''not''' a reliable source and as such in particular its biographical information cannot be used as a source. However it might be used to "source" largely undisputed/unproblematic content (cast of characters, movie quotes, statistical infos on the films etc.). --] (]) 14:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
			'']'' as an "American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." It doesn't shout "reliable source" to me (feels more like a group blog), but could somebody else take a look at this and help me determine if (a) its articles, or (b) its claims about itself should be cited in articles or BLPs, ? — '''] &#124; ] &#124;''' 20:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Wouldn’t this be an aboutself citation anyway? I would be more concerned about primary/OR here in that case.
			:Regarding the source: they are likely to be pretty biased, but according to the page linked, they seems sufficiently reliable for this, unless someone can dig up large-scale issues I missed. Employees, proper funding etc. all seem to be fine. ] (]) 21:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of {{talk quote inline|as of January 2025, his profile at the online publisher '']'' lists him as a senior editor|q=yes}}? I just wanted to make sure ''PW'' was something worth mentioning at all, or if it was more akin to 'he's the senior editor this super-serious blog' and name-dropping a site that bore no mention. — '''] &#124; ] &#124;''' 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I’m not sure, but think being descriptive is fine for “articles about Misplaced Pages” and stuff, “critical“ is probably better coming from a specific source, even if it’s obvious. With everything else, it’s probably a question of DUE, not RS. ] (]) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::: I'd eschew calling out any of his particular articles over others, since there's... no reason to, right? Without reliable third-party sourcing, they're no more notable or inclusion-worthy than his others. — '''] &#124; ] &#124;''' 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I think this is a case for ], but it seems like a reasonable option ] (]) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			: Pirate Wires has a strong right wing "libertarian tech bro" bent to its coverage, unsurprising given its links to Peter Thiel. The way it frames events is often strongly slanted, sometimes to the point of being misleading. Take for instance the recent story claiming that the WMF had been taken over by "Soros-backed operatives" . I would argue that this framing is conspiratorial and hyperbolic. I think it might sometimes be usable with caution for uncontroversial facts, but more objective sources should be preferred. ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: Here's a Business Insider story on Pirate Wires that gives a good sense of its ethos . ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Invoking ] to attack an organization is not a good start for Pirate Wires, a new publication that does not have much of a reputation at this point. Definitely not ], and I would avoid using this publication for ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I wouldn't call it a "group blog", it just has a niche audience in the tech industry. It is certainly more factually based than Fox News. The article you linked is using it problematically though. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 14:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			] (]) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Solana is the founder and operator of Pirate Wires, so maybe it's wise to consider his pieces in particular self-published. No idea the level of editorial rigour other contributors are under though. ] (]) 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::: Thanks to everyone for their comments. I knew all this already and I agree. This is what I've been telling the IP, but I only get abuse in return and an insistance that I am wrong for not allowing the use of IMDB. They also insist that ''Time Magazine'' should not be used because the IP thinks that ] is wrong. (After all, the IP went to high school with her!) When I explain our policies about these matters, I only get further abuse. Note that we're not talking about an edit war, but talk page abuse. Your participation there would be appreciated. -- ] (]) 14:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
			* ''Pirate Wires'' should be considered Generally reliable. The information that they publish, though perhaps from a libertarian or right wing political slant, is generally truthful/accurate and therefore should be considered ] unless someone is able to provide substantial evidence and examples that disprove this. ] (]) 16:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It's Mike Solana's blog. ] (]) 17:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Do you have an evidentiary basis for your claim? I ask because I was recently described in a Pirate Wires article as a member of a powerful pro-Hamas group, and while this was entertaining in its foolishness, the important point for RSN is that it was a factual error. The article contained many inaccuracies about various things, and it was clear that no attempt had been made to avoid errors and erroneous conclusions. So, using it for BLPs might be unwise, and the notion that it is "generally truthful/accurate" seem highly questionable. Of course, I only have one data point, so it could be an outlier, but I doubt it. ] (]) 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Yeah. I was not happy about Pirate Wires being used for that whole fiasco. But as for the evidence look above at the link {{U|Selfstudier}} provided in which Mike Solana says, "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever." ] (]) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously ''his personal thing.'' ] (]) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. ] (]) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. ] (]) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::What "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" are you referring to? Can you cite specific examples please and quote from the source directly? Also, are there other reliable sources which then criticize PW for "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" or is that ] and/or your own conclusion being reached? ] (]) 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Considering that comment and the fact that founder ] is the chief marketing officer of ], Pirate Wires has a major ] with all of the individuals and organizations associated with Founders Fund, and is a non-] source with respect to all related topics. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 03:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Pirate Wires is trashy far-right culture wars content. It is at best a group blog - ] (]) 10:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Need context before coming to RSN ===
			At this point, the source is used in only 7 articles in mainspace. . in general, RSN really shouldn't be used to approve sources ahead of time, editors exercise their own discretion, debate merits of source in the talk page of article, and come here if the same source is debated over and over again, or if reliability is still at issue. ] (]) 16:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Per <s>{{U|Slatersteven}}</s> its founder describes it as a ] - it should be treated accordingly. ] (]) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Not me. ] (]) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Oh dear did I misread? OOPS should be per {{U|Selfstudier}} apologies. I will strike above. ] (]) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It is not ] and its founder merely said things along the lines of "I am not bought and paid for nor a mouthpiece for any billionaire" etc. Now I do not know the veracity of that statement for sure, but I do not see that Mike Solana declared Pirate Wires to be SPS or a blog. It has numerous other independent journalists and appears to run as a full-fledged journalistic organization like any other, with their own right leaning or right-libertarian bias of course. But bias is not a reason for a source to otherwise be deprecated or considered SPS or anything else, it is just the nature of nearly every source that some bias to one direction or another is to be expected. ] (]) 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::But they don't have any indication of editorial controls, or a fact-checking process, or any of the things that an ] would have; neither is there any reason to think they have a particular {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}. A statement like "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever" makes it pretty clear that it's not structured the way we'd expect a RS to be structured. I'm with the editors above who describe it as a blog - there's just nothing here that even has the ''shape'' of an RS. The fact that the person who runs it sometimes also includes guest posts by other people doesn't change the fact that there's no editorial board, no source of fact-checking, and most of all no reputation. Like... what makes you think that it's a ], according to the criteria we use? Where do you feel its reliability comes from? --] (]) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Usage in ] ===
	== Asiatic Journal ==
			Is the Pirate Wires piece by ] a reliable source of claims for the ] article? Rindsberg has published other content about Misplaced Pages on Pirate Wires, including . —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 04:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It's at best, usable for the attributed opinion of Rindsberg only, but even then, it's obviously polemical and partisan. There's lots of right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages that I personally find disingenuous, but inevitably an article on "Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages" is going to have to include some partisan sourcing, but not framing it as fact is essential. I am unsure whether Pirate Wires is prominent enough a publication that it would be due to mention in any capacity. ] (]) 04:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	Is this work reliable? - ] (]) 13:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
			:Sources in that article should have some leeway, as Misplaced Pages is obviously going to be criticised by such sources. But I totally agree with Hemiauchenia that framing is key. This is the opinion of a hyper partisan source, framing it as fact is wrong. Whether it should be included or not is a discussion for the articles talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It is more or less a group
			:blog that mostly publishes opinion, including eg antisemitic Soros conspiracy theories. Any Misplaced Pages editor reading their coverage of this project will immediately spot multiple falsehoods and errors, and also personal attacks on names editors based on these inaccuracies. At best on a par with Quillette. In short, not reliable for this topic, and if this topic is a guide to how robust its general reporting is it’s probably not reliable for anything. ] (]) 16:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			== CEIC data ==
	:No, it's too old to be used by us as a reliable source. <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 13:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
			I often see this site being used as a source for country-list data. They appear to be professional, but I'm not sure if they're considered a proper secondary source. They do not appear to be the same CEIC as the one owned by ], as they say they are owned by "ISI Markets". ] (]) 23:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: InarZan, what is the intended use? Age may not have any bearing on the matter, depending on use. -- ] (]) 14:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::This is part of the contentious discussion about the ] article. A basic principle is that we never regard Victorian colonial studies as reliable on Indian sociology today. ] may be of interest. Please do not take this as an endorsement of one side or the other in the content dispute. It will take a lot more than just a few RSN posts to resolve it. ] (]) 16:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::No. This is not related to article ]. I am concerned about article ]. I just want to include a quote to balance a view and avoid a potential confusion. I am giving below the entire paragraph. I only wish to quote the text given in the bold letters:
	::::{{quote|"The Christians, pursuant to the laws of the country, are the protectors of the silversmiths, brass-founders, carpenters, and smiths. The Pagans, who cultivate the palm-trees, form a militia under the Christians. If a pagan of any of these tribes should receive an insult, he has immediately recourse to the Christians, who procure a suitable satisfaction. The Christians depend directly on the Prince or his Minister, and not on the Provincial Governors. If any thing is demanded from them contrary to their privileges, the whole unite immediately for general defence. If a Pagan strike one of the Christians, he is put to death on the spot, or forced, himself, to bear to the church of the places an offering of a gold or silver hand, according to the quality of the person affronted. '''In order to preserve their nobility, the Christians never touch a person of inferior caste, not even a Nair. In the roads and streets, they cry out from a distance, in order to receive precedency from passengers; and if any one, even n Nair, should refuse this mark of respect, they are entitled to kill him on the spot. The Nairs, who are the nobility and warriors in Malabar, respect the Syrian Christians very highly''' and consider it a great honour to be regarded as their brothers. The privileges of the Syrian Christians are so numerous, that it would be tiresome to describe them all: but a few will be stated, of so important a nature, that they place them, in some measure, on an equality with their sovereigns. It is permitted only to the Brahmins and them to have inclosed porches before their houses. They are authorized to ride and travel on elephants: a distinction accorded only to them and the heirs of the crown. They sit in presence of the king and his ministers, even on the same carpet; a privilege granted to Ambassadors only. The King of Paroor, having wished, during the last century, to extend this privilege to the Nairs, the Christians declared war against him, and obliged him to restore affairs to their former state."}}
	::::Sorry for not signing above. Please give me a reply. Thanks. - <font face="Georgia">''']''' ''']'''</font> 17:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::It is definitely not a reliable source for present-day sociology of India. In regard to past attitudes and practices, it's a primary source. It might be possible to use it if carefully attributed. In that case it would have a form of words like "according to a British traveller writing in 1822...". (Find out who the author was, and the best way to describe his status.) Discuss that option with other editors on the talk page and see if anyone objects. We can only use primary sources with great care. ] (]) 16:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
			:It looks like just a big database. I would trust the first party sources for raw data more. ] (]) 10:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	== whosampled.com ==
			::If in question use secondary sources.] (]) 02:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Fantasy Literature ==
	Is anyone here familiar with whosampled.com? I had never heard of it 'til yesterday, when it was used as a source in the ] article. Specifically, an anonymous editor "American rapper ] sampled the score in his song 'Agent Orange,'" and used to source this claim. Taking a look at the page on whosampled.com, it says that the content is user-generated but is moderated, and gives a list of who the volunteer moderators are. This sounds a lot like what we do here at WP, and leads me to believe that this is not a reliable source. I would like to hear some other opinions, though, before removing the information from the article. ---<font face="Georgia">''']'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 14:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
	:You're right, it is a user-generated site with a team of anonymous moderators () who's expertise are unknown. It is analogous to Misplaced Pages and is not RS. --] ] 14:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
	::Yeah, that was my gut instinct. Interesting site, but not reliable. ---<font face="Georgia">''']'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 15:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
			I see this source around a lot and I would like to have it settled for whether it is OK to use for reviews. It looks good to me and not promotional or any of the typical sorts of issues that plague these kinds of websites, but I am not sure, and I would like to know before I use it on pages, and sometimes books are cited to this at NPP and I am unsure how I should judge it. I would judge it as decently established but it looks to me to be straddling the line between online review publication and blog. It's used on about 160 already. Anyone else have any thoughts? ] (]) 02:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	== thedeadrockstarsclub.com ==
	Does anyone have any opinions about whether or not is a reliable source? ] (]) 17:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)		:It has the appearance of a blog. It has a sort-of staff:. I'd be hesitant to use it for ] purposes. ] (]) 09:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::This is the terms its staff work under:
			::Basically they're unpaid volunteers who become voting members of the staff. They are expected to review an unspecified but regular number of books in order to maintain their membership. It isn't clear that there's much in the way of editorial oversight beyond a pledge not to plagiarize review material. Considering their concentration on volume of reviews and appearance of loose editorial standards I'd be hesitant to use this group to establish the notability of a book. ] (]) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::So just for notability purposes it is unusable or is it something that should not be included on pages that are notable? ] (]) 22:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Not an RS. ] (]) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			== NASASpaceFlight.com ==
	:It looks like an unnotable fansite. It doesn't appear to meet Misplaced Pages's standards for ]. ] (]) 17:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
			Looking to see if we can come to some consensus on 's use as a reliable source in articles related to ], specifically in its use in ] and ].
	::This is a website that I have watched and used regularly for years now. I have found it to be accurate, and it often contains more correct information than is provided by some newspapers and other such media. Despite it's rather quirky styling, do not be fooled - it is professional in its approach and, in my long experience, it is '''reliable'''. Perhaps some editors would carry to check the information therein for its accuracy. It obviously is not going to out trump '']'' for example, but it does cover music on a worldwide scale, is not opinionated, sticks to basic factual information, and often contains musicians that are not covered by major news sources. - ] (]) 17:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
			At a glance, to me the site seems to be a bit fan-sitey and seems to glean a lot of information from rumour and speculation based on photos and video they've taken from the perimeter or via drones flying over SpaceX facilities. I also see no evidence on the website of any editorial oversight or fact checking policies.
	:::That may be true, but it doesn't appear to meet Misplaced Pages's standards for what is considered ]. If the web site's author has been published by a third-party reliable source, it might qualify as reliable per ]. If not, there's still ]: If a rule gets in the way of making the encyclopedia better, it should be ignored. I'm sorry that I can't give a most satisfactory answer. ] (]) 18:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
			] mentions the site as a reliable source but the only criteria they give for its inclusion are that the source <br>
	*Appears non-notable and non-reliable. Reliability is not decided by degree of accuracy, but by authoritativeness and degree of professional involvement and review. This site is basically a personal blog.]·] 18:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
			{{tq|1="should already have a Misplaced Pages page (notable enough to be created) and have reliable sources covering them (notable enough to be mentioned)."}} which I think we can all agree is not valid signal of reliability. ] (]) 03:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:] calls for {{tq|"a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"}}. A Google books search appears to show ], and even use by NASA. They appear to have some editorial staff, but there's no editorial guideline I could find. Obviously the forum section wouldn't be reliable per ].<br>Given how often they are used by other sources I would think they should probably considered generally reliable. Is there any specific instances that are of concern? After all generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Agree not RS, as per Maunus·snunɐw. No oversight policy, no credentials. I won't even take marks off for style (hideous though it may be), the degree of accuracy is irrelevant (as far as WP is concerned). --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
			::{{tq|1=Is there any specific instances that are of concern? After all generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable.}} Nothing in particular, mostly just looking to see if coverage of events from this source would constitute sigcov in reliable sources for the purposes of ]. ] (]) 15:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::This is probably a reliable source, but ] isn't just matter of reliability. Notability is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{tq|1=WP:SIGCOV isn't just matter of reliability.}} no, but coverage in an unreliable source does not count for ]. That's why I'm seeking opinions on whether this source in particular is reliable. ] (]) 15:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I've found their written news reporting to be generally reliable however their coverage of SpaceX in particular often comes off as promotional (you very rarely see the controversies or criticisms found in other sources reflected in their work) but that may be more self-censorship to maintain their inside access to SpaceX than objective promotion. I would not touch their forum or youtube channel with a 10 foot stick but thats surely besides the point of this discussion. ] (]) 21:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{tq|1=I would not touch their forum or youtube channel with a 10 foot stick but thats surely besides the point of this discussion.}} well, maybe not exactly besides the point. There are several citations to their YouTube channel in the articles I've mentioned (and similar articles). What in particular about their YouTube channel do you believe is less reliable than their website? ] (]) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::In general I find the stuff on their Youtube channel to be much more speculative and clickbaity as well as of a generally low quality. Often its just one of their people flipping between a bunch of pictures from the day before and speculating live about what they might mean. It also doesn't appear to be subject to the same standard of editorial review, its not the same standard of writing and analysis (much of it appears unscripted and I haven't seen them make corrections after the fact). ] (]) 21:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			== How restrictive is the TRT World „Turkish Government conflict of interest“ unreliability? ==
	== All female pornstars like other women, and men, and will probably have sex with you, at least according to porn sites ==
			How broad should this restriction be interpreted? For example, does it include topics such as ], ] and the current conflict in Syria? ] (]) 12:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	In reviewing our overblown coverage of pornstars, I have noticed that the vast majority of female stars that I have reviewed all appear to comment about how attracted to women they are, at least when they are talking to their industry trade rags. I am concerned that including this kind of "in universe," information as reliably sourced encyclopedic fact is problematic. Two examples to which I refer: and . I contend that information about pornstars that is sourcable only to trade rags and is of questionable provenance (such as "being in an open marriage," or "enjoying swinging," or "identifying as a bisexual, but preferring men," or "loving bsdm," is of questionably veracity, and such sources are not reliable for biographical information that is likley overblown, created out of thin air, or exagerated. Comments? ] (]) 20:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
	:I'd suggest you ask the wrestling editors how they deal with ]. Industry rags are likely to be highly reliable for porn kayfabe, but unreliable for actor's personal lives. ] (]) 22:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
	:I don't have an opinion, other than if this section title is true, I just want to say "Yay!" {{-)}} --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
	:I don't find it terribly difficult to believe that a pornstar from San Francisco is . That being said, usually statements that a person makes in an interview are considered sufficient for their sexual identity, but interviews with a porno mag might be an exception--since that's part of the performance of being a porn star. In any case, "loving bsdm" might be a trivial detail best left out of the article anyway. ] (]) 06:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
			:I would have thought it applies very strongly for Kurdistan and Syria, as Turkey is in open conflict in those areas. Israel might depend on the context, Turkey obviously isn't a uninterested party but it's not Iran. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Oxford English Dictionary quoted on ] ==
			::To be clear it would be reliable for statements of the Turkish governments official views in all cases. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Of course, I‘m just asking about reliability for facts, because I saw some less than great statements, particularly in the I/P area. Thank you! ] (]) 14:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Basically agree with ActivelyDis. I think TRT World is pretty good on non-domestic issues on the whole, but not for anything Kurdish. Israel is fine. Probably not good for Syria as Turkey is a belligerent party there, although I’ve never seen it actually publish anything questionable on Syria apart from Kurdish-related stuff. ] (]) 16:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Is “Zannettou, Savvas "A Quantitative Approach to Understanding Online Antisemitism". a reliable source for ] ==
	Material from the ] has been used to support a statement on the ] article, but repeatedly removed as a "factual inaccuracy", examples and . To provide additional support for the article I added a quote from the source, , but this has been deleted by another editor. Talk page discussion ]. As I seem to be in a minority regarding the use of the source, guidance is requested. --] (]) 06:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
	:For my own part, I want to assure you that I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with you citing the ''OED''. I am not in disagreement over your use of the ''OED'' in this instance, neither am I challenging the reliability of the ''OED'' as a source(!). I removed the quote merely because it seemed redundant and therefore unnecessary. You might have noticed that I also added a link in the citation to the online ''OED'', providing readers with direct, immediate access to the word entry where they could readily see the content you quoted (if they desired to do so) as a substitute for reproducing that content in the article. To reiterate, I did not delete the cited source, I deleted a quote taken from the source that had been added to its inline citation. Please refer to my recent post on the article talk page where I attempt to clear up the simple, unfortunate misunderstanding that has brought us to this point. Thank you. — ] (]) 08:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
	::No, we still haven't succeeded in restoring all of the deleted source material, in the manner prescribed in ], but grateful thanks to ] who has put in a lot of time and effort to achieve a compromise. --] (]) 07:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
			I can’t find evidence it’s been published. ] ] 19:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Sources used at List of Vegans ==
			:I'm not up for reading it right now, but it's been published, and the correct citation is: Zannettou, S., Finkelstein, J., Bradlyn, B., & Blackburn, J. (2020, May). A quantitative approach to understanding online antisemitism. In ''Proceedings of the International AAAI conference on Web and Social Media'' (Vol. 14, pp. 786-797). Google Scholar shows where it can be accessed. If it's kept, the references to it in the Notes section should change "Savvas" to something like "Zannettou et al." ] (]) 21:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	There is a dispute over the validity of some of the sources used in the case of ]'s entry at ]. The dispute is over whether the sources constitute RS status in regards to the claim he is ]. Please note that this does not effect his position on the list because I consider his official site to be legitimate for the claim, but an editor keeps adding further sources that I consider not reliable and I request an impartial opinion.
			::I should add that the Zannettou et al. citations that currently exist in the article are preprints, which generally are not RSs, per ]. The other citation was also subsequently in conference proceedings. Conference proceedings might or might not be reliable sources for specific content, depends on the conference and the content. ] (]) 22:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:What's the context for this question? Where is it being cited/do you want to be able to cite it? ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] I'm a bit confused by the question - did you look at the article? It's cited several times there and as I can't find evidence that it's been reliably published I don't think it should be used. ] ] 08:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			Apologies, I missed another one, also apparently never published."Zannettou, Savvas, Tristan Caulfield, Jeremy Blackburn, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Michael Sirivianos, Gianluca Stringhini, and Guillermo Suarez-Tangil. "On the Origins of Memes by Fringe Web Communities." arXiv.org, September 22, 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.12512." ] ] 08:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I provided a link to the published version of that one in my second comment above. The citation is Zannettou, S., Caulfield, T., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Sirivianos, M., Stringhini, G., & Suarez-Tangil, G. (2018, October). On the origins of memes by means of fringe web communities. In ''Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018'' (pp. 188-202). There's an alternate citation at the top right of the copy where it says "ACM Reference Format." ] (]) 13:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	The edit in question:
			::@] ACM is reputable, but I seem to have forgotten that we can use published conference papers, but not papers simply presented at a conference. Sorry. ] ] 14:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I'm not sure that I'm following. Both papers were published in conference proceedings. FWIW, even preprints are ] in WP's sense of this term, which is only "a source that is made available to the public in some form." Even if there are no conference proceedings, it's possible to use a conference paper that was presented, as long as the presenter has made it publicly available (e.g., via something like arxiv.org). But all of this only establishes that the paper is published and therefore verifiable, not that it's a RS for the content in question. ] (]) 14:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Sorry, I mean when is a paper submitted to a conference run by a reliable organisation an RS? When submitted? If published as part of the publication of the conference papers? ] ] 15:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::It is published, Conference proceedings of Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), volume 14. AAAI has been around since 1979 with respected associations. Submission to a conference is not sufficient to meet any standards. Acceptance by a reputable conference after peer review (some conference talks are invited and not peer reviewed) is a good indicator of reliability though not a guarantee (the conference paper may well be revised between acceptance and publication in a proceedings and even then might in the long run not be considered reliable). As it stands, I would say reliable for the use of Happy Merchant online unless other sources can be found undermining its reliability. ] (]) 15:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	The sources:
			<!-- ] 19:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1751745462}}
	* {{cite news|url=http://vegan-india.blogspot.com/2012/01/in-conversation-with-dr-will-tuttle.html|title=In Conversation with Dr. Will Tuttle: Towards a World Peace Diet|publisher=Vegan India!|date=2012-01-05|accessdate=2012-04-25|archiveurl=http://liveweb.archive.org/http://vegan-india.blogspot.com/2012/01/in-conversation-with-dr-will-tuttle.html|archivedate=2012-04-25}}
			Should we be using articles from the Hawar News Agency, especially in relation to the (geo)political side of Rojava? This also includes articles in the scope of the Syrian civil war. It has ties to the SDF, which means there is a significant conflict of interest here; <s>I should also add that the YPG/YPD/SDF ,</s> (I pretty much exaggerated what I read here, the arguments below are convincing) which raises concern over its reliability. I want to get community consensus before I do anything, especially because the article in question (]) is related to a CTOP. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 19:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	** A blog based on Blogspot; I do not regard this as reliable as per ].
			:(Copying this response from the talk page of the ]:) Of course we have to use Hawar, simply because it is one the most prominent news sites from Syria. It ''shouldn't'' be used as the sole source for contentious issues (unless it cites claims), but for basic facts such as local election results, regional policy decisions, etc. it is one of the only sources available. It is also used as a source by academic researchers such as in ''The Kurds in the Middle East: Enduring Problems and New Dynamics'', ''The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts'', ''Soldiers of End-Times. Assessing the Military Effectiveness of the Islamic State'', and ''Statelet of Survivors. The Making of a Semi-Autonomous Region in Northeast Syria''.<br>(The following part is new, written for RSN:) These are books written by experts on Syria, released by reputable publishers such as ‎ Oxford University Press, and they have seemingly deemed Hawar to be a partisan, but useable source. Speaking from experience as an editor who has been active in editing articles on the Syrian civil war for ten years, I would also note that Hawar was previously discussed by editors and similarily assessed, as it is fairly reliable though should be used with caution in especially problematic fields such as casualty numbers (where partisanship becomes a major problem). ] (]) 20:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	* {{cite news|url=http://www.vegsource.com/dr-will-tuttle/spiritual-people-moving-toward-veganism.html|title=Spiritual People Moving Toward Veganism?|publisher=VegSource Interactive, Inc.|date=2011-04-02|accessdate=2012-04-25|first=Will|last=Tuttle|archiveurl=http://liveweb.archive.org/http://www.vegsource.com/dr-will-tuttle/spiritual-people-moving-toward-veganism.html|archivedate=2012-04-25}}
			:Having read through the article you linked it doesn't show that media is heavily censored. A relevant sentence would appear to be: <br>{{tq|"In the current situation, the journalists we interviewed usually stress that, on the one hand, they enjoy relative freedom of expression. The PYD did not forcefully close those it considers as antagonistic media. Reporters can move freely in the region and cover a wide array of issues. Additionally, journalists from international or regional media are also generally allowed to operate freely. However, they also say that there is always a tension with the authorities in power and there are red lines that cannot be crossed."}}<br>As well as:<br>{{tq|"Gradually, they seem to have adopted an editorial line that is less critical, if not supportive, of the political system in Rojava. This support, according to some local journalists, is not due so much to direct imposition from the authorities, but rather to their own convictions and, even more important, to the feeling that doing otherwise would be very unpopular in a conflict-ridden context."}}<br>So it doesn't sound like they have the most freedom of media, but it appears a long way from heavily censored. Restrictions on reporting matters that could effect security are common in areas of conflict (and even outside of them).<br>Hawar News Agency has some ] and would probably be covered by ]. Issues of bias (]) and opinion (]) don't immediately make a source unreliable. In general I would agree with Applodion, reliable but caution should be taken for issue where it's bias or censorship of security matters may effect it's reporting. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	**This is a privately run site run by a husband and wife according to http://www.vegsource.com/about-us.html. I believe it fails ].
			:Agree with above, helpful to understand its bias, but this means to use with caution and understanding rather than preventing use. ] (]) 00:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	* {{cite video | people = Will Tuttle (Speaker) | year = 2008 | title = Will Tuttle: Eating for Spiritual Health & Social Harmony | url=http://archive.org/details/sfvswvw2008_Will_Tuttle_2 | format = MP4 OGG | medium = Video recording of live presentation | language = English | location = San Francisco, California, U.S.A. | accessdate = 2012-04-25 | time = 29:16}}
			:Agree with the above. If we are citing it for contentious claims, then it's better we provide attribution. Unless OP or someone else can come up with credible sources that ] the reliability of ''Hawar'', I don't see any reason to worry about its inclusion. Looking over the article, it seems most of the citations to it are for easily verifiable facts (i.e. changes in AANES leadership, recognition by the Catalan parliament, etc.), rather than anything contentious. --] (]) 10:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	** Video footage uploaded to Archive. I believe it fails ] which states ''video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight''; it uis not possible to ascertain if the publisher i.e. the uploader is a reliable source.
			== RfC: LionhearTV ==
	The editor in question is using lots of these types of sources, so I would be grateful if we could draw a line under it one way or ther other. ] (]) 12:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
			{{Moved discussion from|Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Sources#RfC: LionhearTV|2= Royiswariii, 19 January 2025 00:55 (UTC)}}<!-- ] 11:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740135721}}
			I want your comments about the reliability of LionhearTV, I can't determine whether it is reliable or not, on ], the Lionheartv is in the unreliable section, but, despite of that some editors still using this source in all Philippine Articles. So let's make a vote:
	:Blogspot - Has an editorial policy page, lays out its goals, and provides a resource for corrections if needed. The article claims to be an interview with Dr Tuttle directly, I'm not sure where else you would get that interview from. It's not an exceptional claim, (and I don't see why it's even needed as a backup, that goes for all these sources), but I think this one <s>could be borderline reliable</s> is not RS. While it is definitely on blogspot, this isn't really a blog. I changed my mind when I realized I had no idea who the actual author was of the article. Personally, it's probably fine, by WP standards, I'm going with not RS.
	:vegsource seems to be down, and the archive wouldn't show either, no comment
	:Video Footage appears to have been uploaded by its creator, San Francisco Vegetarian Society (, and this video can be found linked to their site, ), and therefore would be RS (uploaded by anyone else and it would not be). But again, it's such a non-exceptional claim that as per ] I don't know why you'd need additional references at all. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 15:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
	::Thanks for looking. I find it all a bit weird personally, he seems to be adding lots of redundant refs to many entries (like 4/5); since some of them are ok it's not even like their removal precipitates the name coming off the list. At first I thought it was someone connected to a particular site and was just trying to slip in some promotion, but it's much more widespread. ] (]) 18:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::I'm adding the extra refs because of users like you who are so eager to delete content. These extra refs increase the chances of there being at least one valid ref in place for a long time to come, even if other users like you come along to delete them because they find them unsatisfactory or because both the original site and its archived counterpart are no longer accessible. The extra refs increase the chances of the name remaining on the list. --] (]) 01:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::I never "came along" and started deleting content. When I came along a couple of years ago both the vegan and vegetarian lists were completely unsourced, which violated Misplaced Pages policy regarding claims about living people. I spent a couple of months adddng hundreds of sources to the lists, and removed the entries I could not source so both lists were completely sourced. These lists are completely sourced now, and editors who come along can see that so there is no excuse for adding entries without sources. I have better things to do than chase down sources to cover someone else's lazy editing, so I remove them if the entry is unsourced or is not RS. Tagging entries for a citation doesn't work because no-one actually does come along and add a source, and if you ask someone to supply a source they point out there are other entries that are unsourced. While I appreciate anyone who comes along and adds sources, they are not much good if these sources are blogs, private sites, youtube videos etc, since if the list ever gets to FL standard they will have to come out anyway. Either help or don't, but it is not your place to criticise an editor for not doing enough to source the lists when they have done far more work and for more sourcing on the article than you have. These lists probably would have bene deleted by now if it were not for my efforts in sourcing these articles; you have source half a dozen entries, let's see how motivated you are after you have done several hundred. ] (]) 11:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
			* '''Option 1: ]'''
	::::::Hi Betty, I respect what you're doing in trying to keep the list tidy and properly sourced. I think the problem lies in your reluctance, in some cases, to accept people's self-published websites. These should not be accepted to establish notability, but as everyone on that list is, in theory, notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article, notability is not the issue. Therefore, ] and ] kick in, and these say that self-published sources are fine for claims like this (unless we have reason to question the source's authenticity). Indeed, the subject herself is (in most cases) the only person who knows whether she is a vegan, which is an inherent problem with a list like this, in that the subject's word is realistically the only criteria we have. That means we can never be sure of the list's accuracy -- someone could say she's a vegan on Monday, then by Tuesday be tucking into steak sandwiches and ice-cream. But that's not related to the sources being self-published. We'd have the same problem of checkability even if they announced it through the New York Times. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
			* '''Option 2: ]'''
			* '''Option 3: ]'''
			* '''Option 4: ]'''
			] ] 10:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::::I have no problem with sourcing through self-published sites, but if you can't establish authorship then it is not a reliable source. ] (]) 23:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::We've had this discussion on the talk page. There's no requirement for editors to contact every single website and somehow check that the owner is who she says she is. We don't use sites if we have reason to doubt the authenticity, but there does have to be a reason to question it. Without that, it's okay to use it under ], which is policy, so long as the site owner is talking about herself and not a third party. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::''You'' say there is no requirement, but I don't see anyone supporting your position. If authorship of self-published sites do not have to be validated then put it in the guidelines, rather than leaving it open to interpretation. ] (]) 23:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. The Philippines has plenty of ] to choose from. If you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find refs for something or someone and have to use this, I'd say consider against and don't add it to the article. ] (]) 13:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{od}} You can read the policy for yourself at ]. It is part of the Verifiability policy (policy, not a guideline):
			* '''Comment''': For better understanding and context, especially for editors unfamiliar of this topic's origin:
			::LionhearTV is a blog site, as described on its "About Me" page, established in 2008 and functioning primarily as a celebrity and entertainment blog. The site is operated by eMVP Digital, which also manages similar blog sites, such as and .
	:Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information '''about themselves''', usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
			::In addition to these blogs, LionhearTV organizes the , which recognize achievements in the entertainment industry. This accolade has been acknowledged by major industry players, including ] and ]. Like other awards, the RAWR Awards present physical trophies to honorees.
	:# the material is not unduly self-serving and ] in nature;
			::A discussion about LionhearTV’s reliability as a source took place on the ] talk page in September 2024 (see ]). The issue was subsequently raised on the Tambayan Philippines talk page (]) and the ] (]). However, these discussions did not yield a constructive consensus on whether LionhearTV can be considered a reliable source. The discussion at Tambayan deviated into a debate about ], which was unrelated to the original subject. Meanwhile, the sole respondent at the RSN inquiry commented, {{tq|It may come down to how it's used, it maybe unreliable for contentious statement or comments about living people, but reliable for basic details.|quotes=yes}}
	:# it does not involve claims about third parties;
			::At this moment, LionhearTV is listed as '''unreliable''' on ] as result of the no consensus discussion at RSN.
	:# it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
			:<span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 13:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	:# there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
			::Lionheartv is one person operation. How can there be editorial discretion on that case? ] (]) 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	:# the article is not based primarily on such sources.
			:::I'm more surprised on how a single person actively manages three blog sites and one accolade, with the accolade even giving out physical trophies to its winners. Like, how is he/she funding and doing all of these? <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 14:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::It's immaterial on how we determine ]. What could be very important that other ] missed out on that only this blog carries? If it's only this blog that carries articles about something, it's not very important. This blog is the very definition of ]. I'm surprised we're having this conversation. A blacklist is needed. ] (]) 02:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	It says nothing about editors being required to authenticate each and every website, which would be close to impossible. It does say there should be "no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity," but note the word "reasonable." In the absence of a reason to believe the website is fake, we trust it, unless the issue is a contentious one per BLP, but someone publishing of herself that she is a vegan is not contentious. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
			:'''Option 3'''. There's something about its reporting and organizational structure that is off compared to the regular newspapers. ] (]) 14:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Though, I find it strange and concerning that reputable sources copypasted some of LionhearTV's articles:
	Just noting here that Betty Logan has opened a second thread about sourcing at this page ] below. I tried to join it to this thread, but he reverted, so I'm leaving this note instead. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
			::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts/ (December 8, 2024)<br/>Sunstar: https://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts (December 10, 2024)
			::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2025/01/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 11, 2025)<br/>Manila Republic: https://www.manilarepublic.com/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 14, 2025)
	I think more is required. If she is a self-professed vegan notable enough for this discussion then surely there is an article or a book, that this could be sourced to versus a selfpup which may or may not have a connection to the subject. ] (]) 06:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
			::These are two instances I found so far where other sources copypasted from LionhearTV. But I saw other instances where LionhearTV is the one who copypasted from other sources, such examples include:
			::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-im-okay-to-cinemas/ (December 30, 2024)<br/>Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/showbiz/music/2024/12/29/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-i-m-okay-to-cinemas-0948 (December 29, 2024)
	== Sputnikmusic ==
			::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/06/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game/ (June 27, 2024) <br/>Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/starmagic/articles-news/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game-22637 (June 24, 2024)
			::I honestly don't know about these editors, they just copying each other's works. Probably cases of ]. <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	Is ] a reliable source to use in articles for songs and albums? For example . The reviewer is apparently a user of the site, but I have seen the site used in other articles previously. ] (]) 14:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
			{{hat|Discussion about moving RFC to RSN}}
	:Sputnikmusic has both staff and user reviews; only the former have had sufficient editorial oversight to be considered reliable. Avoid using user reviews as it's just user-generated content. ] ] 14:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
			:::@], @], @], if you don't mind we can move this discussion to ] to get more opinions and votes on other experienced editors. ] ] 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Your example is not RS for anything to do with the Sugababes. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 15:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
	::Thanks. I removed it from the article I was writing. ] (]) 03:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)		::::'''Support'''. ] (]) 16:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::'''Support'''. Though, I suggest finishing or closing this discussion so that we don't have two running discussions that tackles the same thing. If we want to construct a consensus, we better do it in one place. Alternatively, we first seek consensus from the local level first (by finishing this discussion) before moving one level up (the RSN). <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 16:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	== thepeerage.com (update) ==
	This notice is an update to previous discussions, listed here:
	*]
	*]
	The compiler of this website (Darryl Lundy) has responded to me by email to clarify the some of the points raised. He was unaware of the debates listed above at the time. Here are two extracts from his email:
	*''I try to show the source for every single fact given on the website - although when I started creating the database around 2000, I didn't show sources, so now I am still going back and adding sources to everything - will be a year or two before that task is finished (88.5% of all facts currently are sourced). I try to primarily use sources which are printed reference books but if someone emails me something about their own family, I will use that as well.''
	*''I'm not a professional genealogist - no formal qualifications in the area''
	So, I think that backs up the previous discussions, "thepeerage.com" website is effectively an SPS with regard to '''some''' family histories, which are accepted in good faith by the compiler. Those pieces of information should not be used here on WP.
	I do not feel there is any reason to question the ] of the information on "thepeerage.com" that has been identified as being sourced from an RS, particularly if the WP article is not a ], but it is obvious best practice to consult and cite the original source if the contributor has access to them.
	The problem is that some of these RS require expensive subscriptions and consequently, not all libraries stock them.
	Rather than deleting "thepeerage.com" citations altogether, I think it would be good practice to indicate whether the information has been extracted from an RS, in which case the original source should be cited as well. In due course, contributors with access to the RS can update the citations. Obviously, SPS-sourced material needs to be deleted, or at the very least, ] tags applied. ] (]) 16:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
	::'''No''' There is no reason to believe that this source copies the material intact, correct and complete: The source has no editorial control. Further, what you say you've heard via personal correspondence isn't really a suitable basis for evaluating a source. ] (]) 23:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::'''Agree''' with your first point, however, even sources with editorial oversight have errors in them. That's why this isn't an RS and why ultimately, we need to check the source material. Where this website can help is that it points directly to a page in a book; get the book, check the page and if all is well, there you are.
	:::'''Disagree''' with your second point as the compiler is not claiming to be an expert - he is excluding himself and some of the material from being a reputable source. This really has to be taken on board. ] (]) 19:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::Demonstrate the SPS exemption. There's no demonstration of a self-published source exemption, or expertise here. ] (]) 23:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Sorry, I was trying to draw a distinction between unverified SPS material on the site and the re-publishing of extant material alongside it. I'd assumed the reformatted information could not be tainted by opinion due to its plain content.] (]) 18:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::That's nice. We don't assume that the reformatted information is untainted because of the propensity of people on the internet to fake things, and because of the propensity of people in general to fake things. This is why we may use some things as external links (like thepeerage.com), even when they're unreliable sources. Because we refer people to a source we consider "unreliable" because our standards are high regarding our own use of sources, whereas people in this case may be able to make use of the information at the external link, using their judgement. Misplaced Pages editors rarely use their judgement about competing content claims, and only use them about the capacity of a source to sustain a claim. ] (]) 07:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::I agree with that. If he's a published/peer-reviewed scholar in this field, OK. If he isn't, then, however useful his site is in indicating other sources to us, we can't treat it as a reliable source in itself.
	:::::NB Where thepeerage.com gives a good overview of a relevant matter (e.g. the genealogy of a family, since genealogy is not our own main concern) then there may still be reason to include thepeerage.com under external links. <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 08:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::::OK, so if I'm starting to understand this correctly, when I come across an article that uses the website as a reference source, I should work with the authors to improve references (by going back to the original source if available) and agree to remove any dubious information that I don't believe is likely to have originated in a published work. In a small number of circumstances it may be relevant to include an external link. ] (]) 18:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::Didn't answer, but that's because I agree. "A small number" may be exactly right: let's be fair, either way. If we used peerage.com originally, and as long there is still some handy added information to find there, a retained external link helps our readers and at the same time serves as acknowledgement. <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 10:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
	== Establishing the authenticity of personal websites ==
	{{resolved|A link from his work site has been found}}
	My interpretation of RS rules is that personal websites are permitted as reliable sources for claims by the person they supposedly belong to, but as with Twitter I understand that there must be some way of confirming their authenticity i.e. such as a confirmed Twitter account. Or maybe a reliable source that provides the address of the person's website. What is the judgment in regards to sites where they claim to belong to the person but there seems to be no concrete evidence that they belong to the person in question?
	Specifically, http://wjsullivan.net claims to be the website of ] but I can't find any concrete evidence in reliable source that this is actually true. In this case is it permissable to use it as source for biographical information about the subject, or does RS required that its authenticity be established independently? ] (]) 20:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
	:I believe a reliable source is required to verify who the web site belongs to. ] (]) 21:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
	::Thankyou, that's what I thought but I needed to make sure. ] (]) 21:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
	Can It has name, phone numbers, and addresses. ] (]) 21:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
	:According to that the site is registered to a "John Sullivan", and he seems to live in the right area. It looks like it probably is his website, so is that sufficient or is it original research to link the WHOIS registration to the subject of the article? ] (]) 21:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
	::Checking whether a source is a reliable source is not counted as original research. The most we can do about them is check whether it is reasonable to say they are reliable. You seem to have done a reasonable check. someone might come up with a reason why it is not reasonable but I think the onus is now on whoever says that to provide evidence to back up what they say. ] (]) 22:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
	== George Menachery ==
	Is ] a RS for articles related to social history in ]? More specifically, his journal ""? - ] (]) 13:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
	:My quick impression is that he is a published academic in this subject area; therefore this particular paper, although apparently self-published, is not disqualified. It looks well-documented. Am I right in thinking he is a member of the St Thomas Christians? One should be aware of possible conflicts of interest and be prepared to mention his name in the text if citing him on anything contentious. Would others agree with that view? <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 14:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
	:Seems to pass my ] test as well, I would say this is an RS article. I didn't see where it said he was a member of STCs, but if that's the case, it's not a direct COI, but any exceptional claims should probably be backed up with another source as well. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 03:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
	:I see no indication that he has published in the scholarly mode at all. His encyclopaedia is self-published. He hasn't published with scholarly publishers. He don't have any claims of publishing journal articles in the peer reviewed mode. ] (]) 03:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
	::I was maybe a bit too positive but I think that's a bit too negative :) He and his encyclopaedia crop up in JSTOR references and reviews, admittedly not many. The academic side of his career is in Christian colleges, but, there you go, it happens. My impression from a brief but helpful review of the Encyclopaedia seen on JSTOR is that there is one POV issue that must be noted: an assumption, amounting to an article of faith, that St Thomas reached Kerala and is buried there. So better not quote him on that -- certainly not as a reliable and neutral source. <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 08:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::No, I am not into that. I want to quote him for the untouchability practiced by Syrian Christians. Since he himself is a Syrian Christian, I assume he has some authority regarding that issue. Could you please refer the discussion ] and comment whether he is an RS in the particular context? - <font face="Georgia">''']''' ''']'''</font> 09:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::So you want to quote him on the expert practice of religion amongst a particular group; and, we can clearly demonstrate that he is an expert practicioner of religion within this group? That's a different expert argument to say, religious history, where I'd suggest the publication mode of his encyclopaedia would need to be weighed against its use in scholarly articles (as suggested by Andrew Dalby). If you want to quote him on the contemporary social practices of a religion of which he is an expert member, that seems fine. ] (]) 09:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Woah, I've only just spotted this thread, despite being involved with {{u|Inarzan}} and other STC advocates on various articles. I had raised the issue of Menachery's reliability but it seems that it came here without any notification being made. Anyway, as with many aspects of the STC articles, the problem is as much on of English comprehension etc as it is of the more generalised reliability issues. In this instance, Inarzan appears to have <s>misrepresented<s> been vague the purpose for which they want to use Menachery. As I understand it, the untouchability matter relates to a historic practice rather than a current one. The chances of Menachery having experienced that practice are at issue. I seriously question the author's reliability. - ] (]) 15:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:Menarchy is clearly unreliable for historical caste/caste-system practices: no scholarly publications, work is self-published, no qualifications as a historian. The expert exemption I'd give him over current practices of his own religious group (due to his standing as a publishing religious figure, publishing in modes that reflect standard scholarly religious publication) doesn't apply to historical practices. ] (]) 21:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	== Siachen Casualty Figure ==
	{{resolved}}
	I want to know about the following sources whether they are reliable for quoting the casualty figure in the article ]:
	# {{cite book|author=K.R. Gupta|title=Global Warming (Encyclopaedia of Environment)|year=2008|publisher=Atlantic Publishers & Distributors|isbn=978-8126908813|page=109|url=http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=Vza8kSHGS90C&pg=PA105&dq=siachen+located&hl=en&sa=X&ei=42qXT6-CB8LMsgbK-e3tAQ&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=siachen%20located&f=false}}
	# {{cite journal |author=Aamir Ali|date=November 2002|title=A Siachen Peace Park: The Solution to a Half-Century of International Conflict?|journal=Mountain Research and Development|volume=22|issue=4|page=316|publisher=International Mountain Society|format=PDF|doi=10.1659/0276-4741(2002)0222.0.CO;2|url=http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1659/0276-4741%282002%29022%5B0316%3AASPPTS%5D2.0.CO%3B2}}
	There is also a related discussion on ]. On a side note majority of the troops died there because of extreme climatic conditions. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
	First this is an important figure of casualty in a war theater which cannot be poorly sourced. This figure will be used in the Infobox of the article so we need to be careful about not using improper sources.
	#The book by K.R Gupta (cited above) is titled '''A Textbook of Agricultural Extension Management By K.R. Gupta''' related to global warming/agriculture and is not reliable source for Battlefield casualty on Indo-Pak border.
	# does not not state his source or clarify how he reached the magic number (or wild guess ? ) of 15,000 Casualty and there is still no official (or reliable or neutral) source supporting the unusually high figure of 15,000.
	Besides they do not give any clue on how they reached the figure of 15000, Which makes them unfit for such an important figure in the Infobox of the ] article more discussion is on ]--'' ''']''']'' 14:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
	* '''Title of Source 1''' I would not have raised this point, had I not told the editor multiple times on the article talk. The title of first source given by DBigXray is a deliberate attempt to misinform the readers, so please do not regard any of the above comments (including mine) and do an independent analysis. Thanks. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
	::*The title i gave is what your link above says, not any deliberate (or non deliberate) attempt by me, we can see who is misinforming.--'' ''']''']'' 15:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
	*This book ({{cite book|author=Paul R. Dettman|title=India Changes Course: Golden Jubilee to Millennium|url=http://books.google.co.in/books?id=8p19H4UwE_AC&pg=PA109&dq=number+of+casualties+in+siachen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MgOcT9DuFobwrQei9KFY&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=number%20of%20casualties%20in%20siachen&f=false|year=2001|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|isbn=978-0-275-97308-7|pages=109–}} ) says that the figures have never been officially released but the news paper report says that its 500 dead and as many as 10,000 sick or injured --] (]) 15:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
	::*yes this book by Dettman (which is a neutral author) tells us why source 1 and 2 are unsuitable for this particular situation--'' ''']''']'' 15:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
	:I don't think these sources are RS, although it does not matter what the title of the book is, if it was sourced properly, it's not, that's the problem, not the name. Both sources have the exact same sentence in it, so, it seems safe to say that one lifted it from the other, or they both lifted it from somewhere else. Both articles have sources listed at the end, I would look through those and see if you can find the real source of those numbers (I didn't look, but if they have a source in common, that's where I'd start). --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
	:*thanks a lot ] for giving your valuable comments and rationale. we all agree to it, so I am marking this as resolved. --'' ''']''']'' 10:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
	== veggies.org.uk ==
	*Article: ]
	*Source: http://www.veggies.org.uk/event.php?ref=1159
	*The Edit:
	Please can someone tell me if the above source is reliable for the claim that ] is a vegan? Slimvirgin insists it is, on the basis that "Nicholson is a well known vegan". However, I contest the source in this capacity because:
	#It does not explicitly state Nicholson is a vegan
	#The source does not seem to represent Nicholson, it appears to be self-published, and I cannot estabish editorial oversight.
	I would appreciate a third opinion on the source's RS status. ] (]) 23:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
	:I didn't fully check your second objection, but at least the first third of it seems well founded. No matter if your second objection is unwarranted; your first objection is warranted, and rules out this "source" for such a claim.
	:In general, the mere well-knownness of an assertion isn't acceptable evidence for the truth of that assertion. (If it were, WP would of course purvey a great deal more twaddle than it already does.)
	:] (of whom I'd never heard until minutes ago) also both (i) says that she's a vegan and (ii) categorizes her as a vegan, but presents no supporting evidence.
	:(This should be obvious, but: I know nothing about whether Nicholson is actually a vegan, wouldn't be even slightly surprised to find that she was one, and am not commenting on the credibility of the website in general.) -- ] (]) 00:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
	:Not RS for that claim. It does not say anything about her being vegan. However, googling her name and the word vegan brings up many hits, it seems clear that she, and her parents, are vegans, it should not be hard to source with something better. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 03:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
	:I agree, that is a self-published cite of dubious quality, which really does not even claim she is a vegan, though its implied perhaps, but it does not look difficult to find a RS, as Despayre said above. ] (]) 05:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
	::Sadly - this is the situation. ] (]) 07:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC).
	== ] ==
	I have a question about three websites being used to source "cultural references" in ] article. There is currently a dispute about the content in that section, and these are the only three examples that have any source at all, but I doubt any of these pass muster.
	First is metal-archives.com, which previous discussions here on RSN indicate is not a reliable source. In this case, it is only useful to source that the band recorded a cover of this song. That proves nothing about its notability.
	Next is www.paulgross.org/music.htm, the personal/career website of Canadian actor/musician Paul Gross. This is being used to source the claim that he intended to use the song on his show ''Due South'', but ultimately decided to write a song of his own. The page does support that claim, but the claim and the source are trivial.
	Last is http://wiki.ytmnd.com, which sources the claim that there is a fad on this website relating to the song. To this, I have to say, "So what?" Even if the source supports the claim, this is utterly irrelevant to the song, and is completely trivial, not to mention obscure.
	I would like to hear what other editors think of this information and the sources used to support these claims. Thanks! ---<font face="Georgia">''']'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 00:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
	:My opinion,
	# metal-archives - Not RS
	# Due South - Was a moderately successful show on American and Canadian National TV networks for several seasons, borderline notable, and RS for that claim I think
	# ytmnd.com - Not RS, not notable
	: --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 03:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
	== MAXIMILIANO HERRERA elections ==
	is often cited as a resource for election dates, but it is also wrong with such examples as its previous posting of the ] (he has not changed the site and put an "???" as unknown date, possibly from WP itself). And it also has no editorial oversight as a personal angelfiee page. The mentions as much in saying "The editor disclaims any representation of warranty, about the completeness or exactness of the information on the web site.".] (]) 22:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
	:Not RS, but feel free to leave a note on ] saying you thought about it. {{-)}} --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 02:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
	:: Indeed, without editorial oversight and independent verification, it is essentially a blog --] (]) 06:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
	== NSC Network ==
	I have seen many articles use for citation. But the website says it is "Powered by Wordpress". That means it is only a blog, right? Can such a blog be considered RS if it has a custom domain? There are many such Wordpress based "websites" out there. What is the general rule here? - <font face="Georgia">''']''' ''']'''</font> 08:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
	:It doesn't matter what domain. The issue against blogs is that, as a general thing, there's no review or oversight: the contributor(s) can write whatever they fancy. It's true that some quite scholarly material now appears in blog form (partly, I guess, because it's an easy way to set up a site). The question would be, is the author named and identifiable as a scholar who has published reliably elsewhere on the subject? If no, the blog is almost certainly not usable as a reliable source. If yes, it's worth considering. <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 10:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
	:I would agree that being a blog doesn't necessarily rule out a website these days (maybe that policy needs a tweak/update to clarify?) and looking at that site, it has editorial oversight in place, and lays out all its policies clearly as well (but admits to having a pro- and biased stance on some issues). The articles I randomly looked at all had attribution to an editor, and sources listed. I would say this would be RS for most things, but if there was something very controversial, I would try and use the source directly instead. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 15:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
	== allkpop.com ==
	I have been removing allkpop.com as a source for various Korean pop articles (say, ]). However, due to the lack of reliable sources on the topic in English, many new/anonymous editors use this site and many others as a source. If you do a search on "allkpop" (), you'll see ''many'' pages using the page as a source.
	Allkpop.com is a blog that (in general) translates various Korean news articles into English. However, they have run into issues/debates/controversies with Korean media () and allkpop has responded multiple times to these accusations (such as this ). However, if you look up "allkpop reliable" in Google, you'll see that it's an issue that still percolates throughout the k-pop blogosphere.
	The bigger issue is that ''clearly indicates'' that "''allkpop is a celebrity gossip site which publishes rumors and conjecture in addition to accurately reported facts''" and "''Information on this site may or may not be true and allkpop makes no warranty as to the validity of any claims.''" As such, how can it be used as a reliable source?? '''Considering that most of the K-pop pages are BLPs, this is, to me, quite troubling.'''
	There are many other websites that fall into this category (other k-pop blogs include hellokpop and seoulbeats, and there are numerous group-specific fansites such as soshified that are used as sources) but allkpop seems to be the most popular, hence this post. I wish to note that another editor brought this up earlier this year (]) but there were no responses.
	It would be greatly appreciated if other editors can provide their input. Thank you. ] (]) 04:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
	*I agree absolutely. I already had serious doubts and have removed it as a reference for BLP information; SKS confirms my worst fears about the sites. K-pop is a troublesome area to begin with; I have yet to come across a K-pop article that shouldn't be labeled with a fancruft tag, and this ubiquitous use of allkpop (which reports on everything, and consequently the fans add this everything in clear violation of ]) as a reference is only an invitation to more cruft. ] (]) 05:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
	== South Asia Terrorism Portal ==
	Is SATP a RS source to be used in articles it is run by ] former ] credited for bringing the ] but ] himself was accused of human rights violations. is an useful resource with a lot of information . ] (]) 12:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
	:It has its biases, BUT i would ask what srt of information is it used for? If its to call out a group as terrorist then no, butif its to cite attacks then yes.] (]) 21:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
	:No source is reliable for everything, be more specific. You want to ask something like, Is "source A" a good source for the sentence "Fact B."? --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
	:] is himself a former Punjab police chief and accused of human rights violations can it be used in Punjab articles .Terrorism-related incidents are complied on ''Source: Compiled from English language media sources.'' as per how RS is this .] (]) 03:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
	::I've looked over the site, but you still haven't said what claim you'd like to use the site to support, if you can phrase your question in the manner of "Is this article (insert web link here) RS for the claim that (insert sentence or phrase here)?" I could probably give you a yes/no answer. If you want my overall assesment on this site, I think it would be RS for non-controversial things, but as soon as any editor questions anything, it's no longer non-controversial, so that doesn't get you too far. It does list it's sources, but not in any way that makes it easy to follow what is backing up what. It also lists the board members which look to have some expertise in the area, so that's a plus. They claim to be independent with just only goal of reporting on terrorism related issues. The problem is that it's a controversial label in itself, so without a question in the form I've listed above (twice now), the best I can say is that this site is probably RS for most things, but I can't tell you it definitely is RS for something, unless you tell me what that something is first. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 15:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	== ] and blanket removal as "Not RS per RSN" ==
	{{hat|reason=An Editor conduct issue, not an RSN question, wrong noticeboard. ] perhaps?|closer=Despayre|2=There is no question here about a source being reliable, this is a discussion about editor behaviour only.}}
	{{user|Fladrif}} is blanket removing sources from a large range of articles. is one, another.
	Without any personal comment on Fladrif, I have a basic distrust of ''any'' crusade edits like this. Human editors are needed to be ''editors'', exercising some sort of executive judgement. This blanket removal is the sort of change that could be carried out by a very small Perl script. If it's really required, then it's required - but that's only in the very worst cases, such as outright spam. In particular, this run of edits (based on the unrelated dimension of a host site) inevitably crosses many disciplines of content knowledge. Personally I just edit the stuff that I know about and I stay the hell away from anything else. Problems arise otherwise.
	There is no attempt here to find ''other'' sourcing for a statement. As the end result of these is to turn a statement with a less than perfect source to one with no source at all, I'm finding it hard to see an overall benefit.
	I also find this absolutely strict imposal of "Not RS per RSN, therefore immediate removal of the ref" to be simplistic.
	One risk is that content that is entirely uncontroversial finds itself dereferenced (when in fact there are many, many sources for the same information) and then that information is in turn removed. Given the interminable WP problem of editors looking for adminishtrivia that ''can'' be done, rather than things that ''ought'' to be done, the likelihood is that we eventually lose content and articles for no good reason.
	Is this an appropriate blanket edit to be performing? What are the set of sites that should be purged absolutely like this? Is that list visible and appropriate? Is this the best, or even an acceptable, editing action to be taking in this volume? ] (]) 15:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
	::There have been extensive and definitive discussions about these sources. They are self-published sources written by amateurs who are not established experts, and have never been published by reputable, third party publications within the scope of the relevant subject matter. The clear and unequivocal consensus is that they are not reliable sources and should not be used as references; at most they can be listed as External Links. After that process is completed, one can hardly be heard to object to the removal of references to such sources; those that are interested in the subject matter will indeed need to find sources that do qualify as reliable sources lest, at some point in time, the material be deleted for lack of verifiable support. There are literally tens of thousands of articles on Misplaced Pages, most of them written several years ago when it was not nearly as vigilant about sourcing, that rely heavily, if not exclusively, on online, self-published amateur websites specifically determined at ] not to be proper sources that are more convenient than actually going to a library for sources that actually qualify as reliable sources. If there are such sources, then find them and insert them as appropriate. Asserting that ] and ] should be ignored in the meanwhile to permit sourcing to such sites notwithstanding determination at ] that they cannot be used as sources simply because "a poor source is better than no source" doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Otherwise these policies are meaningless. ] (]) 15:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::100% agree that thepeerage.com is not a ] and agree with actions to remove the cites to thepeerage.com from articles, ''especially'' from ] articles. There have indeed been several discussions about amateur self-published sites like thepeerage.com, please look at ] and ]. These web sites do not meet ], plain and simple. These sites may be helpful in doing research, because they sometimes site a genuine ] reliable source for their information, but then the Misplaced Pages article should cite the ] and not thepeerage.com or other amateur sites like it. ] (]) 16:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
	::: No-one is asserting that ] or ] should be ignored (nice use of the straw man argument there, and I see that you've already snagged one).
	::: However your actions here, particularly that of removing sources rather than improving them, are contra to ] and ]. It would be better to replace these sources with better ones. It would be better to work so that others might do this, perhaps by tagging the references as unreliable and in need of improvement. Simply removing them blindly is more harmful to the overall encyclopedia than I believe is necessary. In particular (and this happens with every crusade like this) it overwhelms the editor subject or project groups that might work to improve these articles by the sheer rate at which they're removed. It's the wiki equivalent of ] - an editor that flies across a series of articles, breaks one aspect of them (if nothing else, it opens them to summary deletion for being unreferenced) and ''there is no intention of that editor ever fixing the real problem''. ] (]) 16:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
	::::No content was removed, so there is no violation, in either letter or spirit to the subsections of ] cited, and a certain delicious irony to citing an unsourced article in support of this untenable position. ] (]) 16:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
	{{hab}}		{{hab}}
	: Raised at ] ] (]) 10:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
	== Ugo Bardi's blog as "mainstream science"? ==
	Ugo Bardi is the founder of ] Italia.
	The members of this association try to systematically substantiate their thoughts by using the so-called ] as they know WHEN the so-called "peak oil" will happen. Unfortunately, they are not able to give a precise date, a year for example, for WHEN this so-called "peak oil" will happen. But because they affirm that the so-called "peak oil" will happen soon, then they use this "information" to push for renewable energies.
	Being the founder of an association who pushes for a theory (ie the ]) which is strongly debated in the scientific community (see here: ] and here: ]), can Ugo Bardi's blog be used to represent "mainstream science"?
	From the page on Misplaced Pages on ASPO:
	:But ASPO has its share of critics. The current debate revolves around energy policy, and whether to shift funding to increasing ], and ] sources like ] and ]. Campbell's critics, like Michael C. Lynch, argue that his research data is sloppy. They point to the date of the coming peak, which was initially projected to occur by the year 1997, but the date was pushed back to 2000, then 2010, moved up to 2006 (in 2004) and later (2005) back to 2010. Campbell explains this with the fact that he has got better data from industry and more reliable estimates. However, Campbell and his supporters insist that ''when'' the peak occurs is not as important as the realization that the peak is coming.
	I do not contest the importance of renewable energies, I contest the use of the blog of the founder of ASPO Italia as source to represent "mainstream science".
	--] (]) 09:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
	:You haven't even shown the reference or what text of Professor Ugo Bardi is in contention. ] (]) 12:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
	:Yes, please provide the edit that you are questioning, along with the link from the blog that is being used as the source. The blog is neither blanket-reliable, nor blanket-unreliable, without having a specific context to work with. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 14:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
	::IRWolfie is being coy, because he knows what the problem article is: ], a ] device/scam from Italy. The ongoing saga of this article is that most of the people who are actually riding herd on this thing from a critical (that is, not credulous) perspective are people within the alternative-energy/energy-futurism world, presumably because scams like this one are a threat to them, and because the thing is so obviously bogus that it hasn't risen to the notice of science writers in the larger world outside of a few unwary mass-media people who should have known better. Bardi is one of several people who have been watching the device, and the objections he raises are perfectly valid scientifically. There are several stubborn people who refuse to concede that this thing is a fraud, and they pick away at the various sources. ] (]) 16:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::Professor Bardi's article is fully in accord with mainstream science, and with common sense. The E-Cat is a dubious contraption of no scientific credibility whasoever, subject to no verification whatsoever, being promoted by a dubious 'entrepreneur' with a long and murky history of 'enterprises' that do nothing but releive 'investors' of their money and (on at least one occasion) resulting in a multimillion-euro cleanup, funded at the taxpayers expense. Sadly, right from the start, promtors of '] as proper science' have attempted to use the article as a coatrack to push their pet projects, despite a complete lack of evidence of any connection with LENR, science, or anything but old-fashioned snake-oil showmanship. Now, as the device/scheme/scam fades into history (not even leaving a trace of steam, having produced little of even that), the last few stalwart defenders of LENR would rather perpetuate the myth that there was 'science' behind this, and would rather leave readers with the impresssion that there might have been. There wasn't, and per ] policy, we have ''a duty to our readers'' to make this clear. Given the dubious sources used to justify the article in the first place, that we cite a blog from a Professor of Science at the University of Florence to tell our readers what mainstream science has to say regarding Rossi's device is entirely acceptable. What isn't acceptable is the endless soapboxing, dubious 'original research' veering into conspiracy theories, and other tendentious waffle that has gone on at ]. ] (]) 17:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
	::::AndyTheGrump made a lot of baseless claims. The community has already decided that an article on the ] is fit to be on Misplaced Pages. So, here there is a different problem to decide. A blog, ie Ugo Bardi's blog, is used to represent "mainstream science". The problem is this: can someone (like Ugo Bardi - founder of ASPO Italia), who pushes for a theory (the so-called "peak oil theory") which is considered strongly debated in the scientific community, be used to represent "mainstream science"? As I have already written to AndyTheGrump, it is not enough that "his POV is exactly that of mainstream science" (as AndyTheGrump stated), we need "mainstream science" to be quoted via a mainstream scientist for this POV. A scientist, who pushes for a theory (the so-called peak oil theory) which is considered to be highly controversial in the scientific community (to say at least), cannnot be considered a "mainstream scientist" and therefore cannot be used to represent "mainstream science". (Moreover the quotation comes from his blog!)--] (]) 12:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::::What 'baseless claims'? Your original objection to using Bardi was because he "cannot be considered as a reliable source of information and cannot be considerend NPOV, because of his direct involvement in the energy field". But what is this 'involvement'? And what has NPOV got to do with it anyway? You are essentially claiming that a science professor at a reputable Italian university is giving a misleading account of the E-Cat affair in order to promote a contentious theory - that oil supplies are liable to run out sooner than the oil companies claim. But how does reporting that the E-Cat is hokum help promote this theory? It doesn't, except in the deluded mind of a conspiracy-theory-pushing promoter of magic-teapot-driven utopias. Please take your POV-pushing 'original research' (which hardly qualifies as 'research' at all) elsewhere. Misplaced Pages isn't a blog for such nonsense. ] (]) 15:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	== Discussion about Taliban/Insurgent casualties in the ] infobox ==
	There's currently a discussion (which I started) about whether it's appropriate to use a casualty figure apparently derived from the ] article in the infobox of the ] in the absence of a specific reference for this, and where there is a reliable source saying that there are no reliable estimates for Taliban casualties. This discussion is at ], and I'd like to invite editors who frequent this board to contribute their views there. Thanks, ] (]) 11:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
	:Misplaced Pages is not RS for other Misplaced Pages articles, as per ], subsection "Reliability in specific contexts", item b, paragraph 2, "Thus Misplaced Pages articles (or Misplaced Pages mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose.". --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 14:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
	== ChaCha ==
	Is ChaCha a reliable source? People keep adding poorly sourced sensitive information to an article, I need some help here. . —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> 14:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
	:Where/What is ChaCha? Please provide a specific edit, and a specific sourcing for it from ChaCha, if you would like a relevant answer. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 14:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
	:: Can you see my link above? I don't know what chacha is either, it looks like something like wikianswers. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> 14:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
	The information is in the diff link^. I don't want to edit war so I'd like secondary confirmation that the blogs and chacha and wikianswers refs are not good refs for that statement made (please see the diff). I believe it's a serious ] violation. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> 15:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
	You will likely find that instead of making people go hunt for the information required, that if you had said something like "is www.chacha.com a reliable source for this edit "blah"?", people will tend to respond more often. I found the site hidden in your diff, looked at it, and it is not RS for information on the band, Fee. It is a user-input website with no indication of editorial control, whether its contents happen to be valid or not, it is not considered reliable by WP standards. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 15:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
	== Reliability of source/s in 2-3 similar articles re Pakistan/Khyber Pakhtunkhwa ==
	Dear Misplaced Pages editors/users,
	Would be grateful if you could kindly check my notes left on the talk pages of three articles of a similar type/area as indicated above, i.e. ], ] and ] (the last a stub I started but some new refs added) --there might possibly be others too but have only identified thse so far--I have an objection to one particular source being used as ref/citation in all three i.e. a promotional, self-published (prob commissioned or paid) volume in Urdu, ''Tarikh e Sarfaroshan e Sarhad'' which literally means 'A History of the Heroes/Martyrs of the Frontier (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) Province''; this was written/published by a gentleman (late) Muhammad Shafi Sabir, purporting to be a 'historian' circa 1990s. This work is in itself rather suspect in that (a) it has v few or no references or citations in it, and just lists and recounts the various heroic deeds of some figures/people from these parts (b) has a very flattering and prejudiced/biased tone and isnt an objective historical study of these people (c) it is rather poorly written with many statements that i havent been able to veriy about various people or tribes etc, from anywhere, over many long years of academic research. Regarding the late Sabir, please refere to this website which gives a bit of information about him http://www.sheenweb.com/tag/professor-muhammad-shafi-sabir . In addition, this suspect volume has been picked up by some local/Pashtun students of a well-known college nearby and they have almost copied whole chunks of it in translation to it, on a 'Khyber/Pashtun promotion' website, again not a very neutral one i.e. http://www.khyber.org (see People/Personalities section) and een a brief cursory look will show that it isnt a very reliable site and I believe that neither the book mentioned here nor the site should be used as reliable sources in articles on Misplaced Pages. Isnt there any way that we could consider/discuss this matter and add these to some sort of list of books/sites that dont come up to Wiki standards, please? I would welcome feedback on this thanks ] (]) 16:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200
	*Please follow the instructions listed at the top of this page. Please break down your requests into one paragraph per source/claim. ] (]) 22:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
	:*Although convoluted, the above request regards the use of ''Tarikh e Sarfaroshan e Sarhad'' (Urdu, title translates as ''A History of the Heroes/Martyrs of the Frontier (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) Province'', written by Muhammad Shafi Sabir). The queries regard:
	:;*the apparent claim that the author is a historian, information about whom can be found
	::*the dearth of references contained within it, and the inability of the person querying it to verify the statements that it makes
	::*the subjective nature of its content
	::In addition, the named book is apparently used almost verbatim on website, which itself is of dubious merit and much cited (this should probably be a separate request here).<p>I encouraged the reporting contributor to raise the issue here and to notify both ] and ] that they had done so because of the source being written in Urdu. I have since pointed the reporting contributor to ], and I can confirm that there are many similar non-English sources used to glorify various Indian subcontinent community-related articles that appear to be of dubious merit and often founded on self-glorifying folklore etc. This is just the tip of the iceberg, I am afraid, although I am not in a position to comment on this particular example. What I ''can'' say is that I am struggling to find anything that suggests that the author was a "genuine" professor, and that (as per usual the usual meaningless statement) Shafir is a reliable source for his own opinions As am I! - ] (]) 23:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
	::*What would assist is (a) more information regarding the credentials of the author; b) more detail regarding the publisher; and (c) is there any evidence that the author has been peer reviewed/cited etc by recognised independent people. Forget the khyber.org website for now - that is a separate issue (although I sympathsise). - ] (]) 23:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::*Thanks Sitush. I'll get on this today and see what I can find, admittedly from my Australian academic culture perspective on "who is a historian" and "what is appropriate publishing" etc. ] (]) 00:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:Unicode is necessary here:
	:*The author is and the work is ''Taz̲kirah-yi sarfaroshān-i Sarḥad'' Pishāvar : Yūnīvarsiṭī Buk Ejansī, .
	:*Worldcat indicates that it is not widely collected, but it is in Urdu. Muḥammad Shafīʻ Ṣābir's publication history is sporadic, concentrating on books of biographical sketches. He isn't cited, he doesn't have a biography online.
	:*There are no reviews of his works—but, I don't expect the review cycle to have been effective in picking up Urdu muslim biography in the 1960s, 70s, 80s or 90s. He has stopped publishing and is deceased.
	:*If the bio linked above is correct, he was a High School principal (of an institution he himself funded), with Masters degrees in English and Urdu. This isn't a great sign.
	:*I'm really reluctant to rule someone who appears to lie between "enthusiastic amateur" and "unusual scholar" out, just because he published in Urdu in the pre-digital age. The question is: are the biographical sketches of a scholarly nature? Biographical history may use a different pool of sources to organisational, social or cultural history. The density of citations is not going to be a great indicator. If someone could translate all the citations for "the best" biographical sketch from the work, that would help greatly, as it would indicate the kind of scholarship Muḥammad Shafīʻ Ṣābir was conducting. ] (]) 00:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	Dear ] and ], thank you for this v informative discussion, just read it! Im v sorry for my long and somewhat mixed up discussion query above. However, am grateful that youve clarified the issue and laid it out simply and coherently. As I see it, there are 3 basic points to be considered here:
	1. What sort of books did the late Sabir publish, was he an 'enthusiastic amateur historian' as stated and how 'scholarly' were his 2-3 books (between 1966-1990)?
	2. Would these books be useful/valid as sources especially when taken up and translated into English by a website, in turn, which is purely dedicated to fostering its own cultural/ethnic agenda/s--and which site is in fact the main reference point, then for the users/editors here on Misplaced Pages who probably havent read the book at all and are just using the web material for their own 'puffery' related reasons in articles? and
	3. Ultimately, how 'scholarly' and 'reliable' are either of these sources?
	As a retired professor who has taught and researched in universities in Pakistan and abroad for over 30 years, and with some knowledge of proper scholarly research and writing and peer-reviewing on several academic journals here, plus some local knowledge of conditions here, I must say that as ] points out, there is a major issue of 'puffery' here in South Asia-- various caste/clan/tribal and 'biradri' systems are still deeply rooted in our societies; and in Pakistan at least, there are maybe some 200-220 families/familial groups who are the 'elite' and who comprise our main 'feudal' power structures. These people, based in various provinces and areas of this country, are people who are very vain and are very proud of their own 'ancestry' and 'pedigree' and such' and today, as in the past, actively encourage and patronise historical 'research' and 'publication' (which they commission actually) that further flatters their egos. In this regard, some of the Urdu and regional languages private presses/pubishers (running small businesses) publish most of such works and there are 'scholars' with few or no formal academic or research credentials who write 'books to order'.
	In this instance, for example, all of Mr Sabir's books are based on oral accounts/versions given to him by some patrons (a long list and I am willing to email further information and details confidentially) of their own inflated 'family/tribal history/ies'-- if you look at any of the texts you will ''not'' find any direct references/citations at all. Sometimes, in the text he will say 'In such and such book by so and so it is written'' (without dates, pages, years of publication etc) -- and thats about it. This is as far as I am concerned, please, not 'academic' or 'scholarly' enough. Indeed, some 'historical information' stated in these books are quite contrary to other reputable sources in English and Urdu, and even earlier Persian and Punjabi works c 17th to 19th centuries, that have happened to have come before me during the course of my own readings/research; and at other times, some information is given selectively only, removing the 'not wanted' parts and retaining the 'wanted' ones. Thus, in my humble opinion, (a) there is the problem of references made out of context, too and (b) there is certainly a Conflict of Interest involved.
	This is all I have to say on this matter, please, i hope that this is useful and that somethign can be done to at least check and limit such sources here on Misplaced Pages. Thank you and very best regards, ] (]) 05:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200
	:Dear Asad, your reading of Muḥammad Shafīʻ Ṣābir's publication history mirrors my own concerns. Given that Ṣābir relied on oral testimony, was working prior to the revolution in oral history, came from a culture with suspect academic publishing practices (at that time), did not receive reviews of his works, was working in the unusual historical genre of the "biographical sketch," and that he did not have other scholarly publications elsewhere meeting the expected standards of historical publications. Considering Ṣābir's work in relation to ] means that I believe we should conclude that his works are '''not reliable''' for sub-continental history and sub-continental ethnicity. —The conflict of interest is not significant here, we accept all '''scholarly''' points of view. The problems are that Ṣābir's method of referring to other literature, his naïve trust in his respondent's reports, his unusual genre (and the paucity of scholarly apparatus associated with this genre), the lack of overview from the publishing community at the time he published and the absence of Ṣābir publishing outside of this unusual publishing mode in an mode that is genuinely scholarly. ] (]) 05:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	::Asad, I have a lot of respect for the opinions of {{u|Fifelfoo}} but I am also aware that you are a fairly new contributor. My suggestion would be that you '''do nothing''' based on Fifelfoo's opinion for at least three or four days. This is in order to give other people the opportunity to comment here. I suspect that there will not be many, if any, who do but it provides an opportunity for ] to form. Should you then remove references to this book based on the outcome of this discussion then it would be good to try to insert a permanent link to it in your edit summaries or on the talk pages of the relevant articles. I can explain how to do this if you drop me a note nearer to the time.<p>For what it is worth, based on the explanations now provided by yourself and Fifelfoo, I too consider Sabir to be '''unreliable'''. - ] (]) 08:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	== Genealogy and "Online Gotha" ? ==
	I'm curious about another site involved in the recent bulk removals of refs from thepeerage,com
	In these two edits:
	*
	*
	Not only have refs from thepeerage been removed, but also sites related to a Paul Theroff and an "Online Gotha" project. Searching the WP:RSN archives didn't seem to turn up anything related to this site (a passing mention in archive 77 from 2010). Is there any reason to consider this source to be beyond the pale too and subject to summary removal? ] (]) 15:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:I'm not going to comment on things being subject to summary removal, but I see from your diffs that the first one is an angelfire website (the second one appears to have been hosted at pages.prodigy.net, but is now only available through the internet archive site). I see no way to claim either of those sites are RS for anything other than that those pages themselves exist. Not RS. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 16:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:: Is there a real reason to distrust the credibility of the content? - or is this just hostname snobbery? In particular, has there been any consensus-based discussion (presumably here) to determine Paul Theroff's sites (wherever he chooses to host) as unreliable and subject to summary removal? ] (]) 17:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::No snobbery. Zero references, zero credentials listed, zero site policy on verification, zero information on what to do about errors/corrections. No email address to ask questions to. No phone number to call. No attribution to any authors of the "article". A google search of his name does show some links, but they all seem to link back to his page as a source, ergo, they aren't sources either. Other than those, I can't find anything notable aobut him that would indicate that he is any kind of authority on this subject. Did I miss something obvious, is this person a notable person in this field? Sorry for the shorter answer before, I hope this helps you a bit more. I will say, as a starting point, user-content pages are often going to have a little bit more of an uphill battle for RS-ness right off the bat, but mainly that's because of all the zeros I listed above, those problems are usually quite consistent across user pages that way. Keep in mind, I'm not saying anything about whether their information is correct or not, just that we can't use it here based on our policies (as I read them anyway). --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 17:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::On the plus side, assuming his information is correct, there's a source he used out there somewhere, all you have to do is find it! {{-)}} --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 17:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	::::Online Goetha wasn't mentioned in passing at Archive 77. It was discussed in detail and specifically. It is a self-published source by an admitted amateur who is not recognized as an expert, and who has never been published by an independent, third party reputable publisher within the scope of the relevant subject matter. There are no references provided for any of the information provided, and the general statement from Mr. Theroff about his sources shows that he relied heavily on usenet postings, private correspondence from other amateur enthusiasts, and web forums. ] (]) 18:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	::::: That would be "discussed in detail" with comments like, ''"Paul Theroff seems to be highly appreciated on the on-line genealogy community."'', ''"It may well be that Paul Theroff's on-line Gotha may in fact be the most reliable." '' and ''"I do not think this notice board can pass judgment on Paul Theroff."''
	::::: I don't see that archive #77 reached any firm conclusion here, certainly not one so negative as to make the site immediately forbidden for use as any source from WP. ] (]) 19:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	Please supply a citation and link to the source in question so third parties can comment? ] (]) 21:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	== Reliability of Media Matters ==
	I believe that Media Matters (MM) should not be treated as a reliable source. First of all, we have former White House Counsel G. Boyden Gray stating that Media Matters has engaged in a "pattern of illegal conduct" and has engaged in a partisan strategy in violation of US tax law. http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/08/04/former-white-house-counsel-to-irs-yank-media-matters-tax-exempt-status/ In particular, question 1 asks the applicant "Specifically the IRS application for 501(C)(3) tax-exempt educational foundation status, Section VIII, Question I asks the applicant: "Do you support or oppose candidates in political campaigns in any way?" http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/2011/06/29/media-matters-tax-exempt-status Additionally, Media Matters founder Lou Brock has openly stated that he is fighting a "war on Fox". http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51949.html Presumably as a part of this war, MM Executive Vice President Ari Rabin-Havt said: “We made a list of every single person who works for Fox and tried to figure out who might be disgruntled and why, and we went out to try to meet them. Clearly, somebody in that organization is giving us primary source documents.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51949_Page2.html Of course, when you are relying on disgruntled employees as your primary sources, there is a risk that you will put out false information.
	Taken together, I believe these actions show that MM is not a reliable source. ] (]) 18:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:Media Matters has been repeatedly discussed ad nauseum at RSN and repeatedly been determined to be a reliable source which should be cited with attribution. Presumably, if Boyden Gray is successful in his quixotic and ill-conceived complaint to the IRS, and that is a big "if" it would lose its tax exempt status. That has nothing whatsoever to do with its reliability as a source. Nor does the fact that it is open and unapologetic about being critical of Fox and other right-wing media. Having a POV does not disqualify a source, which is why attribution is important with these kinds of sources. By the standards you are advocating, we would also disqualify Fox and every media outlet that Media Matters criticizes as well. ] (]) 18:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:Reliability is not about bias. ] (]) 21:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	Simply stating that an organization has a stated goal is not (IMHO) enough to label them as unreliable. The consequences of that reasoning would be far reaching. We could not site any sources from virtually any non-profit or NGO since they all have a mission and an goal. Instead, I think we would need to show that there is actually a pattern of false or misleading information. This request is an attempt to remove unflattering information about Fox News from the Fox News Controversies page. If the source is truly unreliable, I would think it would be possible to refute the information sited on that page. But that has not been done. Instead a parliamentary maneuver has been made to justify removing accurate but unflattering information. ] (]) 01:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
	== Transfermarkt ==
	*http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/
	*Previous discussion, too short to gain consensus, from June 2010 is ].
	I am raising this here following a semi-related (but not really) discussion at ] - I believe this website is not reliable and should not be used anywhere on Misplaced Pages. I understand it is user-generated content with only minor editorial oversight, and I, and other users, have encountered far too many errors - some deliberate - for it to be allowed. Thoughts? ]] 18:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:Agreed, the errors on this site are numerous comparing to other established reliable sources. However, I cannot confirm that the material is user-generated, where did you see that? All in all, I would not discourage to use the site ''anywhere'' per se, just (IMHO) it shouldn't be used to justify notability per ]. <span>&ndash; ]]]</span> 18:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	::As in I could register an account, contribute some information, and it would probably get posted. ]] 18:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::Which part of the site are we talking about? One part of the site is a news aggregator, although on the first page it looks like all the news stories are coming from PA Sports. PA Sports is certainly a reliable source, being part of the Press Association, a legitimate news organization. I would think that it would be better to be citing PA Sports itself, rather than some aggregator just reprinting it. Another part is an online web forum, which most definitely does not qualify as a reliable source, as it is entirely user-generated. ] (]) 18:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	::::Apologies, I'm talking specifically about player databases/profile pages - such as - which I presume forms part of the latter. ]] 19:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::::I don't know how it is for other languages, but the most of articles on the German version of the webiste are by the ], a reliable source. However, the database is clearly unreliable. The most obvious example of it is where false information was added to transfermarkt profiles as a result of it being added to Misplaced Pages. Given that they rely, at least in part, on us as a source we cannot accept the website as reliable. ] (]) 19:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::The site requires you to input a source in order for that information to be added. So it should only be wrong if other reliable sources also have it wrong. I strongly disagree with GS with the statement should not be used anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Its a highly useful source i totally agree its user inputted so can not be seen as fully reliable. However for some players transfermarkt is highly useful for identifying missing parts of a players career and for working out sources so as long as its backed up by other reliable sources i see no reason why this cannot be included as an additional source. This is an overaction to a very overreacted thread at ] already linked.] ] 19:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::There's nothing that I see on those player profile pages that indicate their provenance, or what kind of editorial control is maintained. I tend to be highly skeptical of sites like this. But, in its favor (i) I see that it is part of a much larger media company, and not just the product of one person's little empire, having been bought out several years ago from the founder, and (ii) a Google News search indicates that those player profiles (or more precisely, the "values" which at first blush I regarded as probably the least reliable thing about the site) are actually cited relatively frequently by mainstream press sources. This is rather like looking at the Impact Factor of a paper in a scholarly publication - if other unquestionably reliable sources are repeatedly relying on it, it has presumably gained a level of acceptance for accuracy. On balance, while I remain skeptical of these kinds of sites, it apparently has a level of acceptance in the press that would permit it to be used as a source. 19:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::Other sources do not copy Transfermarkt; Transfermarkt copies other sites. We need to ask the question "if something appears on Transfermarkt, but not other, established reliable sites, why is that?" ]] 19:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Other reliable sources do reference Transfermarkt. etc...] (]) 20:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::{{ec}} On point (i), please could you add a link to where it says it's part of a much larger media company, and no longer the responsibility of its founder? Transfermarkt's names Matthias Seidel as CEO/chief editor and legally responsible for the content, and names Mr Seidel as founder. On point (ii), I think the estimated player "values" aren't something that would be used in an encyclopedia, whether the German press use them in speculative pieces or not, and, as I understood it at least, aren't what's under discussion here. thanks, ] (]) 19:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::] bought a majority stake in Trnasfermarkt in 2008. ] (]) 20:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::Yes but thats what we do we rely on other sources so do they. (Im aware not really the point here) They use sources so my point is if they are incorrect then other sources will be also. I think to say it should never be used at all is an overreaction. It shouldn't be used on its own but used along with other reliable sources as part of a bigger picture i see no problem, as long as its not the sole source establishing notability. We have many other stats sites that to be plainly honest are probably more inaccurate but yet we consider them reliable. We have to be proportionate to the situation at hand and to say it should never be used full stop is an overreaction to a situation that to be plainly honest should never of seen the light of day.] ] 20:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::(ec)@Struway2, what´s in question here are general information about players profile, career and statistics. Speculative prices are not an issue as I don´t recall any case of that being included in a WP article and being a matter of discussion at any place. I defend that the website should be used as comlementary source, while GS wants to remove it from WP completelly. ] (]) 20:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: But not everything on Transfermarkt is from another site, I could register an account now and add some stats I've made up. And I'll repeat - "if something appears on Transfermarkt, but not other, established reliable sites, why is that?" ]] 20:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Ive only edited it once but it wouldn't let me change anything without adding the source. It wasn't stats though and to be honest wouldn't use it for that. My position is that to ban its use completely is not in the best interest of Misplaced Pages, and at this time is an overreaction i take that opinion from reading below and at the project. I think we all agree that it certainly shouldn't be used at a primary source , however it is useful for some information and as long as the article has other reliable sources this isn't an issue so where is the need for the highline here. This should have all been left to calm down for another day rather than keeping it going now which is going to get us nowhere due to the bad feeling clearly ongoing below.] ] 20:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::GS, you are wrong. You apeak with certainly that you '''could''' add phalse statistics, but you are only speculating. You are asked to provide a source for you changes there, and the changes are not introduced to the page until a website admin confirms them, a process that sometimes takes a couple of days. So you are making precipitated conclusions which are not giving the real objective image of the website (I called your attention to this a couple of times in the past when yu made the same exact claim, and you never responded to me). ] (]) 20:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	I will like to comment that this entire discussion begin with my complain at ]. To resume it all, what happend is that ] PRODed the article ] (a footballer which passes ]) on the basis that its notability is sourced by Transfermarkt, and being the website an unreliable source, he it. I complained because not only was very easy to find better sources and imporve the article, but because GS was also ]. Now, the website is righfully listed at ] and it has been used in same way as other generalistic football websites. For established users it is not difficult to see what infirmation of theirs need double-checking and which doesn´t; for instance, one league appereance of one players 20 years ago may need to be confirmed, but 23 current season match-by-match reports for one player of a league they are known for following well, thinking it is a HOAX is just exagerated. I already said at FOOTY, adding a refimprove tag for situations where the site may contain doubtfull information is OK, but PRODING articles sourced by it, and asking for the website to be completelly from WP is unreasonable. ] (]) 19:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::: We KNOW that false stats can be added - {{user|Zombie433}} made a career out of it. ]] 20:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::But it was what? 2 years ago? The site has expanded and changed much of the content since then. Also, he usually focused on African players, so no need to reject the rest of the content. Come on GS, I remember how we fought against Zombie "the cheater", but, despite not having evidence of him being around anymore, even so, his edits were just a drop in the sea within entire Transfermarkt world. Also, it is not at all easy for him to cheat actual match reports of leagues, so once the website has a match-by-match league record (they have it since 2006 for Serbian SuperLiga) cheating stats become much more difficult because implies phalsefiying entire match reports. Basically, and that is how I have been dealing with it, the stats prior to 2006 can be doubtfull, but the ones since 2006 are close to error free (speaking on SuperLiga case, each league may have a different time point when they started having match-by-match reports). ] (]) 20:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:Fkp, I'd politely suggest you strike your accusation against me that I was making a ]; I'd also you suggest we keep your issues with me and the PROD at the WP:FOOTY discussion, and keep this discussion purely for talking about the merits (or lack of them) of a certain website. ]] 19:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	::I disagree. I opened the thread at FOOTY because I wanted to discuss the correct use of an accepted website which is not RS. We have been using many similar websites in numerous articles, and we need to establish the proper way of using its information. You are the one who derailed the discussion making this a debate being an unecessary "all or nothing" to that website. ] (]) 20:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::No, you opened the thread at WP:FOOTY to create more drama and whine about me PRODding an article. ]] 20:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	::::Yes, because you PRODed an aticle just because it was sourced by Transfermarkt... If you have said, "OK", I wouldn´t be "making a drama", but instead you continued with this making it now a "life or death" issue for the website... ] (]) 20:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::::No, I PRODded it because the claim to notability was not ] by a ]. Tjose are basic, key policies that you seem to be ignoring. ]] 20:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	::::::What I said is that having in mind that we have houndreds, if not thousands, of articles at FOOTY which are sourced by similar non RS websites, for these cases of players obviously passing notability (because they play in top level league which is quite easy to confirm), putting a refimprove tag would be adequate and enough, but you never said "OK" to this... ] (]) 20:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	::::::: We're going round in circles. I came across an article that had only one source of highly doubtful reliability. I looked for other sources, and found none. I PRODded it. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't take my PROD so bloody personally. ]] 20:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::Hmmm, the problem here was that, well, call me crazy, but I felt long time ago that you had a personal issue regarding this website, and we had to discuss it at some point. Once you srtated proding articles sourced by him, and removing it from articles, well, I though it was time to set this out. Makes sense? ] (]) 20:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	::Gentlemen, some civility please. Whatever your grievances with the other's behaviour are, bringing them up here does little to advance the substantive discussion on the topic, namely the reliability of transfermarkt and how to deal with it. Regarding the actual substance, I think we've established fairly clearly that transfermarkt is of questionable reliability at best. Clasifying it as such should, in my opinion have the following conscequences:
	#No articles should be created relying exclusively on transfermarkt to verify content and/or notability.
	#Users should endevour to add additional sources to existing articles that rely exclusively on transfermarkt. If the subject is notable, such sources should exist. It should also be noted that transfermarkt clearly falls under the category of "database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion" which ] defines as trivial coverage.
	#Failing at point 2, existing articles which rely exclusively on transfermarkt should be deleted by whatever process may be appropriate.
	#It may be used as a secondary source, but this should, in my opinion, be discouraged as it gives the impression of reliability.
	::Regarding the refimprove tag, while adding it to otherwise unsourced articles is not without merit, it, like all other maintanance tags, does little to address the underlying problem of a poorly sourced article. ] (]) 21:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::I disagree with four per what I've already said above and three takes us back to the original problem articles must not be deleted because they are solely sourced by Transfermarkt they must be properly checked to establish notability with other sources. I do agree with the first two but really you need more input to say thats a consensus given clear opposition. However if you are looking at questionable reliability then Soccerbase which we widely use is worse for reliability and they won't change anything full stop, because they just ignore you, for another day however.] ] 22:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	*Have a look at the of the website. Section 4.1 states "You are responsible for all content such as, for example, texts, data, photos, or photo series (hereinafter “content”) that you transmit to Transfermarkt. This content is not inspected by Transfermarkt before it is placed on the websites...". This doesn't make it sound like a reliable, checked source. ] (]) 23:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:We have a similar disclaimer as do most sites that have user submitted data. They do ask for a source to be provided when making an edit so that's in contrary to their editing policy which is odd.
	== sites.google.com ==
	In the article about ] a Google domain of sorts that I'm unfamiliar with is used as reference for his many honorary doctorates.
	* http://sites.google.com/site/geodavit/peace/educationforpeace/johan-galtung
	It looks to me like an individual's private website hosted by Google. Is this any good? __] (]) 20:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:You are correct. It is the self-published website. Not a reliable source. ] (]) 20:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:Not reliable per Fladrif. ] (]) 21:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	::I appreciate the response and have removed the reference from the article. __] (]) 21:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	== Blogs at ] ==
	I'd like to request some outside input about the sourcing at ]. My most serious concern is with the sources inserted . I believe the article falls under ], but many of these sources seem to me to fail even the looser ].
	I've opened a talkpage discussion thread ], but have not found it particularly productive. Most recently, the editor reinserting these sources criticized NBC, CNN, and ABC as unreliable sources, and belittled my concern as Which leaves me at a bit of a loss, so I'd like to invite comment here. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:Could you please supply a link and citation to the source in question? ] (]) 23:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	::''''. Doesn't look like a reliable source to me. ] (]) 23:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:This article is complicated. There are plethora of horrible quality sources around, on both sides of the issue, including some horribly racist, completely speculative blogs etc. There are a ton of mainstream sources. But the mainstream sources have really fallen down on the job here, and published an incredible amount of speculation, and biased material, and done deliberate misediting of primary sources. Between the "good" and "horrible" sites are some sites, which would normally be fairly unreliable, which have done very solid work correcting the mainstream sources, and doing some actual investigative reporting. In the particular instance under debate in the talk page, I am in total agreement with MastCell, as there are much better sources for the information under discussion. But I would like to point out that in this topic, the "top tier" are not as top tier as they are normally considered, and some of the normally weaker sources should be given a second glance, as the mainstream sites are not doing due diligence as they should, and are not doing the self-introspection that is a lot of the meta-critique, which is coming from the weaker sources. ] (]) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	← The sources are those (re-)inserted in , specifically:
	* , from ]'s blog
	* , from emptywheel.net, a personal blog
	* , from talkleft.com, ]'s blog
	* , from richochet.com, a conservative group blog
	* , from '']'', a conservative online publication
	* , from popehat.com, a libertarian blog
	* , from prawfsblawg, a blog run by a group of attorneys
	I think these sources vary from outright unacceptable personal blogs to low-quality partisan blogs/websites to one or two blogs which might squeak by in a non-BLP article. The overall selection of sources is clearly rather one-sided, but that's a separate issue. My focus here is that I don't think these are the sorts of sources a BLP-sensitive article should feature (nor should ''any'' article feature such sources when a wide range of higher-quality material is available). ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 00:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
	:Wow, that's a lot sources to examine in one discussion, so let me answer generically: Blogs - unless published by a professional news organization (or some other ]) - are '''not acceptable''' for this article (which involves third-parties and living people). ] (]) 01:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 15:50, 19 January 2025

Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context

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

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

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

Additional notes:

Shortcuts

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

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

Start a new discussion

---

RfC: Bild

Although I'm involved in the discussion the result seem uncontroversial, and so asking for a close at WP:CR wouldn't be appropriate. The result is that there is no change, Bild remians Generally unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:17, 16 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.

---

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  . 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  , most of them belong to the first category. --Cyfal (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (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: NewsNation

What is the reliability of NewsNation?

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

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

Survey (NewsNation)

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

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

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

• Option 2 I would go with Option 2 but their UFO coverage makes me consider Option 3. I think for anything outside of UFO-related topics they are generally reliable. Other sources should be cited. Frankserafini87 (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu

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

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

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

They should be:

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

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

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

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

Preliminaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey A: Geni.com

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

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

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

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

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

Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Deprecate. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; Foix. --Kansas Bear 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site here. And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the Europäische Stammtafeln. Ghirla 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. NLeeuw (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

This thread is opened at the request of @Kovcszaln6 following the dispute between me and @Javext in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) on the multiple issues regarding that article.

I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:
1. The academic backgrounds of the writers of those sources are unknown (keeping in mind that they were written by Yemenis who have limited internet access), and
2. Yemeni state-controlled media outlets wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets")

Now, Javext has removed all the sources and text that they support from the article and used other sources (some of which I find no problems with using, although they provide little context compared to the other sources) and kept the sources that I've brought when I translated the Portuguese article.

Special:diff/1266430566: This is the version of the article that has the Arabic sources and is the version that I want to keep and then expand with other sources that both I and Jav has used.
Special:diff/1266448873: This is the version that Jav wants to keep

Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Addendum: I think The wub sums up my thoughts well. 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. feminist🩸 (talk) 02:55, 14 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)

Oppose changing the status per Simonm223 and Hydrangeans. I don't personally love Jacobin, I find their opinion pieces are hit or miss, but I haven't seen it demonstrated that they have poor editorial practices or long-standing issues with factual accuracy. It is not surprising that a reddit community consisting entirely of people from a different political leaning would dislike them, and a social media post reacting to another social media post of one author being mildly annoying doesn't meet my bar for evidence that the publication is not reliable. And as others have mentioned, making corrections when errors are pointed out is what we expect from a reliable outlet, not never making errors in the first place.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

As a tangential sidenote, the "reddit community" tends to be far-left leaning, and would more inclined to agree with or love Jacobin than to criticize the outlet in any way. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Even if correct this is irrelevant. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I said, "a tangential sidenote"... Iljhgtn (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Reddit is a fragmented website full of insular communities. That "r/neoliberal", a community of self described neoliberals, would criticize an outlet with a different leaning, is unsurprising and holds no weight in this discussion. We don't go off of what social media is saying when making these decisions.

Respectfully, I think a fresh RfC should be started after someone has something demonstrating a pattern of editorial malpractice, disregard for fact, or a worrying blurring of the lines between op-eds and normal articles leading to a failure to accurately present information. We don't derank sources just for having biases, objectivity and neutrality are two different things.

Anyways, I'm not opposed to ever doing an RfC, I just expect at a bare minimum that we have something to go off of so it doesn't just end up being a discussion in which editors !vote based on how they feel about the outlet until some poor soul has to sacrifice their time reading through everything to close the discussion.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This has already been demonstrated by @Springee and others about their egregious error and then attacking those who pointed out they got things wrong. That is enough to start an RfC. If the RfC holds that they should not change, then so be it. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:52, 16 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)

  Yeah, the standard has never been "makes no mistakes". If they made a mistake and then corrected it that's exactly what we expect of a reliable source. Loki (talk) 16:18, 13 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)

Jacobin is a far left news and analysis site, and adds opinion and commentary in their articles. I consider sites like this on the right and left not too far removed from activists, and thus should be ignored. It is popular among left leaning people on twitter, reddit, and elsewhere but we should not confuse social media popularity for it being a valid source. We should trim these low quality heavily opinionated pages and rely upon high quality sources such as Associated Press and so forth. Secondly, they aren't particularity useful as anything they're going to cover will be covered by other proper news sources. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

You're entitled to favor political moderation as a personal opinion, but to use this as a measure of reliability is a fallacious argument to moderation, reliant on assuming that truth always lies in or comes from the 'middle' of purported 'opposites'. While Misplaced Pages articles must adhere to a neutral point of view, our guideline for reliable sourcing is explicit that reliable sources are not required to be neutral. To use political perspective (such as the Jacobin magazine's economic leftism) as a reason for doubt reliability depends on providing evidence that the bias somehow distorts its coverage and causes inaccuracies. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It does appear that, failing to find many cases where Jacobin has not corrected an identified error in one of its articles, that the people asking for a new RFC want to prosecute it for being too left-wing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, but an RfC should be started at this point and if there is consensus support for no change to their status then there is consensus support for no change to their status. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

RfCs are time intensive, so starting one should be done for good reason. Jacobin having made and corrected an error doesn't strike me as a very good reason. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I read in the last close information presented by @Springee that it was in fact a problematic close which moved Jacobin from Yellow (its prior state) to Green. I mistakenly was just commenting on that, then self-reverted, but I think that we should also remember WP:TIND and not delay a necessary discussion just because it may be "time intensive" for those interested in improving the source reliability determinations that this encyclopedia relies upon. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You're omitting the concerns above about blending of fact and opinion, which is a major aspect of what we consider reliable. Also, heavily partisan sources that engage in advocacy are usually marked as "additional considerations apply" (yellow on WP:RSP). And this isn't the only discussion that has brought up issues. You can also see the concerns raised at the RfC and in multiple discussions where concerns have been brought up since then. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If nothing else, it has been several years and so timewise it seems prudent to revisit those and establish a larger and more thorough WP:CONSENSUS. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

OP here, my main concern is not that it was not corrected, but that the error was published in the first place. It's good that it was finally corrected, but "a single company controlling a third of housing stock in the United States" is such a contentious claim that it should never have been published in the first place. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

That is true, and a serious knock against their reliability when the claim is that egregiously false. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

This seems like flogging a dead horse, open the RFC if desired, although as I said above, absent compelling evidence, I don't think things are going to change that much, perhaps green to yellow but it is kinda yellow already because of the well known news/opinion mixing. Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm usually pretty critical of news sources - including left wing ones (see, for example, the thread here about Mint Press) - and even I am not really seeing Jacobin as being any worse than any other news site that Misplaced Pages calls reliable. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong bias combined with such egregiously bad fact checking is not a good look. Given the questionable close of the previous RfC a new RfC seems like a good idea. I don't see the source as moving below yellow but it's current green status is really hard to justify. Of course, this might be as much an indictment of the simplistic G/Y/R system we use at RSP as anything else. I'm sure Jacobian gets some facts right just as Fox News gets a lot of political facts right. When it comes to Jacobin the better question should be, if Jacobin is the source, should even a true fact have weight? Regardless, I think this answer here is new RfC or just add this discussion to the RSP list and move on. Springee (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Except that's not what has been demonstated. Journalists make mistakes. The standard Misplaced Pages looks for is that the outlet corrects these mistakes, which was demonstrated even by the original complainant.

And do note that, yet again, and I have lost count of how many times I've had to mention this to people upset about Misplaced Pages giving the time of day to sources to the left of Ronald Reagan, bias is not a reliability issue as long as that bias does not become a locus of disinformation. This has not been demonstrated. Please do try to cleave to policy based justifications for reliable source assessment. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Making such an error in the first place isn't good even if they correct it after trying to publicly shame a person who pointed out the obvious error. Your prescription about left of Regean is an odd tangent. Bias doesn't inherently mean the facts will be wrong. However it does open questions of how much weight a biased source should be given, especially when dealing with subjective characterizations or according the source's analysis of facts. Springee (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Springee that, "I don't see the source as moving below yellow but it's current green status is really hard to justify." Given the egregious nature of their attack on those who noted their mistake, even a correction shows that the publication is much more of a propaganda shop and less of an actual journalistic organization with journalistic integrity or standards. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

And therefore an RfC is beyond warranted. Who would then start that? Iljhgtn (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

If an RFC is started can I ask that it be done in a separate section. The board is overloaded at the moment due to the Heritage Foundation discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you are asking for me? There are many other RfC's ongoing beyond Heritage Foundation. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to direct the comment at you specifically. The HF RFC contains over 2/5th of all the words currently on the noticeboard, all the other RFCs are tiny in comparison. If an RFC for Jacobin is started in a new section then this prior discussion can be archived without having to weight a month, or more, for the RFC to close.
You can see how large each discussion is in the header on the noticeboards talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

without having to "wait" I assume you meant. ;)

And this makes sense thanks. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Lol, thinking about two discussions at the same time. Wait and weight swapped in my mind -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Given the egregious nature of their attack on those who noted their mistake — A writer being annoying on social media, then making the necessary corrections anyways, is not fundamentally different from a writer being nice on social media and then making the same corrections. We don't assess how personable the staff is.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This discussion has really dragged on, especially for something that was prompted by a reddit thread related to one sentence in what appears to be an opinion article. Are editors aware that we have whole articles on New York Times controversies, BBC controversies and criticism etc? Have editors been following the deconstruction provided by social media users of corporate media coverage of the assault on Gaza? Are editors aware that the BBC employs Raffi Berg, a former CIA propaganda unit employee with Mossad connections, to head its Middle East desk and whose "entire job is to water down everything that’s too critical of Israel"? What about when an IDF embedded CNN reporter visited Rantisi Children’s Hospital with an IDF minder and swallowed the minder's claim about a roster of Hamas members watching over Israeli captives? The document was actually a calendar, with days of the week written in Arabic. Sorry to go off on a tangent but some perspective is needed and, in the scheme of things, a reddit thread is hardly cause for starting an RFC about reliability. Burrobert (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

That was only one aspect. A much larger aspect was related to open questions from the last RfC and the questionable close that seemed to have moved it (correctly?) from "yellow" to "green". Iljhgtn (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Jacobin

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

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

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

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

Survey: Jacobin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 3 or 2 - Right-wing outlets that mix opinions in their articles, selectively choose facts to promote a political agenda, or sloppily misrepresent the truth have rightly been marked as unreliable ages ago. There is no reason to have a different standard for other political positions. And regardless of that, outlets that do that cannot be relied on (i.e. are unreliable) to present an accurate picture of the facts on a given topic, nor are their writers' opinions noteworthy in our articles. Op-eds from even mainstream papers like NYT, WaPo, etc. are routinely removed as sources; outlets like Jacobin that consist entirely of such articles should likewise not be used (and we have already done this for right-wing opinion outlets like Quillette). The green checkmark at RSP misleads editors into thinking opinions and claims published in Jacobin are more noteworthy than they really are. Crossroads 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1. Folks have said it well already so I won't belabor the point. I can't really imagine an occasion when I would cite Jacobin, but I consider them roughly a left-wing equivalent of The Economist or Reason (also publications I'd be unlikely to cite –– all three of these are usually rather predictable and tend to offer shallow analysis). I wasn't sure how we list those other two so I checked RSP just now and saw that they're 1s. Yes, OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument, but I was more interested in getting a baseline on where the community draws the line between 1 and 2. With respect, I object to Crossroads' comparison to Quillette, which leans heavily into platforming fringe ideas and displays little editorial oversight. (Interestingly, here's some solid reporting by Jacobin on a hoax published in Quillette, revealing the latter's abysmal editorial practices, courtesy of this past RSN discussion.) Generalrelative (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 1* Jacobin is a biased source, something that should obviously be considered by anyone thinking of sourcing them for anything contentious, but their reporting has never been an issue in terms of establishing basic factual information about a situation. One writer for a book review making a dumb statement that was corrected by the source doesn't change that. BSMRD (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1: Nothing of substance has been presented to suggest that this source is not GREL. Most of the reasons being presented for MREL appear to be about bias, but that is not of direct relevance to reliability unless it can be shown that any bias directly impinges somehow on its reliability. That it provides a perspective from a rarefied position on the political spectrum is a moot point in terms of reliability. Arguably it is good to have sources from all different positions on the political spectrum for the purposes of balance, but that is, again, irrelevant to its reliability. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion: Jacobin

• Seeing as there's substantial disagreement in the pre-RfC section above, I've gone ahead and launched this RfC. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Pings to @Feminist, The wub, Thebiguglyalien, Super Goku V, Simonm223, FortunateSons, Oort1, Burrobert, ActivelyDisinterested, Hydrangeans, Vanilla Wizard, Iljhgtn, Selfstudier, Horse Eye's Back, NoonIcarus, Harizotoh9, and Springee: who commented above. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Additional pings to @WMrapids, David Gerard, Bobfrombrockley, Shibbolethink, Crossroads, Herostratus, Dumuzid, Aquillion, Gamaliel, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, BSMRD, Wugapodes, Ip says, King of Hearts, Chetsford, Tayi Arajakate, MPants at work, Jlevi, The Four Deuces, Grnrchst, Szmenderowiecki, Dlthewave, Jr8825, Thenightaway, Nvtuil, Peter Gulutzan, FormalDude, Volunteer Marek, FOARP, Sea Ane, 3Kingdoms, Bilorv, Blindlynx, Jurisdicta, TheTechnician27, MarioGom, Novemberjazz, and Volteer1: who commented in the 2021 RfC. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think you should also disclose that the previous RfC was initially closed by you (back then under the usernames User:Mikehawk10 and User:Mhawk10) and the discussions that followed at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 6 § Jacobin (magazine) and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340 § Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability led to an overturn on grounds of it being heavily flawed and ostensibly a supervote, followed by a re-close afterwards. Especially considering your statement in the above section questioning that (re)closure now, which also partially forms the basis for this RfC. Those discussions might also answer your question on why it was (re)closed in the manner it was. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

  Per my prior comments about space constraints I've split this to its own section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've just moved the RFC out of the discussion again. The RFC shouldn't be made a subsection of the prior discussion, due to ongoing issues with overloading on the noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Bad RFC because we should not be rating things just for the sake of rating things, but since we're doing this: Jacobin is clearly an opinion outlet, not a news outlet. We shouldn't be relying on them for statements of fact for that reason alone. FOARP (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Notwithstanding my !vote above I do agree this is a bad RFC because there's not ever been an example presented of Jacobin being used to source anything even remotely questionable during the RFCBefore discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Well, there was one example that generated the 2023 discussion which was Jacobin being used to source a description of the 2014 Maidan Revolution as "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests", so that's one occasion of it being used to source something questionable. It was also used by the same editor on the 9/11 attack page to source the claim that the CIA facilitated the attacks and intentionally withheld information that could have stopped the attacks.

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

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

• The Jacobin author who wrote the nonsense claim that Blackstone owns 1/3 of US housing stock literally mocked the people who tried to correct him and the correction - which itself was inaccurate and weaselly - was issued only after social media pressure. This is an outlet that very obviously does not care one bit about fact checking if it gets in the way of producing click bait pieces. It’s exactly the kind of source we should NOT be using, especially as the whole media landscape is shifting that way. Volunteer Marek 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  They issued a correction. This is what we expect of reliable outlets. Your personal characterization of the correction as "weaselly" is your personal opinion on tone and has nothing to do with any Misplaced Pages policy. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Heritage Foundation

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

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 think we need to potentially modify WP:RSSELF so that it better delineates between USEBYOTHER and "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." The two prior discussions about Catholic-Hierarchy.org generally featured the following logic: "Work found in Catholic-Hierarchy.org has been published by reliable publications. As such, if the work found in Catholic-Hierarchy.org is the product of the author of CH, then we can say that the author of CH has had their work published by reliable publications."

I think the problem is the way "work" and "works" can be interpreted, especially given the dozens of formal definitions for the word "work." I would argue that the bolded section from WP:RSSELF is improved by saying: "whose scholarly or journalistic works in the relevant field have previously been published by reliable, independent publications." However, we also might want to entirely abandon the word "work" for some alternative.

What do you think? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

That would be a completely different standard which would expand the pool 10,000x. I would also note that you're the only editor I've ever seen get seriously confused by this... If its just a you problem and not an us problem why would we need to rewrite? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

My proposed bolded section tries to incorporate your earlier comment about "journalists and academics." If such individuals are the (general) standard, then shouldn't we say that? I want to be clear that I am not advocating for the adoption of the logic flow used on the prior CH discussions.

Are you saying that using the word "works" is less restrictive than the word "work"? "Works" is probably generally interpreted as multiple discrete intellectual labors such as articles and books. "Work" could be interpreted as any effort expended in a field, well beyond just articles and books. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm saying that nothing is broken here, our existing policies and guidelines are adequate even if you don't like the result of their application. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:43, 13 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)

I went ahead and updated the entry. Given the author's status as a "Random Catholic Dude", they cannot be a subject matter expert as defined by Misplaced Pages. And as a self-published source, it cannot be used to support claims about living persons. Woodroar (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The "Random Catholic Dude" description is probably a form of self-deprecation that should not alone be used to exclude someone from "expert" status. If an MD-PhD medical school professor referred to themselves as "Some Random Hospital Dude," then we probably should not immediately exclude them from "expert" status over this form of self-depreciation.

Also, thank you for updating WP:RSPSOURCES. I saw that you added "limited USEBYOTHER". As Red-tailed hawk has shown elsewhere in this conversation, Catholic-Hierarchy.org has 1000+ hits on Google Scholar. Would you still consider this as limited USEBYOTHER"? We could probably justifiably update it to "significant USEBYOTHER", although this would not be enough to change the overall status of the source. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

A SPS remains a SPS regardless of USEDBYOTHERS... It doesn't change the core status. The difference is that an MD-PhD medical school professor likely meets our standards, it has nothing to do with the self-deprecation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• This is a non-expert self published source. We have established that no such "noted exception" exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 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. Shankargb (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• I came into this thinking that this was akin to those military/tank/airplane fan websites inasmuch as it was mostly compiled by one person and it's of the quality of hobbyist work. But I am seeing it get a metric ton of hits on Google Scholar, where it looks like it is cited in a ton of scholarly literature as a source for facts. And, in that weird way, WP:UBO considerations come into play.I tried to find sources that specifically analyzed this database or evaluated it in a comparative fashion to other commonly cited databases. It's a bit hard to find specific studies, since the majority of citations are just using this plainly as a source for facts (which itself says something, albeit subtly). But I did manage to find a working paper by economic historian Jonathan F. Schulz that compared the website against other databases of Catholic hierarchies in the section describing his research methods. What it found was quite simple, and went against my initial impression. Schulz found that, among various Catholic heirarchy databases he had assessed, there was a high level of consistency. In case of disagreements between sources they were most often in the range of less than one or two decades – a rather small inaccuracy in relation to the duration of Church exposure up to the year 1500. In other words, this database is more or less as accurate as the other ones he had assessed (though, as he notes in his paper, none of the databases are quite complete).It might just be a weird edge case where we've got a decently reliable database that's also self-published. And that's fine, WP:SPS notes that self-published sources are largely not acceptable as sources, but it doesn't say are always not acceptable as sources—as WP:REPUTABLE notes, common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process when assessing issues of source reliability.We should follow common sense here. And, in light of the scholarly literature, the common sense thing to do is to treat it in the same way that we treat other sorts of curated databases regarding Catholic Church hierarchies. That is to say: it's okay; it'll do fine for ordinary historical dates of bishop reigns etc., but when more professional sources exist we should probably use them instead.— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I think that Schulz's sort of meta-dataset would be immensely valuable and be the sort of thing that gets considered when I say that when more professional sources exist we should probably use them instead. But, alas, the data aren't public (or, if they are, I can't quite find them). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  The core BLP problem isn't going to go away though... At best we can say that the source is usable for dead figures but I don't see a policy or guideline path to genuine reliability (even if just on technical grounds). Theres also the general problems that come with online databases (don't count towards notability, almost never due, etc). If it isn't covered in other sources then its almost by definition a level of detail that isn't due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would support usage within biographies of dead figures who have been shown to be notable by way of other (non-CH) sources. Red-tailed hawk's points are hard to ignore. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  USEDBYOTHERS is the weakest indication of reliability, remember if thats the way we go the instructions are "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims." This also means that USEDBYOTHERS can't be used as an end run around SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Sure. But also this isn't just a UBO argument as if it were based on reading the widespread citation as implying something; it's an argument that the source has explicitly been subject to some academic study, and that study came back with a relatively positive review of its accuracy. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Unless it comes back with the result that its not self published it doesn't matter... Self published is self published regardless of underlying reliability. There is no way in which self published works become non-self published by being accurate, its still treated as self published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:52, 15 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)

I think we have enough info to verify that the source exits. That last website I linked clearly mentions a book by a historian named Dr. Abdul Karim with the title "History of Bangladesh". He wrote (according to the Google translation) "about forty books and about two hundred original research articles in Bengali and English" and "taught at Dhaka University from 1951 to 1966. In 1966, he joined the newly established History Department of Chittagong University." Regarding the author of that article, the website states "Author: Teacher, Department of History, Chittagong University zahidhistory¦gmail.com". The article is not from a blog, but from a Bengali newspaper: on which we have a wiki article, see The Daily Ittefaq. This website pretty much states the same but in English and calls Karim "an authority of the field of medieval Bengal could recognise from a distance if a mosque was from the Sultani or from the Mughal period". The publication list of the Chittagong website lists several works by Dr. Abdul Karim (though it only goes back until 2005): . Doing some further digging, I even found volume 1 of the book on Amazon. The book might be available at some universities in the US: . Google Scholar does have an entry for a book on Bengal 16th-century history by the historian Abdul Karim (even if not for the particular one you are looking for), see (and the internet archive appears to have a scan of that book). The University of Asia Pacific lists even more of his books. Banglapedia (which is written by scholars) might also help in verifying the content, see for example these entries: . Nakonana (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, this appears to be the Google Scholar entry on (the 1st volume of) the book in question. The title is just not "History of Bangladesh" but "History of Bengal". Google translation probably messed up. Nakonana (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources for Chapel Hart

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

• https://texasborderbusiness.com/chapel-hart-music-video-for-new-single-i-will-follow-premiered-by-cmt-on-friday-february-5th/
• https://drgnews.com/2022/09/19/darius-rucker-set-to-release-new-song-featuring-chapel-hart/
• https://www.southernliving.com/chapel-hart-danica-vocal-cord-surgery-6825847

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

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

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

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

My assessment:

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

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

AllMovie

AllMovie is an online movie database, currently listed under WP:ALLMUSIC with other RhythmOne sites as "no consensus". The site has changed significantly over the past few years, and it's my opinion that we should either separate AllMovie and mark it as unreliable or expand the description to explain why it shouldn't be used.

AllMovie used to be a resource with professional reviews, as a sibling site to AllMusic and AllGame. At some point, the site was acquired by Netaktion (Justia has a record of the trademark history). Since then, nearly all of the previous content has been removed. The current version is basically a noncompliant mirror of Misplaced Pages and Wikidata. They include a simple "Description by Misplaced Pages" label that doesn't meet the terms of our license, and they've republished on their site several articles that I myself have written, without proper attribution. Here's an example of what Citizen Kane looked like before, after, and now. The ratings on the site also appear unreliable, and somehow they manage to include star ratings for many lost films. Recent discussions about AllMovie have happened at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 December 11#Template:AllMovie title and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 442#allmovie.com now using film descriptions and actor biographies from Misplaced Pages.

Because the content and editorial practices of AllMovie are now extremely different from AllMusic, I think we should create a separate entry for it and split off any discussions of the post-acquisition version of the site. The current AllMovie site should be considered unreliable, and any archived URLs from previous iterations of AllMovie would be still evaluated under WP:ALLMUSIC. hinnk (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Good catch, and I agree with your proposal. AllMovie's blog post "An Evolving AllMovie", dated March 24, 2024, suggests that AllMovie's transition from independent content to Misplaced Pages mirror occurred around the beginning of 2024. — Newslinger talk 02:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Good catch. Yes, I support this.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd still be careful using Allmovie as a source for things such as WP:DOB. Even if they're archived links from pre 2024 as not only did they have the wrong DOB for some actors, but they've never provided any information on how the material is obtained or verified. Which is a huge red flag when it comes to using such pages as a reliable source for BLPs. Prior to 2024, the actor bios had a fact sheet at the bottom. Now if you can find some archived pages of actor bios from TVguide.com, it had the same stuff listed under "fast facts". Which makes it look like Allmovie was web scraping that information from other sites even back then. Kcj5062 (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• If a site is pulling its content from Misplaced Pages, then it is not a reliable source for Misplaced Pages. Or in fewer words: WP:CIRCULAR. With sites like this we're obligated to check the sources that they provide for their content, and if we're going that far then we might as well just cite their sources and cut out the middleman. I would say generally unreliable, but if they're also copying Misplaced Pages content and not properly attributing, then links to the site are contributory copyright infringement, and that puts them into blacklist territory.

Also, never use a site like this to cite a living person's date of birth. I've come across far too many examples of incorrect DOBs being added to Misplaced Pages bios, then subsequently repeated by an ostensibly reliable source, then later when someone tries to correct the info here other editors keep changing it back to the wrong date with a citation to the incorrect source. Things like this have real consequences for real people in the real world. We need to do better, and it's fine not to have a date when we don't know what the correct date is. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 15:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

MintPress News

MintPress News was given rather short thrift at an RFC in 2019, sending it straight to deprecation. The RFC was attended by 14 editors, 4 of which are now banned or blocked (and contributed 2 of the deprecation votes at the time), including Icewhiz. MPN is definitely strongly left-leaning and, as one media tracker would put it, "hyper-partisan", and this often leads to quite sensationalist headlines, but that is not strictly a reliability matter. The same tracker came out with a mixed reliability assessment of MPN. The main reliability concerns around MPN tend to revolve around the way in which it references and paraphrases other sources, which it does frequently. At the same time, it generally heavily attributes other sources, while not necessarily affirming them in its own voice. As the last commenter in the RFC noted, while they might not themselves use MPN, it was unclear if it reached the high bar sufficient to merit deprecation. I raise this largely because deprecation shouldn't be used casually, but only on those sources where the demonstration of the purveyance of misinformation is ironclad. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

As one of the participants in the July 2019 RfC, my assessment that MintPress News should be deprecated has not changed. I believe the evidence I listed is more than sufficient to justify deprecation. I have analyzed MintPress News's response to being deprecated, and due to its length, I will place my analysis in a separate subsection. — Newslinger talk 17:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

As a non-participant in the 2019 discussion I would like to say that deprecation was the right choice and reliability issues only seem to have gotten worse since. Note that just republishing Zero Hedge would be enough to get them over the deprecation line even if all of their native work was beyond reproach (which it is not). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

You drew on Ad Fontes Media's analyses in your comment, and AFM is itself considered generally unreliable on the RSP. It's also not accurate to say "The main reliability concerns around MPN tend to revolve around the way in which it references and paraphrases other sources," as can be seen if one clicks though to read all of the RfC comments. I have no direct experience with MintPress, but a bit of searching pulls up info like "According to experts, MintPress news is a disinformation site with opaque funding streams run out of Minneapolis that aligns with the Kremlin’s view of a “multipolar world” and often promotes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. MintPress News has been reprinting copy from Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik since 2016" (source from the Network Contagion Research Institute in 2021), and the MintPress article cites a number of other sources with similar claims. What's your evidence that they've become reliable? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Reprinting copy from other websites doesn't automatically or implicitly make any of the content that MPN produces inherently unreliable. It might seem distasteful to republish material from insalubrious sites, but as long as it is clearly labelled, reprinting is all it is. Anything from other sites that we wouldn't use we still don't use if it's syndicated elsewhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

If they regularly reprint news from unreliable sources, yes, that does contribute to their being GUNREL, as it tells us that they have no commitment to accuracy. You've also ignored the rest of the quote and the info in the references on the MintPress article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure the NCRI is an RS or a source worth taking cues from. There are journal pieces on the MPN page that are more reliable and insightful. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend time convincing you that it's reliable. If you find the other sources' critiques to be reliable, then use those. The bottom line is: you question whether it should have been deprecated, but you haven't presented any convincing evidence that it should instead be assessed as generally unreliable. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, I don't believe that I've actually claimed anywhere that they've become reliable. I have merely raised questions about their deprecation. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Isn't that obvious from the fact that you opened this? You are currently contesting the consensus on reliability for MintPress News. The alternative would be that you are engaging in a form of "I'm just asking questions" Tucker Carlson-esque trolling and I think everyone is trying to AGF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm questioning the deprecation. I'm not arguing it is not GUNREL. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The deprecation looks appropriate to me, especially based on @Bobfrombrockley's comments below. Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

That you for clarifying, that isn't at all clear from your initial post. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I really don't understand the objection to deprecating the source then. Sources are not deprecated because they're more unreliable than GUNREL, the "high bar" for deprecation after something is found generally unreliable is "people think it might be a problem". Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

(Also not part of the original RFC) Looking at what was brought up in the RFC and at the site itself, I think the RFC had the right result. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in last RFC, but I will vote to deprecate if you start another one. The front page is nothing but conspiracy theories, and reading through some articles it has a really strange tendency to cite Russian thinktanks and commentators who are never mentioned by any other English-language outlet. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The central motivation seems for revisiting to be that the RFC was attended by 14 editors, 4 of which are now banned or blocked. People become blocked or banned all the time down the line for transgressions unrelated to particular discussions—when that happens, it does not void their prior contributions. If these users were in good standing at the time of the RfC, and weren't evading a block/ban at the time of the discussion, I don't really see why this motivates a change. And, the close seems to be a reasonable reading of the discussion.

Has the general reputation of the source improved since 2019? If so, there could be some evidence of this that would be useful here. I haven't searched for any, but I also haven't seen it brought up in this discussion. And unless there's good evidence that the source has improved its editorial processes/fact-checking reputation in some way since the prior discussion, I don't really see a need to reassess at this time—we'd probably wind up with the same result.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Has the reputation improved since 2019? Just looking at the post-2019 RSs cited in its own article.

• The only journalists who thrive in Syria today are those who serve as mouthpieces for the Syrian and Russian regimes. Many of these mouthpieces include American-based, far-left websites such as The Grayzone and MintPress News. Idrees Ahmed, an editor at global affairs magazine New Lines, says such friendly foreign media, even if obscure and dismissed by the mainstream, has “made the job of propaganda easier for .”
• While instances of mass amplification of state-engendered disinformation are cause for concern, equal attention should be paid to the less visible but still vociferous ‘alternative facts’ communities that exist online... These grassroots communities are particularly evident on Twitter, where they coalesce around individual personalities like right-wing activist Andy Ngo, and around platforms with uncritical pro-Kremlin and pro-Assad editorial lines, like The Grayzone and MintPress News. These personalities and associated outlets act as both producers of counterfactual theories, as well as hubs around which individuals with similar beliefs rally. The damage that these ecosystems and the theories that they spawn can inflict on digital evidence is not based on the quality of the dis/misinformation that they produce but rather on the quantity.
• Its bestknown article—falsely claiming a chemical weapons attack in Syria had actually been perpetrated by rebel groups rather than the Assad regime—was cited as evidence by Syria, Iran, and Russia, though it turned out to have been reported by a man in Syria who at times appears to have been based in St. Petersburg and Tehran.493 When staff asked who funded their paychecks, they were told it was “retired business people.”494 The hidden nature of the funding caused some staff enough discomfort that former employees cited it as their reason for leaving Mint Press.495 Local journalists have tried and failed to figure out where Mint Press’s money comes from.49}
• The next five domains (rt.com, mintpressnews.com, sputniknews.com, globalresearch.ca, southfront.org) are alternative media domains that spread master narratives in the Russia’s disinformation campaign.
• Mintpress has been accused of promoting anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and also regularly pushes pro-Russian propaganda, most notably the unfounded claim that a 2013 chemical weapon attack in Syria that killed more than 1,400 people was perpetrated not by the Syrian regime but by rebel groups with weapons supplied by Saudi Arabia. Mintpress News, alongside The Grayzone, which Maté writes for, has continued to publish Russian-backed narratives that the Syrian regime has been framed for further chemical weapon attacks during the years-long war in the country. The sources of both websites’ funding are unknown.
• Some of the American Herald Tribune’s articles did survive in other parts of the echo system. Seventeen of them had been cross-posted on the website of Mint Press News, which had similar sharing arrangements with several other “partner” websites including Project Censored, Free Speech TV, Media Roots, Shadow Proof, The Grayzone, Truthout, Common Dreams and Antiwar.com... The only time Mint Press made much impact (though for the wrong reasons) was in 2013 appeared to be based on rumors circulating in Damascus at the time, and there was no real evidence to support it... Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov cited the story as evidence that the U.N.’s investigators in Ghouta had not done a thorough job.
• Researchers at the Rutgers University Network Contagion Research Institute found his work on a number of sites they classify as disinformation, including Mint Press News, which the institute said promotes anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and which also posts copy from Russia Today and Sputnik, the Russian state-owned news agency.
• The thirteen fake accounts identified by Facebook were promoting the Peace Data website. To build a reputation as an alternative media (progressive and anti-Western) and attract contributors, Peace Data, created at the end of 2019, initially relayed articles from other existing protest media, such as MintPress News or World Socialist Website, or openly pro-Kremlin, Strategic Culture Foundation, The GrayZone or Russia Today.
• On five occasions, Peace Data published articles that it listed as “partners.” Between August 11 and August 19, the website published two articles each from Citizen Truth and MintPressNews.

So, no, it's reputation hasn't improved.     BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Also not a participant in the original RfC, but concur with those above that it ended with the correct result. Not seeing any conclusive evidence to the contrary, especially given Ad Fontes is itself not considered reliable per WP:RSP. The Kip 16:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't a participant in the original RfC. I think the RfC should be relisted, as I don't think MPN deprecation was warranted, if anything, I'd support an "Additional considerations apply" designation. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

MintPress News's response to being deprecated

In July 2019, MintPress News published an aggrieved reaction (archive) after discovering that they were deprecated. The response falsely claimed that all of my comments in the July 2019 RfC were written by another editor (Jamez42 – misspelled as "Jamesz42"), and then attacked that editor for writing "several English-language Misplaced Pages articles on the wives of Popular Will politicians as well as on protest leaders and journalists who are aligned with Popular Will" in a misguided attempt to discredit the author of the RfC comments. However, since those RfC comments were written by me and not by Jamez42, all MintPress News did was demonstrate their own lack of accuracy and poor fact-checking in their response.

One of the pieces of evidence I cited in the RfC was MintPress News's most recent "inside story" at the time, "Microsoft's ElectionGuard a Trojan Horse for a Military-Industrial Takeover of US Elections" (June 2019 archive), an article that used false information to promote a conspiracy theory about Microsoft. The original MintPress News piece claimed:

Similarly, Microsoft’s claim that it “will not charge for using ElectionGuard and will not profit from partnering with election technology suppliers that incorporate it into their products” should also raise eyebrows. Considering that Microsoft has a long history of predatory practices, including price gouging for its OneCare security software, its offering of ElectionGuard software free of charge is tellingly out of step for the tech giant and suggests an ulterior motive behind Microsoft’s recent philanthropic interest in "defending democracy."

Above, MintPress News linked the term price gouging ("increasing the prices of goods, services, or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair by some") to an article from The Guardian that described Microsoft engaging in predatory pricing ("the use of large scale undercutting to eliminate competition") with its OneCare software. MintPress News then used that incorrect reading to push their conspiracy theory about Microsoft's ElectionGuard software. A reliable source would retract this article after discovering such a prominent flaw in the logic of their argument, but as they mentioned in their reaction piece, MintPress News doubled down by removing the reference to OneCare altogether and pretending that evidence against its conspiracy theory did not exist. In the current version of the article (archive), MintPress News replaced "including price gouging for its OneCare security software" with "including price gouging", with the term price gouging now linking to another article about a different piece of software (Microsoft Office).

In my RfC comments, I also noted that MintPress News republished 340 articles from  Zero Hedge (RSP entry), a source deprecated for frequently publishing conspiracy theories and false information. Despite acknowledging this in their reaction piece, MintPress News did not take down the Zero Hedge articles from their website. Instead, MintPress News has since changed their site design to remove the counter for the Zero Hedge articles. The articles are still published on their site, and can be found in a web search using the following query: site:mintpressnews.com "zerohedge.com".

Everything I have mentioned here only concerns my comments in the previous RfC and how MintPress News responded to them. Additional evidence against this publication's reliability can be found in the article MintPress News. Altogether, I see no reason to change MintPress News's status as a deprecated source. — Newslinger talk 17:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC) Corrected username — Newslinger talk 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how MPN issuing a correction admitting their error on that article you mention particularly stands against them. The article also links to a piece by the Verge (an RSP) that does discuss price gouging. You may feel that their error undermines the entire premise of the article, but whether or not that is true, the actual necessary correction was published. That is not the usual behaviour of a deprecated source, or even many GUNREL sources. Also, one article does not a good GUNREL argument make. Even the best GREL sources put out the occasional truly atrocious piece. The bar for GUNREL, let alone deprecation, is to show that the issues are systematic and unrectified. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Re: Zero Hedge, they do not masquerade any of that content as their own. On the contrary, each article has a disclaimer stating: "Stories published in our Daily Digests section are chosen based on the interest of our readers. They are republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News. The views expressed in these articles are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy." And as far as I can tell they have republished or syndicated nothing from ZH since 2019. The editorial detachment is key. I could name several GREL news sites that frequently publish truly psychotic opinion pieces, but which have no bearing on their reliability because of statements just like or similar to this. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

MPN's response was wholly inadequate. What MPN should have done was retract its conspiracy theory article entirely, instead of deleting the evidence contradicting it and continuing to push the conspiracy theory. While Microsoft does employ a range of pricing strategies for different products in different markets, MPN intentionally ignoring all of Microsoft's situational use of predatory pricing to allege an "ulterior motive" based on Microsoft's situational use of price gouging is misleading. As for Zero Hedge, MintPress News's rampant republication of conspiracy theories from Zero Hedge does demonstrate general unreliability; the WP:QS policy states that questionable sources "include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion", which covers Zero Hedge content. The inclusion of Zero Hedge content places MPN's editorial judgment into question, as no reputable news website would publish that kind of conspiracy theory material. — Newslinger talk 18:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Reprinting external content isn't MPN "expressing views". And I'm sure you've looked into the Microsoft story properly, but do you have a source labelling the MPN story as a conspiracy theory? We normally judge sources based on what other sources say about them, not purely on what we think about them. And that's still just one story. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

When MPN republishes hundreds of Zero Hedge articles containing conspiracy theories and false information, MPN is expressing the view that such content is suitable to be presented on their website alongside MPN's original content. This kind of poor judgment damages MPN's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and brings MPN's overall reliability into question. Additionally, this is exacerbated by the fact that MPN directly cites Zero Hedge articles for factual claims in MPN's original reporting (examples: ).As a fringe website with a Similarweb rank of #320,219 globally (#153,471 in the US), MPN is not popular enough of a publication for most of its content to receive a response from fact checkers and reliable publications. An MPN article not being fact-checked by a reliable source does not mean that the MPN article is valid, particularly when MPN acknowledges that there is evidence contradicting their article and then chooses to delete the evidence to retain the article's narrative. My comments in the 2019 RfC also include quotes of multiple reliable sources describing the quality of MPN content in negative terms, including an excerpt of Mick West's book that debunks MPN's promotion of the chemtrail conspiracy theory. — Newslinger talk 20:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your first link , the article is relating/quoting this report from the OPCW: https://www.opcw.org/media-centre/news/2018/07/opcw-issues-fact-finding-mission-reports-chemical-weapons-use-allegations

Similarly, the rest of your links are articles about others' reporting. You say they directly cite Zero Hedge articles, but Zero Hedge seems to be just one of the sites they quote, in addition to Politico, Salon, New Yorker, Washington Post, and so on. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Each of these links shows MPN using Zero Hedge as a source for a factual claim:

• Article #1: MPN quotes Zero Hedge's claim regarding the contents of a primary source, with no additional comment regarding the quote.
• Article #2: MPN publishes Zero Hedge's claim regarding the relationship between two political entities.
• Article #3: MPN publishes Zero Hedge's claim regarding U.S. political spending.
• Article #4: MPN publishes Zero Hedge's estimate of legal fees regarding a political matter.
• Article #5: MPN publishes Zero Hedge's claim regarding the actions of politicians.

Because  Zero Hedge (RSP entry) is a source that was deprecated for repeatedly publishing conspiracy theories and false information, MPN's use Zero Hedge for factual claims on numerous occasions and MPN's republication of hundreds of Zero Hedge articles both contribute to MPN being a questionable source. MPN using sources other than Zero Hedge does not excuse MPN's use of Zero Hedge for factual claims. — Newslinger talk 04:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC) Fixed link to article #2 again — Newslinger talk 22:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Article #1 It also links and quotes from the original report/primary source that anyone can check, it doesn't rely on Zero Hedge alone.

Article #2 It is the same link as Article #3

Article #3 It cites Zero Hedge on campaign contributions, something that can be checked and verified, as those records are public.

Article #4 But it does say "estimate", rather than treating it as an absolute and factual value, it is simply relating what ZeroHedge has estimated. The article does not rely on Zero Hedge reporting, but includes

Article #5 It also links to the Washington Post article that Zero Hedge is using, not relying on Zero Hedge alone for the claim.

I don't think MPN is an unreliable source, it doesn't satisfy: "have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." Furthermore, it doesn't satisfy the other part of the policy: "websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion."

Citing Zero Hedge once per article, for claims that can be idependently verified, among many other sources that are WP:RS isn't enough to deprecate MPN. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I've fixed the second link to match my previous comment. Citing Zero Hedge for factual claims is like citing   Infowars (RSP entry); a publication that uncritically cites websites known primarily for publishing conspiracy theories and false information for factual claims in numerous articles, even if done once per article, damages its "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Trying to push for the use of a source that repeatedly republishes factual claims from conspiracy theory websites is in violation of the guideline against the unwarranted promotion of fringe theories.My comments in the the 2019 RfC do not even mention MPN using Zero Hedge for factual claims in MPN's original articles; my comments noted MPN republishing hundreds of Zero Hedge articles, quote multiple reliable sources criticizing the MPN constant promotion of conspiracy theories, and identify MPN's use of false information to push a conspiracy theory in their most recent "inside story" at the time – all of which contributed to the consensus to deprecate MPN as a questionable source. MPN citing Zero Hedge for factual claims in MPN's original content further worsens its reliability. — Newslinger talk 14:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Article #2 cites Zero Hedge for the following: "ZeroHedge estimated that the ensuing gerrymandering lawsuits will net Covington millions in legal fees, especially considering that Holder will be directing the filing of all such lawsuits on behalf of Democrats." How is that a relationship between two political parties? The article states "ZeroHedge estimated" rather than saying anything with certainty.

Does MPN rely heavily on Zero Hedge in its original content? I don't think so, because it uses it as one of many sources.

That is why I don't think deprecation is appropriate, rather "additional restrictions apply" as in MPN shouldn't be relied on claims that come only from ZeroHedge. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If it were just the Zero Hedge thing I might see where you're coming from but @Bobfrombrockley demonstrated above that the outlet has a bad reputation for fact checking and accuracy all on their own. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The correct link to article #2 has been copied over to the comment. MPN published: "However, an anonymous writer on ZeroHedge, an economic news website, noted on Nov. 30 that while Bilal Erdoğan does seem to be moving Kurdish oil in his tankers, 'we’ve yet to come across conclusive evidence of Bilal’s connection to .'" Here, MPN uses an assertion posted by "an anonymous writer" from conspiracy theory website Zero Hedge to make a claim about two political entities (a son of a president and Daesh). Doing this is like publishing "According to Alex Jones of Infowars..." for a claim unrelated to Jones or Infowars, which immediately throws the claim into question due to the poor reputation of the source. A source degrades its own reliability by repeatedly using another questionable source in this way for multiple topics on numerous occasions; the five linked articles are only a small sample.Your comment seems to be ignoring how MPN's use of Zero Hedge for factual claims is only one of many reasons that MPN was deprecated; reliable sources have shown that MPN also publishes a cornucopia of conspiracy theories that MPN created by themselves, a common characteristic of questionable sources that become deprecated on Misplaced Pages. — Newslinger talk 23:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Mint has a poor reputation for checking the facts so that first one is satisfied (notice how is an "or" not an and so fulfilling any of the conditions satisfies it). They also express view widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Did you not pay attention to any of the discussion besides the bits that were convenient for you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I see the MPN response included a couple of paragraphs about me, in which almost all the things they say are demonstrably inaccurate even from the links they provide (they attribute a quote to me which is obviously not me, and seem to claim I call al-Nusra "moderate" by linking to a sandbox page here which says pretty much the opposite). I voted 3/4 in the RfC, but on the basis of this response I'd have no problem coming down in favour of 4. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• I don't think I was involved in the 2019 discussion - at least I don't remember being involved in it - but based on the information above it seems like Mint Press is being appropriately deprecated as a source of misinformation. I'd love to see a Misplaced Pages with a broader range of reliable left-wing sources but the key word there is reliable and this... this is clearly not. Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Youtube Videos (Livings Persons biographies)

a couple of months ago i had added a source to a driver which sthe said driver had specifically states something i had added to his wikipedia at it got removed by a user due to the fact that to him it was not reliable and i was just wondering if they are reliable. i was told by other wiki users that was acceptable to use as it was the driver himself who said it in the video making it a direct source and if not i would like an explanation as the user when asked did not respond when asked and probably will not respond Motorsportfan100 (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

In general YouTube video's are not reliable, as they are self-published sources and few of them are by "an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.", see WP:SPS.
However there is an exception if the self-published work is by the subject themselves and is part of a limited set of conditions, see WP:ABOUTSELF. You haven't included any details so I can't say for certain if it would be reliable in your specific situation, as it may or may not be allowed by ABOUTSELF. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah i see thank you

Even though the subject was part of the interview I believe myself it would not be reliable as it's a motorsport related podcast and even though the youtube channel also has a website which has been referenced in other articles I believe the youtube channel would not be reliable unless otherwise notified Motorsportfan100 (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

It depends what the statement is. If the driver says something like 'I'm 23 years old" that's a good enough source. If the driver says "Castrol Oil is superior to every other oils out there" while also being sponsored by Castrol, then no.

For Youtube channel, they are as reliable as their owners/parent company. A NASA video hosted on NASA's youtube channel is as reliable as anything else produced by NASA. A rocketry video hosted by BobLovesRockets, not so much for anything but uncontroversial statements about Bob. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Sports reports - Mixed Martial Arts

A senior "editor" recently reverted some of my posts. I posted sources from https://mma.bg/ - It is a Bulgarian MMA news site. The website began in 2008 - https://mma.bg/pages/mission. The previous website was www.mmabg.com as seen here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210601000000*/www.mmabg.com. There is a lot of dicussion on Ultimate Fighting Championship sources when it comes to reports of UFC fights. The general rule is if the bout is listed on the official page, for example: https://www.ufc.com/event/ufc-fight-night-february-01-2025, then, we can put it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/UFC_Fight_Night:_Adesanya_vs._Imavov. But if it is not on the UFC page, we put the bouts on "Announced bouts" based on independent reports. The UFC Events page takes time to update.

The thing is an editor only accepts reports from websites other than UFC/ESPN (ESPN is the channel that broadcasts UFC), but if the UFC posts a column saying there is a new bout, I feel the report is sufficient to be put on the Misplaced Pages page, since it is merely reporting the company's scheduled bout. Only within hours, other independent news sites would use the official post from the UFC in their reports.

Also, although social media posts are not reliable, there is one journalist, Marcel Dorff, https://x.com/BigMarcel24 - who posts on his social media account reports of bouts. He has never been wrong in the past sixteen years and is a reliable source. But because he posts from his account, it is not considered reliable. It takes a day or two for another site to take his social media post to "report" it on their website.

For example, https://www.mmanews.com/features/matchmaking-bulletin/ufc-fight-bulletin/ - MMANews is considered reliable, but it links to reports of X posts that the site deemed reliable before posting it on MMANews. What are your thoughts on this?

Basically, I would like you to review the following:

1) MMA.BG - can it be put on https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources - it is a reliable MMA website in the language Bulgarian that has been reporting accurate news for 17 years
2) The allowance of UFC/ESPN reports of bouts or injuries to be considered reliable. For example: https://x.com/ESPNKnockOut/status/1878132515854000543 - this X post is by a verified ESPN Knockout account that posted "Jake Matthews vs Francisco Prado", but I cannot use that as a source because it is from a social media post, and it is from ESPN (who is not independent from UFC because they broadcast UFC telecasts). It does not quite make sense and the senior editor's English is too poor to explain this after repeated requests for explanation, so I hope someone can explain it here for me. The editor reverted my post when it was reported here: https://wip.mma.bg/novini/mma-novini/dzheyk-matyus-sreshtu-fransisko-prado-na-ufc-312
3) Are exceptions for X posts allowed for reputable journalists and official verified company accounts to be used as sources on Misplaced Pages?

I hope someone can help me answer this, someone with sufficient enough English like most editors on Misplaced Pages. Thank you, because it has been extremely frustrating having edits reverted with poor explanation or logic that makes no sense. Thanks! Marty2Hotty (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

If it's just a matter of one or two days, just wait for the official announcement. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: TheGamer

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

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

---

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

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

Link to previous discussion

Kaynsu1 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

GBNews can be reliable for group based child sex exploitation

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

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

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

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

There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment Whilst I agree that GB News should be approached with caution (and I wouldn't touch their climate change reporting with a barge pole), I think Charlie Peters is an exceptional reporter. I would generally trust what he has to say before, for example, The Guardian or The Times. I think that by barring his reporting on GB News we are probably barring the country's most pre-eminent authority on gang-related CSE. IT's worth bearing in mind that coverage of this topic has now become highly-politicised, but Charie probbaly brings the most balanced and fact-based perspective to the coverage of the issue. We could treat his reporting on GB News on this particular issue as an instance of expert WP:SPS. If other sources are reporting the same thing then fine, bit I honestly believe we would be devaluing Misplaced Pages's coverage by excluding him. The fact remains he is not interchangeable with other journalists at other news outlets, because he brings a wealth of research and statistics to the table, and has probably interacted with grooming gang victims more then any other journalist. Betty Logan (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I know this sounds silly but it is refreshing hearing more knowlegable Wikipedians explain what I'm trying to articulate so eloquently. I do want to be clear however that I think GBNews' coverage on gang CSE is excellent, not just Peters. The main contention seems not to be on if it is factual, no one here seems to be disputing this, but rather if it has underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. You can read my last comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269267836 as I try to Steelman what another user is saying to the best of ability. NotQualified (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what if it isn't.

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

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

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

A few examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Nah. If there's news that doesn't suck it'll show up elsewhere. Per CommunityNotesContributor, that it isn't showing up elsewhere raises an eyebrow - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong disagree with OP. In fact, i’d say that the fact that the Telegraph has taken up Peters’/GBNews’ reporting might lead us to the rule that the Telegraph, is not reliable on this highly contentious topic. Example: here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/04/grooming-gangs-scandal-cover-up-oldham-telford-rotherham/ Peters and a co-author claim to catalogue the “cover up” of the grooming scandal “to preserve the image of a successful multicultural society” — yet every single factual claim in their article is taken from a pre-existing primary source (a 2010 W Midlands police report, a 2013 sentencing report, the 2014 Rotherham Jay inquiry, the 2015 Rotherham Casey report, the 2019 Manchester police report, the 2022 Telford Inquiry and the 2022 national independent review) that to my mind prove that far from a cover up this has been extensively investigated and publicly addressed for well over a decade. There is no actual investigation here; they rely on the investigation done by others and use it to spin an inflammatory conspiracy theory. I think it might be time to downgrade the Telegraph not upgrade GBNews. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding this article, is it usual for reliable sources to correct the content of articles without referencing a change? This was first published on January 4th, and modified by January 8th with attribution to GB News added (can verify with copyscape):

  • "In Jess Phillips’s letter to the council, revealed by GB News, she said she understood the strength of feeling in the town, but thought it best for another local review to take place.
  • "The state must leave no stone unturned in its efforts to root out this evil. As one victim, told GB News, "..."

  It's good they corrected the article with necessary attribution for unverified claims, however it took 4 days to do so, and they failed to reference such changes in the article, including the original date. Not a good look imo. CNC (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D Gershon Lewental 's personal text page

Hi everybody. D Gershon Lewental has an article in Encyclopedia Iranica with subject of "QĀDESIYA, BATTLE OF" ... and academic essay. He had a personal DGLnotes. Does this link text also reliable source for wikipedia ? Hulu2024 (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This looks like a WP:EXPERTSPS case. I mean obviously his page is self-published but he does appear to be an expert in the field of Middle Eastern history. So - per the guidance at EXPERTSPS - it's likely reliable with the caveat (probably not needed for a history article) that it absolutely cannot be used for information about living people other than the author. And, of course, WP:DUE is still relevant and will likely assign greater due weight to traditionally published material. Simonm223 (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

If there are secondary sources for what he says in his page, it would help. Those can be cited. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Pirate Wires?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need context before coming to RSN

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

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

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

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

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

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

Usage in Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages

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

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

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

It is more or less a group

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

CEIC data

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

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

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

Fantasy Literature

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

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

This is the terms its staff work under:

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

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

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

NASASpaceFlight.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hawar News Agency

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: LionhearTV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories:

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